Posted on 09/19/2008 10:34:16 PM PDT by Gamecock
In the tradition of shallow, insipid, diabetic coma inducing "Christian" music, ladies and gentlemen, from Pensacola Christian College:
Well, ok then. Above and beyond your distaste for their choice of apparel and general lack of polish, it apparently comes down to:
And if you want Me to, I’ll make you whole,
I’ll only do it tho’ if you say so.
I’ll never force you, for I love you so,
I give you freedom - Is it “yes” or “no”?
So, you're interpreting this as being "me" centered, as if the author considers God to be at the beck and call of those seeking salvation? The choice of life or death does reside with the individual though, Gamecock. That God has always known the outcome does not reduce you or me to some sort of thoughtless automaton. Free will is there, to choose God, or not. That is what this expresses, even if you don't give them style points for presentation.
Serve Somebody is one of my favorites too.
Free will is never used in the context of Salvation.
It is God who decides. Three times in Scripture we read God saying “I will have mercy on who I will have mercy.” We see god picking individuals, groups and a country. We see God tell us He is the potter and we are clay. God chides us when we question his elective purpose. He brings us to life. he turns out stone hearts to flesh. He brings our dead bones to life. He gives us a new birth.
No my FRiend, God chooses us. We are at war with him until he brings us to life.
I wouldn’t return. You’ll never find a church that doesn’t sing at least one korny song, but your attitude is now negative toward that church. You find them to have only “mostly good teaching” instead of “good teaching.” You don’t really seem to like it.
Keep looking.
John 3:16 and Romans 10:9-10. God knows who will be saved, God chooses who will be saved, and we must choose Christ in order to be saved.
***God knows who will be saved, God chooses who will be saved***
God knows who will be saved BECAUSE God choose who will be saved.
***and we must choose Christ in order to be saved.***
And only those who God selected from before the foundation of the earth will choose Christ.
John 3:16 has nothing to do with the myth of free will, nor does Romans 10:9-10.
Have you read Song of Solomon?
Song of Solomon is not about God.
As we discussed earlier in this thread, that God has known the outcome from the beginning does not reduce us all to mindless automatons.
Gill is wrong in this instance.
Gill or not Gill is moot in this case.
My advice is that there’s no way you can now go to this church.
Keep looking.
So you DO know better than Gill. That's pretty arrogant.
What Christian commentator can you name who does NOT note the allegorical references to Christ and his Bride in Song of Solomon?
Can you name ANY?
Well, to start with, the New American Commentary rejects it.
The strongest refutation of the allegorical interpretation of Song of Songs, however, is in the obviously sexual nature of the language. Fairly unambiguous allusions to love play appear in the text (e.g., 5:1). Such language is simply inappropriate as a description of the love between God and his people, other biblical metaphors notwithstanding. The very beginning of the song, “Let him kiss me with the kisses of his mouth,” implies that this is not divine-human love. We can hardly imagine Christ describing his love for the church in the terms of 7:7–8.53 While the Bible does speak of the people of God as his bride, it never indulges in explicitly sexual imagery to describe the relationship.54However good one’s intentions may be, sexual language should not be brought into the vocabulary of worship and devotion via allegorism or any other means. The linking of religious adoration to erotic impulses is a mark of paganism and can only be regarded as a dangerous intrusion into the Christian understanding of both life and worship.55 The two spheres of sexuality and devotion to God should not be confounded or intermingled lest both suffer distortion.
Allegorization is now widely acknowledged to be a false reading of the text,56 although a few interpreters have in effect tried to reintroduce it through the back door.57 Such temptations should be resisted. Although the allegorical interpretation may appear to be pious, anything that draws the reader away from the intended message58 of the text is destructive.
Who wrote that commentary and what hare his credentials when to Gill’s?
Who wrote that commentary and what are his credentials when compared to Gill's?
Gill or no, it is a construct imposed upon the text. The plain, grammatical-historical interpretation of the Song of Solomon that it is about a (perhaps idealized, but nonetheless very human) man and wife.
Is it “Scripture”?
Is “Gill”?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.