Lam 3:31

[WhiteWings]

Surely My Lord, will not cast off, unto times age-abiding;  (Lam 3:31 Rotherham)
For the Lord will not cast off for ever: (Lam 3:31 KJV)

All commentaries see the above verse as ending/forgiving; but the commentary below adds that certain groups are excluded.
Are there three groups?
1] Directly to heaven.
2] Ending correction/punishment
3] Never ending correction/punishment


Gill commentary
Lam 3:31  For the Lord will not cast off for ever. Which is not to be understood of all his creatures; for there are some he does cast off for ever, as the angels that sinned; reprobate men, profligate and abandoned sinners, that live and die impenitent; and unbelievers, carnal professors, and apostates; but not his own special and peculiar people, the people whom he has foreknown and loved with an everlasting love, his spiritual Israel; or, as the Targum supplies it, "his servants"; see Psa_94:14; he may seem for a while to reject them, but not in reality and for ever; as when he hides his face from them, lays his afflicting hand on them, or suffers then, to be afflicted by others, and defers his help, and does not immediately appear to their deliverance and salvation; but in reality he never rejects them from being his people, his servants, and his sons; they have always a place in his heart, and are ever under his eye and care; they continue in his covenant, and abide in his family; and though they may be cast down in their souls, and cast out by men, yet are not cast off by God, neither in youth nor old age, in time or eternity; his love is unchangeable; his purposes firm and unalterable; his counsel, covenant, oath, and promise, immutable; and they are his jewels, his portion, and inheritance; and this is a ground and reason of bearing patiently all afflictions, injuries, and reproaches; for though men cast off, God will not.

[martincisneros]

If it's the same Dr. Gill that I'm thinking of from the 18th century rather than a descendant or someone that's no relation whatsoever except for by Adam and Christ, then we're talking about a Calvinist.  Again, if it's the same guy from the 18th century that I'm thinking of, in the earlier days of Elhanan Winchester's ministry they would have been friends until Elhanan Winchester embraced the Universal Restoration.  And according to Elhanan Winchester, Dr. Gill's best argument for ET is that it's the nature of God to lay the greatest possible restraint upon sin and to him God did this with threatening the sinner with eternal punishment.  It's a very naive view of both Scripture and of European history when ET was taught virtually unchallenged for a thousand years.

The Calvinist line of reasoning that limits the atonement to a select few that Christ died for is extremely flawed in a whole lot of ways.  Not only the Scriptures that state otherwise regarding Christ being the ransom for all men, but if it's sooo few, how do they know they're included?  Not only is their basis for preaching repentance to others totally gone because why preach that to those that God has not elected? -- but on what basis do they repent when their view of God's mercies is that their tears, sincerity, reformed life, and good deeds, including evangelism, might not matter in the end anyway if they're not numbered among the elect from the foundation of the world??

That's a Friday the 13th movie from before there were Friday the 13th movies and television shows!!

[reFORMer]

It does sound like John Gill.  I'd like to mention here:  though he did not comprehend the extent of God's purpose or grace, his commentary on The Song of Songs (which possibly stands as a book apart from his multi-volume commentary on the entire Bible) is, without dispute, indispensable!  For what has traditionally been termed "devotional" exposition, the application to the soul of true spiritual life and very experiential in the love of God I've found nothing even to compare to Gill's work on The Song of Songs.  While Keil and Delitsch seem supreme and unchallenged even until today in Hebrew exegesis, Gill's taken with perhaps Marvin Pope's in The Anchor Bible series, which covers much of the history of interpretation and the original language, one has access to sufficient depth to overwhelm all seekers.  Please! you do yourself injustice if you spurn such gifts for the authors' failing to have been brought to a more accurate understanding of "judgment eonian," however foundational that yet is.

[martincisneros]

I always do my best to give everyone a fair reading 'cause of my relationship with the Holy Spirit. I want to know how close the Holy Spirit got these people to the truth, and not just in one area. I'll have to check out Gill's work on Song of Solomon then.  When I went into an indepth study of Postmillenialism last year based on all of the prophetic teaching I'd been doing the previous year where I was teaching Postmillenialism [supernaturally] without having ever heard of it and without the least little clue that anyone else had ever taught it, I was flabbergasted that Jonathan Edwards (author of: "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God") had such beautiful, beautiful, beautiful, beautiful things to say about the triumphant reign of the saints during the thousand years prior to the coming of Jesus Christ. So, I've already been corrected thoroughly about the fact that someone that can just about be the devil himself on one subject can be EXTREMELY edifying on an entirely different Biblical subject.

[reFORMer]

Jonathan Edwards' book Charity and It's Fruits would profit most anyone to read!  How little THE LOVE OF GOD is studied!  He is arguably the most important American theologian so far.  It's a pity he's so misrepresented by just one sermon that is triumphally dispayed by the enemies of the gospel, diverting so many from reading his prolific writings and giving the good news itself such an undeserved bad name.  Well, "For God hath concluded them all in unbelief (lit., '...locked all together into stubborness,') that he might have mercy upon all." (Rom 8:32)  For a while after I read Isaiah saying, "All tables are filled with vomit" I thought that meant everybody else.

[WhiteWings]

Gill....

The commentary is a free eSword module that displays as "Gill" in the commentary tabs.
Most likely it's a module listed in one of the links of the eSword thread on this forum.
Is it possible to see the copyright of the commentaries somehow. I think that show make the authorship clear.

I've seen many verses on TM about love, not forever and other heartwarming stuff.
So I'm not after a rerun about that. Sort of Friday the 13th part 453 Martin :-)
I just like to know how he has came to that conclusion (and how to debunk it)
No 10 page explainations needed!

Unless I overlook something many of the commentary authors contradict themselfs.
Most comment with something about the lines of "The grace of God is so big He can only punish for a while".
But when reading the commentary on into the fire for ever and ever several suddenly hold an ET view and some dodge the question by stating there are several views.
Gill might be wrong but at least he's consistant.

I want to know how close the Holy Spirit got these people to the truth, and not just in one area.

I have 0 experience with the HS but could it be possible that the HS only reaveals snippets of the truth.
Everyone something different. Just imagine TM if everyone agreed. Someone starts a thread "God said..."
and then a few "I agree" replies. TM would die very soon that way. Discussion is one of the ways to keep the word alive?

[reFORMer]

The new man (homo novae) in Christ is in contradistinction to that in Adam (homo sapiens) in numerous ways.

In answer to the observation that there is much apparent contradiction regarding Scripture interpretation among those supposed to be one in the Lord, and as you said about snippets of the truth, with "everyone something different," even suggesting disagreement:  the humanity being born of God is primarily spiritual, not intellectual.  On the other hand, Adam is primarily soulical; that is, of his mind, will and emotions.  This is complicated by the fact that most of us "born from above" are between, still in an Adam tabernacle pursuing physical transfiguration.  Few experience God as habitation other than in foretastes.  Though born of Spirit, by lack of walking around after spirit, many immature are subject to carnality.  From the Adamic (in which all dies) their minds have short circuit connections, disconnections, over- or under-development, distortions, strongholds of tradition . . . even if our knowledge of "the truth" is more accurate it is in part. Though the way to the tree of life is open to the Overcomer, it is still blocked to Adam. That's how God can lay his secrets out in plain view and most still haven't a clue.

When you mentioned snippets of the truth, with "everyone something different," perhaps I understand you also to say in a positive sense that we all have our place, working together from the perspective of the Head, while from our individual viewpoint as "members in particular" the unity is often not recognized.

Additionally, it's difficult to understand "The Truth" to be a presence, God's own person.  The argument whether there can be objective truth, if it's not just subjective, unique to each man, is ultimately answered as Truth is what or who God knows it to be.  The real Truth is SUBJECTive to God.



your brother, James Rohde

[WhiteWings]

About the snippets.

Say there are a 1000 snippets that make the whole puzzle.
All of the authors of the commentaries (and many on TM) have a solid background regarding the scriptures.
Gill received all the "Song of Songs" snippets and should limit himself to that but human as he is he doesn't. So Gill is asked to write a commentary. If Gill had answered "Well I can only write about 60 verses because that's all the HS told me about." he probably never got the job.
So the remaining snippets are filled in with.... a doctrine, what others told you. It's often harder to unlearn than to learn.
So there is no contradiction in the scripture but only in how people read it.
On top of that very few people really check out things. You know "it was in the newspaper", "the president said so".

Because I got confused by it I got several replies. Perhaps the ones that replied learned from eachother. The board is a little more alive. Others read the answers. If something isn't discussed it often just fades away.
Just ask a politician...  :laughing7:
Don't see the following as negative: Perhaps 'confusion' is one of the tools of the HS (once again view that in a positive way)

But I'm sure Gill didn't just randomly write his commentary. He must have used some logic. That was what my original question was about.

[martincisneros]

Are there three groups?
1] Directly to heaven.
2] Ending correction/punishment
3] Never ending correction/punishment

No, just the first two groups, and some around here would argue just the first.

Gill received all the "Song of Songs" snippets and should limit himself to that but human as he is he doesn't.

You're right, but at the same time -- at any given time of one's life -- all of one's convictions seem equally valid at each stage of one's life.

So Gill is asked to write a commentary. If Gill had answered "Well I can only write about 60 verses because that's all the HS told me about." he probably never got the job.

Each believer feels as though 90% to 100% of their convictions have come straight from the Holy Spirit and the Scriptures.  People that are in the dark about a given individual subject will often think that they see things very clearly.

So there is no contradiction in the scripture but only in how people read it.
On top of that very few people really check out things. You know "it was in the newspaper", "the president said so".

Exactly!

Don't see the following as negative: Perhaps 'confusion' is one of the tools of the HS (once again view that in a positive way)

But I'm sure Gill didn't just randomly write his commentary. He must have used some logic. That was what my original question was about.

When it comes to Biblical commentaries, people tend to write out of their convictions and because of a belief that they have something to offer on the subject that the Church would genuinely be profited by.  People that say what they say, whether about ET or about a few other subjects usually aren't coming from the perspective of a wicked heart.  That's their genuine understanding of the Gospel.  When someone is in any paradigm, they genuinely feel as though they can defend it because of their convictions about it.  Proverbs makes a comment about cross-examination about the first one to present his case sounds right.  And then the translations differ on whether the first one sounds right until the other side presents it's case, or until someone starts questioning them.  Both are valid interpretations, as far as I'm concerned 'cause with the court case illustration that that pearl of wisdom seems to be using as an illustration, the one that's questioning someone on the stand is very often the person on the other side of the issue.  Not exclusively, but I don't know enough about the application of Jewish societal law 3000 years ago to know all of the ins and outs of Solomon's illustration.  In the absense of other perspectives, our perspective seems 100% right.  I don't believe, however, that we need to go to the opposite extreme and surround ourselves with every perspective on everything at all times.  That's called college/university life and not real life.  You'd go crazy on living around nothing but incessant contradictions about absolutely everything :laughing7:  That's where we lean not on our own understanding, but in all our ways acknowledge the Lord and expect for Him to direct our paths.