THIS IS A FAITH MINISTRY. YOUR SUPPORT IS APPRECIATED.
russkellyphd@yahoo.com
TITUS, PHILEMON, VBCBI
1:2 Where have you read something similar to “before the world began” before?
1:5 Who was Titus?
1:4 Why is one Person of God called the Father and another the Savior?
1:5 What do Titus and Timothy have in common?
1:5, 7 What is the difference between a bishop and an elder?
1:6-9 Sum up the qualifications in a few words.
1:9 What is sound doctrine?
1:10 Who is Paul warning against here?
1:13-14 How should we respond to those who attack our faith?
1:15 What does “unto the pure all things are pure” mean?
2:1 What does sound doctrine insure?
2:3-4 Who are the older women to teach?
2:7-8 Sound doctrine should be …….
2:11 What is the meaning of 2:11 in its context of 2:9-14?
2:13 What event is the “blessed hope” of the Church?
2:14 How much iniquity has Christ redeemed? How does Christ present us to the Father?
3:1 Where else is this taught?
3:1-3 Which is the most difficult command here?
3:4 In what form did the kindness and love of God appear? What two ways does Paul often interchange “our Savior”?
3:5 When does the “washing of regeneration” occur?
3:8 Which two theological terms are implied here?
3:9 Since the law is so important, should it not be discussed often? Comment.
1-9 Who was Philemon?
10-21 Why did Paul write this letter?
16-21 Why did Paul expect Philemon to forgive Onesimus?
ANSWERS: TITUS AND PHILEMON, VBCBI
2 Timothy 1:9; Ephesians 1:4; Revelation 13:8
Titus was probably with Paul from the beginning. Tradition says he was bishop of Crete.
God relates to us on our level of comprehension.
Timothy and Titus seem to be Paul’s favorites.
Bishops and elders are the same thing
Elders must be decent and godly in every aspect of life.
“Sound doctrine” preaches Christ; it is Bible based, Bible believing and in context both by covenant and literal unless otherwise noted.
Christian Pharisees (as compared to non-
Christian Jews, Romans or Gentiles)
Rebuke them with sound doctrine.
Jimmy Chapman: “Righteous people see everything as potentially good. Wicked people see everything as potentially bad. Russell Kelly: God is able to turn anything to good; there is no limit to which evil people will go to create more evil.
Our answers are Bible based in context.
Other women
Titus 2:7-8
The grace that brings salvation comes through the preaching of sound doctrine.
Servants and masters are both saved by grace alone.
The rapture (catching up) of the Church; 1 Thes 4:17; 1 Cor 15:51-54
Romans 13:1-7
speak evil of no man (my opinion)
In Jesus Christ; both God the Father and God the Son are called “our Savior” –- singular
at the moment one accepts Christ as Savior, is saved, is justified, is adopted, and receives the Holy Spirit
justification and sanctification
the Law is of lesser importance
Philemon was a wealthy slave-owning good friend of Paul
Onesimus had been an unproductive salve of Philemon who escaped and was led to Christ by Paul in prison.
I led you to Christ; you owe me a large favor.
Albert Barnes’ Notes:1 Tim 4:4; Question #10.
For every creature of God is good] Greek, “all the creatures, or all that God has created” – pan ktisma: that is, as he made it; compare Gen 1:10,12,18,31.
It does not mean that every moral agent remains good as long as he is “a creature of God,” but moral agents, human beings and angels, WERE good as they were made at first; Gen 1:31.
Nor does it mean that all that God has made is good “for every object to which it can be applied.” It is good in its place; good for the purpose for which he made it. But it should not be inferred that a thing which is poisonous in its nature is good for food, “because” it is a creation of God. It is good only in its place, and for the ends for which he intended it.
Nor should it be inferred that what God has made is necessarily good “after” it has been perverted by man. As God made it originally, it might have been used without injury.
Apples and peaches were made good, and are still useful and proper as articles of food; rye and Indian-corn are good, and are admirably adapted to the support of man and beast, but it does not follow that all that “man” can make of them is necessarily good. He extracts from them a poisonous liquid, and then says that “every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused.” But is this a fair use of this passage of Scripture? True, they “are” good-they “are” to be received with gratitude as he made them, and as applied to the uses for which he designed them; but why apply this passage to prove that a deleterious beverage, which “man” has extracted from what God has made, is good also, and good for all the purposes to which it can be applied? As “God” made these things, they are good. As man perverts them, it is no longer proper to call them the “creation of God,” and they may be injurious in the highest degree. This passage, therefore, should not be adduced to vindicate the use of intoxicating drinks. As employed by the apostle, it had no such reference, nor does it contain any “principle” which can properly receive any such application.
[And nothing to be refused] Nothing that God has made, for the purposes for which he designed it. The necessity of the case the “exigency of the passage” – requires this interpretation. It “cannot” mean that we are not to refuse poison if offered in our food, or that we are never to refuse food that is to us injurious or offensive; nor can it anymore mean that we are to receive “all” that may be offered to us as a beverage. The sense is, that as God made it, and for the purposes for which he designed it, it is not to be held to be evil; or, which is the same thing, it is not to be prohibited as if there were merit in abstaining from it. It is not to be regarded as a religious duty to abstain from food which God has appointed for the support of man. (Barnes’ Notes)
Enter content here
Description: http://tithing-russkelly.com/imagelib/sitebuilder/layout/spacer.gif
Albert Barnes’ Notes:1 Tim 4:4; Question #10.
For every creature of God is good] Greek, “all the creatures, or all that God has created” – pan ktisma: that is, as he made it; compare Gen 1:10,12,18,31.
It does not mean that every moral agent remains good as long as he is “a creature of God,” but moral agents, human beings and angels, WERE good as they were made at first; Gen 1:31.
Nor does it mean that all that God has made is good “for every object to which it can be applied.” It is good in its place; good for the purpose for which he made it. But it should not be inferred that a thing which is poisonous in its nature is good for food, “because” it is a creation of God. It is good only in its place, and for the ends for which he intended it.
Nor should it be inferred that what God has made is necessarily good “after” it has been perverted by man. As God made it originally, it might have been used without injury.
Apples and peaches were made good, and are still useful and proper as articles of food; rye and Indian-corn are good, and are admirably adapted to the support of man and beast, but it does not follow that all that “man” can make of them is necessarily good. He extracts from them a poisonous liquid, and then says that “every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused.” But is this a fair use of this passage of Scripture? True, they “are” good-they “are” to be received with gratitude as he made them, and as applied to the uses for which he designed them; but why apply this passage to prove that a deleterious beverage, which “man” has extracted from what God has made, is good also, and good for all the purposes to which it can be applied? As “God” made these things, they are good. As man perverts them, it is no longer proper to call them the “creation of God,” and they may be injurious in the highest degree. This passage, therefore, should not be adduced to vindicate the use of intoxicating drinks. As employed by the apostle, it had no such reference, nor does it contain any “principle” which can properly receive any such application.
[And nothing to be refused] Nothing that God has made, for the purposes for which he designed it. The necessity of the case the “exigency of the passage” – requires this interpretation. It “cannot” mean that we are not to refuse poison if offered in our food, or that we are never to refuse food that is to us injurious or offensive; nor can it anymore mean that we are to receive “all” that may be offered to us as a beverage. The sense is, that as God made it, and for the purposes for which he designed it, it is not to be held to be evil; or, which is the same thing, it is not to be prohibited as if there were merit in abstaining from it. It is not to be regarded as a religious duty to abstain from food which God has appointed for the support of man. (Barnes’ Notes)
Enter content here
