The Will of God in the Fall of Man II

[percho]

Once again you have publicly proven you cannot read Greek and are committing a fraud by claiming you can.

The Greek word is NOT "progenosko" as you wrongly claim. The Greek word is προεγνω (proegno). It is an aorist, active, indicative, third person, singular verb.

And I highly doubt you even know what that means.

I would like your opinion. Will the first man, Adam, be conformed to the image of the Son?

A similar question to the one concerning the church yet maybe different, I guess.

 

[TCassidy]

You really need to learn how to interpret what others say.

You need to actually learn to read Greek instead of just claiming you can. And the reason Mounce says what it says is the you looked up the WRONG Greek word in Mounce.

You got the word from Strongs, which has been proven to be wrong over and over and over again. It commits the "root fallacy" which you just fell for! I suggest you buy the book "Exegetical Fallacies by D. A. Carson. It will explain the "root fallacy" to you.

 

[TCassidy]

I would like your opinion. Will the first man, Adam, be conformed to the image of the Son?

I believe he will. Adam was a two-fold child of God. First by direct creation, and secondly by regeneration evidenced by the fact he believed God's promise, that belief being evidenced by naming his wife "Eve" meaning "mother of all living" in acknowledgment of God's promise.

 

[revmwc]

You need to actually learn to read Greek instead of just claiming you can. And the reason Mounce says what it says is the you looked up the WRONG Greek word in Mounce.

You got the word from Strongs, which has been proven to be wrong over and over and over again. It commits the "root fallacy" which you just fell for! I suggest you buy the book "Exegetical Fallacies by D. A. Carson. It will explain the "root fallacy" to you.

Wrong again! I went to Mounce on Biblegateway, his reverse inter linear

 

[TCassidy]

Wrong again! I went to Mounce on Biblegateway, his reverse inter linear

You got the wrong word. If you would bother to read the "About" section of Mounce you would notice he based it on Strongs.

It says "You can search for a word based on its Strong's number." Duh!

 

[revmwc]

You got the wrong word. If you would bother to read the "About" section of Mounce you would notice he based it on Strongs.

It says "You can search for a word based on its Strong's number." Duh!

The Mounce interlinear in biblegateway listed it as I posted take it up with Biblegateway

 

[TCassidy]

The Mounce interlinear in biblegateway listed it as I posted take it up with Biblegateway

Yeah. We know. WRONG WORD!

 

[revmwc]

Yeah. We know. WRONG WORD!

:29Mounce Reverse-Interlinear New Testament (MOUNCE)
29 becausehoti thosehos he foreknewproginōskō he alsokai predestinedproorizō to become conformedsymmorphos to theho imageeikōn ofho hisautos Sonhyios, thateis heautos might beeimi the firstbornprōtotokos amongen manypolys brethrenadelphos. Hard to copy and paste with phone

 

[TCassidy]

:29Mounce Reverse-Interlinear New Testament (MOUNCE)
29 becausehoti thosehos he foreknewproginōskō he alsokai predestinedproorizō to become conformedsymmorphos to theho imageeikōn ofho hisautos Sonhyios, thateis heautos might beeimi the firstbornprōtotokos amongen manypolys brethrenadelphos. Hard to copy and paste with phone

Yep. Just proved you got the WRONG WORD!

Rom 8:29 ὅτι οὓς προέγνω, καὶ προώρισε συμμόρφους τῆς εἰκόνος τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ, εἰς τὸ εἶναι αὐτὸν πρωτότοκον ἐν πολλοῖς ἀδελφοῖς·

Come on! You fancy yourself a Greek expert! Even you should be able to see that "proegno" does NOT equal "proginosko!" (Not to mention that προώρισε is not proorizō, but that's a whole new discussion.)

 

[Internet Theologian]

Progenosko as used in Romans 8 per Mounce means to Know beforehand. This word is clearly used in verse 29 and termed forknowledge. Then those whom He Predestinated "prooizo" per Mounce means to predetermine or decide beforehand to foreordained, appoint beforehand. So Those God knew beforehand He "prooizo" Predestinated. Very clear but my statement that it means to me was because I know most of the Calvinist disagree. However, the Greek words are clear in their meaning. God knew beforehand those He predestinated, so for all you who say I have it wrong then what did God know beforehand "progenosko" of those He Prwdestinated to be conformed to the image of His dear Son?

I will tell you this, it doesn't mean what you make it out to mean. By your own admission you teach 'What it means to you' when discussing theology. That's unfortunate and is not Biblical, and definitely it is not following 2 Timothy 2:15. It is instead purely subjective.

Nowhere does Scripture state God chose us because of what we would do, and in fact, the believing happens from God, not from us, Romans 10:17; Acts 16:14, Ephesians 2:3; Romans 12:3, Ephesians 1:19, so to say that He chose because we chose is also unbiblical. The point is moot and doesn't follow sound doctrine.

We do know He chose us according to His own will to do so, nothing in that about us; James 1:18; 2 Timothy 1:9, Ephesians 1:1ff. That is the testimony of Scripture, and yours is not following Biblical truth.

Instead of preaching 'What this means to me is' (which has no authority whatsoever) we need to all get our teaching, all of it, from the Word alone, adding nothing to it. Unfortunately you are adding to it, and this is seen when you say 'What it means to me is___'. That is when you get off track from truth into your subjectivity.

I will also add this caveat, I'd bet you also would say that not all whom He predestinated will become like Christ 'conformed to His image' although that was one of the major reasons for His predestinating us. It will happen, it is His purpose to do so, Romans 8:29; 2 Corinthians 3:18ff.

That is also contrary to sound doctrine to say otherwise, that is that there are those who are saved that show no evidence and never grow into Christ likeness. Yet one error leads to the next, (foreknowledge, to predestination) when any teaching goes against the Word this is the path it takes.

 

[revmwc]

Yep. Just proved you got the WRONG WORD!

Rom 8:29 ὅτι οὓς προέγνω, καὶ προώρισε συμμόρφους τῆς εἰκόνος τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ, εἰς τὸ εἶναι αὐτὸν πρωτότοκον ἐν πολλοῖς ἀδελφοῖς·

Come on! You fancy yourself a Greek expert! Even you should be able to see that "proegno" does NOT equal "proginosko!" (Not to mention that προώρισε is not proorizō, but that's a whole new discussion.)

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=romans+8:29&version=MOUNCE

Romans 8:29Mounce Reverse-Interlinear New Testament (MOUNCE)
29 because hoti those hos he foreknew proginōskō he also kai predestined proorizō to become conformed symmorphos to the ho image eikōn of ho his autos Son hyios, that eis he autos might be eimi the firstborn prōtotokos among en many polys brethren adelphos.

Mounce Reverse-Interlinear New Testament (MOUNCE)
The Mounce Reverse-Interlinear™ New Testament (MOUNCE) Copyright © 2011 by Robert H. Mounce and William D. Mounce. Used by permission. All rights reserved worldwide.
“Reverse-Interlinear” is a trademark of William D. Mounce.

 

[revmwc]

I will tell you this, it doesn't mean what you make it out to mean. By your own admission you teach 'What it means to you' when discussing theology. That's unfortunate and is not Biblical, and definitely it is not following 2 Timothy 2:15. It is instead purely subjective.

Nowhere does Scripture state God chose us because of what we would do, and in fact, the believing happens from God, not from us, Romans 10:17; Acts 16:14, Ephesians 2:3; Romans 12:3, Ephesians 1:19, so to say that He chose because we chose is also unbiblical.

We do know He chose us according to His own will to do so, nothing in that about us; James 1:18; 2 Timothy 1:9, Ephesians 1:1ff. That is the testimony of Scripture, and yours is not following Biblical truth.

Instead of preaching 'What this means to me is' (which has no authority whatsoever) we need to all get our teaching, all of it, from the Word alone, adding nothing to it. Unfortunately you are adding to it, and this is seen when you say 'What it means to me is___'. That is when you get off track from truth into your subjectivity.

I will also add this caveat, I'd bet you also would say that not all whom He predestinated will become like Christ 'conformed to His image' although that was one of the major reasons for His predestinating them. It will happen, it is His purpose to do so, Romans 8:29; 2 Corinthians 3:18ff.

That is also contrary to sound doctrine, yet one error leads to the next, (foreknowledge, to predestination) when any teaching goes against the Word.

You teach what it means to you as you get from the dictionary, that note as stated was to clearify that is how I see it where most of the Calvanist on here believe it their way?

 

[Internet Theologian]

You teach what it means to you as you get from the dictionary, that note as stated was to clearify that is how I see it where most of the Calvanist on here believe it their way?

Where did I say what it means to me? Where did I quote a dictionary? Nowhere did I make that statement so your accusations are presumptuous and not true.

I'm trying to be patient with you, and your responses are typically incoherent as is witnessed above.

If you want true dialog, take the time to be clear in your response, showing respect for others and the time taken to address you respectfully.

Frankly your response is drivel. The thing is that you answered me immediately after I posted. I took the time to give a solid response, with Scripture and you banged out the drivel above in perfunctory fashion.

I don't care if you're on your phone doing it, take the time to show some respect for God, His Word, His teachings, your discussing His teachings and others. If you can't do that on your phone then find the time to do it at some other point. You haven't even had the time to even investigate a thing stated from the passages given in the time you responded. All you've given are false accusations above, and neither God nor I have any use or respect for that whatsoever.

I will give you one message to listen to. If you take the time to actually listen and learn I will provide more, otherwise if you continue to show disrespect and contempt, drivel ridden incoherent responses I will choose to spend my time elsewhere and with others.

Here is the link:

http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=823111338379

 

[percho]

I believe he will. Adam was a two-fold child of God. First by direct creation, and secondly by regeneration evidenced by the fact he believed God's promise, that belief being evidenced by naming his wife "Eve" meaning "mother of all living" in acknowledgment of God's promise.

Ok. That being said and the fact of redemption being established for, before the foundation of the world 1 Peter 1:18-20; Is it not obvious that God created Adam in a manner subject to death, placed him in the garden he, God planted where the serpent was, gave him a law, thus God sold him under sin to be redeemed for some purpose other than that redemption?

He, Adam is redeemed from what God was going to destroy through the death of the Son of God born in the likeness of the first man, Adam and then given the promise of God, the hope of eternal life.

Is not the resurrection of Jesus, the firstfruit, the beginning of the end of death? 1 Cor 15:23-26 But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming. Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power. For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet. The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death. ??

Also I believe this verse is relative. Romans 16:20 And the God of peace shall bruise Satan under your feet shortly. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you. Amen. Also: Matt 16:18 and 1 Cor 15:54-56 “And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades (death and Hades) shall not prevail against it. So when this corruptible has put on incorruption, and this mortal has put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written: “Death is swallowed up in victory “O Death, where is your sting? O Hades, where is your victory? The sting of death is sin, and the strength of sin is the law.

Why was Adam created?

 

[revmwc]

Where did I say what it means to me? Where did I quote a dictionary? Nowhere did I make that statement so your accusations are presumptuous and not true.

I'm trying to be patient with you, and your responses are typically incoherent as is witnessed above.

If you want true dialog, take the time to be clear in your response, showing respect for others and the time taken to address you respectfully.

Frankly your response is drivel. The thing is that you answered me immediately after I posted. I took the time to give a solid response, with Scripture and you banged out the drivel above in perfunctory fashion.

I don't care if you're on your phone doing it, take the time to show some respect for God, His Word, His teachings, your discussing His teachings and others. If you can't do that on your phone then find the time to do it at some other point. You haven't even had the time to even investigate a thing stated from the passages given in the time you responded. All you've given are false accusations above, and neither God nor I have any use or respect for that whatsoever.

I will give you one message to listen to. If you take the time to actually listen and learn I will provide more, otherwise if you continue to show disrespect and contempt, drivel ridden incoherent responses I will choose to spend my time elsewhere and with others.

Here is the link:

http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=823111338379

Never said you said anything and I have treated you and you buddies with more respect than you have ever treated me. Patience you just don't know how much patience I have shown you all. The phone statement didn't even effect any comment you made.

 

[Internet Theologian]

Never said you said anything and I have treated you and you buddies with more respect than you have ever treated me. Patience you just don't know how much patience I have shown you all. The phone statement didn't even effect any comment you made.

You 'never said I said anything'? That's not true. Go back and read your response (and others should as well).

My friend, I cannot accept you've treated me and 'my buddies' with more respect, in fact I see the opposite. Many and most of your responses are short, incoherent and drivel laden. Then you say you don't have time to respond, or are on your phone, as an excuse to not answer (when nailed for your error) or as to why your answer is nothing but drivel, yet after this you post a lengthy OP on another topic in another or the same forum.

In short? You're full of excuses.

From what I see (and others) you respond to a good post with an incoherent one in order to dismiss the response and make pretense to have answered. In this post you claim you never said I said anything.

That isn't even true, but it is a pattern of how you respond.

I'll leave off responding to you in the future.

 

[revmwc]

You 'never said I said anything'? That's not true. Go back and read your response (and others should as well).

My friend, I cannot accept you've treated me and 'my buddies' with more respect, in fact I see the opposite. Many and most of your responses are short and incoherent and drivel laden. Then you say you don't have time to respond, as an excuse to not answer (when nailed for your error) yet after this you post a lengthy OP on another topic in another forum.

In short? You're full of excuses.

From what I see (and others) you respond to a good post with an incoherent one in order to dismiss the response and make pretense to have answered. In this post you claim you never said I said anything.

That isn't even true, but it is a pattern of how you respond.

I'll leave off responding to you in the future.

You express your opinion on this and that as you see them. That is what I meant. Doesn't make you right. Your opinion is just that your opinion.

 

[TCassidy]

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=romans+8:29&version=MOUNCE

Romans 8:29Mounce Reverse-Interlinear New Testament (MOUNCE)
29 because hoti those hos he foreknew proginōskō he also kai predestined proorizō to become conformed symmorphos to the ho image eikōn of ho his autos Son hyios, that eis he autos might be eimi the firstborn prōtotokos among en many polys brethren adelphos.

Mounce Reverse-Interlinear New Testament (MOUNCE)
The Mounce Reverse-Interlinear™ New Testament (MOUNCE) Copyright © 2011 by Robert H. Mounce and William D. Mounce. Used by permission. All rights reserved worldwide.
“Reverse-Interlinear” is a trademark of William D. Mounce.

It's the WRONG word. Mounce got it WRONG and you don't know enough Greek to realize he got it WRONG!

Now, unless you can show me a manuscript or text that reads προγινώσκω instead of προέγνω this discussion is over.

 

[revmwc]

It's the WRONG word. Mounce got it WRONG and you don't know enough Greek to realize he got it WRONG!

Now, unless you can show me a manuscript or text that reads προγινώσκω instead of προέγνω this discussion is over.

it doesn't have it in the original form of Greek. I haven't used Mounce but since others have said he is the authotlrity and vines and Strong supposedly habit incorrect I went to him. No you say he's wrong the one I normally use had a different word seems which ever I use it disagrees with you.

 

[Internet Theologian]

It's the WRONG word. Mounce got it WRONG and you don't know enough Greek to realize he got it WRONG!

Now, unless you can show me a manuscript or text that reads προγινώσκω instead of προέγνω this discussion is over.

He can't so he won't. Same stuff different day. It will all be conveniently dismissed and he will carry on in error tomorrow, and so on.