Comments for Voice of Truth http://voiceoftruthblog.com Sanctify them through Thy truth; Thy word is truth. John 17:17 Tue, 14 Feb 2012 22:36:23 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 Comment on Introducing 1 John by Test 2 – Recognition of Sin 1 John 1:8-10 | Voice of Truth http://voiceoftruthblog.com/introducing-1-john/comment-page-1#comment-16558 Test 2 – Recognition of Sin 1 John 1:8-10 | Voice of Truth Tue, 14 Feb 2012 22:36:23 +0000 http://voiceoftruthblog.com/?p=3164#comment-16558 [...] I’ve used in teaching this book of the Bible.  The previous 3 posts are available here: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3.  In this post, we come to the Apostle John’s 2nd test, again a moral or ethical [...] [...] I’ve used in teaching this book of the Bible.  The previous 3 posts are available here: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3.  In this post, we come to the Apostle John’s 2nd test, again a moral or ethical [...]

]]> Comment on Introducing 1 John by Test 1: Walking in the Light 1 John 1:5-7 | Voice of Truth http://voiceoftruthblog.com/introducing-1-john/comment-page-1#comment-16311 Test 1: Walking in the Light 1 John 1:5-7 | Voice of Truth Mon, 06 Feb 2012 22:35:15 +0000 http://voiceoftruthblog.com/?p=3164#comment-16311 [...] you haven’t yet read the previous 2 entries in our study of 1 John, Part 1 and Part 2 let me encourage you to do so before continuing in this one, that way continuity and [...] [...] you haven’t yet read the previous 2 entries in our study of 1 John, Part 1 and Part 2 let me encourage you to do so before continuing in this one, that way continuity and [...]

]]> Comment on Liberty University: An unbiblical alliance with the world by John http://voiceoftruthblog.com/liberty-university-an-unbiblical-alliance-with-the-world/comment-page-1#comment-16135 John Tue, 31 Jan 2012 15:12:43 +0000 http://voiceoftruthblog.com/?p=1528#comment-16135 I normally would not let an Anonymous comment through (why the anonymity?), but I think this is a good comment that addresses the many traditions imposed on interpreting the Bible. Who told you that yoked is strictly talking about marriage here? What in this passage would indicate that the Apostle Paul is talking about marriage? The problem is that the traditional application of this passage is in reference to marriage and there is certainly truth in that, but that is a narrow application and is not the intent of Paul’s argument. Yoked has the implication of a beast of burden, two of which were simultaneously joined together by “yokes”, the large wooden collars with two circular openings for each head of the plow team. The animals are not free to go in any direction they wish, but are under the direct guidance of the plow hand, or their master. To be “unequally yoked”, i.e. believer and unbeliever is to place oneself under the burden of the unbelievers master, i.e. Satan. This is why Paul expands his argument to next say “What accord has Christ with Belial?” Or what portion does a believer share with an unbeliever? What agreement has the temple of God with idols? For we are the temple of the living God; as God said, ‘I will make my dwelling among them and walk among them, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. Therefore go out from their midst, and be separate from them, says the Lord, and touch no unclean thing….” It should be noted that this last verse (17) is cited from Isaiah 52:11 and is echoed in multiple passages including Revelation 18:4 “…come out of her, my people, lest you take part in her sins, lest you share in her plagues; for her sins are heaped high as heave, and God has remembered her inquities…” As I’ve mentioned, while I can see how the passage from Corinthians would also have a marriage application, it can’t be limited to that because of context and additional passages. Contrast this with the statement made by Jesus Christ regarding His yoke, “Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.” The contrast cannot be clearer. Believers are to have no partnership with unbelievers. This may certainly include marriage, but again is not limited to that. In fact, it has much broader implications such as the pagan festivals that Paul may have been referring to, but certainly has application for us today. The ecumenical nature of modern evangelicalism is a direct affront to the passage that Paul outlines and I might add that the Apostle John speaks in similar tone in 2 John 10-11 “If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house or give him any greeting, for whoever greets him takes part in his wicked works.” Today’s evangelicalism is seeking to become one faith and links arms with people across different faiths for various purposes, none of which involve proclamation of the Gospel and that is wrong. To your next point regarding Paul preaching to the Romans, this is a contradiction to the meaning of each of these passages and certainly a glaring rejection of the Great Commission. Believers are called to “make disciples of all nations” and without argument we can agree that this includes evangelism of the lost, for “how can they hear if they have no preacher?” But there is a distinction that needs to be made between sharing the Gospel with an unbeliever and endorsing their particular beliefs. In this article, Liberty University did not take the opportunity to share the Gospel with an unbeliever, i.e. Mormon Glenn Beck, but instead gave him a platform to speak, which in this case is equal to an endorsement and receiving him as a brother, which as I’ve discussed at length he is not. Finally, I may be mistaken, but I do not believe this article takes the perspective of fearing or attacking those with different beliefs and perhaps the ultimate shortcoming in this comment is in the statement, “not the way that we view things”, because it has nothing to do with the way I view things but what the Word of God says. As believers we are to explain, defend, and proclaim the Gospel albeit “speaking the truth in love.” Please note that I did not attack those with opposite beliefs, but I called to repentance those who make the same claim that I do of Christ as their Lord and Savior, which I am biblically obligated to do. Thanks for the comment. For the glory of His name, John I normally would not let an Anonymous comment through (why the anonymity?), but I think this is a good comment that addresses the many traditions imposed on interpreting the Bible. Who told you that yoked is strictly talking about marriage here? What in this passage would indicate that the Apostle Paul is talking about marriage? The problem is that the traditional application of this passage is in reference to marriage and there is certainly truth in that, but that is a narrow application and is not the intent of Paul’s argument. Yoked has the implication of a beast of burden, two of which were simultaneously joined together by “yokes”, the large wooden collars with two circular openings for each head of the plow team. The animals are not free to go in any direction they wish, but are under the direct guidance of the plow hand, or their master. To be “unequally yoked”, i.e. believer and unbeliever is to place oneself under the burden of the unbelievers master, i.e. Satan. This is why Paul expands his argument to next say “What accord has Christ with Belial?” Or what portion does a believer share with an unbeliever? What agreement has the temple of God with idols? For we are the temple of the living God; as God said, ‘I will make my dwelling among them and walk among them, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. Therefore go out from their midst, and be separate from them, says the Lord, and touch no unclean thing….” It should be noted that this last verse (17) is cited from Isaiah 52:11 and is echoed in multiple passages including Revelation 18:4 “…come out of her, my people, lest you take part in her sins, lest you share in her plagues; for her sins are heaped high as heave, and God has remembered her inquities…” As I’ve mentioned, while I can see how the passage from Corinthians would also have a marriage application, it can’t be limited to that because of context and additional passages.

Contrast this with the statement made by Jesus Christ regarding His yoke, “Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.” The contrast cannot be clearer. Believers are to have no partnership with unbelievers. This may certainly include marriage, but again is not limited to that. In fact, it has much broader implications such as the pagan festivals that Paul may have been referring to, but certainly has application for us today. The ecumenical nature of modern evangelicalism is a direct affront to the passage that Paul outlines and I might add that the Apostle John speaks in similar tone in 2 John 10-11 “If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house or give him any greeting, for whoever greets him takes part in his wicked works.” Today’s evangelicalism is seeking to become one faith and links arms with people across different faiths for various purposes, none of which involve proclamation of the Gospel and that is wrong.

To your next point regarding Paul preaching to the Romans, this is a contradiction to the meaning of each of these passages and certainly a glaring rejection of the Great Commission. Believers are called to “make disciples of all nations” and without argument we can agree that this includes evangelism of the lost, for “how can they hear if they have no preacher?” But there is a distinction that needs to be made between sharing the Gospel with an unbeliever and endorsing their particular beliefs. In this article, Liberty University did not take the opportunity to share the Gospel with an unbeliever, i.e. Mormon Glenn Beck, but instead gave him a platform to speak, which in this case is equal to an endorsement and receiving him as a brother, which as I’ve discussed at length he is not.

Finally, I may be mistaken, but I do not believe this article takes the perspective of fearing or attacking those with different beliefs and perhaps the ultimate shortcoming in this comment is in the statement, “not the way that we view things”, because it has nothing to do with the way I view things but what the Word of God says. As believers we are to explain, defend, and proclaim the Gospel albeit “speaking the truth in love.” Please note that I did not attack those with opposite beliefs, but I called to repentance those who make the same claim that I do of Christ as their Lord and Savior, which I am biblically obligated to do.

Thanks for the comment.

For the glory of His name,
John

]]>