Ah man. I wish I could. If you are around Thursday or Friday let me know.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Romans 8:6.....What is it getting at.
- Thread starter Iconoclast
- Start date
- Status
no...will be in Ga, after tomorrow morning...but this is where I stop when I have CVS...off revco road.
Holler at me next time you are by. I live off exit 1.
okay...there is a pilot there, maybe exit2, or 3...If I can get in earlier, I can get a parking spot there, it would be easier for you.
Last night was in a pilot in knoxville, a biker came in....59 years old, asked me what I was studying
I told him, I had my laptop looking at Owen and a few books in my book bag.
Questioned him....
sadly he suggested to me that he is angry and sad that God has not given him a wife.
he said he a
"accepted Jesus" as a 5yr old...
grew up around church, knew some verses etc. after more questions he said and freely admitted to a life of fornication, and did not have a problem with it.
i started to quote romans 6:1-2, he finished the verse half way, so I said if you know what these verses are saying, why do you have a disconnect, and think God is going to give you a godly woman when your are living a life of practicing fornication?
he thought he could not be lost, but I addressed his need to really get saved, repent and believe the gospel
Last edited:
It is not the best environment to read and study, it often has loud music and people coming in and out, but I pray for such opportunities.
Most pastors are not hanging out sipping coffee in atruck stop, so God uses regular people to speak a word in season.
Most pastors are not hanging out sipping coffee in atruck stop, so God uses regular people to speak a word in season.
Silverhair
Well-Known Member
I take it that you CANNOT!
Typical mudslinger!
That is not mudslinging that is just stating what I think. You say the bible translators got it wrong then be kind enough to show us where.
SavedByGrace
Well-Known Member
I will give you one from the beloved KJV
Genesis 1:1 in the Hebrew is: "בראשׁית ברא אלהים את השׁמים ואת הארץ׃"
which is literally, "In beginning He Created God namely the Heavens and the earth"
The noun,"השׁמים", is in the PLURAL number, meaning HEAVENS.
WHY did the KJV render the PLURAL Hebrew, as HEAVEN, in the SINGULAR?
SavedByGrace
Well-Known Member
which he got WRONG!
Like he does for John 10:30, on "ἕν"
"The ancients made a wrong use of this passage to prove that Christ is (ὁμοούσιος) of the same essence with the Father. For Christ does not argue about the unity of substance, but about the agreement which he has with the Father, so that whatever is done by Christ will be confirmed by the power of his Father"
In the context, Jesus Christ is saying that He and the Father are "essentially" GOD. Note what Jesus says in verse 28 about Himself, "no one will snatch them out of my hand"; and verse 29 about the Father, "no one is able to snatch them out of the Father's hand". This is a clear reference to Deuteronomy 32:39, "See now that I, even I, am he, and there is no god beside me;
I kill and I make alive; I wound and I heal; and there is none that can deliver out of my hand". And Isaiah 43:13, "Also henceforth I am he; there is none who can deliver from my hand; I work, and who can turn it back?”. This is more than just "agreement", as it is the same POWER, PROTECTION and AUTHORITY that BOTH Jesus Christ and the Father have, which is because They are ESSENTIALLY Almighty God.
Silverhair
Well-Known Member
You do realize that not everyone uses the KJV? I have several other translations on my system and they all have "heavens". I think you are tending to paint with to wide a brush. That being said the KJV is not my main bible for a number of reasons.
If I told someone that God created the heaven and the earth or the heavens and the earth it would not make a great amount of difference as I would still be telling them that God created all things. Which is scriptural and what we want people to know.
By times I think we can get so lost in the detail that we distort what the message is that we are trying to convey.
Too bad Calvinism denies:
God chooses individuals for salvation through faith in the truth. 2 Thessalonians 2:13 (Paul)
Christ died as a ransom for all, including those never to be saved. (Paul and Peter)
The lost seek God. Romans 9 (Paul)
The lost know spiritual things like God's divine attributes. (Paul)
Ever wonder why the Calvinist posters deny their doctrine? (Because it is unbiblical nonsense)
Those 3 would not even be acceptable as being good teachers of the word per either Reformed or Calvinist Baptists!
Even though he denied an inspired an inerrant bible, and seemed to hint at Universalism?
He held to full blown Pel views thru regarding free will and salvation
He didn't deny an inspired or inerrant Bible (in terms of God's Word) , but he did view the Word of God as the Word once communicated.
He also did not hint at universalism (he unclearly clarified why he rejected universalism).
Either way, that does not change the fact he was Reformed.
Not, not Pelagianism. The reason is he rejected the idea man could be saved apart from God, apart from the gospel message, and apart from a preacher (or witness) used by God to communicate the message.
Pelagianism, as I understand the concept, depends on man's innate "goodness" and an ability to choose good or salvation without the work of God.
I would call him more Arminian, but he was Reformed.
Think of Spurgeon. How did he say men are saved by God? He said men are typically saved through persuasion, God using men to persuade of the truth of the gospel.
I disagree with Charles Finny's theology, but I do not understand why you feel the need to make the man's theology worse than it really was. Even people with whom we disagree deserve to be treated fairly and in an honest manner.
He denied that the bible is objectively inspired, as it only became such when the Holy Spirit made you open up to it, and he did see it inspired limited to spiritual matters only!
And he did see all now elected in Christ unto salvation, but just would not go all way to universalism, but got pretty close!
I'm not defending Barth. I'm just saying he was Reformed and is considered to be one of the foremost Reformed theologians.
You are narrowing down your definition of "Reformed". Ironically, the main objection to calling Barth "Reformed" by Reformed churches during his lifetime was his rejection of infant baptism. You would fall in that boat as well.
That does not matter. When you argue against a person's theology you need to source what that person said of their theology - not what his opponents said about him.
Finney said that nobody is saved apart from God's work. Your arguments are hollow.
You say he was a free-will theologian and therefore a heretic. But free-will theology does NOT make one a heretic.
- Status