All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,
2 Timothy 3.16
Even the bits concerning sex.
This entry was posted
on Tuesday, February 19th, 2008 at 10:24 am and is filed under Uncategorized.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
Both comments and pings are currently closed.
47 Comments(+Add)
The very teeny, tiny bits. I would suggest that the subjects that are overwhelmingly more pronounced and voluminous in Scripture should be given the proprtional importance. That would relegate sex to a Scriptural aside, unless we move its impotance forward based upon its importance to us.
When some preachers dwell upon the issue of homosexuality the observation is that since the issue has little New Testament mention where do they get their Scriptural license. The same for sex. The average beliver may know much more about sex than he does about many doctrinal issues that are dealt with extensively in the Scriptures.
That says something about us.
All means “All” in 2 Tim 3:16
All means “Some” in 2 Peter 3:9
Weird.
Rick,
Just because it isn’t in the N.T. doesn’t make it any less important. There is a great deal in Scripture on sex. An entire book of the O.T. in fact. And I would wager that the average believer doesn’t know hardly anything about what the Bible says about sex. Now I agree with you that we shouldn’t overteach it. I would say that some things can be overemphasized and some can’t (you can’t overemphasize the need for evangelism and discipleship).
About something being a “Scriptural aside.” I can’t believe you actually wrote and think that. To believe that is to think that some scripture is impotent as you ironically (and accidentally by mistyping) alluded to.
Nathan, 2 Peter 3:9? Are you sure you have the right book, chapter, and verse?
“…not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.”
All Scripture is true. Not all Scripture carries the same importance. It is true that the Father of Moses was Amram. That is not as important as the virgin birth.
And Song of Solomon is a metaphorical book of peotry designed to illuminate the Father’s love for Israel, Christ’s love for the church, as well as Christ’s love for the believer and the believers love for Him.
The sensualy context is a conduit, not as a sexual teaching tool.
Okay, But I still don’t get it, are you being sarcastic or serious?
Nathan,
All will repent, but repentance is does not save us…
Every knee will bow and tongue confess, but not all will enter the New Heaven and New Earth… some will acknowledge Jesus but deny what He has done and all He is.
iggy
I agree in a round about way. Marriage is used as the metaphor for Christ and the church, and sex is a part of marriage, so the sexual relationship in Song of Songs does describe the love of God for the church. However it is not primarily a work of metaphor.
It is primarily a vivid picture of a romantic and sexual relationship.
Iggy – that is denying the clear meaning of the verse. Peter uses a wider meaning repentance as a turning to Christ and avoiding perishing. You are parsing his words.
The clear teaching is that the reason that God hasn’t come and closed the books is for the salvation/repentance of every lost person.
Rick,
It is both. By using one of the most powerful drives in humans, Go shows us how deeply He loves us and how our love should be for one another. If you read SoS the beloved grows.
My beloved is mine,
My beloved is mine and I am His
I am my beloveds, and He is mine
I am my beloveds.
It grows from self focus to focus on the other.
It is not just about loving God, but about loving God and loving others selflessly.
iggy
It was sarcasm … the ODMs say that 2 Peter 3:9 doesn’t hurt Calvinism. Somehow the “all” there doesn’t actually mean “all” in their minds.
Rick,
I completely disagree on Song of Solomon. We’ll have to leave it at that.
And although some things in Scripture are more important (love the Lord your God with all your heart), that doesn’t make the rest of it not important (like using the example you gave leads people to think.) I think Chris L. has done an excellent job showing how all that stuff we kind of read over in Scripture really does have great value in us understanding Scripture and God working in creation. Not only that, but sex isn’t a side note in scripture but is taught about. Amram being the father of Moses is still important (there is a reason it is included), but that isn’t a subject of teaching and to compare subjects of teaching in Scripture to the truths that support or enhance that teaching is errant.
No…SOS was allegorized by early church fathers–for a host of reasons…and it almost didn’t make the canon, but for the allegorizing.
Rick,
Repentance is not a work that saves us. If Peter is stating what you are saying, then we are talking universalsim… that God does nto want any to perish and that all come to repentance. God’s will will happen, yet it is where we will fall in His will that determines our eternal destiniy.
In fact read the verse in context and see what i am saying…
it is about living as a person God calls us to be.
iggy
This is a heading and not part of hte text. I usually remove these…
iggy
Christian P. said:
Well the Calvinist response would be that God has two wills – the hidden and the revealed. It’s very confusing…
Your interpretation is in the minority. I have never seen that verse interpreted as God is holding back His coming so all saved people can repent. Maybe charismatics (without spot and wrinkle thing)
The early church accepted the canon of the Septuagint which was settled at the latest by 100BC. And the Jewish people have never regarded teh SoS as anything but a literal description of a romantic/sexual relationship. Why else would you have to be a man before you could read it?
My last comment was for Iggy.
Phil – what CP was saying is that the verse openly implies that the reason God hasn’t closed salvation is that His will is for ALL men to be saved. The incongruity of that statement with limited atonement is obvious. On one hane reformed theology says that God will keep ALL who trust in Him, but when God desires ALL not to perish that is different.
Linguistic smorgasbord!
Rick,
If this is addressed to me then you are grossly misunderstanding what i am saying.
iggy
Um, Christian didn’t say what Phil attributed to Christian. Nathan did.
I think I should know.
That makes Phil a liar and me deceived!
Oops, my bad. Humblest apologies to all parties involved…
BTW – You are ALL a bunch of goofballs!
However, I belive in limited goofballness and all means some. Only God knows who are the some.
Rick,
All people will confess Jesus as Lord and bow a knee… scripture is clear on that.
Peter is stating that God’s will is not will that any “should perish†but that “all will come to repentance.†Notice that there is a “should†meaning some will perish, yet there it is clear that all will repent… God does not want that repentance in vain.
repentance is the realization that I am going the wrong way and God is right…but just realizing that is not enough.
Peter is stating, “since all these things will be dissolved, what manner of persons ought you to be in holy conduct and godliness.†Jesus will “come as a thief in the night, in which the heavens will pass away with a great noise, and the elements will melt with fervent heat; both the earth and the works that are in it will be burned up†and in that if we are not careful to be in God’s will we too will perish and not be saved.
God’s will is that none should perish, and it is by the Promise we are saved… not in the repentance. Though all will repent, still some will perish. God is holding back judgment until that day that more will come to repentance. Yet, my point is that all will repent… Yet, some will still miss the Life that is in the Son.
“Repent and Believe†for it is in the changing of the life and mind that we are changed in Christ.
Peter is saying that since all people are going to repent, that we who are believers now knowing these things should not be ignorant and live accordingly.
iggy
Rick,
I strongly resemble that remark!
iggy
Iggy – OK
(shhh…Iggy is wrong)
Rick,
OK, then repent and live how you like… judgment will still come like fire…
Don’t tell Jesus I didn’t warn ya! LOL!
iggy
Your definition of repentance describes false repentance. When one truly repents faith follows and actions as well. Realization that you are not going God’s way is not repentance.
Rick,
Ahhh, now you are getting at what Peter is talking about…
The purpose of 2 Peter is to stimulate us to think on Godly things… to live out the life of repentance… and not face an empty repentance on the last judgment day.
iggy
The verse you quoted are basically as you have characterized them. But the verse in question was an expalnation as to God’s unfulfilled judgment Peter mentions in verse 7. It simply teaches that God’s heart of redemption is why He continues to have longsuffering toward the world and has not brought the day of judgment as yet.
I don’t agree that all will repent. Can’t find it. What version is that?
Jesus taught us to pray “Your will be done on earth as it is in Heaven” because God’s will isn’t being done on earth as it is in Heaven.
While it’s God’s desire that none should perish, but that all come to repentance, the Bible clearly teaches that’s not going to happen (none perishing or all coming to repentance) in spite of God’s desire.
Every knee will bend and every tongue will confess… you can do it willingly while you’re alive, or you can be one of the rebellious compelled to do so (bow and worship) as one forced to admit the truth of who Jesus is. But no, that final admission and act will not save.
Rick,
I agree, yet taken in the larger context of Scripture and the larger context of that passage, which we need to live according to the manner of “holy conduct and godliness’ that the “repentance†is not in vain. It is not just a single thought in the passage, but also a much fuller thought. Yes, Peter is stating that God is longsuffering. Yet he is also stated a huge “but”…
Which leads us to a therefore…”what manner of persons ought you to be in holy conduct and godliness,”
Which Peter adds another “therefore”… that we “be diligent to be found by Him in peace, without spot and blameless; 15 and consider that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation”
There is a salvation in the longsuffering, yet there is emptiness in “repentance” if it is not lived out within that longsuffering in “holy conduct and godliness.â€
We need to live in accordance to the repentance… the point is “all will come to repentance” does not mean all will be saved as not all will live out their repentance…
Now also Peter talks a bit about Paul…
Paul wrote about repentance in 2 Cor 7
So, there is a Godly repentance and a worldly “sorrow” which is a false repentance (often used in churches today!)
Again, I am pointing to the fuller context of scripture in my view…
iggy
Sandman,
Look at the passage I quoted in 2 Cor 7 for starters… then look at:
Now, either these verses are wrong and not every knew will bow and tongue confess… (Notice confess?) or that though many will confess not all will be saved… either it means all will be saved, to it means that though all bow and confess (Hebrews 2:7-9) not all that do so will do so in a way that leads to salvation…
iggy
No problem with those verses, Iggy. I just don’t see “all will repent” in them.
The word willing in 2 Peter 3:9 in the Greek is “boulomai” which in this context denotes a desire or wish.
It is God’s desire that none should perish. This is said so that no one can accuse God of injustice, as in Romans 9:19
where Paul says: ” You will say to me then, “Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?”
The word will here is boulema, which denotes a set, unchanged prupose. Both words come from the same root.
Paul is telling the church in Rome that while the question may be a valid one, and the conclusion true, we have nothing to say about a sovereign God’s plans and purposes and how He accomplishes them.
Therefore if no one can resist His predetermined will, then according to your bad eisegesis of 2 Peter 3:9, ALL men are saved and will be saved, for who can resist His will?
However that in itself is a theology of predestination, and contradicts the Book of Life scenario in Rev 20:15
So yes ALL means ALL.
Btw who has a problem with the portions of scripture that deal with sex? Criticizing the moronic m.o. of a specific church is far from a denial of scripture.
Actually the gay agenda are the ones who have a problem with the what the scriptures say about sex.
Sandman is right. The defeated enemies of Christ will acknoweldge Him as Lord, way too late. This is not repentance.
Sandman, Is it the “All” or “Repent” you don’t see?
R.E. All, If you trace it back to Isaiah 45 it seems that both the Greek and Hebrew word agree that it means all.
The entire chapter is clearly saying that people who question if the Lord will return, even in judgment, do not understand that His delay is because he doesn’t want anyone to perish but He hopes that everyone will repent (and believe). Peter says judgment will come in fire but has not yet come.
In verse 15 Peter says not to foregt that God’s patience means salvation. The entire chapter is a warning of God’s coming judgment, a refutation of the scoffers, a reason for God’s delay, and including a view into God’s heart to see as many people saved as possible before He comes.
The word repentance is used to indicate salvation in a general way, just like perish is used to indicate hell (Jn.3:16) Peter’s writings were far from complex and he was very simple and clear in this chapter.
Sandman,
If you go look into the Greek there is a subtle difference between the “repentance” in Peter and what is used of others. The difference is that of the realization of guilt and having sorrow and the changed heart and mind which Paul speaks of in 2 Corinthian 7.
The difference again is that one is only changed in the mind as they realize they are wrong, and receive correction but there is no indication of a changed mind or heart… or as Peter is stating a changed life of holy conduct and godliness.
When “all” stand before Jesus, they will bow and confess who He is… yet some will not have a true change of heart… and receive life.
The issue is that most translations do not make a difference in the two words and use only one… repent. But it is so if you look at the difference in the Greek.
I will confess I am not a Greek scholar… but find a Strong’s Concordance and see that there are two numbers 3340 and 3341 and they are both translated as “repent” or “repentance” but have just a slight nuance of an difference in understanding.
The difference again is like if we said, “The guy was sorry he was caught by the police.”
versus
“The man felt sorry for his robbery and repaid in full and more all that he robbed.”
One is just feeling bad you did something wrong, the other is not just that, but changing who you are and making it right.
Be blessed,
iggy
When everyone bows the knee and confesses Christ’s Lordship, the lost sinners will do so out of forced obedience, not some kind of repentance. As in the case of Esau, there will be no room for any repentance on that day but probably many tears which again, did not garner an opportunity for repentance for Esau.
Chris P.,
So you’re saying that God wishes everyone would live, but he wills for them not to?
And you think this exempts him from being considered unjust?
Chris P., my brother, you have articulated the core of Calvin’s mumbo jumbo. Parsing, redefining, and torturing the clear meaning of words in Scripture. When will a legitimate Calvinist/reformed brother even admit that these are “problem” Scriptures? That would lend some credibility.
Rick,
I am not sure if you are just joking around again or not, but really if you cannot understand the difference from what I stated above between feeling sorry for getting caught and truly being changed and that there are two different Greek words used in the passages I showed your from scripture that are both translated in English as “repent” or “repentance” that mean as I stated, then I give up… in essence we are saying the same thing. Yet, it seems nothing I state to you can possible be right.
So be it… and in my best post modernist impersonation,
“Whatever man.” = )
iggy
“then I give up”
I will assume those words to be authoritative…
Dave,
I see them both; I don’t see “will” between the two.
This is just my take on this…
I think too much emphasis is put on the latter part of the sentence, to the point that the former gets ignored. You can make the same argument with “it is God’s desire that none should perish…” It can be restated “none shall perish,” and that would be consistent with “all will repent.” Except that’s not what the language is saying, nor is it what the Bible teaches.
Even though God’s desire is that all would come to repentence so that none should perish, God gave us free will. So in the exercise of that free will, to the degree He allows us to have some say-so in what comes to pass, God does not always get what He wants. He doesn’t revoke free will because of that, He judges us based on that.
Sandman,
I think that is the same thing I am stating, God is looking at our heart as to whether the “repentance with Godly sorrow unto a changed life” happens or that a “sorry I got caught”. I see that at the time of Judgment the Book of Life will be opened and those who are written in it continue into the New Creation in all it’s fullness.
The flip side is the “sorry I got caught and who is the guy in the robe with the book?” do not have their names in the Book of Life and are tossed in to the LoF to experience the Second Death…
My point is that there are two different types of “repentance” spoken of and the English is not the best language to translate the difference.
I see where we differ is the timing this takes place. I see that it is possible that Jesus reveals Himself to those at the twilight of death so that they may make a choice.
iggy