Evangel...dichotomy?

[jabcat]

I guess I'll ask at this point where this thread is going.  You've both been civil, but as this isn't a debate forum, could you both take a minute and think about what's the purpose and likely benefit to all (including unbelievers passing through) of how much continuation in the current vein?  I.e., what are we trying to accomplish that's beneficial?  Thanks :)

[Seth]

I personally don't see how the thread is beneficial anymore to its original topic. But, it's hard for me to just let it go when the errancy or inspiration of scripture be questioned and not say something about it. The letter to Timothy is being questioned as being something that seems to contradict Genesis 3, seems to suggest Adam was not a sinner (contradicting Romans 5) and something that should be questioned on its errancy because of its vagueness. There is also a suggestion that an Apostle's words were affected by faulty reasoning due to his former association with the Pharisees. I do see the value in clarifying these points and if need be defending Timothy's harmony with those books and its inspiration and inerrancy for the benefit of folks who may come here questioning their long held beliefs and experiencing destabilizing anxiety when the inerrancy of scripture goes undefended.

I am not angry or insulting to him whatsoever. I am simply, calmly and rationally explaining why I believe Timothy can be trusted as an inerrant and inspired book of the Bible that does not conflict with other books. While I don't think the thread is on topic anymore, I so see value in addressing whether or not Paul is infected with Pharisee mindedness or whether his words are consistent, even if that means it goes into the weeds a bit on grammar and translation.

[jabcat]

I agree that issue is important.  And if that remains the only/main point of contention, that's easily settled.  The default position of TM is that the scriptures are trustworthy when accurately translated and Spirit-revealed.  Further, that repeated attempts to diminish their trustworthiness (taking into account translation) is not allowed on the boards so needs to cease.  It appears that has run its course and a new direction needs to be taken now, including the options of either ending the thread or strictly getting back to the OP.  Thanks!

[Seth]

 :thumbsup: :HeartThrob:

[eaglesway]

Once a discussion reaches a point where the issue is whether the scriptures are reliable, because reasoning within the scriptures does not bring the conclusion on or more participants is looking for, I think it is time to just call it quits.

[CST]

"<sigh>" is sarcastic and suggests you are getting exasperated with me.

Again, vagueness does not show that it's either uninspired or contradicting Genesis 3. It just means it's vague. God may put something vague in there to encourage trust: you may not understand what God means, but you can still trust him that he is right and that he will illuminate the meaning to you in due time.

Yesterday, as I said, I was all ready to end this debate for similar reasons to what the moderators have now said. However, I then made the 'mistake' (possibly) of going back and reading the whole passage in context and it suddenly looked like it might be harder to walk away from unresolved because it suddenly looks a lot more pertinent to a) the main purpose of the forum, b) the matter of inspiration/inerrancy which only seems to be all the more pertinent suddenly and c) the question of how vague things really are. I hope for the sake of politeness to answer your points first and then address the chapter in context and then the moderators can decide if these conclusions of mine are valid or if I'm simply over reading the text.

So, exasperation was there but I wouldn't call the sigh sarcastic as that would contradict the exasperation which was real because I'd started to feel we were going around in circles.

I like your sentiment though it sounds correct although I have some concerns that I plan to come so shortly.

I absolutely have no problem admitting I don't know what something means. That doesn't mean I don't know what "the Bible" means, but there are parts of it I don't understand. I had to face that big time when I found out that most of my deeply held beliefs about hell and eternal torment were wrong. Saying "I don't know" is the beginning of knowledge.

I think inferences are fine,  but I'm not going to make up explanations that I will hold as definite just because I am uncomfortable not knowing something. I do appreciate that you use the word "seems" because it shows you are not doing that. But, then sometimes you say things like "supposedly under inspiration" as though you are making a positive argument that they aren't inspired just because they are vague and you don't understand them. And so it looks like you are deciding that they are uninspired because you are uncomfortable just not knowing. I believe it will all come to the light eventually. There is no shame in saying you don't know something.

I don't mind not understanding things in general either but I am concerned in 'controversial' parts like this when the understanding comes to a degree that results in an understanding that makes the text sound wrong to me. That I get bothered by. Though my alternative arrangement of the text looks somewhat less likely when put in the context of what immediately follows it.

This thread was meant to be about whether or not there are two evangels obviously me and you both hold that there is one and Paul claimed unequivocally there was one so claims there are two must be a misapprehension. Nevertheless the Evangel is meant to be 'Good News' and this part doesn't sound like very good news to women, in keeps them in slavery to men throughout human history because that's how they understand it. Knowing that the Bible is inspired isn't helpful in its self every church in the world claims this so they can call on it as a source of authority even while claiming things completely contrary to all the other churches and using it to do all sorts of appalling this and encourage division when they should be encouraging peace 1 Timothy has plenty to say about that too which I also hope to come to.

To give a particularly powerful example in the Gospel according to John, Jesus declares: 'The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy; I came that they may have life, and have it abundantly. (Jhn. 10:10)

Well that's the Gospel isn't it? 'Life abundantly' But the word 'life' is easier to co-opt than the word 'love' (where's this abundant life you promised?) and according to most churches doesn't benefit most people.

There was definitely meaning in it they didn't understand and it caused them to errantly interpret it.

Which unfortunately caused them to obey it to the point where they but people to death not in their loving interests but because of their own blood lusts or obeying it for the sake of obeying it. Thinking about the number of executions that occurred under a law we are now told was given purely to embarrass us is an uncomfortable thought.

I thought you had made it clear too. Then you reverted to "supposedly writing under inspiration." That makes it less clear so I had to ask.

Because the idea of inspiration is a double-edged sword. On the one hand it's necessary to give any Christian claims any authority or the other hands it's dangerously easy to co-opt to give any 'Christian' claims you want authority.

The idea behind inspiration and the inerrancy of the Holy Bible. Is that God's chosen teachers write under the influence of the Holy Spirit and so speak to us exactly what God wants us to hear, and they do so perfectly. The thing is that the speaker then is God and one of the things God says is this:

'"I tell you, on the day of judgment men will render account for every careless word they utter; for by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned."' (Matt. 12:36-37)

Would God demand any less of Himself? People can easily speak things without knowing what the consequences of such things will be (such as me now) however what ever God says to us to record in the book that will become the Bible, He knows how it will be received and understood throughout all human history, so there is a huge burden of responsibility on everything He says, on every word in the Bible.

We know too well the myriad of ways the Bible and it's text have been used over history to control, abuse and oppress. Humanists particularly keep reminding us. God knew what the outcome of all things He said would be so He must have spoken wisely. The inspiration of scripture is a really heavy concept I'm not sure how must justice it does to it to settle on the idea of vagueness

As I recall, the point to which I have been responding has to do with whether or not Timothy seems to say that Adam was not a sinner. I don't think it makes that claim, and I don't think vagueness puts into question errancy.

My concern is Paul, in 1 Timothy, apparently lifting the weight of transgression from Adam and putting it onto Eve in order to explain why women should serve men.

I think this is the time to put the verses back into their context which is rather more pertinent to the aims of UR and Tentmaker to see if I've over read something according to the opinions of the moderators. So 1 Timothy 2:

'First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all men, for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life, godly and respectful in every way.' (1-2)

That's how chapter 2 opens, as far as I can tell there's no second, third etc. that isn't the point, unless there's perhaps something else at the start of chapter 4. That sentiment should look familiar, whether is does or not what follows will be very familiar:

'This is good, and it is acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.' (3-4)

Hooray, I tend to blend this with John 8:32 - '"and you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free."' Otherwise there's a danger that people could try to co-opt the meaning of the word 'truth' here and thus undermine what is being said. It's very hard to abuse the meaning of the word 'saved' although some may try if they got desperate enough. So to continue with Timothy:

'For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all, the testimony to which was borne at the proper time. (5-6)

Therefore qualifying verses 3-4.

'For this I was appointed a preacher and apostle (I am telling the truth, I am not lying), a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and truth.' (7)

We always quote from here, we never ask why Paul felt the need to write this to Timothy what he already know, why he felt the need, why the Holy Spirit had him specify that he wasn't lying. Does this suggest that this is a lot earlier letter than it is often credited as being, that Paul is in an environment where maybe fellow apostles still doubt him? Maybe it's what he just said often seems very hard to accept. It's an odd thing to appear in the Bible.

He continues without a beat:

'I desire then that in every place the men should pray, lifting holy hands without anger or quarreling; also that women should adorn themselves modestly and sensibly in seemly apparel, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or costly attire but by good deeds, as befits women who profess religion. (8-10)

And now he moves from what to pray for to how to pray for it, or at least that what seems to have happened. Since what he's instructed them to pray for is UR and how to pray for it is presumably to increase the chance of getting it sooner this would seem to be pertinent to the conversation on the board. While I like the passage at 3-4 I sometimes wonder what the purpose of this prayer is. I have to assume it was try try and keep others in our hearts. After all God will only answer the prayer finally in His own good time and no amount of praying on our part will actually accelerate it, or I have no reason to believe it will.

I only have minor issues with the stipulations about women here because to all intents and purposes they seem equal to the men's in this regard. The issue that bothers me about all this is that Paul is instructing Timothy about Gentile believers in Ephesus, the society is quiet different to Israel. Now, it seems to me, when it came to men Paul threw out the circumcision, Gentile men do not have to follow the pattern of men Israel, but what this would suggest is that he, which must be understood as God really, expects Ephesian women to follow the pattern of Jewish women in Israel. Surely, that's what he's doing, which I would think would be his thinking when he says:

'Let a woman learn in silence with all submissiveness. I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over men; she is to keep silent. (11-12)

He seems to have repeated himself on the silent part there, possibly having 'listened to the voice of your wife' on his mind while writing:

'For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor.' (13-14)

Bit we've been discussing, flowing out in very few lines form what started as a verse we essentially discuss in just about every topic. Then the chapter ends on this passage that makes my rearrangement of the above phrasing somewhat harder:

'Yet woman will be saved through bearing children, if she continues in faith and love and holiness, with modesty.' (15)

So the opening of the chapter says that God desires all men to be saved, the close of the chapter says women will be saved, if she meets the 'provision' described above. I'd be worried about the Universal Salvation on the side of women if verse 6 didn't specify that Jesus gave Himself as a ransom 'for all' which would no doubt include women.

Because the matter of UR which we discuss is so powerful in this chapter I felt like, having 'discovered' that it would be remiss not to mention it because we may have been discussing UR without realizing we were doing so.

This is a really good letter to Timothy and I would like to close this post, and perhaps this thread, by referencing a couple of other things it says:

'This charge I commit to you, Timothy, my son, in accordance with the prophetic utterances which pointed to you, that inspired by them you may wage the good warfare, holding faith and a good conscience. By rejecting conscience, certain persons have made shipwreck of their faith, among them Hymenae'us and Alexander, whom I have delivered to Satan that they may learn not to blaspheme.' 1 Tim. 1:18-20)

This, perhaps, doesn't seem exciting we learn here that there are some prophesies concerning Timothy's coming ministry though we don't learn what they are. We also learn that several Christians (Paul names two) have been led astray recently. It hard not to suspect Paul has these misfortunes on his mind when giving his directions on church leadership.

I'm going to close the post of is the big UR bit. A passage (chapter 4) that seems to confirm everything we believe in UR and all we see in the 'other' churches:

'Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from the faith by giving heed to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons, through the pretensions of liars whose consciences are seared, who forbid marriage and enjoin abstinence from foods which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth.

For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving; for then it is consecrated by the word of God and prayer. If you put these instructions before the brethren, you will be a good minister of Christ Jesus, nourished on the words of the faith and of the good doctrine which you have followed.

Have nothing to do with godless and silly myths. Train yourself in godliness; for while bodily training is of some value, godliness is of value in every way, as it holds promise for the present life and also for the life to come.

The saying is sure and worthy of full acceptance. For to this end we toil and strive, because we have our hope set on the living God, who is the Savior of all men, especially of those who believe. Command and teach these things.

Let no one despise your youth, but set the believers an example in speech and conduct, in love, in faith, in purity.

Till I come, attend to the public reading of scripture, to preaching, to teaching. Do not neglect the gift you have, which was given you by prophetic utterance when the council of elders laid their hands upon you. Practice these duties, devote yourself to them, so that all may see your progress. Take heed to yourself and to your teaching; hold to that, for by so doing you will save both yourself and your hearers.

:) I don't need to repeat the big bit or the other bits I've highlighted hopefully I've got them to speak for themselves. But there are some other parts that attract me. That I'll just repeat:

'For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving; or then it is consecrated by the word of God and prayer.' (4-5)

:)

'Till I come, attend to the public reading of scripture, to preaching, to teaching.' (13)

That line looks like one of the most inspired lines in Scripture, just reading it I feel it can be Jesus in reference to His second coming saying it as easily as Paul in reference to visiting Timothy in Ephesus.

'Take heed to yourself and to your teaching; hold to that, for by so doing you will save both yourself and your hearers.' (16)

Is Paul really excluding women from this process? It's hard to imagne this doesn't connect to what he said at that point.

This is a spectacularly good book of the Bible with lots of useful UR content. And it's generally pretty clear. The two passages we've been discussing actually seems rather anomalous in the context of such a strong letter.

Unless the moderators feel this is being misused or misunderstood.

[eaglesway]

The thread has gone on too long with no resolution in sight. Every possibilty has already been discussed.

Time to take a break ;o)