[STRONGS] proskuneo (pros-koo-neh'-o) worship-From pros and a probable derivative of kuon (meaning to kiss, like a dog licking his master's hand); to fawn or crouch to, i.e. (literally or figuratively) prostrate oneself in homage (do reverence to, adore) -- worship.
I will give you a half point with your contention that other verses that deal with Christ's deity remain. But, the fact is that this is not the only case, and there are many other problems with the minority texts.
Mat 13:51 KJV "Jesus saith unto them, Have ye understood all these things? They say unto Him, Yea, Lord." NASB ""Have you understood all these things?" They said to Him, "Yes."" NASB leaves out 'Jesus saith unto them' and 'Lord.' This is trying to do away with the divinity of Jesus and His Lordship.
Mk 5:6 KJV "But when he saw Jesus afar off, he ran and worshipped him," NASB "And seeing Jesus from a distance, he ran up and bowed down before Him;" NASB hanges "worshipped" to "fell on his knees."
Is it your assertion that the Divinity and Lordship of Christ rests on one passage?
Seriously, not calling Jesus "Lord" in one passage does not take away from the testimony of John 1:1-3, Phil. 2:5-11, Col. 1:15-19 or many other passages that very clearly teach the Deity of Jesus Christ. The doctrine is not affected at all.
In Mark 5:6....Is it your assertion that you want the demon in the man to worship Jesus when its nature is hell bent? Doesn't it make sense that the demon in the ....
{Matthew 13:51 KJV "Jesus saith unto them, Have ye understood all these things? They say unto Him, Yea, Lord." NASB ""Have you understood all these things?" They said to Him, "Yes."" NASB leaves out 'Jesus saith unto them' and 'Lord.' Mark 9:24 KJV "And straightway the father of the child cried out, and said with tears, Lord, I believe; help thou mine unbelief." NASB "Immediately the boy's father cried out and began saying, "I do believe; help my unbelief."" NASB leaves out...Jesus as "Lord."}
Again, these verse DO NOT DIMINISH AT ALL THE DOCTRINE OF THE DEITY OF CHRIST. You are simply being trivial on that point. Now, if the minority text are generally earlier dating, and the majority of later dating, isn't it more probably that the variants in the Majority were not in the earlier manuscripts but were added in later? Do these variants change any doctrinal positions? None at all!
demon in the man "fell on his knees" as an act of submission and recognition of the authority of Christ rather than an act of worship?
Where in Scripture do you find demons worshipping God? The Greek root word in question here is 'proskuneoo' and means "to bow the knee" and in a religious context certainly means worship. But is this a religious context in which the demon (named Legion) is seeking to worship Christ? Seriously....think through these things
[STRONGS] proskuneo (pros-koo-neh'-o) worship-From pros and a probable derivative of kuon (meaning to kiss, like a dog licking his master's hand); to fawn or crouch to, i.e. (literally or figuratively) prostrate oneself in homage (do reverence to, adore) -- worship.
I will give you a half point with your contention that other verses that deal with Christ's deity remain. But, the fact is that this is not the only case, and there are many other problems with the minority texts.
The Minority Texts were the work of unbelieving Egyptian scribes who did not accept the Bible as the Word of God or JESUS as the SON of GOD! The Minority Texts abound with alterations, often a single manuscript being amended by several different scribes over a period of many years; something the Aaronic priests and Masorites would never have tolerated when making copies of the Scriptures. The Minority Texts omit approximately 200 verses from the Scriptures.- What now?
There is so much evidence to refute this it is not even funny. Get hold of JAmes White's "The King JAmes Controversy" to get a good reading on manuscript history and such. I have heard that argument but the fact is that there were unbelievers everywhere and the GNOSTIC were busy making their own Scriptures to try to rewrite the others!
The older the text, the more likely it is close to the original. Earlier text are usually the minority because they are older.
The translators of the corrupt Vaticanus and Sinaiticus are those that all modern bible versions are based upon i.e the minority text. "The Minority Texts abound with alterations, often a single manuscript being amended by several different scribes over a period of many years; something the Aaronic priests and Masorites would never have tolerated when making copies of the Scriptures.
The Minority Texts omit approximately 200 verses from the Scriptures. This is equivalent to 1st and 2nd Peter."
The early church father Irenaeus expounded greatly on the Gnostic beliefs. The portions I read from him were of a sect that seemed bent upon belief in doctrines of Demons. Augustine took some of these basic tenents of good verses evil and incorporated them in his belief about the total depravity of man. The problem with that concept is that Jesus said to bring the children to Him because the Kingdom of Heaven is for them. They are NOT sinners as Augustine proclaims them to be and baptized them.
well Jesus was pretty clear that the human heart produces "evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false witness, slander..."(Matt. 15:19). Also, Jesus would not disagree with Psalm 51:5 in which David wrote "Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity and in sin did my mother conceive me" nor with Ps. 58:3 "The wicked are estranged from the womb; they go astray from birth."
Read Jesus' words carefully....he did not say it belonged to children but those who become LIKE them...
Ps.58:3 could eaily read: The wicked go astray from the womb, they stray from the belly speaking lies. This simply means that those who are wicked start out speaking lies as soon as they are able to know truth from falsehood. Ps. 51:5 is talking specifically about David, thus he could be referring to his mother conceiving him without a proper marriage. Children are not condemned until they know evil from good and then decide for themselves to eat it's fruit. We are born with sinful nature.
Can you demonstrate FROM THE TEXT where the words "as they are able to know truth from falsehood" are located?
Can you demonstrate FROM SCRIPTURE that David's mother was not married when she had him, especially since he was the youngest of all his other brothers?
Can you demonstrate FROM SCRIPTURE where it says that "children are not condemned UNTIL they know evil from good?
If we are born with a sin nature, isn't it reasonable to say we are sinners, and thus, we sin?
Historically speaking, there were actually various sects of Gnostics who taught different things. Manicheanism did hold to a form of Dualism like some Gnostic sects but it was not Gnosticism per se....that heresy had pretty much died out and has only been revived as of late.
Can you demonstrate where Augustine teaches the depravity of man was based on Gnosticism rather than on Scripture Or is this more internet research?
Since Gnosticism, from which Manicheanism continued in it's vein from, teaches that all matter is of darkness, then all flesh is of darkness. This is his total depravity of man argument.
ummm....that is NOT the "Total Depravity" argument. Remember that Augustine argued mainly for "original sin" and not "Total Depravity" per se since that term was not even coined till after the Reformation. Once Again, you are engaging in anacronism argumentation.
According to Romans 5:12-14, the only ones who are able to recieve the penalty of death for sin are sinners. Now God being a just God, would never kill the righteous, right? Since infants experience death and only those guilty of sin are allowed to undergo its punishment by a Just God, does it not follow that even infants who experience death are equally under the wrath of God as we all are? Or is it your position that God UNJUSTLY punishes those who are not sinners?
Children only becomes sinners when they KNOW evil from good and choose for themselves evil. Thus, a child only becomes a sinner when they KNOWINGLY sin. SInce Augustine believed that children were sinners born into sin, he wanted them to be baptized to save them. This is from darkness verses light Gnosticism which Manicheanism took it's cue from. We are born with a SINFUL NATURE. We are not born condemned, as Calvanism teaches with it's predestination argument. Born with free will to CHOOSE.
Is a sinful nature free to choose against its nature? If so, what purpose is the sinful nature? If the nature is not free to choose against itself, doesn't that mean that a person with a sinful nature is only able to sin (as Augustine rightly taught).
The sinful nature is enmity against God. It surves the purpose of the Devil. We have a choice to put to death the sinful nature through sowing to the Spirit of God, or sowing to the flesh and reaping damnation. A person who is not born of God cannot please God, therefore all the works they do are not of the Spirit of God, but of the works of the flesh. When we are baptized, we have crucified the flesh and it's desires. But, we are free to choose to obey or disobey, since we are not robots.
Calvin rejected Augustine's doctrine of Baptismal Regeneration even though Luther did not.
Since the sinful nature is enmity toward God, how is it "free" to make a choice for God when it is "against God"? Isn't that an explicit contradiction?
Since a person cannot please God without being born again, and saving faith and repentance are pleasing to God, then it is correct to assert, as Calvinism does, that regeneration precedes faith right?
Calvin taught AGAINST baptizing Christians after they became born again. This is one reason he killed Servetus. Baby baptism is a tool of the Devil that produces NOTHING for the child.
Many are called, but few are chosen BECAUSE they do not endure to the end. Of course God can call someone who is at enmity against Him. Jesus died so that WHOSOEVER could come to Him. He came to bring SINNERS to repentence. He COMMANDS everone everywhere to REPENT and believe the Gospel and PERSEVERE to the end.
ok, you are mish-mashing Scriptures together that obviously do not go: which means you like to twist God's word.
AGAIN, Servetus was ALREADY condemned elsewhere for blasphemy because of his work on the Trinity.
The indefinite relative pronoun "whosoever" is not contained in the manuscripts. the phrase in Greek in "pas ho pisteoun" which is "all the ones believing" (present tense).
I'm sorry, but you are not teaching the Gospel my friend. Go back and learn the first principles.
Including all the forms of declension; apparently a primary word; all, any, every, the whole -- all (manner of, means), alway(-s), any (one), X daily, + ever, every (one, way), as many as, + no(-thing), X thoroughly, whatsoever, whole, whosoever. For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world;
the "all" is limited by the verb "believing" which is in the present tense..."All the ones who are believing" and not "All the ones who will believe" (as if future tense).
Reading "free will" into this passage is a theological bias on your part here.
The word "Whosover" is not in the original Greek Text. The word "all" in the Greek is (pas) Which can mean "ALL" but can also mean all as in collectively, some of all types example: young, old, rich, poor, Jew Gentle ect... Look back at John 3:16 "whosever believes" is translated from "everybelieving one". This makes perfect sense with the context of John 3.
Seriously friend, for someone who claims to know so much about these things, your lack of Scripture to support your views is really disappointing.
Leave the internet research behind and do your own research. Read the primary sources and see for yourself how and when Calvin used Augustine and when he called him an idiot! Read the Institutes of the Christian Religion for yourself....you seem like a decently learned fellow...act like it! For the glory of God.
Furthermore, if you have read my blog entry about John Calvin the murderer, he was heavily influenced by 'saint' Augustine, who was involved in gnostic teachings, which was an evil sect that early church leader Irenaeus expounded upon in depth. Calvin was worse than regular murderers, since he persecuted Christians to death. He breathed threats of EXTERMINATION against what he deemed as heretics. Where in the bible does it say to kill those who we disagree with? You are making me sick. Study him
Which work from Augustine did you read that was influenced by Gnosticism? Can you quote the source as I have the works of Augustine in my library.
I am actually reading through His institutes AGAIN. I am studying his work and not merely his person....Jesus said, "let him who is without sin cast the first stone" Woe unto you, my friend, should you continue to hurl your stones with your own sins to answer for. Calvin was not perfect and I wouldn't argue that he was either..but he knew scripture
"While in his pre-Pelagian writings Augustine taught that Adam's guilt as transmitted to his descendants much enfeebles, though does not destroy, the freedom of their will, Protestant reformers Martin Luther and John Calvin affirmed that Original Sin completely destroyed liberty" "...Augustine was attracted to...Neoplatonism. He blended these beliefs with his later Gnostic Christian teachings...passed on to John Calvin in his extensive study of Augustine's writings.
so I take it you have never read Calvin or Augustine for yourself only what other say about them? Basically, you are going off of hearsay, is that correct?
Are you familiar with Gnostic beliefs?
Yes, Augustine was not raised as a Christian and came to learn the doctrines of Christianity...I assure you, if you read his letters, he rejected that NeoPlatonist doctrines, as well as those of the Manicheans.....seriously, do some research. Goodness...you couldn't even provide the source !
It is truly Satanic for someone to keep on defending the life of John Calvin knowing he did so much evil. He banished anabaptists because he only believed in baptizing babies (and only those with names found in the bible). It is baptism that forgives us of our sins, like the bible explains. I have no evidence that Servetus denied the deity of Christ, just the man-made term 'trinity.' But even if he did, this in no way should be a tortuous death sentence, since we are to turn the other cheek.
where does the Bible explain that it is water baptism alone that forgives us of our sins?
I take it you reject the doctrine of Justification by Faith Alone then and are NOT Christian at all being that that is the fundamental and heart of the Gospel?
Friend I seriously think you are confusing categories....you who say you have studied so much, have you not heard of Servetus' work "On the errors of the Trinity" in which he rejected the Trinity? Sounds like your research is biased....
In regards to the Gospel does not the Scripture say, "If anybody preaches any other Gospel than that which we have preached to you, let them be anathema/accursed" (Gal 1:8-9).
Since you're so concerned about "turning the other cheek" why don't you do that for Calvin? Why the double standards on your part?
Inconsistency, my friend, is the sign of a failed argument
You do not mean that we cannot tell a child of God from a child of the Devil, do you? Jesus told us we would KNOW people by their fruit, and that no good tree bears bad fruit, and no bad tree bears good fruit. Jesus went on to say that if someone HATES their brother, like Calvin did, he is of the DEVIL. So, your whole doctrine is based upon what Calvin got from his father the Devil, and by a gnostic called 'saint' Augustine. The book of 1 John explains this, but people like the Devil, instead.
obviously not....I John is filled with "test" on how to tell the believers/brethren from false believers/brethren. It was actually John that said, "if anyone hates their brother they are of the devil" (I john 4:20-21).
I'm actually glad you drove us here, but Michael Servetus, as an ARian would be considered "AntiChrist" in John's theology being that he denied the Full Deity of Jesus Christ and the "testimony of God concerning his son" (I John 5:10-12, cf. 4:1-6, 2:18-27)
"No one who denies the Son has the Father..." You are trying to make Michael Servetus out to be the poor old saint who was persecuted by "big bad Calvin" and the fact is that you are finding yourself on the side of the heretic who denies the deity of the Son and, according to Scripture, by way of implication denies the Father also for the Son is the one who perfectly reveals the Father. Servetus was not a "brother" because he was not a Christian to start out with. He was a condemned heretic.
Again, maybe you don't care that people slander the revelation of God as a Trinity and the Gospel like SErvetus did. The teaching of Servetus live on in the teaching of the Jehovah's Witnesses as they are Arians in their view.
How do you have salvation without the person who offered atonement to God not being eternal? With no salvation, how do you have a "Gospel" at all? SEriously, I don't see how you are trying to present Servetus as "innocent" and "big bad Calvin" as the Monster...
Perhaps you don't care enough about the Gospel like you are trying to present here or something, I don't know....broaden your view and step into Calvin's times my friend. It just so happened that blasphemy was a capital crime back then and it is not anymore because of the "separation of Church and State" that the world now enjoys that it didn't back then. Think about it...times were different...think historically and not anacronistically
So now, coming back to your comments on I John and "people liking the devil" is it not Calvin who found himself teaching against and pointing out the doctrines of "Antichrist" in Michael Servetus' teachings and you who are defending the one who is of the devil? Don't you see that Calvin was defending the Christian faith against one who sought to destroy the Gospel? Wasn't Calvin being a good pastor and protecting the sheep? Aren't you the one siding with the Devil my friend? Think about it...=/
Honor, glory, and riches shall be the reward of your pains; but above all, do not fail to rid the country of those scoundrels, who stir up the people to revolt against us. Such monsters should be exterminated, as I (John Calvin) have exterminated Michael Servetus the Spaniard.Whoever shall now contend that it is unjust to put heretics and blasphemers to death will knowingly and willingly incur their very guilt. Beware of false prophets..in sheeps clothing..ye their fruits ye shall know them.
"judge not lest you be judged yourself" ...Didn't Jesus teach that even calling someone a "fool" was the same as murder? Do not be so quick to judge my friend...I judge Calvin's teachings by Scripture as I do yours and those of all others...again, what sins do you carry that you claim to be more righteous than Calvin? Are we not all judged righteous on the same basis, which is the imputed righteousness of Jesus Christ?
Still weak arguments ....fallacious as they are ad hominem at best.
Evil is evil no matter what century. God doesn't care that most, or even everybody, follows evil, they ALL will suffer the same fate. I wrote an entry especially for those who continue to teach, preach, believe and follow Calvin's teachings. Have you never understood this?
A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.
If what you say is true, and if you still sin - and Scripture says that there is no one who does not sin (I John 1:8) - then why should we listen to you since according to you "a good tree cannot bring forth bad fruit."?
How is it that you follow in the footsteps of the Reformers in not being Roman Catholic ? The break from Rome is a fruit of even the work of John Calvin who continued the work of the Reformation and solidified it through his teachings and those of his successors? You are condemning Calvin for what you believe to be a sin on his part - HE DID NOT KILL SERVETUS.
Seriously, you cannot consistently maintain that argument against even yourself! Weak. Very weak.
You are making the same argument of the Taliban. Death to heretics.
In the book Calvin called Servetus: detestable infidel, rabid magician, great pest, vomit, obscene dog, stupid, and ferocious beast.
Honor, glory, and riches shall be the reward of your pains; but above all, do not fail to rid the country of those scoundrels, who stir up the people to revolt against us. Such monsters should be exterminated, as I have exterminated Michael Servetus the Spaniard.
uhh....I'm not making that argument...that's how it was back then. Its a simple statement of fact. We've obviously come a long way and I think due to the light of the Gospel that the Reformation brought.
Perhaps the problem is that we don't find it offensive when people insult God and teach wrongly about him....I'm just throwing that one out there. Perhaps there not enough passion to condemn those who false preach God and Christ and hence his Gospel...you care about salvation so much...
but dont' care about the Glory of the nature of the God revealed as a Trinity and the Deity of JEsus Christ. I'm not condoning death to heretics, but they certainly must be silenced.
Now, again, Calvin AS A MAN OF HIS TIMES participated in the way things were then. The facts are that Calvin Charged him, but the Council of Geneva ALONE had the power to sentence him. Servetus' crime was "Blasphemy" and walked into Geneva already condemned by Rome...no matter where he went, he was going to be
charged and sentenced. His sentence was just how things were handled at that time and not something CAlvin came up with himself; Calvin had neither power to condemn or save him being but a teacher and theological advisor for the city; Calvin and other visited him pleading him to recant and even trying to have the sentence mitigated but they could neither convince Servetus nor the Council. These are the facts.
If this is all you have, my friend for your position against Calvin, seriously....
No matter how you slice it, you are still advocating that once a person have been born again, they cannot lose their salvation. This is NOT the Gospel of Jesus Christ, but rather of Luther the murderer, and Calvin the murderer. Michael Servetus dared to disagree with his cherished doctrinal formulations. Seven years before Calvin actually saw to it that Servetus was put to death, he said:If he [Servetus] comes [to Geneva], I shall never let him go out alive if my authority has weight.Bad fruit
ahh. the Servetus argument....First of all Servetus walked into Geneva a condemned man from Rome even. He was an Arian and a fugitive already sentenced to death elsewhere. He was not put to death for disagreeing with Calvin. Calvin did formally charge him with ARianism but was not the "judge, jury and executioner". The City Council of Geneva was. Calvin pleaded with Servetus to recant but Servetus would not...
Also, my friend, you are engaging in anacronism as the times back then were not the times of today. Back then the Church and the State were inseparable (not until the pilgrim came over here was the concept of separation of church and state instilled). Theological Crimes were also crimes against the state especially since all the states of then were submitted to Rome. Heresy was a crime punishable by death. Calvin was a man of his time my friend...don't be so quick to judge.
He will answer to God for himself as will you and I. Don't be so quick to judge. Remember Jesus said that even harboring hatred in our hearts is equivalent to murder. How many times have we done that? We are not morally better than any my friend...all alike are guilty of sin, even John CAlvin is no exception.
A good read on this subject is "The Reformation" by Diarmaid McCulloch
OSAS lie.Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works. If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch...and cast them into the fire, and they are burned.
actually I'm not advocating OSAS...rather I am advocating Perserverance of the Saints which is that a true believer will never fall away because God will preserve them so that they persevere in holiness.
The text you provide doesn't explicitly deal with a person being saved and then losing salvation, only the curse that goes on those who preach a false Gospel
To take away from the book of life doesn't necessarly mean to ERASE out of the book of life. You can take away stuff from the book of life just by adding more PREVENTIONS to your name being written in the Book of Life. What that verse means is that God will take away your CHANCES, for your name to be written in the Book of Life, not that he will erase the your name.
so that He not only exerts His power in the elect, who are guided by His Holy Spirit, but also FORCES THE REPROBATE TO DO HIM SERVICE" (Institutes, 1, 18, 2, page 201).
Calvin's proposition is clear. From it, a syllogism may be drawn.
I'm going to have to disagree with premise 2 in accord with Augustine who defined evil as "the absence of the goodness of God"(he did not ascribe to evil ontological status otherwise you have a dualism that exists, and not God alone).
Also, "cause" in premise one needs to be clearly defined. As you know, there are severaly types of causes and God does not "cause" all things in the same way. some are completely his (rebirth) while others work with human decision and effort (sanctification).
Hence,while the logic is valid,it is unsound in that the premises are ambiguous and trivial. Again,I would read the works of Calvin's successors on providence in particular. R.C. Sproul has one called "The invisible hand" ...there was also a good work by a fellow named Spiegel...I think it was " a new look at sovereignty" or something like that. It is worth getting. Also see my studies on providence to understand what Calvin meant.
what he meant was even in their sin, the wicke serve God.
Notice Scripture doesn't say that God permits His people to be turned, but it is God Who Turns Them. Calvin agrees.
Just look one section prior to the one I quoted from in the Institutes. He uses Psalm 105:25 to establish that the sinful acts of the reprobate are caused by the will of God. Calvin concludes, "The sum of the whole is this--since the will of God is said to be the cause of all things, all the counsels and actions of men MUST BE HELD TO BE GOVERNED BY HIS PROVIDENCE;
And, when you admit that God determined the murder of Christ (which was a determined sin, not a disaster), then you necessarily surrender to my position. By definition, if something is determined (and here we are talking about the wills of Pilot, Herod, Judas, et al.), it is not free. You can't have your theological cake and eat it too.
Finally, the Bible says "He turned their heart to hate His people" (Psalm 105:25).
I don't understand what you are saying here...I'm not arguing for "freedom of the will" or any "liberatarian" position at all. the text clearly says that the plot of the jews to murder Christ was foreordained by God according to his predetermined will.
What cake are you thinking that I want to have and eat too? Help me understand what you are saying here?
I hope your done the essay so we can talk about it.
However, regarding John Calvin you are in serious error.
Calvin isn't referring merely to natural "disasters", he is referring to sin willed by humans. The first sentence in Calvin's paragraph establishes that Calvin is referring to sinful actions. Thus, I am in context, while you are not.
I'm not arguing that God does not ordain or "cause" (not effectual) sin in the world. We agree with our understanding of what Calvin is saying. What Calvin is not saying is that God is the one who commits the sin, or is guilty of it. men are guilty of sin.
Jesus said not many of you should presume to be teachers, I care about you and others who are being affected by your videos. I know you have good intentions and are contending for the faith. However, I believe you are ignorant of proper contextualization regarding Jewish eschatology. Thus, your interpretation of certain texts is skewed to say the least.
tell ya what...why don't you consider debating the 5 points of Calvinism against me? There would be more space and more time to really delve into the text...just a thought.
Before I begin to address your claims below, I need you and the other users to be aware of the Calvinistic lens you are interpreting certain passages. You see, We make a serious error if we abstract Jesus' words away from the stream of Jewish eschatological expectation in which they were uttered. Thus, you lack the proper context for understanding Jesus' statements in John chapter ten.
and yet Jesus CORRECTED the Jewish eschatology. They expected the end when their Messiah came. But their Messiah came humbly...which they did not expect. He came lowly and they expected great power and a military deliverer as it were much like their exodus from Egypt.
If I have "Calvinistic lens" then my friend, you have a "Reformed Arminian" lens.
I have posted MUCH SCRIPTURE to let the text speak for itself. You have yet to provide the Scriptures on atonement giving faith to all.
In context, what disasters is Calvin referring to? Job being robbed by thieves in unjust acts and evil doing toward him he recognized as God's just scourge...Eli's sons did not obey their father because God willed to slay them. What else does Calvin say and support from Scripture? That the greatest evil in all creation, the putting to death of the son of God, was committed what God had determined to take place (Acts 4:28; 2:23)
Calvin wrote, "I have already shown clearly enough that God is the AUTHOR of all those things which, according to these objectors, happen only by his inactive permission. He testifies that He creates light and darkness, forms good and evil (Isaiah 45:7); that no evil happens which he hath not done (Amos 3:6). Let them tell me whether God exercises his judgments willingly or unwillingly" (The Institutes Of The Christian Religion, Book 1, Chapter 18, Section 3, page 202,).
What Calvin was driving at was that God is the author in the sense of He was the planner. God's permission is not an unguided permissive will, but rather one that is also completely controlled. If God wills to use evil acts of evil men to bring about his righteous purposes, God does and will do that (cf. Isa. 10:5-19)
I was quoting from the NKJV which doesn't have the word "bear"...ESV does. No argument there.
What significance does the word "bear" have on the freedom of the will? Ability is the issue we were arguing. They do not have the ABILITY to bear God's word. that is why I focused on dunasthe and not on akouein (to bear, endure). No matter the word....they do not have the ABILITY to do it.
These conditions of "belonging" to God's family and being a "sheep" of Jesus, then, appear to fall within the category of sufficient conditions determining those who will come to faith in Christ.
YOu have not demonstrated from the syntax how these are the conditions for being chosen.
Didn't you argue that God has no favorites. But if this is the method by which God elects, then does God "favor" those who do his will to elect them unto salvation? How is this "grace" if a person' own free will (autonomous from God) is what makes them able to meet the conditions to belong to God's family. Aren't they electing themselves and God is just giving the final stamp of approval?
Both of these statements suggest that all of those who belong in God's family will love Jesus and hear (i.e., in this context, believe) what God says regarding Jesus. Similarly, in 10:27 Jesus says, "My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me."
Again, this statement implies that all of those identified as Jesus' sheep will listen to and follow him when he enters the sheepfold.
"...This statement implies that all of those identified as Jesus' sheep will listen to and follow him when he enters the sheepfold."
sooo...isn't that exactly what I said in this video? That a true Christian is not the kind who will discredit or remove of the book of revelation or of God's revelation? HOw can you argue that the sheep can jump out and now you say that they "WILL listen to and follow Him"? Weren't you just advocating that they can freely leave if they so choose?
It also seems to be implied of the two conditions we might characterize as identity conditions, namely, that of "belonging" to or being a child of the Father, as well as being a "sheep" of Christ. Note that in 8:42 Jesus says, "If God were your Father, you would love me," and in 8:47, "He who belongs to God hears what God says."
This is clearly the case in regard to those whom the Father "gives" to Jesus and who have "listened to" and "learned from" the Father, all of whom are explicitly said to come to faith in Christ.
Sufficient conditions are generally signaled by phrases such as "Everyone who . . ." (6:45; Greek pas ho . . .) or "All that . . . will . . ." (6:37; Greek pan ho . . .), indicating that every person without exception who meets the relevant conditions will experience the result entailed by those conditions.
actually,in the Greek "pas ho pisteoun" is NOT The indefinite relative pronoun "whosoever". The verb "to believe" is a present tense indicative."pas ho" should be understood "all the ones". Hence,"all the ones who are believing" NOT the future tense, "all the ones who WILL believe".
Now,all the ones who ARE believing have what? How does John use it? The ones who ARE believing HAVE ETERNAL LIFE(John 3:16). The passage is a promise and guarantee of eternal life. Not a condition to gain it.
we find in the above passages from John's Gospel the sufficient conditions of being "given" to Jesus by the Father, having "listened to" and "learned from" the Father, "belonging" to God (i.e., being his child, cf. the contrast to the children of the devil in 8:44), and being one of Jesus' "sheep" (6:37, 45; 8:47; 10:26, 29; 17:6, 9, 24).
"No one can come..." (universal negative)"...unless..." (conditional clause) "...the Father who sent me draws him. and I WILL RAISE HIM UP AT THE LAST DAY." Who are those who WILL be raised up? Only those drawn by the father. Can one who is drawn by the FAther NOT be raised up on the last day? According to John 6:39, no. "This is the will of my father...that of ALL HE HAS GIVEN Me I should LOSE NOTHING, but should raise it up on the last day." There is no way Jesus loses those "given".
Second, note in John 6:37,39 that from the syntax, the GIVING precedes the coming/believing. "All that the Father gives will come..." Who wil come? ONly those given.
How are these "taught" by God? How was Peter taught by God? "Blessed are you...for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you but MY FATHER who is in heaven." Mt 16:17 cf I John 2:20,27). These are one who are drawn are those who have heard and learned from the Father. That is the drawing of the Father, their effectual call.
Hence, the conditional and sufficient conditions are not for "being given". There is nothing in the passage that says how we are given. Rather, the passages show how one is drawn, namely that it is God alone. Man cannot call Himself to the Gospel. It must be the FAther who chooses to reveal the secrets of the kingdom to. "You must be born again," Jesus said (cf. Luke 10:21-22, John 3:1-8)
Yes, No one can pluck them out of the Father's hand. However, we are free to jump out of His hand and fall away. Hence, the multiple warnings in the Scriptures that warn against falling away, because it is a possibility.
Can you show me where in John 10 the sheep have the power to thwart the purpose of the FAther and the son to save all the sheep? Can you show me where in the text the words "but you can freely jump out" or that concept are located in John 10?
No, you are given grace through the universal atonement of Christ which bestows a gift of faith on all of humanity. Some choose to accept His free gift and find Salvation while others refuse.
God does not hold out His hands to a people who He has predestined to parish. Foolishness.
I don't think God created a perverse drama. No, rather I see Him creating children that can choose to love Him or hate Him out of their freewill. Those who accpet Him, truly love Him because they have a say in the matter, and thus they are truly His sons and daughters.
I don't see God demanding a person repent who has no ability to repent unless He bestows His irrestible gace.
But the Scriptures teach that the only ones who are the sons and daughters of God are the ones who are ADOPTED into God's family. "For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, these are the sons of God" (Rom 8:14) "But as many as recieved him, to THEM He gave the right to become children of God, TO THOSE WHO BELIEVE IN HIS NAME: who were born,not of blood,NOR OF THE WILL OF THE FLESH, NOR OF THE WILL OF MAN, BUT OF GOD"(John 1:12-13). "We are by nature...children of wrath" (Eph 2:1-3).
"in choosing Judas,as you acknowledge,he choose an individual as well as a corporate body (the Jews) to betray Christ."
Right, and let us not forget His foreknowledge and mans freewill.
I cannot see God creating a vessel for destruction without that vessel having any say in the matter, and then lamenting over the fact that the vessel is going to be destroyed. No, God does not take pleasure in the death of the wicked.
For what reason was Pharoah created? "For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I may show My power in you, and that My name may be declared in all the earth."(Rom 9:17). Was Pharoah free to reject the will of God use be used as a vessel of destruction? Wasn't Pharoah's hearth hardened for that very purpose of being destroyed? What does the scripture say of God's mercy? "So then it is not of him who WILLS, nor of him who runs, but OF GOD who shows mercy".
ok...let me do this again. I responded when it was maintenancing and lost all the responses.
Ok...I Tim 4:10 is what we were initially discussing which does NOT include the words "desires to be the Savior of all men" but says "IS" the savior of all men.
So, basically you are saying that God chose to make Judas and Israel a rebellious nation and then He laments over the fact that they are unwilling to turn to Him. Unless there is an aspect of freewill and thus combined with foreknowledge, it is simply Nonsense.
It is a lament OF JUDGMENT not OF SORROW (matt. 23:37-39). God didn't lament over Judas either. The judgment is their not seeing the face of the Lord. The reason for their judgment is their own stubborn unwilling hearts. GOD DID NOT CREATE THAT IN THEM. THAT IS THE RESULT OF THEIR OWN SIN AND THEIR NATURE INHERITED FROM ADAM. They FREELY sin and reject God under no coercion from him.
You are presupposing that I am a Hyper-Calvinist. I am not.
Also, it is noteworthy that the New Testament never states that the reason some individuals are not saved is simply because they were not elect or predestined.
Can you show me where in Scripture it says that we become elect by placing our faith in him?
John 8:43 Why do you not understand what I say? It is because you CANNOT(not will not) hear my word.
John 10:26 "But you do not believe because YOU ARE NOT OF MY SHEEP, as I said to you. My sheep hear my voice, and I KNOW(Ginoskos, greek) them and they follow Me. And I GIVE THEM ETERNAL LIFE, and they SHALL NEVER PERISH; Neither shall anyone snatch them out of my hand...
My Father, WHO HAS GIVEN THEM (only the sheep) to Me, is greater than all (even the sheep); and NO ONE (not even the sheep) is able to snatch them (the sheep) out of My FATHER'S HAND. I and the Father are one."
Jesus clearly says why some believe and some dont: you are either sheep or not. You do not go "bah bah" to become a sheep. Jesus and the FAther remain united in salvific purpose to save THE SHEEP. He gives them eternal life. It wouldn't be ETERNAL if you could toss it away.
My friend, Scripture is rich with this same imagery of God's love toward His own, toward his bride. Jesus came to die for His Church, His bride(Eph. 5:25).He didn't die for a harlot,but for the one whom he would present before the Father as spotless and without blemish. Jesus does not let His sheep perish. He goes to the ends of the earth to seek and save those sheep who are lost.
God is a gracious God. He may offer salvation even to those who won't take it according to their own desires.
It is not particular individuals who are chosen or God's elect for salvation. Rather, as Klyne Snodgrass notes "Election is primarily a corporate term." Romans 8:29 states "For those God foreknew he also predestined," but the whom is plural, not singular. It is general and corporate. Ephesians 1: 4 tells us that God "chose us in Him." Christ is the head of this new people, a "chosen race" (1 Peter 2:9), and it is only in Him, and through Him that we are chosen. We become part of the elect
Election,Calvinist agree,is corporate in a sense, but it is the individual who make up the body. No matter how you cut it, the "you" reference to the reader is individual. Also Romans 9 is clear that God elected certain INDIVIDUALS(Abraham, Isaac, Jacob)over and against other individuals (Ishmael,Esau). Calvinist acknowledge both aspects and even National election in the OT. Also in choosing Judas,as you acknowledge,he choose an individual as well as a corporate body (the Jews) to betray Christ.
It is also important to remember that individuals are never chosen or elect unless it is for a task or function. Judas Iscariot was "chosen" John 6:70 - but clearly not for salvation. Jesus chose the twelve individuals to perform a specific task. And then, in similar language , a successor to Judas as one of the twelve is "chosen" by God to carry out a specific task (Acts 1:24).
Later Paul becomes a "chosen instrument" to bring the name of Jesus throughout the Roman world (Acts 9:15).
2 Thess 2:13-14 "But we ought always to give thanks to God for you, brothers beloved by the Lord, because GOD CHOSE YOU as the firstfruits TO BE SAVED, through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth. To this HE CALLED you THROUGH OUR GOSPEL, so that you may obtain the glory of out Lord Jesus Christ." Notice v15 "SO THEN,brothers, STAND FIRM (why? Because God chose them) and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter."
Jesus is the Savior of all men in the sense that He desires all men to be saved 1 Tim 2:4
However, God created man with freewill so we could love Him genuinely out of our freewill. Thus, He desires all to come to Him, but some are simply unwilling.
I find it interesting that you say " I do not have to rely on powers of persuasion on the free will of man."
Yet, Paul the apostle attempted to persuade the Jews Acts 18:13. He also "reasoned" with them Acts 18:19.
ok, but the TEXT doesn't say that He DESIRES the salvation of all men. It says that he "is" (Greek, estin) which is the same present tense form of the verb "to be" that is used say "this IS the Son of God" (John 1:34). Are you going to be consistent in your exegesis and say that Jesus is God's son in sense that He desires to be God's son? Doubtful. Nothing in the grammar or context suggest that "desire" is the understanding of "is". Moreover, the word "estin" does not give that sense.
The parables are Gods judgment on Israel. Read Isa. 6:9-10 and see how Isa. ministry was one of hardening. See John 12:37-42 as well as Matt 13:10-16. The hardening ministry of Isa. is FULFILLED in the preaching of Jesus Christ. It has nothing to do with depravity. Depravity speaks to the inclination and corruption of sin producing an inability to believe. These parables brought out the hardness that was already in their heart. God did put that unbelief there, it reveals itself in the parables.
Remember Jesus' words in John 9:39 to the Pharisees : "For judgement I have come into this world, that those who do not see may see, and that those who see may be blind."
I hope I answered most of the question...I did my best with what little space I have...if there are still some left, rewrite them and I'll address them.
This argument is even worse for Calvinists; since they believe that the non-elect do not even have the potential to be saved. Why would Christ go to prepare a place for people who could not even potentially be saved? Besides that, it testifies to everyone who reads the book; and since it even mentions the removal of things that only the redeemed would possess, it follows that it is aimed primarily at the redeemed.
Calvinist do believe that ALL have the POTENTIAL to be saved. We do not limit the grace of God. Now, do we know for certain that who will or will not be saved? No. Only God does. Hence, we preach to ALL and we preach knowing that God will give the increase. I do not have to rely on powers of persuasion on the free will of man. I let the Holy Spirit do his work.
You say the argument is worse since Christ went to prepare a place for people who could not even be saved? There is nothing in John 14:2. The context of the "you" in there is to the disciples (note Judas has already left John 12:18-30). There is nothing in the text to warrant the application of the "you" to all men universally and individually especially since Jesus knows that many are not of His sheep in the first place (cf. John 8:42-47; 10:26-30)
It is obvious from this evidence that the idea that the shares that God will take away are only potential is a silly and self-defeating argument, as it contradicts sound doctrine from the scripture and ends up stepping all over itself.
It is obvious only if you believe that salvation is a cooperative effort between the "grace of God" and the "free will of man". If you believe that God CANNOT SAVE ANYONE APART FROM THEIR OWN FREE WILL then, your understanding of the text makes sense. But if you believe, as the Scriptures clearly teach, that it is GOD'S GRACE ALONE that is SUFFICIENT for salvation,then the understanding of the text that I offered certainly makes sense. It is a warning so that the sheep and the wolves may hear.
Since God would be taking away any potential shares they (people who tamper with Revelation) had in His kingdom, this would mean that their sin would be unforgiveable (as even their potential to gain access to God's holy city, and hence be among the redeemed, is gone). Rest assured that there is only one unforgivable sin, and tampering with God's word is not it (though judging from this passage, it is definitely a very serious one).
Calvinist vary on interpretation of the unforgiveable sin. I tend to equate it with "taking God's name in vain" as that was the sin which God would "not hold him guiltless"(Ex 20:7). Hence, it usually gets likened to the sin of apostasy or falling back to unbelief (also with unbelief in general according to some). I personally favor the apostasy view(cf Heb 6:14; 10:26-31). But if a person apostasizes, that only reveals that they were never saved in the first place (acts9:14-23, I john 2:18-19)
In the unconditional securist view, the shares in the holy city and tree of life are obviously just 'potential shares,' so God takes away from them parts in His kingdom that they don't actually possess yet. Right. The big problem with this argument is that this would put this on par with the unforgivable sin. The only unforgivable sin according to the scripture is the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit.
I don't know that I am an "unconditional securist". If you listen to my presentation, I do not believe in the "once saved always saved...do whatever you want" view. Calvinism advocates that our salvation is UNTO HOLINESS. Hence, in my salvation, I am persevering IN HOLINESS. There is a synergistic element in sanctification that requires me to "work out my salvation" at the same time recognizing that it is GOD WHO WORKS IN YOU both to will and to do for His good pleasure" (Phil. 2:12-13)
However the Calvinist says that they are unable but they are still responsible to repent nonetheless. However, any honest individual can clearly see this to be ridiculous.
I believe in the goodness of justness of God that doesn't arbitrarily choose one person for salvation and another for damnation. No, i believe that Jesus is the savior of all men, especailly of those who believe 1 Tim 4:10.
The presupposition here is that responsibility is based on ability. If one doesn't have the ABILITY to obey then they cannot be held responsible. What of drunk drivers? We hold them responsible for their acts committed while UNABLE to obey traffic laws, do we not? And why? Because RESPONSIBILITY is based on our OBLIGATION to the Law. Our responsibility is based on what we OUGHT to do before a holy God. As CREATURES, we should obey; we should believe God.
Let me ask you. Judas was said to have been foreordained to betray the Lord. Could Judas have done otherwise contrary to the decreed will of God? That is, was Judas "free" to not do what God prophecied he would? Being that Judas was prophecied to infallibly betray the Lord, is Judas still responsible for his sin of betraying Christ? If yes, how does this fit in with your position? If no, then are you willing to assert that Judas was not condemned for betraying the Lord?
Question: in what sense is Jesus the savior of all men? Potential savior? The text doesn't say that. It says that he IS (estin, in the Greek, present active indicative). How is Jesus NOW the savior of all men? I have a video on God tube explaining this...I'll send the link
1 Tim. 18-20 gives an example of believers who have made shipwreck of their faith, which they had and apparently lost.
I believe that Christ's universal atonement opened up the barrier between God and all men. Thus God commands "all men everywhere to repent" because they are able, through grace alone, by faith alone, in Christ alone.
But how can salvation be "by grace alone" if a "free will choice" is required independent from God's grace? Doesn't this reduce grace to "the opportunity to save yourself through your own free will choice? How do you answer who choose to be saved and who doesn't? If 2 people hear the same message, and one believes, what made them to differ? Will you say one was more spiritually sensitive? Will you say one was "better" than the other? "But OF HIM you are in Christ Jesus..."Its all God I Cor 1:30
Again, while you think that God's sovereignty necessarily makes him the author of sin, Scripture certainly does not agree with that. Scripture is clear that God certainly has decrees (Gen. 50:19-20;Psa 33:11 cf Gen 11:1-9, Prov 19:21:16:9; Isa 37:26-27; Isa 43:10-13; 485;46:8-11; Dan. 4:34-35; I Cor. 2:7;Eph. 1:11). Scripture is also clear that God is light and there is no darkness in him (cf.James 1:13-14).
What you don't understand is secondary causes and God's uses of other agents...
also,if his ways are unfathomable,how is it that you have it figured out whom God elects? HOw can you say you have his ways are beyond understanding if you assert that God "elects" those who freely choose him? Doesn't that mean you have it figured out? Isn't it the Calvinist position that leaves us in awe of Gods grace because there is no reason outside of His own counsel that determines his gracious display of salvation to some and witholding it from others? I agree with the Bible too my friend
Alrighty. I wouldn't necessarily say God "fails" in anything. I do not believe that, I believe God turns a bad situation that man has created out of his freewill and creates good out of it.
I do know that God's purposes have been rejected, as Scripture clearly states:
I believe God's will shouldn't be understood in the sense that He determines every choice we make, because then if we are logically consistent we arrive at God being
but again, when taken in the light of John 12:37-42, Jesus purposefully used parables to hide the mysteries of the kingdom. Jesus used the preaching of hte kingdom to turn away some and save others...The Bible says in places like John 6:64 who would believe and who would not. Also, remember that calvinism distinguished between the decretive will and his preceptive will. The decretive will is what will infallibly happen in accord with providence and the other is what we OUGHT to do (law).
Hence the multiples warnings given to the assembly where the letters would be read to the whole group, the writer understanding that not all who profess Christ have saving faith.
Dr. Daniel Wallace continued says "No Greek ms contains the words "the book" of life. It is thus decidedly inauthentic, while "the tree" of life, found in the best mss, is clearly authentic." Footnote in the NET Bible p. 2447
cool. But I don't think that that information is technically relevant to the point I was making or anybody is making here. We are not arguing the translation (and I'm sure your research is correct), but rather the theological significance of the meaning of that text in regards to the doctrine of the preservation of the saints. I don't think "tree" or "book" makes much difference in regards to still having their "share taken away" from whatever refers to God's promises of life.
Understood. I mistakenly thought the opposer was making use of the reference to the book of life. Be that as it may, you correctly pointed out that those in whom the Spirit of God dwells will not be taking away or adding words to the prophecies contained in the book of Revelation since they love that very word and the one from whom they come and thus such is not a warning to the true believer. It appears that most fail to recognize that unbelievers who profess Christ are in the assembly.
Greek Scholar Dr. Daniel Wallace says this of the text here " The Textus Receptus, on which the King James Version rests, reads "the book" of life (ajpoV bivblou, apo biblou) instead of "the tree" of life. When the Dutch humanist Desiderius Erasmus translated the NT he had access to no Greek mss for the last six verses of Revelation. So he translated the Latin Vulgate back into Greek at this point. As a result he created 17 textual variants which have not been found in any Greek mss to date."
AGain, you are not listening to what Calvinism teaches. God uses ORDINARY MEANS, secondary causes, to bring about his will. God's sovereignty doesn't operate in a fashion where "in a snap of a finger" and "without context" His will just happens. That is NOT Calvinism. God works out His will through PROVIDENCE (the working out of the plan of God decreed from all eternity). I think that is what you are missing and, hence, operating with a CARICATURE and STRAWMAN of Calvinist theology.
I think that Scripture supports my view. As does no one being able to pluck us from the Father's Hand. He will uphold His beloved. However, we are free to jump out of His hand, turn our back on Christ and walk away. It is a beautiful thing to walk hand in hand with Christ, I strive for that each and every day. However, I do not believe that God keeps us in a strangle hold and then warns us about falling away.
Curious, but can you show me where in the text it says that we are free to jump out of God's hand? Can you show me where in the Bible Christ lets his sheep go astray without going to look for them? Can you show me anywhere in the Bible where God FAILS in what he sets out to do? (Eph. 2:11, Dan. 4:34-35 et. al.)
"God does not immediately condemn, he gives time; He is patient"
For what?
I think your bias is driving your exegesis to the point of rendering certain Scriptures nonsensical. I just pray that you change your theology before you change/distort passages that do not agree with Calvinism.
In the words of R.C Sproul:
"If my understanding of predestination is not correct, then my sin is compounded, since I would be slandering the saints who by opposing my view are fighting for the angels."
There is nothing at all in Scripture that says when exactly God converts and calls the elect. It could be that he allows them to go on in sin for a while before converting them. Example, the apostle Paul. The apostle Paul was allowed by God to persecute Christ through the Church. God did not condemn him right then and there...He was patient and in HIS TIME He brought Paul to faith and repentance. God does use ordinary means to bring about His will. See my study on Providence.
If you listen closely, I did explain the question that was asked. I said, the verse says exactly what it says, "if a person detracts from the book of revelation then they will be blotted out from the kingdom." That is pretty plain. The real questiong that I was addressing, again if you were listening to the letter, was how that passage fits in with the Calvinist doctrine of the Perseverance of the saints.
And as I explain, it is a warning and threat to heed all that is in the book.
These are conditional prophecies. If they do X, then Y will certainly happen. But if they do non-X, non-Y will happen. There are many of these in the Scriptures. If the people obey, then God's blessing will come upon them. But if they disobey, then God's wrath will come upon them. God does not immediately condemn, he gives time; He is patient. But when He reaches a certain point,then prophecies like Jer. 13:12-14 happen.
Context, context context...Jer. is NOT the account in Matthew.
[STRONGS] proskuneo (pros-koo-neh'-o) worship-From pros and a probable derivative of kuon (meaning to kiss, like a dog licking his master's hand); to fawn or crouch to, i.e. (literally or figuratively) prostrate oneself in homage (do reverence to, adore) -- worship.
I will give you a half point with your contention that other verses that deal with Christ's deity remain. But, the fact is that this is not the only case, and there are many other problems with the minority texts.
777denny 3 years ago
If you interpret prokuneo in that sense all the time, then Rome is right in their approach to the saints and Mary my friend. Gotta be consistent...
prchdaword 3 years ago
Mat 13:51 KJV "Jesus saith unto them, Have ye understood all these things? They say unto Him, Yea, Lord." NASB ""Have you understood all these things?" They said to Him, "Yes."" NASB leaves out 'Jesus saith unto them' and 'Lord.' This is trying to do away with the divinity of Jesus and His Lordship.
Mk 5:6 KJV "But when he saw Jesus afar off, he ran and worshipped him," NASB "And seeing Jesus from a distance, he ran up and bowed down before Him;" NASB hanges "worshipped" to "fell on his knees."
777denny 3 years ago
Is it your assertion that the Divinity and Lordship of Christ rests on one passage?
Seriously, not calling Jesus "Lord" in one passage does not take away from the testimony of John 1:1-3, Phil. 2:5-11, Col. 1:15-19 or many other passages that very clearly teach the Deity of Jesus Christ. The doctrine is not affected at all.
In Mark 5:6....Is it your assertion that you want the demon in the man to worship Jesus when its nature is hell bent? Doesn't it make sense that the demon in the ....
prchdaword 3 years ago
{Matthew 13:51 KJV "Jesus saith unto them, Have ye understood all these things? They say unto Him, Yea, Lord." NASB ""Have you understood all these things?" They said to Him, "Yes."" NASB leaves out 'Jesus saith unto them' and 'Lord.' Mark 9:24 KJV "And straightway the father of the child cried out, and said with tears, Lord, I believe; help thou mine unbelief." NASB "Immediately the boy's father cried out and began saying, "I do believe; help my unbelief."" NASB leaves out...Jesus as "Lord."}
777denny 3 years ago
Again, these verse DO NOT DIMINISH AT ALL THE DOCTRINE OF THE DEITY OF CHRIST. You are simply being trivial on that point. Now, if the minority text are generally earlier dating, and the majority of later dating, isn't it more probably that the variants in the Majority were not in the earlier manuscripts but were added in later? Do these variants change any doctrinal positions? None at all!
Think about it.....
prchdaword 3 years ago
demon in the man "fell on his knees" as an act of submission and recognition of the authority of Christ rather than an act of worship?
Where in Scripture do you find demons worshipping God? The Greek root word in question here is 'proskuneoo' and means "to bow the knee" and in a religious context certainly means worship. But is this a religious context in which the demon (named Legion) is seeking to worship Christ? Seriously....think through these things
prchdaword 3 years ago
[STRONGS] proskuneo (pros-koo-neh'-o) worship-From pros and a probable derivative of kuon (meaning to kiss, like a dog licking his master's hand); to fawn or crouch to, i.e. (literally or figuratively) prostrate oneself in homage (do reverence to, adore) -- worship.
I will give you a half point with your contention that other verses that deal with Christ's deity remain. But, the fact is that this is not the only case, and there are many other problems with the minority texts.
777denny 3 years ago
I recieved the following :
The Minority Texts were the work of unbelieving Egyptian scribes who did not accept the Bible as the Word of God or JESUS as the SON of GOD! The Minority Texts abound with alterations, often a single manuscript being amended by several different scribes over a period of many years; something the Aaronic priests and Masorites would never have tolerated when making copies of the Scriptures. The Minority Texts omit approximately 200 verses from the Scriptures.- What now?
777denny 3 years ago
What now what?
There is so much evidence to refute this it is not even funny. Get hold of JAmes White's "The King JAmes Controversy" to get a good reading on manuscript history and such. I have heard that argument but the fact is that there were unbelievers everywhere and the GNOSTIC were busy making their own Scriptures to try to rewrite the others!
The older the text, the more likely it is close to the original. Earlier text are usually the minority because they are older.
prchdaword 3 years ago
The translators of the corrupt Vaticanus and Sinaiticus are those that all modern bible versions are based upon i.e the minority text. "The Minority Texts abound with alterations, often a single manuscript being amended by several different scribes over a period of many years; something the Aaronic priests and Masorites would never have tolerated when making copies of the Scriptures.
The Minority Texts omit approximately 200 verses from the Scriptures. This is equivalent to 1st and 2nd Peter."
777denny 3 years ago
which 200 verses? source for this?
Is their reading more concise or is there a doctrinal difference in what they teach?
prchdaword 3 years ago
The early church father Irenaeus expounded greatly on the Gnostic beliefs. The portions I read from him were of a sect that seemed bent upon belief in doctrines of Demons. Augustine took some of these basic tenents of good verses evil and incorporated them in his belief about the total depravity of man. The problem with that concept is that Jesus said to bring the children to Him because the Kingdom of Heaven is for them. They are NOT sinners as Augustine proclaims them to be and baptized them.
777denny 3 years ago
well Jesus was pretty clear that the human heart produces "evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false witness, slander..."(Matt. 15:19). Also, Jesus would not disagree with Psalm 51:5 in which David wrote "Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity and in sin did my mother conceive me" nor with Ps. 58:3 "The wicked are estranged from the womb; they go astray from birth."
Read Jesus' words carefully....he did not say it belonged to children but those who become LIKE them...
prchdaword 3 years ago
Ps.58:3 could eaily read: The wicked go astray from the womb, they stray from the belly speaking lies. This simply means that those who are wicked start out speaking lies as soon as they are able to know truth from falsehood. Ps. 51:5 is talking specifically about David, thus he could be referring to his mother conceiving him without a proper marriage. Children are not condemned until they know evil from good and then decide for themselves to eat it's fruit. We are born with sinful nature.
777denny 3 years ago
Can you demonstrate FROM THE TEXT where the words "as they are able to know truth from falsehood" are located?
Can you demonstrate FROM SCRIPTURE that David's mother was not married when she had him, especially since he was the youngest of all his other brothers?
Can you demonstrate FROM SCRIPTURE where it says that "children are not condemned UNTIL they know evil from good?
If we are born with a sin nature, isn't it reasonable to say we are sinners, and thus, we sin?
prchdaword 3 years ago
That is a pretty simple misreading on your part.
Historically speaking, there were actually various sects of Gnostics who taught different things. Manicheanism did hold to a form of Dualism like some Gnostic sects but it was not Gnosticism per se....that heresy had pretty much died out and has only been revived as of late.
Can you demonstrate where Augustine teaches the depravity of man was based on Gnosticism rather than on Scripture Or is this more internet research?
prchdaword 3 years ago
Since Gnosticism, from which Manicheanism continued in it's vein from, teaches that all matter is of darkness, then all flesh is of darkness. This is his total depravity of man argument.
777denny 3 years ago
ummm....that is NOT the "Total Depravity" argument. Remember that Augustine argued mainly for "original sin" and not "Total Depravity" per se since that term was not even coined till after the Reformation. Once Again, you are engaging in anacronism argumentation.
prchdaword 3 years ago
According to Romans 5:12-14, the only ones who are able to recieve the penalty of death for sin are sinners. Now God being a just God, would never kill the righteous, right? Since infants experience death and only those guilty of sin are allowed to undergo its punishment by a Just God, does it not follow that even infants who experience death are equally under the wrath of God as we all are? Or is it your position that God UNJUSTLY punishes those who are not sinners?
prchdaword 3 years ago
Children only becomes sinners when they KNOW evil from good and choose for themselves evil. Thus, a child only becomes a sinner when they KNOWINGLY sin. SInce Augustine believed that children were sinners born into sin, he wanted them to be baptized to save them. This is from darkness verses light Gnosticism which Manicheanism took it's cue from. We are born with a SINFUL NATURE. We are not born condemned, as Calvanism teaches with it's predestination argument. Born with free will to CHOOSE.
777denny 3 years ago
Is a sinful nature free to choose against its nature? If so, what purpose is the sinful nature? If the nature is not free to choose against itself, doesn't that mean that a person with a sinful nature is only able to sin (as Augustine rightly taught).
Again.....your lack of Scripture is disturbing
prchdaword 3 years ago
The sinful nature is enmity against God. It surves the purpose of the Devil. We have a choice to put to death the sinful nature through sowing to the Spirit of God, or sowing to the flesh and reaping damnation. A person who is not born of God cannot please God, therefore all the works they do are not of the Spirit of God, but of the works of the flesh. When we are baptized, we have crucified the flesh and it's desires. But, we are free to choose to obey or disobey, since we are not robots.
777denny 3 years ago
Calvinism does not argue that we are "robots".
Calvin rejected Augustine's doctrine of Baptismal Regeneration even though Luther did not.
Since the sinful nature is enmity toward God, how is it "free" to make a choice for God when it is "against God"? Isn't that an explicit contradiction?
Since a person cannot please God without being born again, and saving faith and repentance are pleasing to God, then it is correct to assert, as Calvinism does, that regeneration precedes faith right?
prchdaword 3 years ago
Calvin taught AGAINST baptizing Christians after they became born again. This is one reason he killed Servetus. Baby baptism is a tool of the Devil that produces NOTHING for the child.
Many are called, but few are chosen BECAUSE they do not endure to the end. Of course God can call someone who is at enmity against Him. Jesus died so that WHOSOEVER could come to Him. He came to bring SINNERS to repentence. He COMMANDS everone everywhere to REPENT and believe the Gospel and PERSEVERE to the end.
777denny 3 years ago
ok, you are mish-mashing Scriptures together that obviously do not go: which means you like to twist God's word.
AGAIN, Servetus was ALREADY condemned elsewhere for blasphemy because of his work on the Trinity.
The indefinite relative pronoun "whosoever" is not contained in the manuscripts. the phrase in Greek in "pas ho pisteoun" which is "all the ones believing" (present tense).
I'm sorry, but you are not teaching the Gospel my friend. Go back and learn the first principles.
prchdaword 3 years ago
WHOSOEVER:
pas (pas) every, all manner of
Including all the forms of declension; apparently a primary word; all, any, every, the whole -- all (manner of, means), alway(-s), any (one), X daily, + ever, every (one, way), as many as, + no(-thing), X thoroughly, whatsoever, whole, whosoever. For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world;
777denny 3 years ago
the "all" is limited by the verb "believing" which is in the present tense..."All the ones who are believing" and not "All the ones who will believe" (as if future tense).
Reading "free will" into this passage is a theological bias on your part here.
prchdaword 3 years ago
The word "Whosover" is not in the original Greek Text. The word "all" in the Greek is (pas) Which can mean "ALL" but can also mean all as in collectively, some of all types example: young, old, rich, poor, Jew Gentle ect... Look back at John 3:16 "whosever believes" is translated from "everybelieving one". This makes perfect sense with the context of John 3.
TruthinTension 2 years ago
Darn the King James version for promoting "whosoever" theology!!!
prchdaword 2 years ago
Seriously friend, for someone who claims to know so much about these things, your lack of Scripture to support your views is really disappointing.
Leave the internet research behind and do your own research. Read the primary sources and see for yourself how and when Calvin used Augustine and when he called him an idiot! Read the Institutes of the Christian Religion for yourself....you seem like a decently learned fellow...act like it! For the glory of God.
prchdaword 3 years ago
Furthermore, if you have read my blog entry about John Calvin the murderer, he was heavily influenced by 'saint' Augustine, who was involved in gnostic teachings, which was an evil sect that early church leader Irenaeus expounded upon in depth. Calvin was worse than regular murderers, since he persecuted Christians to death. He breathed threats of EXTERMINATION against what he deemed as heretics. Where in the bible does it say to kill those who we disagree with? You are making me sick. Study him
777denny 3 years ago
Which work from Augustine did you read that was influenced by Gnosticism? Can you quote the source as I have the works of Augustine in my library.
I am actually reading through His institutes AGAIN. I am studying his work and not merely his person....Jesus said, "let him who is without sin cast the first stone" Woe unto you, my friend, should you continue to hurl your stones with your own sins to answer for. Calvin was not perfect and I wouldn't argue that he was either..but he knew scripture
prchdaword 3 years ago
"While in his pre-Pelagian writings Augustine taught that Adam's guilt as transmitted to his descendants much enfeebles, though does not destroy, the freedom of their will, Protestant reformers Martin Luther and John Calvin affirmed that Original Sin completely destroyed liberty" "...Augustine was attracted to...Neoplatonism. He blended these beliefs with his later Gnostic Christian teachings...passed on to John Calvin in his extensive study of Augustine's writings.
777denny 3 years ago
so I take it you have never read Calvin or Augustine for yourself only what other say about them? Basically, you are going off of hearsay, is that correct?
Are you familiar with Gnostic beliefs?
Yes, Augustine was not raised as a Christian and came to learn the doctrines of Christianity...I assure you, if you read his letters, he rejected that NeoPlatonist doctrines, as well as those of the Manicheans.....seriously, do some research. Goodness...you couldn't even provide the source !
prchdaword 3 years ago
It is truly Satanic for someone to keep on defending the life of John Calvin knowing he did so much evil. He banished anabaptists because he only believed in baptizing babies (and only those with names found in the bible). It is baptism that forgives us of our sins, like the bible explains. I have no evidence that Servetus denied the deity of Christ, just the man-made term 'trinity.' But even if he did, this in no way should be a tortuous death sentence, since we are to turn the other cheek.
777denny 3 years ago
where does the Bible explain that it is water baptism alone that forgives us of our sins?
I take it you reject the doctrine of Justification by Faith Alone then and are NOT Christian at all being that that is the fundamental and heart of the Gospel?
Friend I seriously think you are confusing categories....you who say you have studied so much, have you not heard of Servetus' work "On the errors of the Trinity" in which he rejected the Trinity? Sounds like your research is biased....
prchdaword 3 years ago
In regards to the Gospel does not the Scripture say, "If anybody preaches any other Gospel than that which we have preached to you, let them be anathema/accursed" (Gal 1:8-9).
Since you're so concerned about "turning the other cheek" why don't you do that for Calvin? Why the double standards on your part?
Inconsistency, my friend, is the sign of a failed argument
prchdaword 3 years ago
You do not mean that we cannot tell a child of God from a child of the Devil, do you? Jesus told us we would KNOW people by their fruit, and that no good tree bears bad fruit, and no bad tree bears good fruit. Jesus went on to say that if someone HATES their brother, like Calvin did, he is of the DEVIL. So, your whole doctrine is based upon what Calvin got from his father the Devil, and by a gnostic called 'saint' Augustine. The book of 1 John explains this, but people like the Devil, instead.
777denny 3 years ago
obviously not....I John is filled with "test" on how to tell the believers/brethren from false believers/brethren. It was actually John that said, "if anyone hates their brother they are of the devil" (I john 4:20-21).
I'm actually glad you drove us here, but Michael Servetus, as an ARian would be considered "AntiChrist" in John's theology being that he denied the Full Deity of Jesus Christ and the "testimony of God concerning his son" (I John 5:10-12, cf. 4:1-6, 2:18-27)
prchdaword 3 years ago
"No one who denies the Son has the Father..." You are trying to make Michael Servetus out to be the poor old saint who was persecuted by "big bad Calvin" and the fact is that you are finding yourself on the side of the heretic who denies the deity of the Son and, according to Scripture, by way of implication denies the Father also for the Son is the one who perfectly reveals the Father. Servetus was not a "brother" because he was not a Christian to start out with. He was a condemned heretic.
prchdaword 3 years ago
Again, maybe you don't care that people slander the revelation of God as a Trinity and the Gospel like SErvetus did. The teaching of Servetus live on in the teaching of the Jehovah's Witnesses as they are Arians in their view.
How do you have salvation without the person who offered atonement to God not being eternal? With no salvation, how do you have a "Gospel" at all? SEriously, I don't see how you are trying to present Servetus as "innocent" and "big bad Calvin" as the Monster...
prchdaword 3 years ago
Perhaps you don't care enough about the Gospel like you are trying to present here or something, I don't know....broaden your view and step into Calvin's times my friend. It just so happened that blasphemy was a capital crime back then and it is not anymore because of the "separation of Church and State" that the world now enjoys that it didn't back then. Think about it...times were different...think historically and not anacronistically
prchdaword 3 years ago
So now, coming back to your comments on I John and "people liking the devil" is it not Calvin who found himself teaching against and pointing out the doctrines of "Antichrist" in Michael Servetus' teachings and you who are defending the one who is of the devil? Don't you see that Calvin was defending the Christian faith against one who sought to destroy the Gospel? Wasn't Calvin being a good pastor and protecting the sheep? Aren't you the one siding with the Devil my friend? Think about it...=/
prchdaword 3 years ago
Honor, glory, and riches shall be the reward of your pains; but above all, do not fail to rid the country of those scoundrels, who stir up the people to revolt against us. Such monsters should be exterminated, as I (John Calvin) have exterminated Michael Servetus the Spaniard.Whoever shall now contend that it is unjust to put heretics and blasphemers to death will knowingly and willingly incur their very guilt. Beware of false prophets..in sheeps clothing..ye their fruits ye shall know them.
777denny 3 years ago
"judge not lest you be judged yourself" ...Didn't Jesus teach that even calling someone a "fool" was the same as murder? Do not be so quick to judge my friend...I judge Calvin's teachings by Scripture as I do yours and those of all others...again, what sins do you carry that you claim to be more righteous than Calvin? Are we not all judged righteous on the same basis, which is the imputed righteousness of Jesus Christ?
Still weak arguments ....fallacious as they are ad hominem at best.
prchdaword 3 years ago
Evil is evil no matter what century. God doesn't care that most, or even everybody, follows evil, they ALL will suffer the same fate. I wrote an entry especially for those who continue to teach, preach, believe and follow Calvin's teachings. Have you never understood this?
A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.
777denny 3 years ago
If what you say is true, and if you still sin - and Scripture says that there is no one who does not sin (I John 1:8) - then why should we listen to you since according to you "a good tree cannot bring forth bad fruit."?
prchdaword 3 years ago
How is it that you follow in the footsteps of the Reformers in not being Roman Catholic ? The break from Rome is a fruit of even the work of John Calvin who continued the work of the Reformation and solidified it through his teachings and those of his successors? You are condemning Calvin for what you believe to be a sin on his part - HE DID NOT KILL SERVETUS.
Seriously, you cannot consistently maintain that argument against even yourself! Weak. Very weak.
prchdaword 3 years ago
You are making the same argument of the Taliban. Death to heretics.
In the book Calvin called Servetus: detestable infidel, rabid magician, great pest, vomit, obscene dog, stupid, and ferocious beast.
Honor, glory, and riches shall be the reward of your pains; but above all, do not fail to rid the country of those scoundrels, who stir up the people to revolt against us. Such monsters should be exterminated, as I have exterminated Michael Servetus the Spaniard.
777denny 3 years ago
uhh....I'm not making that argument...that's how it was back then. Its a simple statement of fact. We've obviously come a long way and I think due to the light of the Gospel that the Reformation brought.
Perhaps the problem is that we don't find it offensive when people insult God and teach wrongly about him....I'm just throwing that one out there. Perhaps there not enough passion to condemn those who false preach God and Christ and hence his Gospel...you care about salvation so much...
prchdaword 3 years ago
but dont' care about the Glory of the nature of the God revealed as a Trinity and the Deity of JEsus Christ. I'm not condoning death to heretics, but they certainly must be silenced.
Now, again, Calvin AS A MAN OF HIS TIMES participated in the way things were then. The facts are that Calvin Charged him, but the Council of Geneva ALONE had the power to sentence him. Servetus' crime was "Blasphemy" and walked into Geneva already condemned by Rome...no matter where he went, he was going to be
prchdaword 3 years ago
charged and sentenced. His sentence was just how things were handled at that time and not something CAlvin came up with himself; Calvin had neither power to condemn or save him being but a teacher and theological advisor for the city; Calvin and other visited him pleading him to recant and even trying to have the sentence mitigated but they could neither convince Servetus nor the Council. These are the facts.
If this is all you have, my friend for your position against Calvin, seriously....
prchdaword 3 years ago
No matter how you slice it, you are still advocating that once a person have been born again, they cannot lose their salvation. This is NOT the Gospel of Jesus Christ, but rather of Luther the murderer, and Calvin the murderer. Michael Servetus dared to disagree with his cherished doctrinal formulations. Seven years before Calvin actually saw to it that Servetus was put to death, he said:If he [Servetus] comes [to Geneva], I shall never let him go out alive if my authority has weight.Bad fruit
777denny 3 years ago
I don't slice it =)
ahh. the Servetus argument....First of all Servetus walked into Geneva a condemned man from Rome even. He was an Arian and a fugitive already sentenced to death elsewhere. He was not put to death for disagreeing with Calvin. Calvin did formally charge him with ARianism but was not the "judge, jury and executioner". The City Council of Geneva was. Calvin pleaded with Servetus to recant but Servetus would not...
prchdaword 3 years ago
Also, my friend, you are engaging in anacronism as the times back then were not the times of today. Back then the Church and the State were inseparable (not until the pilgrim came over here was the concept of separation of church and state instilled). Theological Crimes were also crimes against the state especially since all the states of then were submitted to Rome. Heresy was a crime punishable by death. Calvin was a man of his time my friend...don't be so quick to judge.
prchdaword 3 years ago
He will answer to God for himself as will you and I. Don't be so quick to judge. Remember Jesus said that even harboring hatred in our hearts is equivalent to murder. How many times have we done that? We are not morally better than any my friend...all alike are guilty of sin, even John CAlvin is no exception.
A good read on this subject is "The Reformation" by Diarmaid McCulloch
prchdaword 3 years ago
OSAS lie.Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works. If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch...and cast them into the fire, and they are burned.
777denny 3 years ago
actually I'm not advocating OSAS...rather I am advocating Perserverance of the Saints which is that a true believer will never fall away because God will preserve them so that they persevere in holiness.
The text you provide doesn't explicitly deal with a person being saved and then losing salvation, only the curse that goes on those who preach a false Gospel
prchdaword 3 years ago
To take away from the book of life doesn't necessarly mean to ERASE out of the book of life. You can take away stuff from the book of life just by adding more PREVENTIONS to your name being written in the Book of Life. What that verse means is that God will take away your CHANCES, for your name to be written in the Book of Life, not that he will erase the your name.
CASSMAN777 3 years ago
unibrow
asmaibra 3 years ago
LOL I've had it waxed since!!!
prchdaword 3 years ago
so that He not only exerts His power in the elect, who are guided by His Holy Spirit, but also FORCES THE REPROBATE TO DO HIM SERVICE" (Institutes, 1, 18, 2, page 201).
Calvin's proposition is clear. From it, a syllogism may be drawn.
1) The will of God is the cause of all things
2) Sin is a thing
3) Thus, the will of God is the cause of sin
Calvin was wrong.
2crucial3 4 years ago
I'm going to have to disagree with premise 2 in accord with Augustine who defined evil as "the absence of the goodness of God"(he did not ascribe to evil ontological status otherwise you have a dualism that exists, and not God alone).
Also, "cause" in premise one needs to be clearly defined. As you know, there are severaly types of causes and God does not "cause" all things in the same way. some are completely his (rebirth) while others work with human decision and effort (sanctification).
prchdaword 4 years ago
Hence,while the logic is valid,it is unsound in that the premises are ambiguous and trivial. Again,I would read the works of Calvin's successors on providence in particular. R.C. Sproul has one called "The invisible hand" ...there was also a good work by a fellow named Spiegel...I think it was " a new look at sovereignty" or something like that. It is worth getting. Also see my studies on providence to understand what Calvin meant.
what he meant was even in their sin, the wicke serve God.
prchdaword 4 years ago
Notice Scripture doesn't say that God permits His people to be turned, but it is God Who Turns Them. Calvin agrees.
Just look one section prior to the one I quoted from in the Institutes. He uses Psalm 105:25 to establish that the sinful acts of the reprobate are caused by the will of God. Calvin concludes, "The sum of the whole is this--since the will of God is said to be the cause of all things, all the counsels and actions of men MUST BE HELD TO BE GOVERNED BY HIS PROVIDENCE;
2crucial3 4 years ago
See my study on providence ..."doctrine of concurrence" as developed by later theologians expounding what Calvin meant.
prchdaword 4 years ago
And, when you admit that God determined the murder of Christ (which was a determined sin, not a disaster), then you necessarily surrender to my position. By definition, if something is determined (and here we are talking about the wills of Pilot, Herod, Judas, et al.), it is not free. You can't have your theological cake and eat it too.
Finally, the Bible says "He turned their heart to hate His people" (Psalm 105:25).
2crucial3 4 years ago
I don't understand what you are saying here...I'm not arguing for "freedom of the will" or any "liberatarian" position at all. the text clearly says that the plot of the jews to murder Christ was foreordained by God according to his predetermined will.
What cake are you thinking that I want to have and eat too? Help me understand what you are saying here?
prchdaword 4 years ago
Hey Mosie,
I hope your done the essay so we can talk about it.
However, regarding John Calvin you are in serious error.
Calvin isn't referring merely to natural "disasters", he is referring to sin willed by humans. The first sentence in Calvin's paragraph establishes that Calvin is referring to sinful actions. Thus, I am in context, while you are not.
2crucial3 4 years ago
I'm not arguing that God does not ordain or "cause" (not effectual) sin in the world. We agree with our understanding of what Calvin is saying. What Calvin is not saying is that God is the one who commits the sin, or is guilty of it. men are guilty of sin.
prchdaword 4 years ago
Moses,
I first need you to read the essay.
Jesus said not many of you should presume to be teachers, I care about you and others who are being affected by your videos. I know you have good intentions and are contending for the faith. However, I believe you are ignorant of proper contextualization regarding Jewish eschatology. Thus, your interpretation of certain texts is skewed to say the least.
Please read it and we can continue.
2crucial3 4 years ago
You obviosuly haven't read the essay.
I do not want to write out an etire discourse in this limited space.
Read the essay and then we can begin from there.
2crucial3 4 years ago
tell ya what...why don't you consider debating the 5 points of Calvinism against me? There would be more space and more time to really delve into the text...just a thought.
prchdaword 4 years ago
Before I begin to address your claims below, I need you and the other users to be aware of the Calvinistic lens you are interpreting certain passages. You see, We make a serious error if we abstract Jesus' words away from the stream of Jewish eschatological expectation in which they were uttered. Thus, you lack the proper context for understanding Jesus' statements in John chapter ten.
I sent you an essay, please read it.
Anyone else interested please message me.
Thanks,
God bless.
2crucial3 4 years ago
and yet Jesus CORRECTED the Jewish eschatology. They expected the end when their Messiah came. But their Messiah came humbly...which they did not expect. He came lowly and they expected great power and a military deliverer as it were much like their exodus from Egypt.
If I have "Calvinistic lens" then my friend, you have a "Reformed Arminian" lens.
I have posted MUCH SCRIPTURE to let the text speak for itself. You have yet to provide the Scriptures on atonement giving faith to all.
prchdaword 4 years ago
In context, what disasters is Calvin referring to? Job being robbed by thieves in unjust acts and evil doing toward him he recognized as God's just scourge...Eli's sons did not obey their father because God willed to slay them. What else does Calvin say and support from Scripture? That the greatest evil in all creation, the putting to death of the son of God, was committed what God had determined to take place (Acts 4:28; 2:23)
prchdaword 4 years ago
Calvin wrote, "I have already shown clearly enough that God is the AUTHOR of all those things which, according to these objectors, happen only by his inactive permission. He testifies that He creates light and darkness, forms good and evil (Isaiah 45:7); that no evil happens which he hath not done (Amos 3:6). Let them tell me whether God exercises his judgments willingly or unwillingly" (The Institutes Of The Christian Religion, Book 1, Chapter 18, Section 3, page 202,).
2crucial3 4 years ago
What Calvin was driving at was that God is the author in the sense of He was the planner. God's permission is not an unguided permissive will, but rather one that is also completely controlled. If God wills to use evil acts of evil men to bring about his righteous purposes, God does and will do that (cf. Isa. 10:5-19)
prchdaword 4 years ago
Read the rest of the section =)
prchdaword 4 years ago
John 8:43 Why do you not understand what I say? It is because you CANNOT(not will not) hear my word.
Right. However, you left out an important word: bare..."you cannot bare to hear my word".
Similarily, to how I cannot bare to hear someone say Calvinism is 100% Biblical.
2crucial3 4 years ago
I was quoting from the NKJV which doesn't have the word "bear"...ESV does. No argument there.
What significance does the word "bear" have on the freedom of the will? Ability is the issue we were arguing. They do not have the ABILITY to bear God's word. that is why I focused on dunasthe and not on akouein (to bear, endure). No matter the word....they do not have the ABILITY to do it.
prchdaword 4 years ago
These conditions of "belonging" to God's family and being a "sheep" of Jesus, then, appear to fall within the category of sufficient conditions determining those who will come to faith in Christ.
2crucial3 4 years ago
YOu have not demonstrated from the syntax how these are the conditions for being chosen.
Didn't you argue that God has no favorites. But if this is the method by which God elects, then does God "favor" those who do his will to elect them unto salvation? How is this "grace" if a person' own free will (autonomous from God) is what makes them able to meet the conditions to belong to God's family. Aren't they electing themselves and God is just giving the final stamp of approval?
prchdaword 4 years ago
Both of these statements suggest that all of those who belong in God's family will love Jesus and hear (i.e., in this context, believe) what God says regarding Jesus. Similarly, in 10:27 Jesus says, "My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me."
Again, this statement implies that all of those identified as Jesus' sheep will listen to and follow him when he enters the sheepfold.
2crucial3 4 years ago
"...This statement implies that all of those identified as Jesus' sheep will listen to and follow him when he enters the sheepfold."
sooo...isn't that exactly what I said in this video? That a true Christian is not the kind who will discredit or remove of the book of revelation or of God's revelation? HOw can you argue that the sheep can jump out and now you say that they "WILL listen to and follow Him"? Weren't you just advocating that they can freely leave if they so choose?
prchdaword 4 years ago
But how can they choose to "jump out" if now you say they "Will listen to and follow him"?
Help me to understand this seeming inconsistency.
prchdaword 4 years ago
It also seems to be implied of the two conditions we might characterize as identity conditions, namely, that of "belonging" to or being a child of the Father, as well as being a "sheep" of Christ. Note that in 8:42 Jesus says, "If God were your Father, you would love me," and in 8:47, "He who belongs to God hears what God says."
2crucial3 4 years ago
This is clearly the case in regard to those whom the Father "gives" to Jesus and who have "listened to" and "learned from" the Father, all of whom are explicitly said to come to faith in Christ.
2crucial3 4 years ago
Sufficient conditions are generally signaled by phrases such as "Everyone who . . ." (6:45; Greek pas ho . . .) or "All that . . . will . . ." (6:37; Greek pan ho . . .), indicating that every person without exception who meets the relevant conditions will experience the result entailed by those conditions.
2crucial3 4 years ago
actually,in the Greek "pas ho pisteoun" is NOT The indefinite relative pronoun "whosoever". The verb "to believe" is a present tense indicative."pas ho" should be understood "all the ones". Hence,"all the ones who are believing" NOT the future tense, "all the ones who WILL believe".
Now,all the ones who ARE believing have what? How does John use it? The ones who ARE believing HAVE ETERNAL LIFE(John 3:16). The passage is a promise and guarantee of eternal life. Not a condition to gain it.
prchdaword 4 years ago
we find in the above passages from John's Gospel the sufficient conditions of being "given" to Jesus by the Father, having "listened to" and "learned from" the Father, "belonging" to God (i.e., being his child, cf. the contrast to the children of the devil in 8:44), and being one of Jesus' "sheep" (6:37, 45; 8:47; 10:26, 29; 17:6, 9, 24).
2crucial3 4 years ago
"No one can come..." (universal negative)"...unless..." (conditional clause) "...the Father who sent me draws him. and I WILL RAISE HIM UP AT THE LAST DAY." Who are those who WILL be raised up? Only those drawn by the father. Can one who is drawn by the FAther NOT be raised up on the last day? According to John 6:39, no. "This is the will of my father...that of ALL HE HAS GIVEN Me I should LOSE NOTHING, but should raise it up on the last day." There is no way Jesus loses those "given".
prchdaword 4 years ago
Second, note in John 6:37,39 that from the syntax, the GIVING precedes the coming/believing. "All that the Father gives will come..." Who wil come? ONly those given.
How are these "taught" by God? How was Peter taught by God? "Blessed are you...for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you but MY FATHER who is in heaven." Mt 16:17 cf I John 2:20,27). These are one who are drawn are those who have heard and learned from the Father. That is the drawing of the Father, their effectual call.
prchdaword 4 years ago
Hence, the conditional and sufficient conditions are not for "being given". There is nothing in the passage that says how we are given. Rather, the passages show how one is drawn, namely that it is God alone. Man cannot call Himself to the Gospel. It must be the FAther who chooses to reveal the secrets of the kingdom to. "You must be born again," Jesus said (cf. Luke 10:21-22, John 3:1-8)
prchdaword 4 years ago
Yes, No one can pluck them out of the Father's hand. However, we are free to jump out of His hand and fall away. Hence, the multiple warnings in the Scriptures that warn against falling away, because it is a possibility.
2crucial3 4 years ago
Can you show me where in John 10 the sheep have the power to thwart the purpose of the FAther and the son to save all the sheep? Can you show me where in the text the words "but you can freely jump out" or that concept are located in John 10?
prchdaword 4 years ago
"You do not go "bah bah""
No, you are given grace through the universal atonement of Christ which bestows a gift of faith on all of humanity. Some choose to accept His free gift and find Salvation while others refuse.
God does not hold out His hands to a people who He has predestined to parish. Foolishness.
2crucial3 4 years ago
Can you show me the text that says that all are given the gift of faith through the atonement?
Scripture says that "faith comes by hearing" but you say "by Christ's atonement". How can you reconcile this?
If all have this gift of faith, how is it that many will never and have never heard the Gospel to be able to believe?
prchdaword 4 years ago
I don't think God created a perverse drama. No, rather I see Him creating children that can choose to love Him or hate Him out of their freewill. Those who accpet Him, truly love Him because they have a say in the matter, and thus they are truly His sons and daughters.
I don't see God demanding a person repent who has no ability to repent unless He bestows His irrestible gace.
No, that is utter folly.
2crucial3 4 years ago
But the Scriptures teach that the only ones who are the sons and daughters of God are the ones who are ADOPTED into God's family. "For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, these are the sons of God" (Rom 8:14) "But as many as recieved him, to THEM He gave the right to become children of God, TO THOSE WHO BELIEVE IN HIS NAME: who were born,not of blood,NOR OF THE WILL OF THE FLESH, NOR OF THE WILL OF MAN, BUT OF GOD"(John 1:12-13). "We are by nature...children of wrath" (Eph 2:1-3).
prchdaword 4 years ago
"in choosing Judas,as you acknowledge,he choose an individual as well as a corporate body (the Jews) to betray Christ."
Right, and let us not forget His foreknowledge and mans freewill.
I cannot see God creating a vessel for destruction without that vessel having any say in the matter, and then lamenting over the fact that the vessel is going to be destroyed. No, God does not take pleasure in the death of the wicked.
2crucial3 4 years ago
For what reason was Pharoah created? "For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I may show My power in you, and that My name may be declared in all the earth."(Rom 9:17). Was Pharoah free to reject the will of God use be used as a vessel of destruction? Wasn't Pharoah's hearth hardened for that very purpose of being destroyed? What does the scripture say of God's mercy? "So then it is not of him who WILLS, nor of him who runs, but OF GOD who shows mercy".
prchdaword 4 years ago
2 Thess 2:13-14
Yup, that fits quite nicely with Reformed Arminianism, as does Romans 9.
2crucial3 4 years ago
Reformed Arminianism?
prchdaword 4 years ago
"but the TEXT doesn't say that He DESIRES the salvation of all men. It says that he "is" (Greek, estin)"
"who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth" 1 Tim 2:4
What on earth are you talking about?
2crucial3 4 years ago
ok...let me do this again. I responded when it was maintenancing and lost all the responses.
Ok...I Tim 4:10 is what we were initially discussing which does NOT include the words "desires to be the Savior of all men" but says "IS" the savior of all men.
prchdaword 4 years ago
So, basically you are saying that God chose to make Judas and Israel a rebellious nation and then He laments over the fact that they are unwilling to turn to Him. Unless there is an aspect of freewill and thus combined with foreknowledge, it is simply Nonsense.
2crucial3 4 years ago
It is a lament OF JUDGMENT not OF SORROW (matt. 23:37-39). God didn't lament over Judas either. The judgment is their not seeing the face of the Lord. The reason for their judgment is their own stubborn unwilling hearts. GOD DID NOT CREATE THAT IN THEM. THAT IS THE RESULT OF THEIR OWN SIN AND THEIR NATURE INHERITED FROM ADAM. They FREELY sin and reject God under no coercion from him.
You are presupposing that I am a Hyper-Calvinist. I am not.
prchdaword 4 years ago
by placing our faith in Him.
Also, it is noteworthy that the New Testament never states that the reason some individuals are not saved is simply because they were not elect or predestined.
No, John 5:40.
I still cannot see why Go would say "All day long I have held out my hands a disobedient and contrary people"
If they are unable to turn to Him without God bestowing His irrestible gace to them.
2crucial3 4 years ago
Can you show me where in Scripture it says that we become elect by placing our faith in him?
John 8:43 Why do you not understand what I say? It is because you CANNOT(not will not) hear my word.
John 10:26 "But you do not believe because YOU ARE NOT OF MY SHEEP, as I said to you. My sheep hear my voice, and I KNOW(Ginoskos, greek) them and they follow Me. And I GIVE THEM ETERNAL LIFE, and they SHALL NEVER PERISH; Neither shall anyone snatch them out of my hand...
prchdaword 4 years ago
My Father, WHO HAS GIVEN THEM (only the sheep) to Me, is greater than all (even the sheep); and NO ONE (not even the sheep) is able to snatch them (the sheep) out of My FATHER'S HAND. I and the Father are one."
Jesus clearly says why some believe and some dont: you are either sheep or not. You do not go "bah bah" to become a sheep. Jesus and the FAther remain united in salvific purpose to save THE SHEEP. He gives them eternal life. It wouldn't be ETERNAL if you could toss it away.
prchdaword 4 years ago
My friend, Scripture is rich with this same imagery of God's love toward His own, toward his bride. Jesus came to die for His Church, His bride(Eph. 5:25).He didn't die for a harlot,but for the one whom he would present before the Father as spotless and without blemish. Jesus does not let His sheep perish. He goes to the ends of the earth to seek and save those sheep who are lost.
God is a gracious God. He may offer salvation even to those who won't take it according to their own desires.
prchdaword 4 years ago
It is not particular individuals who are chosen or God's elect for salvation. Rather, as Klyne Snodgrass notes "Election is primarily a corporate term." Romans 8:29 states "For those God foreknew he also predestined," but the whom is plural, not singular. It is general and corporate. Ephesians 1: 4 tells us that God "chose us in Him." Christ is the head of this new people, a "chosen race" (1 Peter 2:9), and it is only in Him, and through Him that we are chosen. We become part of the elect
2crucial3 4 years ago
Election,Calvinist agree,is corporate in a sense, but it is the individual who make up the body. No matter how you cut it, the "you" reference to the reader is individual. Also Romans 9 is clear that God elected certain INDIVIDUALS(Abraham, Isaac, Jacob)over and against other individuals (Ishmael,Esau). Calvinist acknowledge both aspects and even National election in the OT. Also in choosing Judas,as you acknowledge,he choose an individual as well as a corporate body (the Jews) to betray Christ.
prchdaword 4 years ago
It is also important to remember that individuals are never chosen or elect unless it is for a task or function. Judas Iscariot was "chosen" John 6:70 - but clearly not for salvation. Jesus chose the twelve individuals to perform a specific task. And then, in similar language , a successor to Judas as one of the twelve is "chosen" by God to carry out a specific task (Acts 1:24).
Later Paul becomes a "chosen instrument" to bring the name of Jesus throughout the Roman world (Acts 9:15).
2crucial3 4 years ago
2 Thess 2:13-14 "But we ought always to give thanks to God for you, brothers beloved by the Lord, because GOD CHOSE YOU as the firstfruits TO BE SAVED, through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth. To this HE CALLED you THROUGH OUR GOSPEL, so that you may obtain the glory of out Lord Jesus Christ." Notice v15 "SO THEN,brothers, STAND FIRM (why? Because God chose them) and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter."
prchdaword 4 years ago
Jesus is the Savior of all men in the sense that He desires all men to be saved 1 Tim 2:4
However, God created man with freewill so we could love Him genuinely out of our freewill. Thus, He desires all to come to Him, but some are simply unwilling.
I find it interesting that you say " I do not have to rely on powers of persuasion on the free will of man."
Yet, Paul the apostle attempted to persuade the Jews Acts 18:13. He also "reasoned" with them Acts 18:19.
Also, 1 Thess. 2:16.
2crucial3 4 years ago
ok, but the TEXT doesn't say that He DESIRES the salvation of all men. It says that he "is" (Greek, estin) which is the same present tense form of the verb "to be" that is used say "this IS the Son of God" (John 1:34). Are you going to be consistent in your exegesis and say that Jesus is God's son in sense that He desires to be God's son? Doubtful. Nothing in the grammar or context suggest that "desire" is the understanding of "is". Moreover, the word "estin" does not give that sense.
prchdaword 4 years ago
Well is people are totally depraved, why would Jesus need to speak in parables to hide the mysteries of the kingdom?
I think there is another reason, and it looks like it doesn't fit into your 5 points.
2crucial3 4 years ago
The parables are Gods judgment on Israel. Read Isa. 6:9-10 and see how Isa. ministry was one of hardening. See John 12:37-42 as well as Matt 13:10-16. The hardening ministry of Isa. is FULFILLED in the preaching of Jesus Christ. It has nothing to do with depravity. Depravity speaks to the inclination and corruption of sin producing an inability to believe. These parables brought out the hardness that was already in their heart. God did put that unbelief there, it reveals itself in the parables.
prchdaword 4 years ago
Remember Jesus' words in John 9:39 to the Pharisees : "For judgement I have come into this world, that those who do not see may see, and that those who see may be blind."
I hope I answered most of the question...I did my best with what little space I have...if there are still some left, rewrite them and I'll address them.
prchdaword 4 years ago
This argument is even worse for Calvinists; since they believe that the non-elect do not even have the potential to be saved. Why would Christ go to prepare a place for people who could not even potentially be saved? Besides that, it testifies to everyone who reads the book; and since it even mentions the removal of things that only the redeemed would possess, it follows that it is aimed primarily at the redeemed.
2crucial3 4 years ago
Calvinist do believe that ALL have the POTENTIAL to be saved. We do not limit the grace of God. Now, do we know for certain that who will or will not be saved? No. Only God does. Hence, we preach to ALL and we preach knowing that God will give the increase. I do not have to rely on powers of persuasion on the free will of man. I let the Holy Spirit do his work.
prchdaword 4 years ago
You say the argument is worse since Christ went to prepare a place for people who could not even be saved? There is nothing in John 14:2. The context of the "you" in there is to the disciples (note Judas has already left John 12:18-30). There is nothing in the text to warrant the application of the "you" to all men universally and individually especially since Jesus knows that many are not of His sheep in the first place (cf. John 8:42-47; 10:26-30)
prchdaword 4 years ago
It is obvious from this evidence that the idea that the shares that God will take away are only potential is a silly and self-defeating argument, as it contradicts sound doctrine from the scripture and ends up stepping all over itself.
2crucial3 4 years ago
It is obvious only if you believe that salvation is a cooperative effort between the "grace of God" and the "free will of man". If you believe that God CANNOT SAVE ANYONE APART FROM THEIR OWN FREE WILL then, your understanding of the text makes sense. But if you believe, as the Scriptures clearly teach, that it is GOD'S GRACE ALONE that is SUFFICIENT for salvation,then the understanding of the text that I offered certainly makes sense. It is a warning so that the sheep and the wolves may hear.
prchdaword 4 years ago
Since God would be taking away any potential shares they (people who tamper with Revelation) had in His kingdom, this would mean that their sin would be unforgiveable (as even their potential to gain access to God's holy city, and hence be among the redeemed, is gone). Rest assured that there is only one unforgivable sin, and tampering with God's word is not it (though judging from this passage, it is definitely a very serious one).
2crucial3 4 years ago
Calvinist vary on interpretation of the unforgiveable sin. I tend to equate it with "taking God's name in vain" as that was the sin which God would "not hold him guiltless"(Ex 20:7). Hence, it usually gets likened to the sin of apostasy or falling back to unbelief (also with unbelief in general according to some). I personally favor the apostasy view(cf Heb 6:14; 10:26-31). But if a person apostasizes, that only reveals that they were never saved in the first place (acts9:14-23, I john 2:18-19)
prchdaword 4 years ago
In the unconditional securist view, the shares in the holy city and tree of life are obviously just 'potential shares,' so God takes away from them parts in His kingdom that they don't actually possess yet. Right. The big problem with this argument is that this would put this on par with the unforgivable sin. The only unforgivable sin according to the scripture is the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit.
2crucial3 4 years ago
I don't know that I am an "unconditional securist". If you listen to my presentation, I do not believe in the "once saved always saved...do whatever you want" view. Calvinism advocates that our salvation is UNTO HOLINESS. Hence, in my salvation, I am persevering IN HOLINESS. There is a synergistic element in sanctification that requires me to "work out my salvation" at the same time recognizing that it is GOD WHO WORKS IN YOU both to will and to do for His good pleasure" (Phil. 2:12-13)
prchdaword 4 years ago
However the Calvinist says that they are unable but they are still responsible to repent nonetheless. However, any honest individual can clearly see this to be ridiculous.
I believe in the goodness of justness of God that doesn't arbitrarily choose one person for salvation and another for damnation. No, i believe that Jesus is the savior of all men, especailly of those who believe 1 Tim 4:10.
Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?
2crucial3 4 years ago
The presupposition here is that responsibility is based on ability. If one doesn't have the ABILITY to obey then they cannot be held responsible. What of drunk drivers? We hold them responsible for their acts committed while UNABLE to obey traffic laws, do we not? And why? Because RESPONSIBILITY is based on our OBLIGATION to the Law. Our responsibility is based on what we OUGHT to do before a holy God. As CREATURES, we should obey; we should believe God.
prchdaword 4 years ago
Let me ask you. Judas was said to have been foreordained to betray the Lord. Could Judas have done otherwise contrary to the decreed will of God? That is, was Judas "free" to not do what God prophecied he would? Being that Judas was prophecied to infallibly betray the Lord, is Judas still responsible for his sin of betraying Christ? If yes, how does this fit in with your position? If no, then are you willing to assert that Judas was not condemned for betraying the Lord?
prchdaword 4 years ago
Question: in what sense is Jesus the savior of all men? Potential savior? The text doesn't say that. It says that he IS (estin, in the Greek, present active indicative). How is Jesus NOW the savior of all men? I have a video on God tube explaining this...I'll send the link
prchdaword 4 years ago
1 Tim. 18-20 gives an example of believers who have made shipwreck of their faith, which they had and apparently lost.
I believe that Christ's universal atonement opened up the barrier between God and all men. Thus God commands "all men everywhere to repent" because they are able, through grace alone, by faith alone, in Christ alone.
2crucial3 4 years ago
But how can salvation be "by grace alone" if a "free will choice" is required independent from God's grace? Doesn't this reduce grace to "the opportunity to save yourself through your own free will choice? How do you answer who choose to be saved and who doesn't? If 2 people hear the same message, and one believes, what made them to differ? Will you say one was more spiritually sensitive? Will you say one was "better" than the other? "But OF HIM you are in Christ Jesus..."Its all God I Cor 1:30
prchdaword 4 years ago
the author of sin. Hyper (consistent) Calvinists will concede to this. Moderate (inconsistent) Calvinists will not.
I agree with the Bible that when it comes to the issue of predestination, election etc... God's ways are simply unfathomable:
Romans 10:33
2crucial3 4 years ago
Again, while you think that God's sovereignty necessarily makes him the author of sin, Scripture certainly does not agree with that. Scripture is clear that God certainly has decrees (Gen. 50:19-20;Psa 33:11 cf Gen 11:1-9, Prov 19:21:16:9; Isa 37:26-27; Isa 43:10-13; 485;46:8-11; Dan. 4:34-35; I Cor. 2:7;Eph. 1:11). Scripture is also clear that God is light and there is no darkness in him (cf.James 1:13-14).
What you don't understand is secondary causes and God's uses of other agents...
prchdaword 4 years ago
also,if his ways are unfathomable,how is it that you have it figured out whom God elects? HOw can you say you have his ways are beyond understanding if you assert that God "elects" those who freely choose him? Doesn't that mean you have it figured out? Isn't it the Calvinist position that leaves us in awe of Gods grace because there is no reason outside of His own counsel that determines his gracious display of salvation to some and witholding it from others? I agree with the Bible too my friend
prchdaword 4 years ago
Lol, "the opposer".
Alrighty. I wouldn't necessarily say God "fails" in anything. I do not believe that, I believe God turns a bad situation that man has created out of his freewill and creates good out of it.
I do know that God's purposes have been rejected, as Scripture clearly states:
Luke 7:30
Acts 7:51
Romans 10:21
I believe God's will shouldn't be understood in the sense that He determines every choice we make, because then if we are logically consistent we arrive at God being
2crucial3 4 years ago
but again, when taken in the light of John 12:37-42, Jesus purposefully used parables to hide the mysteries of the kingdom. Jesus used the preaching of hte kingdom to turn away some and save others...The Bible says in places like John 6:64 who would believe and who would not. Also, remember that calvinism distinguished between the decretive will and his preceptive will. The decretive will is what will infallibly happen in accord with providence and the other is what we OUGHT to do (law).
prchdaword 4 years ago
Hence the multiples warnings given to the assembly where the letters would be read to the whole group, the writer understanding that not all who profess Christ have saving faith.
Arrsht 4 years ago
nicely stated =)
prchdaword 4 years ago
Dr. Daniel Wallace continued says "No Greek ms contains the words "the book" of life. It is thus decidedly inauthentic, while "the tree" of life, found in the best mss, is clearly authentic." Footnote in the NET Bible p. 2447
Arrsht 4 years ago
cool. But I don't think that that information is technically relevant to the point I was making or anybody is making here. We are not arguing the translation (and I'm sure your research is correct), but rather the theological significance of the meaning of that text in regards to the doctrine of the preservation of the saints. I don't think "tree" or "book" makes much difference in regards to still having their "share taken away" from whatever refers to God's promises of life.
prchdaword 4 years ago
Understood. I mistakenly thought the opposer was making use of the reference to the book of life. Be that as it may, you correctly pointed out that those in whom the Spirit of God dwells will not be taking away or adding words to the prophecies contained in the book of Revelation since they love that very word and the one from whom they come and thus such is not a warning to the true believer. It appears that most fail to recognize that unbelievers who profess Christ are in the assembly.
Arrsht 4 years ago
Greek Scholar Dr. Daniel Wallace says this of the text here " The Textus Receptus, on which the King James Version rests, reads "the book" of life (ajpoV bivblou, apo biblou) instead of "the tree" of life. When the Dutch humanist Desiderius Erasmus translated the NT he had access to no Greek mss for the last six verses of Revelation. So he translated the Latin Vulgate back into Greek at this point. As a result he created 17 textual variants which have not been found in any Greek mss to date."
Arrsht 4 years ago
The obvious thing to ask is why would there be a warning against something that cannot happen?
2crucial3 4 years ago
AGain, you are not listening to what Calvinism teaches. God uses ORDINARY MEANS, secondary causes, to bring about his will. God's sovereignty doesn't operate in a fashion where "in a snap of a finger" and "without context" His will just happens. That is NOT Calvinism. God works out His will through PROVIDENCE (the working out of the plan of God decreed from all eternity). I think that is what you are missing and, hence, operating with a CARICATURE and STRAWMAN of Calvinist theology.
prchdaword 4 years ago
elijahsraven,
I think that Scripture supports my view. As does no one being able to pluck us from the Father's Hand. He will uphold His beloved. However, we are free to jump out of His hand, turn our back on Christ and walk away. It is a beautiful thing to walk hand in hand with Christ, I strive for that each and every day. However, I do not believe that God keeps us in a strangle hold and then warns us about falling away.
2crucial3 4 years ago
Curious, but can you show me where in the text it says that we are free to jump out of God's hand? Can you show me where in the Bible Christ lets his sheep go astray without going to look for them? Can you show me anywhere in the Bible where God FAILS in what he sets out to do? (Eph. 2:11, Dan. 4:34-35 et. al.)
prchdaword 4 years ago
"God does not immediately condemn, he gives time; He is patient"
For what?
I think your bias is driving your exegesis to the point of rendering certain Scriptures nonsensical. I just pray that you change your theology before you change/distort passages that do not agree with Calvinism.
In the words of R.C Sproul:
"If my understanding of predestination is not correct, then my sin is compounded, since I would be slandering the saints who by opposing my view are fighting for the angels."
2crucial3 4 years ago
There is nothing at all in Scripture that says when exactly God converts and calls the elect. It could be that he allows them to go on in sin for a while before converting them. Example, the apostle Paul. The apostle Paul was allowed by God to persecute Christ through the Church. God did not condemn him right then and there...He was patient and in HIS TIME He brought Paul to faith and repentance. God does use ordinary means to bring about His will. See my study on Providence.
prchdaword 4 years ago
Calvinsts are predestined for a bad theology, a depraved theology if you will.
You need to explain Rev 22 not change the subject Mr prchdaword, 1 star for your dodging the question!
Area0052 4 years ago
If you listen closely, I did explain the question that was asked. I said, the verse says exactly what it says, "if a person detracts from the book of revelation then they will be blotted out from the kingdom." That is pretty plain. The real questiong that I was addressing, again if you were listening to the letter, was how that passage fits in with the Calvinist doctrine of the Perseverance of the saints.
And as I explain, it is a warning and threat to heed all that is in the book.
prchdaword 4 years ago
Also, what about Jeremiah 13: 15-17. Why on earth would He say this if they have absolutely no say in the matter?
Thanks!
2crucial3 4 years ago
These are conditional prophecies. If they do X, then Y will certainly happen. But if they do non-X, non-Y will happen. There are many of these in the Scriptures. If the people obey, then God's blessing will come upon them. But if they disobey, then God's wrath will come upon them. God does not immediately condemn, he gives time; He is patient. But when He reaches a certain point,then prophecies like Jer. 13:12-14 happen.
Context, context context...Jer. is NOT the account in Matthew.
prchdaword 4 years ago