Same ALL MEN

[savedwheat]

I was praying today and came up with this.

"Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon ALL MEN to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon ALL MEN unto justification of life" (Rom. 5.18). "Who will have ALL MEN to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth" (1 Tim. 2.4). ALL MEN can be saved "whosoever believeth" (John 3.16) "to the knowledge of truth" and "unto justification of life." This is a parallelism. Same "ALL MEN."

I think this clearly proves Calvinism is wrong. So since God provides sufficient grace for all so we can respond, then we are not totally depraved as Calvinists teach. Total depravity seems to be an idol (assumption) that is erected that says you can't repent and believe in Christ so you don't.

God is love. Is it loving for us to pass over people needing help or irresistibly force someone into something? No, of course, not. And since God's standards are not less than hours, then He doesn't behave this way either. Perhaps what is happening is Calvinists are not truly regenerated in their spirits and are simply making God in their own image which is selfish.

The implication of all this is since many will say Lord, Lord, and God says He never knew them, do you think Calvinists are some of those who are false Christians?

 

[savedwheat]

Try not to react emotionally or get upset if you are Cavlinist but challenge yourself to see if you can come up with an explanation without contorting these Scriptures; if you can't, then repent and come to Christ so that God will save you. I would genuinely like to hear what you have to say.

 

[savedwheat]

I forgot to add one more verse. "The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance" (2 Pet. 3.9).

Since Christians can't lose eternal life, this verse is talking about not only Christians but also everyone to deliver them the gospel. Just before in verse 7 it is talking about those that perish, so God wants none to perish, all to come to repentance, thus providing sufficient grace to all. That's why none of us are without excuse and therefore, total depravity is false.

Common sense really. That's how all children read it, but something happens to some folks later in their lives. They get lost in their heads and lose the spirit and sensitivity or they were false Christians to begin with.

 

[rojoloco]

I will gladly reply to each of those points.

"Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon ALL MEN to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon ALL MEN unto justification of life" (Rom. 5.18).

"Who will have ALL MEN to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth" (1 Tim. 2.4).

ALL MEN can be saved "whosoever believeth" (John 3.16)

Every single one of these has been taken out of context in your post. You appear to be focusing on "all men" instead of the surrounding context. Both Romans and 1 Timothy are speaking of all men in the sense of all men without distinction; not all men without exception. We can be assured of this by 1 Timothy. It says God will have all men to be saved. We know this is not true or all men would be saved. If God wills something, it simply is. God willed creation and it simply was. It is not saying God wills all men without exception to be saved. It says God wills all men without distinction to be saved. It is no longer limited to Jews. Gentiles have now been grafted into the vine and it is for all of mankind as a whole, not the whole of man.

As for your quote of John, let's look at what it says without reading into it. Does it say man can choose God and, as a result, God will give them eternal life? Not at all. It simply states a requirement. It does not go on to say who can fulfill this requirement. However, if we look at Scripture as a whole, we can see only the Elect are capable of such a tasking.

God is love. Is it loving for us to pass over people needing help or irresistibly force someone into something? No, of course, not. And since God's standards are not less than hours, then He doesn't behave this way either. Perhaps what is happening is Calvinists are not truly regenerated in their spirits and are simply making God in their own image which is selfish.

This is a classic case of ignorance conforming God into a box shaped mind. No offense. God is love but to say He cannot hate is true ignorance as Scripture is clear that there is much He hates. God is not forcing us into anything. We choose what our will desires and our will desires what our nature compels it to. Before God changes our nature, we hate him and hide from the Light lest it expose our evil deeds. After God changes our nature, we love Him and desire to stay in the Light. In the end, it is not us changing our nature. We are simply free to follow what drives us. If anything, free will is the captor keeping us from God.

The implication of all this is since many will say Lord, Lord, and God says He never knew them, do you think Calvinists are some of those who are false Christians

On the contrary, Calvinists are some of the only ones who keep with the doctrine of the sovereignty of God that was held so dear in the early age of the church. In fact, the ideas you are stating in these posts were condemned as apostasy several hundred years ago. Funny how the times change.

Try not to react emotionally or get upset if you are Cavlinist but challenge yourself to see if you can come up with an explanation without contorting these Scriptures; if you can't, then repent and come to Christ so that God will save you. I would genuinely like to hear what you have to say

I am gladly attempting to satisfy the requirements of your post. We must never look at Scripture and read into it. Exegetical study through hermeneutics is the only way. We must never look at a requirement given in Scripture and assume there must be a way to fulfill it of our own doing. Many hold this view. They say if it were not possible to meet the requirement (choosing God) then God is giving commands in vain. Not so at all. The Old Testament was not possible to be conformed to fully. Its purpose was to point out our flaws and our dependence on God. The requirements and stipulations in the New Testament are the same. We cannot possibly meet them of ourselves nor does Scripture say we can. They simply show our dependence on God and how, without His doing, none of it is possible.

"The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance" (2 Pet. 3.9).

This was written to believers, not unbelievers. God is not willing that any of "us/we/us-ward" should perish. All believers will be saved. However, it says nothing of who will be believers. We must look elsewhere for that such as Romans 5:8 (again referring to believers and those who will believe), Romans 9 (which clearly speaks of God making man as He will), etc.

 

[jiggyfly]

Originally Posted by savedwheat
"The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance" (2 Pet. 3.9).
This was written to believers, not unbelievers. God is not willing that any of "us/we/us-ward" should perish. All believers will be saved. However, it says nothing of who will be believers. We must look elsewhere for that such as Romans 5:8 (again referring to believers and those who will believe), Romans 9 (which clearly speaks of God making man as He will), etc.

Your confusing yourself here Rojo, Peter is writing to believers here yes, but it is concerning ALL mankind.

I am gladly attempting to satisfy the requirements of your post. We must never look at Scripture and read into it. Exegetical study through hermeneutics is the only way. We must never look at a requirement given in Scripture and assume there must be a way to fulfill it of our own doing. Many hold this view. They say if it were not possible to meet the requirement (choosing God) then God is giving commands in vain. Not so at all. The Old Testament was not possible to be conformed to fully. Its purpose was to point out our flaws and our dependence on God. The requirements and stipulations in the New Testament are the same. We cannot possibly meet them of ourselves nor does Scripture say we can. They simply show our dependence on God and how, without His doing, none of it is possible.

Sorry but this seems very contradictory to your statements in another thread concerning apostles and prophets. It also seems that if anyone is reading something into scripture it would be you.

 

[jiggyfly]

I was praying today and came up with this.

"Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon ALL MEN to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon ALL MEN unto justification of life" (Rom. 5.18). "Who will have ALL MEN to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth" (1 Tim. 2.4). ALL MEN can be saved "whosoever believeth" (John 3.16) "to the knowledge of truth" and "unto justification of life." This is a parallelism. Same "ALL MEN."

I think this clearly proves Calvinism is wrong. So since God provides sufficient grace for all so we can respond, then we are not totally depraved as Calvinists teach. Total depravity seems to be an idol (assumption) that is erected that says you can't repent and believe in Christ so you don't.

God is love. Is it loving for us to pass over people needing help or irresistibly force someone into something? No, of course, not. And since God's standards are not less than hours, then He doesn't behave this way either. Perhaps what is happening is Calvinists are not truly regenerated in their spirits and are simply making God in their own image which is selfish.

The implication of all this is since many will say Lord, Lord, and God says He never knew them, do you think Calvinists are some of those who are false Christians?

Excellent post Savedwheat, I wish I was at liberty to discuss this topic in more detail but at this time it just isn't possible, but if you would like to discuss it privately just PM me. God bless.

 

[cman77]

Try not to react emotionally or get upset if you are Cavlinist but challenge yourself to see if you can come up with an explanation without contorting these Scriptures

its not about contorting scripture, its about interpreting the verses in a way that agrees with the rest of scripture.

"for the children being not yet born, neither having done anything good or bad, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth, it was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger. Even as it is written, Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated."

Romans 9:11-13
<table id="table_bible" class="table_bible" style="font-size: 125%; width: 9px; height: 84px;" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tbody><tr><td class="td_bible_text" valign="top">
</td> </tr> <tr> <td id="verse_11" class="td_bible_6_buttons" align="left" valign="top" width="57">
</td> <td class="td_bible_verse_heading" align="left" valign="top" width="68">
</td> <td class="td_bible_text" valign="top">
</td> </tr> <tr> <td id="verse_12" class="td_bible_6_buttons" align="left" valign="top" width="57">
</td> <td class="td_bible_verse_heading" align="left" valign="top" width="68">
</td> <td class="td_bible_text" valign="top">
</td> </tr> <tr> <td id="verse_13" class="td_bible_6_buttons" align="left" valign="top" width="57">
</td> <td class="td_bible_verse_heading" align="left" valign="top" width="68">
</td> <td class="td_bible_text" valign="top">
</td></tr></tbody></table>

 

[rojoloco]

Your confusing yourself here Rojo, Peter is writing to believers here yes, but it is concerning ALL mankind.

Can you prove this from the text? I'm going to confidently say no. If I wrote you a letter and said stuff such as "us-ward" or "we" or "us," would you believe I was writing to some random guy in Michigan or perhaps Illinois? No. You would confidently know I was referring to the 2 of us. If I wrote a letter to my church (I am currently on deployment) saying, "I can't wait to get back to you," would you believe I was telling a random church in Montana that I can't wait to get back to them as well? Certainly not! Do you now see the absurdity of this idea? Peter was clearly writing to a specific set of people. The only way to say he was speaking of all mankind is through a bad case of eisegesis.

Sorry but this seems very contradictory to your statements in another thread concerning apostles and prophets. It also seems that if anyone is reading something into scripture it would be you.

I'm just saying what Scripture says in black and white without feeling compelled to contort it to my own principles and preconceived beliefs. I'm not saying you are doing this on purpose. Many people do it without thinking about it because they are so used to holding onto some kind of control instead of trusting in a sovereign God. There are some mysteries of God that we simply cannot understand how they can still be good, yet they are.

 

[yort]

Out of Context

Troy a servant of God and the Lord Jesus Christ.

Hello . It seems to me that your out of context according to the true meaning in Romans 5:18. First let me say that the full context of that verse runs from Romans 5:15-19. I thought that I would kind of do you a word study or prehaps just outline it and let you draw your own conclusions. Ok

Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.
Romans 5:18 (KJV)

Therefore -- now at length resuming the unfinished comparison of Ro 5:12, in order to give formally the concluding member of it, which had been done once and again substantially, in the intermediate verses.

as by the offence of one judgment came -- or, more simply, "it came."

upon all men to condenmation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came -- rather, "it came."

upon all men to justification of life -- (So CALVIN, BENGEL, OLSHAUSEN, THOLUCK, HODGE, PHILIPPI). But better, as we judge: "As through one offense it [came] upon all men to condemnation; even so through one righteousness [it came] upon all men to justification of life" -- (So BEZA, GROTIUS, FERME, MEYER, DE WETTE, ALFORD, Revised Version). In this case, the apostle, resuming the statement of Ro 5:12, expresses it in a more concentrated and vivid form -- suggested no doubt by the expression in Ro 5:16, "through one offense," representing Christ's whole work, considered as the ground of our justification, as "ONE RIGHTEOUSNESS." (Some would render the peculiar word here employed, "one righteous act" [ALFORD, &c.]; understanding by it Christ's death as the one redeeming act which reversed the one undoing act of Adam. But this is to limit the apostle's idea too much; for as the same word is properly rendered "righteousness" in Ro 8:4, where it means "the righteousness of the law as fulfilled by us who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit," so here it denotes Christ's whole "obedience unto death," considered as the one meritorious ground of the reversal of the condemnation which came by Adam. But on this, and on the expression, "all men," see on Ro 5:19. The expression "justification of life," is a vivid combination of two ideas already expatiated upon, meaning "justification entitling to and issuing in the rightful possession and enjoyment of life").

Here is a summary for Romans 5:15-19.

THE GRACE OF GOD, THROUGH THE RIGHTEOUSNESS OF CHRIST, HAS MORE POWER TO BRING SALVATION, THAN ADAM'S SIN HAD TO BRING MISERY. (5:15-19)

Through one man's offence, all mankind are exposed to eternal condemnation. But the grace and mercy of God, and the free gift of righteousness and salvation, are through Jesus Christ, as man: yet the Lord from heaven has brought the multitude of believers into a more safe and exalted state than that from which they fell in Adam. This free gift did not place them anew in a state of trial, but fixed them in a state of justification, as Adam would have been placed, had he stood. Notwithstanding the differences, there is a striking similarity. As by the offence of one, sin and death prevailed to the condemnation of all men, so by the righteousness of one, grace prevailed to the justification of all related to Christ by faith. Through the grace of God, the gift by grace has abounded to many through Christ; yet multitudes choose to remain under the dominion of sin and death, rather than to apply for the blessings of the reign of grace. But Christ will in nowise cast out any who are willing to come to him.

Okay friend it`s yours to run with, enjoy.

Troy

 

[jiggyfly]

Can you prove this from the text? I'm going to confidently say no. If I wrote you a letter and said stuff such as "us-ward" or "we" or "us," would you believe I was writing to some random guy in Michigan or perhaps Illinois? No. You would confidently know I was referring to the 2 of us. If I wrote a letter to my church (I am currently on deployment) saying, "I can't wait to get back to you," would you believe I was telling a random church in Montana that I can't wait to get back to them as well? Certainly not! Do you now see the absurdity of this idea? Peter was clearly writing to a specific set of people. The only way to say he was speaking of all mankind is through a bad case of eisegesis.



I'm just saying what Scripture says in black and white without feeling compelled to contort it to my own principles and preconceived beliefs. I'm not saying you are doing this on purpose. Many people do it without thinking about it because they are so used to holding onto some kind of control instead of trusting in a sovereign God. There are some mysteries of God that we simply cannot understand how they can still be good, yet they are.

2Peter 3:9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.KJV

2Peter 3:9 the Lord is not slow in regard to the promise, as certain count slowness, but is long-suffering to us, not counselling any to be lost but all to pass on to reformation, YLT

2Peter 3:9 οὐ βραδύνει κύριος τῆς ἐπαγγελίας ὥς τινες βραδύτητα ἡγοῦνται ἀλλὰ μακροθυμεῖ εἰς ὑμᾶς μὴ βουλόμενός τινας ἀπολέσθαι ἀλλὰ πάντας εἰς μετάνοιαν χωρῆσαι

Rojo, do you suppose the "some men count slackness" are part of the so-called "elect" too?

 

[Coconut]

I know what jiggyfly believes, and why he attempts to refrain from open discussion here, and that is not an issue .... but I am truly surprised he found your OP excellent, as I can only see ignorance in your commentary.

Perhaps what is happening is Calvinists are not truly regenerated in their spirits ...

The implication of all this is since many will say Lord, Lord, and God says He never knew them, do you think Calvinists are some of those who are false Christians?

Do you think a man can only be found to be true to Christ if he gets his theology just right? Then God help us all, and that includes you.
I dont care to know how much you prayed before coming up with this, yours is a most fallible implication. Open your eyes and see this very subtle, deceiving and divisive spirit that causes us to reject or accept our brothers and sisters by 'like name tags' instead of 'like faith in Christ'...

The Prince of Preachers (Spurgeon) was a Calvinist, and whether or not I agree or disagree with him on this point, does not negate the fact that this man obviously believed and placed his faith in Christ... and to make implication (as your words do) that he was a false convert is ludicrous to the last degree. To suggest such would indicate one has not read a whit of Spurgeons writings, or does not understand what he reads. Spurgeons sermons are so filled with the regenerating Spirit of Christ I can barely read him without being ashamed of my own lack.

Try not to react emotionally or get upset if you are Cavlinist but challenge yourself to see if you can come up with an explanation without contorting these Scriptures; if you can't, then repent and come to Christ so that God will save you. I would genuinely like to hear what you have to say.

That seems to imply that if one disagrees with your theology they must be 'emotional or upset' or unwilling to challenge themselves. hmm. . .

Do you really presume to be so bold as to state that if a mans knowledge and understanding is not perfected (as you see it) then he needs to repent and be saved - even tho he has already 'believed' and placed his faith in Christ? That begs the question, have you become so buried in your own theology you have lost sight of that one thing which is needful?

Something happens to some folks later in their lives. They get lost in their heads and lose the spirit and sensitivity ...

I can agree with that.

 

[rojoloco]

2Peter 3:9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.KJV

2Peter 3:9 the Lord is not slow in regard to the promise, as certain count slowness, but is long-suffering to us, not counselling any to be lost but all to pass on to reformation, YLT

2Peter 3:9 οὐ βραδύνει κύριος τῆς ἐπαγγελίας ὥς τινες βραδύτητα ἡγοῦνται ἀλλὰ μακροθυμεῖ εἰς ὑμᾶς μὴ βουλόμενός τινας ἀπολέσθαι ἀλλὰ πάντας εἰς μετάνοιαν χωρῆσαι

Rojo, do you suppose the "some men count slackness" are part of the so-called "elect" too?

There is no way to tell from the text. All it says is that God is not slow as some men count slowness. This could be a broad range of people stemming from the Elect to the non-elect.

 

[jiggyfly]

There is no way to tell from the text. All it says is that God is not slow as some men count slowness. This could be a broad range of people stemming from the Elect to the non-elect.

Why not apply the same method you used earlier? Peter is speaking to the elect so it must be the elect that he is talking about. Back up and reread your own posts maybe that will help you decide.

:wink:

 

[rojoloco]

Why not apply the same method you used earlier? Peter is speaking to the elect so it must be the elect that he is talking about. Back up and reread your own posts maybe that will help you decide.

:wink:

Predictable. I already knew this was going to be your reply. However, I chose to answer anyway so that I could let you say it instead for the purpose of this current reply. Instead of focusing on what the text is saying, you are focusing on what you think is right and the preconceived idea that I am wrong. Your failure to look at the text as a whole shows this much. I will post the verse again for the sake of those who might forget to look at it.

The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance.

It does not say the Lord is slow about His promise as we count slowness. It says as "some men" count slowness. This alone qualifies it as a statement being made without distinction. With the theme us us, you, and we, the only conclusion is that if he were speaking of the Elect only, he would have continued in the same pattern of speech and grammar. The fact that he does not goes to show he is referring to a different type of crowd. However, this crowd is not named. It could be the non-elect or it could be a mix of both non-elect as well as the Elect (as I believe it to be referring to). It simply cannot be referring to the Elect only as the grammar does not allow it. I believe Peter is referring to both parties in his statement on patience. It was enough of an issue to be worthy of mentioning it to the church but the grammatical structure also implies others being referring to as well.

I have one simple request for next time. Instead of trying so hard to back me into a corner, please spend the same amount of energy actually looking at the text. One with a purpose of proving Scripture sounds makes solid posts while one with a purpose of tripping up others makes little mistakes on elementary English such as the example above. :wink:

 

[jiggyfly]

Predictable. I already knew this was going to be your reply. However, I chose to answer anyway so that I could let you say it instead for the purpose of this current reply. Instead of focusing on what the text is saying, you are focusing on what you think is right and the preconceived idea that I am wrong. Your failure to look at the text as a whole shows this much. I will post the verse again for the sake of those who might forget to look at it.



It does not say the Lord is slow about His promise as we count slowness. It says as "some men" count slowness. This alone qualifies it as a statement being made without distinction. With the theme us us, you, and we, the only conclusion is that if he were speaking of the Elect only, he would have continued in the same pattern of speech and grammar. The fact that he does not goes to show he is referring to a different type of crowd. However, this crowd is not named. It could be the non-elect or it could be a mix of both non-elect as well as the Elect (as I believe it to be referring to). It simply cannot be referring to the Elect only as the grammar does not allow it. I believe Peter is referring to both parties in his statement on patience. It was enough of an issue to be worthy of mentioning it to the church but the grammatical structure also implies others being referring to as well.

I have one simple request for next time. Instead of trying so hard to back me into a corner, please spend the same amount of energy actually looking at the text. One with a purpose of proving Scripture sounds makes solid posts while one with a purpose of tripping up others makes little mistakes on elementary English such as the example above. :wink:

In the same manner there is no mention in this sentence anywhere of the "elect". You have added the elect and the method you used to justify your adding the "elect to this text is inconsistent at best. Try referencing the Greek text and apply Greek linguistics maybe it will be more clear and stop adding to it.

I posted the Greek text hoping you would address it. I'll post it again keyed with Stong's and hopefully make it a little easier for you to address.

2Pe 3:9 TheG3588 LordG2962 is not slackG1019 G3756 concerning his promise,G1860 asG5613 some menG5100 countG2233 slackness;G1022 butG235 is longsufferingG3114 toG1519 us-ward,G2248 notG3361 willingG1014 that anyG5100 should perish,G622 butG235 that allG3956 should comeG5562 toG1519 repentance.G3341

οὐ βραδύνει κύριος τῆς ἐπαγγελίας ὥς τινες βραδύτητα ἡγοῦνται ἀλλὰ μακροθυμεῖ εἰς ὑμᾶς μὴ βουλόμενός τινας ἀπολέσθαι ἀλλὰ πάντας εἰς μετάνοιαν χωρῆσαι

Notice that in this text that the "some men" and the "any" that God is not willing to perish are the same Greek word/meanings.

 

[rojoloco]

Of course we can look at the Greek. However, we must look at all of it and not just one word. The fact that the Greek word "tis" is used twice for 2 different English words does not prove free will. The come to this conclusion means you must believe all men count slackness the same way and that all men will escape perishing. This would nto only be the conclusion based on the use of "tis" but also of "hemas" meaning God is patient toward all men and "pas" meaning every single man in its entirety will come to salvation.

You obviously do not believe that all of mankind will come to salvation unless you are a Universalist. This being the case, we can be assured that "pas" and "hemas" can only refer to believers. That being said, we also know that the 2 uses of "tis" are actually referring to 2 separate subjects and not only 1. If it were only one subject, we would be forced to come to the conclusion above by trapping the others into the same subject as well. Once separated into 2 distinct groups, it is really easy to see the grammatical structure being used to describe the Elect and non-elect.

 

[jiggyfly]

The fact that the Greek word "tis" is used twice for 2 different English words does not prove free will.

Here's one of your problems with understanding scripture correctly, the Greek word is not used to translate any English words, tis the other way around.

Secondly I'm not trying to prove free will, I disagree with both Calvinism and Arminianism and believe that scripture does also.

The come to this conclusion means you must believe all men count slackness the same way and that all men will escape perishing. This would nto only be the conclusion based on the use of "tis" but also of "hemas" meaning God is patient toward all men and "pas" meaning every single man in its entirety will come to salvation.

Did you even look to see what the Greek word tis means? Again you are looking at this from a preconceived religious paradigm.

You obviously do not believe that all of mankind will come to salvation unless you are a Universalist. This being the case, we can be assured that "pas" and "hemas" can only refer to believers. That being said, we also know that the 2 uses of "tis" are actually referring to 2 separate subjects and not only 1. If it were only one subject, we would be forced to come to the conclusion above by trapping the others into the same subject as well. Once separated into 2 distinct groups, it is really easy to see the grammatical structure being used to describe the Elect and non-elect.

You obviously assume way to much and need to develop some better interpreting and study techniques when it comes to the scriptures. One suggestion is open your self up to the leading of HolySpirit.


Here are a couple of other scriptures that show the error of your paradigm.

Act 10:34&35 Then Peter opened [his] mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons: But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.

Ephesians 6:9 And, ye masters, do the same things unto them, forbearing threatening: knowing that your Master also is in heaven; neither is there respect of persons with him.