Featured The Willingness of Men 2

It seems like what you're saying is that from a Calvinist perspective, it would seem "clumpily" placed as an adjective to "sojourners" because that doesn't suggest Calvinism.

 

But you are not including the rest of Paul's quotations and cross references. Instead, you are cherry-picking (proof-texting) one phrase. Instead of doing that, read through verse 18, which is like Psalm 14:1 and Psalm 94, "no fear of God" and "...no God..", "God is not in evidence (no God), therefore take from the weak". Read all of Psalm 94 and take particular note of verses 7 and 8. These are the same people described in Psalm 14.

The new Testament writers used Old Testament quotations as indexes for the entire context of the passage being quoted. For example, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me" is a reference to Psalm 22 and all of its text, not just the one phrase. Those who heard Jesus say those words would have recalled all of it to their minds, just as we do when we study the crucifixion. We go back and read Psalm 22 -- THE WHOLE THING. The whole Psalm is relevant to Jesus on the cross, not just the one phrase that got written down in the Gospel.

It is no different with Paul. His quotation is an index, not a proof-text. We are invited to visit Psalm 14, and Psalm 94, and Jeremiah, and on and on. Scripture is not a game of "Word Salad" where we pick and choose the snippets of what we like and ignore all the rest.

Your questions which you answer for yourself with a single phrase of a verse are classic proof-texts. Proof-texting is a fallacy. When I point out the meaning in context, all the Calvinists repeat the proof-text and claim that I just don't understand.

I don't know if people know this or not but the Spirit of God does not communicate using fallacies.

 

You said that if God would foresee in eternity past a fallen human using his free will to seek God, say, after receiving the revelation of creation (as in Romans 1), this would mean God was a mere spectator. But if God would foresee anyone using their free will to seek evil, God is not a spectator.

I hope you don't mind my pointing out that that doesn't make any sense.

 

You said that if God would foreknow in eternity past a fallen human using his free will to seek God, say, after receiving the revelation of creation (as in Romans 1), this would mean God would be a mere spectator. But if God would foreknow anyone using their free will to seek evil, God would not a spectator.

I hope you don't mind my pointing out that that doesn't make any sense.

Is everyone given over to homosexuality, e.g. Romans 1:26-27? You too?

 

Proof-texting is defined as quoting out of context to arrive at a meaning that was not intended by the author. Satan used scriptural proof-texts to temp Jesus in the desert.

I'm pretty sure that proof-texting is wrong.

Sure, but do you know the difference between them?

You haven't addressed my rebuttal that addresses all of this.

 

I didn't see a word for all. Paul identifies a particular kind of people who hold the truth in unrighteousness. Why didn't he just say, "all men" like you do? Your paraphrase left out all of Paul's qualifying adjectives.

What is the grammar that says "all humans substitute the Creator for their own created image" but then says that "only some of these" are turned over to homosexuality?

 

I understand verse 2 in light of the rest of the Psalm, which also talks about the righteous generation being persecuted by those who are not righteous. You can't have 100% unrighteous people when a portion of the people in the context are a righteous generation (verses 4-6).

Can you see that?

 

Verse 1 describes the thinking of the fool. But how did he get what way?

Psalm 14:3 elaborates that they have "turned aside" and "have become corrupt". That means they didn't used to be that way.

"Turning" and "becoming" are processes that go from good to bad. Is that what Calvinisms says, that all humans go from good to bad? You can't turn aside from a path that you were never on in the first place. These are those who have gone astray from the paths of the righteousness. All of them who have done this (i.e. the fool from verse 1) are the category in view. In other words, these are those among God's chosen people who have turned aside from God's laws and as a result, have become corrupt.

Paul's Greek puts it this way, "All have turned away together, they have become worthless [notice they were not always worthless but have become so because they turned away], none there is, who is practicing good, not there is so much as one.

So when a Calvinist says "none are righteous, not one" he is misquoting Paul and Psalm 14. It says none are practicing good and that they became this way from turning aside. Well, that's not very Calvinist, is it.

What is the subject of Psalm 14? It's about people, who have turned aside and become corrupt (a process) who are devouring God's people (verse 4). And it is they who are in fear, for great is the God who is with the generation of the righteous (verse 5). [But wait! I thought none were righteous, not one? Context, context, context.]

When we view proof-texted verses in their proper context, we find that they don't mean what the Calvinist claims that they mean.