Calvinism Series - Question on Rev 22:18-19 and Perseverance

This is a video response to a question asked by user 2Crucial3 concerning the doctrine of the Perseverance of the Saints and Revelation 22:18-19. In that passage, Christ says, that anyone who takes away from the words of the prophecy will not partake of the new Jerusalem (my paraphrase). Basically, it is being asserted that salvation may be lost.

This is my video response to the question. In the video I quote from the letter sent so that this can make sense. Below I will put a small extract from a tract that I did when I still in college leading a Calvinist group that explains the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints briefly

"Not only are the elect redeemed and renewed by the Spirit, but they are also preserved by the power of God so that they may never be separated from the love of God (Romans 8:31-39). This is not to assert that the believer may do whatsoever he wills and still have the hope of salvation. Rather it asserts that the true believer will persevere in holiness and sanctification even though he may fall into sin in his life (Psalm 51). Salvation, therefore, as a gift and based on the Grace of God and the work of Christ alone, may not be lost (Matthew 18:12-14; John 3:16; 6:35-40; 10:27-30; Romans 5:8-10; 8:29-30; I Corinthians 10:13; Philippians 1:6; Hebrews 9:12, 15; 10:14; 12:28; I John 2:18,19,25; Jude 24-25)

Thanks for watching. Hope you were blessed.

Moses

Category:

People & Blogs

Tags:

• Calvinism
• Reformed
• theology
• perseverance
• saints
• John
• Calvin
• apologetics
• Christian
• salvation
• Arminianism
• prchdaword
• Bible

[prchdaword]

Darn the King James version for promoting "whosoever" theology!!!

[TruthinTension]

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.

[prchdaword]

which 200 verses? source for this?

Is their reading more concise or is there a doctrinal difference in what they teach?

[prchdaword]

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]

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...

[777denny]

{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]

[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]

[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.

[prchdaword]

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]

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 ....

[777denny]

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]

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."

[prchdaword]

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]

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.

[777denny]

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]

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?

[prchdaword]

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.

[777denny]

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.

[prchdaword]

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?

[777denny]

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.

[prchdaword]

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]

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]

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?

[777denny]

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]

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.