Re: Freewill religion is the Man of Sin ! - Part 2
we are not guaranteed that Paul understood everything *perfectly* himself; . . . Paul's own thinking uninspired by God
You lost me completely. 2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God . .
You just proved my basic point; The word "ALL" is a problem; for "all" scripture is given by inspiration of God ; and yet, sometimes scripture has opinions from Paul which aren't directly inspired (dictated inspiration).
eg : do you not agree that Paul's opinions are
in scripture, and
do not cease to be scripture just because Paul qualified it as his own statement?
If so -- clearly "ALL" doesn't mean every word -- even by your standard -- but it means a representative group of words.
And as an aside, in context of 2Timothy 3:16, there is a logistic problem with determining what Paul meant because he clearly said scripture that Timothy had known since he was a "child"; Timothy's age, as an adult, rivals that of Paul; Paul said to not lay hands on those who had not already had a family well ordered; When looking at Timothy, notice that Paul was teaching from the scriptures Timothy knew as a child -- eg:look for yourself -- 2Timoth 3:8.
(The old testament).
It's not a point that I care to dispute, I am merely pointing out the problem because it's instructive exegesis; I will simply agree, without proof, that all of Paul's writings are indeed profitable for the same things as the O.T. ; hence either INSPIRIATION made his writing protected from error beyond what he wrote knowingly -- or else, Timothy does not guarantee the inspiration of Paul's writing in total is a word for word writing from God alone.
Either way, my point is made. We have problems when understanding Paul because of HOW he wrote.
Galatians 1:11 But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man.
Galatians 1:12 For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.
If Paul thought differently or he did say something not revealed we see him admit it.
Whence do you have this certainty?
Besides: Paul's epistles to the Romans, et. all;
those aren't strictly "gospels"; that's why they are labeled "epistle"; Now: Reread your quotes.
In Pauls writings, there are parts directly from Jesus the Christ as his words and that which he taught (gospel) -- but there are *large* parts which are found in no other book of the bible, and are CLEARLY not DEDUCIBLE from the Gospels; but which are proofs -- that's important, for "proof" is "wisdom" writing. It is precisely Paul's Wisdom, which is *sometimes* hard to understand.
So: How do we exclude other possibilities about the exact source of the wisdom?
Eg: how do we know when it is his "learning" (wisdom) indirectly from God -- learned as a Pharisee lawyer under Gamiliel; and when his writing is direct dictation from God by direct revelation (word for word)?
I'm trying to show that for inerrency to be true; it is only
necessary that in places where hypothetical wisdom from Paul (not directly inspired dictationally)
is correct doctrine. That's different from whether or not he understood it perfectly, or whether or not he wrote it in the best way possible for all to understand.
1 Corinthians 7:6 But I speak this by permission, and not of commandment.
1 Corinthians 7:10 And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord,
1 Corinthians 7:12 But to the rest speak I, not the Lord:
And again, I remind you, all of these are quotes from scripture; and clearly they are not part of the Gospel of Jesus the Christ... but Paul's OWN opinion.
It's *precisely* because he CAN SOMETIMES write things in scripture that aren't from the Lord, that I can say that merely
being in scripture is insufficient proof from you that writings of Paul not explicitly marked as his own wisdom -- aren't. eg: Paul's can make inferences which may be things he only knew "DARKLY AS IN A MIRROR.", and did not understand well enough to write correctly EXCEPT that the Holy Spirit prevented him from writing an error in spite of his partial ignorance; Mysteries are partially known.
Summation: When righteousness is by faith unto all that believe there appears to be a difference between them and those that don't; faith is the victory that overcomes the world as the hymn puts it, else they remain in sin and short of the glory of God.
Yes, it really does appear so -- but sin isn't always transgression. There's a distinction I have been trying to make.
Sin is the absence of that which ought to be; The absence can come about by doing something wrong, choosing NOT to do the right (also sometimes a transgression because the doing is a command of law), and also by simply not having what one ought to have been *given* but which could not be received because the giver lost the gift (eg: Adam is one such giver.)
Hence, he who had no sin -- by "emptying" himself -- became sin. Not that he sinned (an act of transgression), but that he suddenly lacked (also a sin) in order to become one of us. ( This is the main problem with Glory only theology coming from SavedByGrace57. God can choose not to fore-ordain, for God is *CAPABLE* of emptying himself. )
It's also very important to note that not all "sin" is deadly:
1John 5:16 If any man see his brother sin a sin
which is not unto death, he shall ask, and he shall give him life for them that sin not unto death. There is a sin unto death: I do not say that he shall pray for it.
Side Note, there is no indefinite article in Greek; the "a sin unto death" is indistinguishable from "sin unto death". The "a" is the interpreters interpolation and can be misleading.
my emphasis follows:
Romans 3:22 Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:
Romans 3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God
You're now in the same trouble with "
all" I was originally talking about; There is no specification of what or whom it applies to.
Is the problem becoming more clear?
I'm telling you the truth, it really *IS* difficult to understand some of Paul's writing, for we *have* no choice here but to attempt to determine what "all" applies to.
Eg: "all" might be thought to apply to every individual man; or perhaps Paul was speaking of nations and their laws primarily, and man as a subset only secondarily;
Do you see that there is no way to prove the point from the one sentence ?
I don't wish to go too much further along this line of thought regarding the inspiration of scripture; it's starting to diverge from "free" will; so I will try to limit it to this post as much as possible.
I'm just going to say that it's a subtle point, I'm certain that what Peter says of Paul is not just regarding Paul's own opinions -- for, Paul's opinions can't cause a person to be destroyed; Therefore the points *MUST* pertain to what Paul wrote about salvation itself.
2Pete 3:15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;
2Pete 3:16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them (plural) of these things; in which are some things
hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures,
unto their own destruction.
In none of the canonical Gospels is the universality of sin to death spoken of; this is strictly from Paul and his wisdom, and not shared by the others (Romans 5:12 is the true pinacle of this issue.); This is something that we are not told is direct dictation from God (word for word) -- but it clearly *IS* wisdom from Paul; (eg: inspired, but heterogeneously: eg: with dictation and "correct" mentoring interspersed.)
A teacher may correct a students work without choosing every word of that work; thereby guaranteeing correctness -- but leaving the marks of the student. Paul is a disciple, and a student.
In any event, we have to be careful to look at what Paul actually wrote -- and STUDY it technically, and very closely, and very LAWYERLY; "Cross" examine it. Paul as a lawyer would SURELY expect us to be doing that -- rather than reading it as an easy novel. There are things which he knew only Darkly as in a Mirror, so we have no guarantee that he was always aware of every detail of what he wrote -- even when he doesn't tell us explicitly that something is missing in this sentence or another.
