::R4169 : page 143::
BEREAN STUDIES ON THE ATONEMENT
THE TEXT BOOK USED FOR THIS COURSE IS SCRIPTURE STUDIES, SERIES V. (E)
Questions on Study II.—The Author of the Atonement
(29) Examine the tenth proof-text—Isa. 6:1—and demonstrate what is and what is not its true signification. P.47, last two pars., and P.48.
(30) How should we view Isa. 8:13,14? P.49, par. 1.
(31) Proof-text number 12 is Psalm 110. Examine it and demonstrate the truth respecting its teachings. P.49, pars. 2,3,4.
(32) Since our Lord Jesus is styled the “Great Teacher” and since it is written, “All thy children shall be taught of Jehovah” (Isa. 54:13), is or is not this a proof that our Lord Jesus is there referred to as Jehovah by name? Pp.50-54.
(33) Find and read one or more Scripture texts containing the word Trinity.
(34) Is it supposable that the doctrine of Trinity is taught in the Bible and yet no such word can be found in it?
(35) Quote the strongest text in the Bible which seemingly implies that there are three Gods instead of one. Compare I John 5:7 with Deuteronomy 5:6-11.
(36) What is the teaching of Trinitarianism—that there is one God who sometimes assumes three distinct manifestations, or three Gods equal in glory and honor? Did you ever know anybody able or willing to give a positive answer to this question? P.54, par. 1.
(37) Explain the force of the Trinity doctrine in the passage, “The head of the woman is the man, the head of the man is Christ and the head of Christ is God.” (I Cor. 11:3.) P.55, par. 1.
(38) What objection can be urged against I John 5:7? Does it teach three Gods in one person, or three distinct Gods?
(39) Were the translators of our Common Version Bible to blame for the insertion of the spurious text? Why not? P.56, par. 1.
(40) Do scholars of all denominations acknowledge that the greater part of I John 5:7 is not a part of the original Bible, but a spurious addition without right or authority? P.56, par. 1.
(41) Which words in that text are spurious?
(42) Would the passage make as good sense or better if the interpolation were omitted? Read the passage corrected. P.56, par. 2.
(43) Mention some of the versions of the New Testament that omit these words and cite the comment by the “Improved Version,” also Lang’s comment. P.57.
(44) Name some prominent Bible scholars who have pronounced the passage a spurious interpolation. P.57, last par.
(45) Quote Dean Alford’s words. P.58, par. 1.
(46) Quote Dr. C. Tischendorf on the subject. P.58, par. 2.
(47) Quote Prof. T. B. Wolsey. P.58, par. 3.
(48) Quote Dr. Adam Clarke on this passage. P.58, par. 4.
(49) Quote John Wesley on this subject. P.58, last par.
(50) Why was there more excuse for misunderstanding on this matter a century or two ago than now? P.58, last par.
(51) In what sense is there a unity or oneness between the Father and the Son? P.59, par. 1.
(52) Are the Father and the Son spoken of in the Scriptures as equal, in the sense that neither has nor ever had a superiority over the other? P.59, par. 1.
(53) What is implied in the terms Father and Son? P.60, par. 1.
(54) Are all things of the Son and all things by the Father, or vice versa, and what does this statement imply? P.60, par. 1.
(55) The doctrine of the Trinity is called a mystery. Why? In what sense is it mysterious? P.60, par. 2.
(56) Would Satan over-honor Christ? Why, then, would he propagate this error? and what has he effected? P.61, pars. 1,2.
(57) How old is the error on this subject, and how did it get so firm a footing in Christendom? Pp.62, 63.
— May 1, 1908 —
Zgłoszenie błędu w tekście
Zaznaczony tekst zostanie wysłany do naszych redaktorów: