Search — Theology Explorer

@covapologetics @MissionaryJC3 Because you missed Paul’s purpose Im the letter which was for Timothy to “instruct certain people not to teach strange doctrines” (1Ti 1:3). Here you have a certain person, ‘the woman’ (1Ti 2:14), whom Paul wants to s...

@covapologetics @MissionaryJC3 Because you missed Paul’s purpose Im the letter which was for Timothy to “instruct *certain people* not to teach strange doctrines” (1Ti 1:3). Here you have a certain pe

1Ti 1:3 1Ti 2:14 general

@ronhenzel @WonderingBashir @HwsEleutheroi Paul is not being stylistic—we simply need to go back to his clear statement in 1Ti 1:3 that he is instructing Timothy to stop “certain people” to stop teaching strange doctrines—and here you have a certain ...

@ronhenzel @WonderingBashir @HwsEleutheroi Paul is not being stylistic—we simply need to go back to his clear statement in 1Ti 1:3 that he is instructing Timothy to stop “certain people” to stop teach

1Ti 1:3 commentary

@ronhenzel @WonderingBashir @HwsEleutheroi Except if Paul wanted to refer to a specific woman from Ephesus Im vv11-12 how else might he do it? In making a contrast between the plural to the singular, Paul is moving from general to narrow which the de...

@ronhenzel @WonderingBashir @HwsEleutheroi Except if Paul wanted to refer to a specific woman from Ephesus Im vv11-12 how else might he do it? In making a contrast between the plural to the singular,

@ronhenzel @WonderingBashir @HwsEleutheroi The first use of woman is NOT definite. Where are you getting that from? Paul is first referring to women plural and then shifts to the singular in v11-12 which is the first singular anarthrous reference. ...

@ronhenzel @WonderingBashir @HwsEleutheroi The first use of woman is *NOT* definite. Where are you getting that from? Paul is first referring to women plural and then shifts to the singular in v11-12

@covapologetics @MissionaryJC3 I have an agenda? And you are just neutral? lol.

@covapologetics @MissionaryJC3 I have an agenda? And you are just neutral? lol. The only place Paul says for a woman to marry is if she is a widow and young or in the case of either gender can’t cont

@ronhenzel @WonderingBashir Oh hi, Ron! Why didn't Paul just say women (plural)? Rather, he says "a woman...a woman...she...the woman...she"⎯the reference is specific, aligned with the purpose of the letter to stop the teaching of strange doctrines ...

@ronhenzel @WonderingBashir Oh hi, Ron! Why didn't Paul just say women (plural)? Rather, he says "a woman...a woman...she...the woman...she"⎯the reference is specific, aligned with the purpose of the

@Ryan_Adair_A Yes, I agree this is referring to the seed of the woman, or the messiah. The advantage to the interpretation I shared with you is that it aligns with the purpose of the letter⎯to stop teaching of strange doctrines, and makes sense of w...

@Ryan_Adair_A Yes, I agree this is referring to the seed of the woman, or the messiah. The advantage to the interpretation I shared with you is that it aligns with the purpose of the letter⎯to stop t

@Ryan_Adair_A That’s close, except it cannot be Eve as Paul’s grammar has “will

@Ryan_Adair_A That’s close, except it cannot be Eve as Paul’s grammar has “will be saved” in the present tense at the time of writing and Eve can’t do anything to be saved in the future as she is dead

@KebRayGonzalez Yet Paul seems to desire singleness to be the norm and marriage

@KebRayGonzalez Yet Paul seems to desire singleness to be the norm and marriage the exception. “Yet I wish that *all men* were even as I myself am. However, each has his own gift from God, one in thi

1Co 7:7 debate

@that_foot_is_me That’s a good passage to keep in mind regarding those that twis

@that_foot_is_me That’s a good passage to keep in mind regarding those that twist Paul’s words.

@RobChristisKing @AsherJacob23060 @smashbaals You can't be cut off unless you are already attached to the vine, so their tribes cannot be cut off unless they were already included. Is that what you believe, that the Jews and Gentiles were already in ...

@RobChristisKing @AsherJacob23060 @smashbaals You can't be cut off unless you are already attached to the vine, so their tribes cannot be cut off unless they were already included. Is that what you be

@Crystalisives @rightresponsem Yeah, it's always a bit shocking to hear people a

@Crystalisives @rightresponsem Yeah, it's always a bit shocking to hear people actually say this. I think it would have been much better to just say "I have no idea what this passage means" than to sa

@ShamarYall @rightresponsem Except Joel is most certainly wrong on this, albeit he is consistent in his view. And yes, 1Ti 2:15 is there and yes, we have to explain it. Yet remaining single is what Paul advocates for in 1Co 7, so Joel's interpretatio...

@ShamarYall @rightresponsem Except Joel is most certainly wrong on this, albeit he is consistent in his view. And yes, 1Ti 2:15 is there and yes, we have to explain it. Yet remaining single is what Pa

1Ti 2:15 debate

@MissionaryJC3 God didn't command marriage or else Paul's advocating for singlen

@MissionaryJC3 God didn't command marriage or else Paul's advocating for singleness in 1Cor 7 is a sin.

@BronWen727104 Could be. Though in 1Ti 1 where Paul introduces the strange doctrines, he refers to myths and genealogies and fruitless discussions about the law. I’m not sure what that has to do with Artemis. 1Ti 2:9 refers to elaborate hair—likely a...

@BronWen727104 Could be. Though in 1Ti 1 where Paul introduces the strange doctrines, he refers to myths and genealogies and fruitless discussions about the law. I’m not sure what that has to do with

1Ti 2:9 commentary

@BronWen727104 I actually don’t think a reference to Artemis is needed as Paul didn’t make an explicit connection. The childbearing is a definite noun and refers to the messiah. She will be saved if they <do things> refers to the deceived wife ...

@BronWen727104 I actually don’t think a reference to Artemis is needed as Paul didn’t make an explicit connection. The childbearing is a definite noun and refers to the messiah. She will be saved if t

@pauldirks If he is able to conquer the desires of the flesh (which seems reason

@pauldirks If he is able to conquer the desires of the flesh (which seems reasonable from your comment) but doesn’t believe in Jesus, then what?

debate

@RobChristisKing @thatdna @smashbaals In conclusion, Paul is not just warning ab

@RobChristisKing @thatdna @smashbaals In conclusion, Paul is not just warning about Gentile nations. The Greek grammar, singular pronouns, and the direct contrast with individual Jews show he is warni

@RobChristisKing @thatdna @smashbaals Fourth, Paul says “if (ἐὰν, ean) you conti

@RobChristisKing @thatdna @smashbaals Fourth, Paul says “if (ἐὰν, ean) you continue in His kindness.” This conditional clause shows that remaining in faith is required. The phrase “otherwise you too

@RobChristisKing @thatdna @smashbaals If this passage only referred to nations,

@RobChristisKing @thatdna @smashbaals If this passage only referred to nations, it would imply nations are saved or lost collectively. But salvation is *always* individual in Paul’s theology: “If you

Ro 10:9 debate

@RobChristisKing @thatdna @smashbaals Third, Paul warns Gentiles in the same way

@RobChristisKing @thatdna @smashbaals Third, Paul warns Gentiles in the same way Jews were warned: Jews were “broken off” as individuals for personal unbelief (v20). Gentiles can likewise be “cut of

@RobChristisKing @thatdna @smashbaals Paul maintains this singular focus through

@RobChristisKing @thatdna @smashbaals Paul maintains this singular focus throughout Ro 11:20-22: “They were broken off for their unbelief, but you stand by faith. Do not be arrogant, but fear” (v.20)

Ro 11:20-22 debate

@RobChristisKing @thatdna @smashbaals Second, the immediate context: In Ro 11:1

@RobChristisKing @thatdna @smashbaals Second, the immediate context: In Ro 11:17, Paul says some (τινες, tines) branches (Jews) were “broken off” due to unbelief. Then he addresses the individual Ge

Ro 11:17 commentary

@RobChristisKing @thatdna @smashbaals If Paul meant Gentile nations collectively

@RobChristisKing @thatdna @smashbaals If Paul meant Gentile nations collectively, he would use plural pronouns. But he repeatedly uses singular, indicating he’s speaking to individuals—each Gentile be

debate

@RobChristisKing @thatdna @smashbaals First, Paul directly addresses a singular

@RobChristisKing @thatdna @smashbaals First, Paul directly addresses a singular “you” (σὺ, sy) in Greek: “You stand by your faith” (sy tē pistei hestēkas). “If you continue in His kindness, otherwis

Scripture Commentary tweet 2025-02-16

@elondeporter @out_farther @CapturingChrist The Bereans tested Paul’s word again

@elondeporter @out_farther @CapturingChrist The Bereans tested Paul’s word against the Old Testament scriptures used by the Jews.

Scripture Commentary tweet 2025-02-15

@jcgrange @CapturingChrist They didn’t have the ability to make a copy of the le

@jcgrange @CapturingChrist They didn’t have the ability to make a copy of the letters for everyone to have. So the traditions written down were also given by word of mouth. That’s why Paul says “or.”

Scripture Commentary tweet 2025-02-15

@elondeporter @CapturingChrist Second, God’s prophets & apostles were His ch

@elondeporter @CapturingChrist Second, God’s prophets & apostles were His chosen messengers: “Men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.” (2Pe 1:21) Peter calls Paul’s letters “Scripture” (2Pe 3

2Pe 1:21 2Pe 3:15-16 general

Scripture Commentary tweet 2025-02-15

@cathcrusader123 @Ruff681368 @IVudvudirina4 @CapturingChrist We know from script

@cathcrusader123 @Ruff681368 @IVudvudirina4 @CapturingChrist We know from scripture that there were those writing things that was not scripture and impersonating Paul as he had to show that his letter

Scripture Commentary tweet 2025-02-14

@Autumn_Armyworm @dougponder @BenMandrell @markedpodcast The scripture governs c

@Autumn_Armyworm @dougponder @BenMandrell @markedpodcast The scripture governs churches. 1Ti 3 and Tit 1 do not indicate that elders must be males unless you think they must be married men with 2 or m

Scripture Commentary tweet 2025-02-14

@rightresponsem @TinaFoughty What? The evidence of salvation is having children

@rightresponsem @TinaFoughty What? The evidence of salvation is having children and being a mother? Paul advocates for singleness in 1Co 7. And you make this a matter of salvation? Yikes. 😬

Scripture Commentary tweet 2025-02-13

@Vibeauxs @Eric_Conn Both 1Ti 3:1-7 and Tit 1:5-9 are listing the same requirements which are based on character and proven faithfulness. Paul doesn’t use male pronouns or say “must not be a female” but “women likewise” (1Ti 3:11). The verse many str...

@Vibeauxs @Eric_Conn Both 1Ti 3:1-7 and Tit 1:5-9 are listing the same requirements which are based on character and proven faithfulness. Paul doesn’t use male pronouns or say “must not be a female” b

Tit 1:5-9 1Ti 3:1-7 1Ti 3:11 debate

@rightresponsem And Paul is worried the whole church of Corinth might be deceive

@rightresponsem And Paul is worried the whole church of Corinth might be deceived like Eve… https://t.co/sGNfkqmHCQ

@rightresponsem Or maybe it was just Eve because she was created last and didn’t

@rightresponsem Or maybe it was just Eve because she was created last and didn’t observe God create anything and so she got tricked. Then there’s that point Paul made that the whole church might be d

2Co 11:3 general

@graceforprize @ComeBack_Yeshua @Rattle_Resists @michael_ronning Paul’s teaching in 1Ti 2:11-15 are specific to a wife teaching false doctrine and a husband who is informed but silent—likely an elder who refuses to stop the false teaching b/c it’s hi...

@graceforprize @ComeBack_Yeshua @Rattle_Resists @michael_ronning Paul’s teaching in 1Ti 2:11-15 are specific to a wife teaching false doctrine and a husband who is informed but silent—likely an elder

1Ti 2:11-15 debate

@graceforprize @ComeBack_Yeshua @Rattle_Resists @michael_ronning The “they” can’

@graceforprize @ComeBack_Yeshua @Rattle_Resists @michael_ronning The “they” can’t refer to Adam and Eve as they are dead and can do nothing in the present. So you then have Paul referring to everyone

@graceforprize @ComeBack_Yeshua @Rattle_Resists @michael_ronning Some assert this but I see no reason to reference Artemis since Paul doesn’t. Paul’s stated purpose is for Timothy to “instruct certain people to stop teaching strange doctrines” (1Ti 1...

@graceforprize @ComeBack_Yeshua @Rattle_Resists @michael_ronning Some assert this but I see no reason to reference Artemis since Paul doesn’t. Paul’s stated purpose is for Timothy to “instruct certain

1Ti 1:3 debate

@graceforprize @ComeBack_Yeshua @Rattle_Resists @michael_ronning Faith is not wh

@graceforprize @ComeBack_Yeshua @Rattle_Resists @michael_ronning Faith is not what Paul is referring to in Eph 2:8 but salvation. We access salvation through our faith which is an admission of our wea

Eph 2:8 debate

@graceforprize @ComeBack_Yeshua @Rattle_Resists @michael_ronning Regarding your argument, you assume that God’s selective revelation contradicts His universal salvific will. However, in Acts 17:26-27, Paul states that God determined the times and pla...

@graceforprize @ComeBack_Yeshua @Rattle_Resists @michael_ronning Regarding your argument, you assume that God’s selective revelation contradicts His universal salvific will. However, in Acts 17:26-27,

Acts 17:26-27 debate

@graceforprize @ComeBack_Yeshua @Rattle_Resists @michael_ronning Yes, Jesus sent Paul to the Gentiles, but why do you say he only chose men? What about Priscilla who went with him on his journeys and Junia who was highly esteemed among the apostles? ...

@graceforprize @ComeBack_Yeshua @Rattle_Resists @michael_ronning Yes, Jesus sent Paul to the Gentiles, but why do you say he only chose men? What about Priscilla who went with him on his journeys and

debate

@cjhormes @Eric_Conn The same place as a man’s because they are not specific. They are referring to character and godliness and ability. The “one woman man” in 1Ti 3:2 doesn’t mean must not be a woman any more than must be married else Paul is disqua...

@cjhormes @Eric_Conn The same place as a man’s because they are not specific. They are referring to character and godliness and ability. The “one woman man” in 1Ti 3:2 doesn’t mean must not be a woman

1Ti 3:2 general

@TyotoRiffle @MrCalebGrant @Mesocortical @SpringSteps @ImJackFrank @paulogia0 Be

@TyotoRiffle @MrCalebGrant @Mesocortical @SpringSteps @ImJackFrank @paulogia0 Because God was the source of light before He made the sun to be the light. The earth was made before the Sun.

@JRowley11 @Just_A_Man67 That’s completely incorrect. I mean that I’ve read the passages that complementarians and patriarchalists rely on to restrict women and I draw a different conclusion. For example, 1Co 14:34-35 is clearly Paul quoting from the...

@JRowley11 @Just_A_Man67 That’s completely incorrect. I mean that I’ve read the passages that complementarians and patriarchalists rely on to restrict women and I draw a different conclusion. For exam

1Co 14:34-35 debate

@tinytomahawk @Eric_Conn That isn’t “must be a man” or “must not be a woman”—if it means male then by the same argument it must mean must be married and v4 must mean 2 or more children who are all old enough to believe. Paul himself wouldn’t be quali...

@tinytomahawk @Eric_Conn That isn’t “must be a man” or “must not be a woman”—if it means male then by the same argument it must mean must be married and v4 must mean 2 or more children who are all old

Scripture Commentary tweet 2025-02-11

@SavedbygraceIII @Eric_Conn Paul has been responding to things that the Corinthians wrote in their letter (see 1Co 7:1, “Now concerning the things about which you wrote”⎯and 1Co 14:34-35 is Paul quoting from their letter and then refuting it: “What? ...

@SavedbygraceIII @Eric_Conn Paul has been responding to things that the Corinthians wrote in their letter (see 1Co 7:1, “Now concerning the things about which you wrote”⎯and 1Co 14:34-35 is Paul quoti

1Co 14:34-35 1Co 7:1 question

Scripture Commentary tweet 2025-02-11

@EstablishingMan @Eric_Conn The first qualification is being a man? 1Ti 3:1 uses τὶς (anyone, someone) which is not clearly male only. 1Ti 3:2 does say “one wife husband” but seems to be clearly used as an idiom as even Paul himself wasn’t married. N...

@EstablishingMan @Eric_Conn The first qualification is being a man? 1Ti 3:1 uses τὶς (anyone, someone) which is not clearly male only. 1Ti 3:2 does say “one wife husband” but seems to be clearly used

1Ti 3:1 1Ti 3:2 debate

Scripture Commentary tweet 2025-02-11

@paulogia0 Do you believe that God is a figment of my imagination? Is my claim t

@paulogia0 Do you believe that God is a figment of my imagination? Is my claim to know what you believe pretty close?

Scripture Commentary tweet 2025-02-05

@Keith83361 @Tazorius @smashbaals So Paul was disqualified then? Is that what yo

@Keith83361 @Tazorius @smashbaals So Paul was disqualified then? Is that what you are insinuating?

Scripture Commentary tweet 2025-02-05

My Q1 & Ron's post 2/8: Paul's purpose⎯1Ti 3:14-15 instead of 1Ti 1:3 ? "If you leave out everything leading up to 'charge certain persons' (or 'instruct certain people') it’s easier to twist this verse into a general statement about the epistle...

My Q1 & Ron's post 2/8: Paul's purpose⎯1Ti 3:14-15 instead of 1Ti 1:3 ? "If you leave out everything leading up to 'charge certain persons' (or 'instruct certain people') it’s easier to twist thi

1Ti 1:3 1Ti 3:14-15 debate

Scripture Commentary tweet 2025-02-05

@Tazorius @Keith83361 @smashbaals And an overseer. While Paul isn’t explicitly r

@Tazorius @Keith83361 @smashbaals And an overseer. While Paul isn’t explicitly referred to as an elder or overseer, he does all the things an overseer does. And Peter shows one can be both an apostle