Choosing

[The Biblicist]

Iconoclast presents fiction once again. Dr. Dan Wallace's view has not been corrected by any so-called expert advocating Calvinism. Calvinists just make things up and post the falsehoods one after another.

2 Thessalonians 2:13 clearly presents election, God chose you for salvation through the sanctification by the Spirit and faith in the truth.

Originally Posted by Van
To summarize the three posts of Archangel,

(1) a misrepresentation of 2 Thessalonians 2:13,

(2)an assertion as to how Dr. Wallace would translate the verse at odds with how the NET translates it, and Dr. Wallace is the senior editor, and

(3) an argument from authority - his view must be right because many scholars agree with his view. This of course is a logical fallacy.

1. You charge that I misrepresent 2 Thessalonians 2:13, yet you are unable to articulate why--only saying your understanding of the grammar supports your interpretation when, by your own admission, you do not understand Greek grammar.

2. I am not asserting how Wallace would translate the text. I am referencing his Magnum Opus on Greek grammar. In his book Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, Wallace makes no firm or definitive statement as to how this particular passage should be translated. On the other hand, he does present the principles of grammar, syntax, exegesis, and translation that you might do well to learn.

3. It is not an appeal to authority--although, since you cannot interact with the text on a technical level, I understand why you would try to appeal to this to dismiss my argument in toto. The REALLY funny thing (and quite sad too) is that you do the very thing you accuse me of doing (which, by the way, I didn't do) when you write:


Quote:
Originally Posted by Van
We need not guess at how Dr. Wallace would translate 2 Thess. 2:13, because we have the NET translation which reads "for salvation." He is the senior New Testament editor of the NET Bible.

Again, you really need to learn what the appeal to authority fallacy is all about. The "Argument from Authority is:
Source A says that p is true.
Source A is authoritative.
Therefore, p is true.
See here for a good discussion that should help your understanding.

I have not stated that I am right because a recognized scholar says what I am saying. No, and this is a subtle difference, I have done my work and made my arguments based on the text itself. It just so happens that several noted and well-known scholars happen to agree with me. Again, that encourages me, but it doesn't make me right. My exegesis of the text does that.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Van
I do thank Archangel for working so hard to stand firm in his belief in the truth. But, my assertion remains solid, nothing in the Greek Grammar of 2 Thessalonians 2:13 precludes my understanding of the verse. My view does not violate the syntax, so based on grammar alone, my view is better supported. But as I have said, grammar only points to a valid understanding, and more than one valid understanding based on grammar is possible.

Again we have no "this is why I am right," no "your understanding of the [insert aspect of Greek grammar here] is wrong because...," and no engagement with the technical arguments based in the Greek text whatsoever.

In short, your response is tantamount to saying "whatever...I'm not listening." Which is, frankly, what I expected of you, not having any facility with the Greek.

The Archangel

 

[Van]

Once more, fiction after fiction is posted by Calvinist acolates:

1) 2 Thessalonians 2:13 simply reads God chose you for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and faith in the truth. Salvation in the Greek is an adjective, not a verb so the Calvinists simply rewrite the verse changing salvation into saved, making it a verb.

2) Dr. Wallace's translation can be found in the NET bible. Case closed.

3) Next the Calvinist simply disparages me to bolster his nonsensical argument.

4) I say I have no knowledge of Greek grammar but I can read those who do, including Dr. Wallace.

5) To repeat, for those with any technical competence in Greek. Salvation is an adjective, not a verb, so the correct understanding based on the grammar is we are chosen through faith in the truth. This is not rocket science.

 

[Winman]

Once more, fiction after fiction is posted by Calvinist acolates:

1) 2 Thessalonians 2:13 simply reads God chose you for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and faith in the truth. Salvation in the Greek is an adjective, not a verb so the Calvinists simply rewrite the verse changing salvation into saved, making it a verb.

2) Dr. Wallace's translation can be found in the NET bible. Case closed.

3) Next the Calvinist simply disparages me to bolster his nonsensical argument.

4) I say I have no knowledge of Greek grammar but I can read those who do, including Dr. Wallace.

5) To repeat, for those with any technical competence in Greek. Salvation is an adjective, not a verb, so the correct understanding based on the grammar is we are chosen through faith in the truth. This is not rocket science.

I would think the real issue is over the definition of the word "to" in this verse.

2 Thes 2:13 But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth:

This is the word that determines the proper understanding of this verse.

The Calvinist will define "to" to mean that God has chosen certain persons for the purpose to be saved, and he has determined to accomplish this through the means of sanctification of the Spirit, and belief of the truth. This makes being chosen to be saved the cause, belief of the truth the effect.

The non-Calvinist interprets this verse to say God has chosen to save certain persons who are sanctified by the Spirit, and belief of the truth. This makes God's choice of those who believe the truth to be the cause, salvation the effect.

Eph 2:8 says, "For by grace are ye saved THROUGH faith", this supports the interpretation that faith is the cause, salvation the effect of believing.

Many other scriptures support the non-Calvinist view.

Luk 7:50 And he said to the woman, Thy faith hath saved thee; go in peace.

According to Calvinism, Jesus should have told the woman;

Thy salvation hath made thee believe, go in peace.

The non-Calvinist view of 2 Thes 2:13 is the correct and scriptural view, faith is always shown as the cause, salvation the effect.

 

[The Biblicist]

I would think the real issue is over the definition of the word "to" in this verse.

2 Thes 2:13 But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth:

This is the word that determines the proper understanding of this verse.

The Calvinist will define "to" to mean that God has chosen certain persons for the purpose to be saved, and he has determined to accomplish this through the means of sanctification of the Spirit, and belief of the truth. This makes being chosen to be saved the cause, belief of the truth the effect.

The non-Calvinist interprets this verse to say God has chosen to save certain persons who are sanctified by the Spirit, and also believe the truth. This makes belief of the truth to be the cause, salvation the effect.

You have correctly stated the differences. However, you did not note that the preposition translated "to" is the Greek preposition "eis" which has an accusative case direct object translated "salvation." Basic Greek grammar asserts that the accusative case fundementally denotes "termination point" and in this case it is the termination point of being "chosen." Hence, "eis" with the accusative denoting termination point would most naturally be translated "to" or "unto" rather than "for" as "for" is to broad of term that goes beyond the basic concept of termination point. The prepositon "for" may be interpreted to mean "cause" (because of) or "purpose" (in order to) neither of which suit the accusative case with "eis". The accusative case naturally denotes termination point of action and "eis" would simply infer the movement of that action in direction to that point. This is the most natural interpretation if no bias is involved. In most basic Grammar books the preposition "eis" is diagrammed as movement in direction from outside to inside a circle or sphere. When used with the accusative case which denotes a termination point the action of this movement would terminate with the noun "salvation." Thus the action of being chosen moves (eis) in direction to the terminating point of "salvation." Thus "to" or "unto" more properly translates "eis" in connection with the accusate case noun.

As for the second prepositional phrase and the preposition "en" one must not interpret "en" to mean the same thing as "eis" or else the use of both is neutered completely. Paul uses both because they do not mean the same thing and he is making a distinctio.n The preposition "en" normally is diagrammed in basic Greek grammars to refer to something confined WITHIN a sphere or circle whereas "eis" is diagrammed as first external to the circle moving in a direction that enters into it.

The most natural unbiased interpretation is that we are "beloved" because "hoti" (a causal preposition) we are chosen unto the termination point of salvation and this salvation is confined within the sphere of being set apart by the Holy Spirit and belief of the truth. Hence, the second preposition does not define the cause of being chosen but the nature of the salvation His choice terminated in. That is the obvious and normal interpetation if NO BIAS is involved and the rudimentary laws of Grammar are followed.

Eph 2:8 says, "For by grace are ye saved THROUGH faith", this supports the interpretation that faith is the cause, salvation the effect of believing.

The phrase "by grace are ye saved" translates a PERFECT tense periphrastic construct or what is two verbs with two different tenses (perfect/present)
joined together.

This perfect tense construct is first found in verse 5 to defined being "quickened" (which is the subject in verses 1-10). Here quickened is found in the Aorist tense and so the perfect tense construct must be interpeting in harmony with the Aorist tense completed action if the interpreter is honest. it is futher described by the Aorist tense "created" in verse 10 and the pronouns prove that being "created in Christ Jesus" have for its antecedent "His workmanship" in verse 10a which is "not of works" (v. 9) which is a "gift of God" and "not of yourselves" in verse 8b which is "are saved through faith" in verse 8a.

The intent of the Perfect tense is to denote a COMPLETED ACTION that continues to STAND COMPLETED from the point of completion to the present. So at the point of being quickened (saved - vv. 5,8) quickening stands completed, unaltered as a completed action and continues that way. The present tense verb in this construct simply demands that completed state continues as a completed state but all the action took place at a precise point in the past in a completed point in time including "through faith" which is restricted to that completed point of action.


Now, enters the prepositional phrase "dia" or "through faith". What no honest grammarian can deny in regard to TIME is that if one is "saved" or "quickened" or "created in Christ Jesus" as a completed action at a specific point in the past "through faith" then they are simeltaneous in action as both occur in the same point of completed action.

When it is understood that the unregenerated condition is the state of being alienated from the life of God "THROUGH IGNORANCE" (Eph. 4:18) and that the INTERNAL removal of that ignorance with the "light of knowledge" is due to the COMMAND of God as in Genesis 1:3 where the words are vehicles of Creative power (2 Cor. 4:6)and thus not spoken in "word only" but come to the elect "IN POWER AND IN THE SPIRIT" (1 Thes. 1:4-5) then it will be clearly seen that the effectual call is when the Holy Spirit infuses the preaching of the gospel with creative power which reverses being "alienated from the life of God through ignorance" to being brought into union with the life of God through internal divine revelation of the truth of the gospel.

The point is that justifying faith has for its substance the truth of the gospel being conveyed to the elect OUTWARDLY but when it pleases God to reveal INWARDLY Christ to the soul the gospel becomes the vehicle of creative power as in Genesis 1:3 when the words of God spoke light into existence (2 Cor. 4:6) and likewise when it pleases God to reveal Christ INWARDLY to His elect He uses the words of the gospel as vehicles for His Creative power to speak faith in Christ into existence so that we are no longer "alienated from the life of God THROUGH IGNORANCE" (Eph. 4:18) but we are united to the life of God THROUGH DIVINE REVELATION which is the substance and hope of justifying faith. In other words the opposite of "being alienated from the life of God THROUGH IGNORANCE" is being brought into spiritual union with the life of God THROUGH FAITH by creative command - 2 Cor. 4:6. Thus by His own word He quickened us (James 1:18) being born again by the incorruptible word of truth (1 Pet. 1:23,28).

 

[Winman]

I do not know Greek, nor Greek grammar, so your argument means nothing to me.

And even Greek experts often disagree. So an argument from the Greek means little.

So, for me, I look to other scripture that directly relates to the same subject, and all such scripture supports the non-Calvinist view, that faith is the cause, salvation the effect. There are no exceptions to this in scripture.

Luk 7:50 And he said to the woman, Thy faith hath saved thee; go in peace.

This scripture clearly argues that faith is the cause, salvation the effect.

Jhn 20:31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.

Luk 8:12 Those by the way side are they that hear; then cometh the devil, and taketh away the word out of their hearts, lest they should believe and be saved.

Acts 16:31 And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.

All of these scriptures show a person must believe to be saved.

So, your view has no support in scripture whatsoever, while there are numerous scriptures that clearly refute your view.

 

[The Biblicist]

I do not know Greek, nor Greek grammar, so your argument means nothing to me.

Surely, there is on this forum in this debate someone who does not know Greek that takes your side??????? If not, then why continue to argue from a standpoint of admitted ignorance?????? If I argued from a standpoint of admitted ignorance, I can only imagine the ridicule I would receive from you.

I won't ridicule but I will ask you to not to display your ignorance by denying something you admittedly have no knowledge about.

Surely Skandelon has some Greek background, let him take up the argument for you.

I don't think anyone who knows basic Greek grammar can really dispute anything I said. If so, I would like to see how?

If someone is a Greek student who wishes to take up your side let him acknowledge that what I provided was the elementary ordinary basics of Greek grammar. I am not arguing that such terms may be used differently, I am arguing what I provided is the most natural and any other variation must have contextual justification to go beyond the most natural.

 

[The Biblicist]

Surely, there is on this forum in this debate someone who does not know Greek that takes your side??????? If not, then why continue to argue from a standpoint of admitted ignorance?????? If I argued from a standpoint of admitted ignorance, I can only imagine the ridicule I would receive from you.

I won't ridicule but I will ask you to not to display your ignorance by denying something you admittedly have no knowledge about.

Surely Skandelon has some Greek background, let him take up the argument for you.

I don't think anyone who knows basic Greek grammar can really dispute anything I said. If so, I would like to see how?

If someone is a Greek student who wishes to take up your side let him acknowledge that what I provided was the elementary ordinary basics of Greek grammar. I am not arguing that such terms may be used differently, I am arguing what I provided is the most natural and any other variation must have contextual justification to go beyond the most natural.

Let me reemphasize this fact: When any interpreter approaches a text they must begin with the basic fundementals of Greek grammar and basic ordinary meanings of words. Only when the text before you will not sustain the ordinary and normal should the exegete seek advanced or different possibilities. What I presented was pure basics and normal meanings. What you must do is show why the basics and normal meanings must be rejected.

Anyone who has taken baby Greek grammar is familar with the diagram using the circle in defining the raw basic meaning of different participles. Nothing new, nothing fancy, just raw basics. Anyone that has taken baby Greek grammar is familair with the basic function of the accusative case as the case of termination where the action is terminated. Nothing fancy, just raw basics. Anyone that has taken baby Greek grammar is familiar with the basic causal function of the preposition "hoti." My interpretation of 2 Thessalonians 2:13 is completely based upon the raw basics from whence every exegete must begin and then provide contextual cause to eliminate before seeking advanced or different meanings and interpetations.

 

[Van]

Once more the Calvinist has offered up Greek Grammar nonsense and claimed it reflected some sort of expert view.

One of the uses of "eis" with an accusative is to show aim or purpose, hence "for salvation" is found in the NASB and NKJV, and HCSB, and NET, and WEB. In order to rewrite the verse and turn a noun into a verb, the Calvinist claims all these scholars got it wrong. As I said, nonsense.

Folks, scripture after scripture teaches we are chosen individually during our lifetime, after we have believed, and set apart in Christ. Calvinism simply throws up a smokescreen to rewrite each of these verses.

We are saved through faith, therefore our faith comes before our salvation. Our faith, if credited by God, provides our access to the grace in which we stand, Romans 5:2.

Calvinism says we are saved by instilled faith through irresistible grace, totally rewriting and reversing the order given in scripture. Calvinism is mistaken doctrine and the rewrites are obvious.

 

[preacher4truth]

When I see any person dismiss the study and academic understanding of theology with this lame excuse (or such like) 'I do not know Greek, nor Greek grammar, so your argument means nothing to me' I just shake my head in disgust of such a weak, shameful and shallow position.

The quote comes to an ignorant, arrogant and dismissive conclusion that is irrational and bogus. We are both Spiritually and intellectually responsible for where we are at in this life, thus was Nicodemus rebuked for 'not knowing' and for being Spiritually ignorant as well. This goes hand in hand.

That cretinous and benighted attitude right there describes one of the major problems in the church today -- lack of knowledge -- 2 Peter 3:18, or what we can call 'ignorance' according to the Scriptures.

Using the above quoted excuse is one simply turning a blind eye, and being willingly ignorant, and shows absolutely no desire to be challenged in their theology, thinking or understanding of Scripture and the things of God. It is to hold to a totally unteachable spirit while filled with arrogance.

These typically implement a 'proof text theology' (using a verse out of context that contradicts Scripture and dogmatic truth in many other areas of the Bible). The sad thing is they absolutely cannot and will not see the error of their ways.

 

[Winman]

When I see any person dismiss the study and academic understanding of theology with this lame excuse (or such like) 'I do not know Greek, nor Greek grammar, so your argument means nothing to me' I just shake my head in disgust of such a weak, shameful and shallow position.

The quote comes to an ignorant, arrogant and dismissive conclusion that is irrational and bogus. We are both Spiritually and intellectually responsible for where we are at in this life, thus was Nicodemus rebuked for 'not knowing' and for being Spiritually ignorant as well. This goes hand in hand.

That cretinous and benighted attitude right there describes one of the major problems in the church today -- lack of knowledge -- 2 Peter 3:18, or what we can call 'ignorance' according to the Scriptures.

Using the above quoted excuse is one simply turning a blind eye, and being willingly ignorant, and shows absolutely no desire to be challenged in their theology, thinking or understanding of Scripture and the things of God. It is to hold to a totally unteachable spirit while filled with arrogance.

These typically implement a 'proof text theology' (using a verse out of context that contradicts Scripture and dogmatic truth in many other areas of the Bible). The sad thing is they absolutely cannot and will not see the error of their ways.

What an idiot. You EXPECT every single Christian to know Greek? Really? How about Latin? How about ancient Hebrew?

Probably 99.94% (like Ivory Soap) of Christians do not know Greek. And English speaking people do not need Greek to understand the scriptures, because we have them in English.

Even if I were to know Greek, it would not settle the issue, Greek scholars have argued and debated over scriptures for centuries. Here is a detailed article showing that scholars cannot agree whether Ephesians 2:8 is saying faith is the gift spoken of.

http://chafer.nextmeta.com/files/v12n2_4is_faith_a_gift_from_god_according.pdf

So, if the greatest Greek scholars cannot agree (and they can't), how are we supposed to agree here at BB?

The fact is, there are many scriptures, perhaps dozens that all say you must believe to be made alive, to have life, to be saved, etc... In fact, Ephesians 2:8 is the ONLY scripture that Calvinism can find that can be wrested to support their view.

 

[quantumfaith]

What an idiot. You EXPECT every single Christian to know Greek? Really? How about Latin? How about ancient Hebrew?

Probably 99.94% (like Ivory Soap) of Christians do not know Greek. And English speaking people do not need Greek to understand the scriptures, because we have them in English.

Even if I were to know Greek, it would not settle the issue, Greek scholars have argued and debated over scriptures for centuries. Here is a detailed article showing that scholars cannot agree whether Ephesians 2:8 is saying faith is the gift spoken of.

http://chafer.nextmeta.com/files/v12n2_4is_faith_a_gift_from_god_according.pdf

So, if the greatest Greek scholars cannot agree (and they can't), how are we supposed to agree here at BB?

The fact is, there are many scriptures, perhaps dozens that all say you must believe to be made alive, to have life, to be saved, etc... In fact, Ephesians 2:8 is the ONLY scripture that Calvinism can find that can be wrested to support their view.

I will bet Winman that you know as much if not more greek than he does. Surely God would never have intended that we all master the intricacies and nuances of the greek language. Surely God is sovereign and powerful enough to still communicate (without void) his message to humanity without the academic requirement of greek mastery.

 

[Skandelon]

First, Spurgeon was a five point Calvinist.

I know, that is why I was laughing at your rebuke of his quote.

I happen to have Spurgeon's sermons on each point and so don't tell me I am mistaken. Second, I understand Spurgeon's deeper explanation of his approach which is that He made a distinction between God's revealed will versus His sovereign will and according to His revealed will it is God's desire that men do not sin, do not violate any of his commandments, do repent and be saved.

So God deceives people by revealing one will and harboring another secret will? Interesting. I didn't see Spurgeon teach on that point...not denying it, but I just didn't see it.

 

[Winman]

I will bet Winman that you know as much if not more greek than he does. Surely God would never have intended that we all master the intricacies and nuances of the greek language. Surely God is sovereign and powerful enough to still communicate (without void) his message to humanity without the academic requirement of greek mastery.

Well, everyone knows more Greek than me, I only look at Greek occasionally in Strong's. And I am not an expert on grammar either. That said, I can read, and I believe I have good comprehension skills, though I am sure Calvinists would disagree.

What Calvinists are skilled at is false arguments. I would bet I have seen a dozen Calvinists all teach that Romans 3 teaches inability when it does no such thing. Just because men do not do good or seek God does not mean they are unable to repent and seek God.

In fact, scripture shows men repenting and seeking God.

Mat 11:21 Woe unto thee, Chorazin! woe unto thee, Bethsaida! for if the mighty works, which were done in you, had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes.
22 But I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon at the day of judgment, than for you.
23 And thou, Capernaum, which art exalted unto heaven, shalt be brought down to hell: for if the mighty works, which have been done in thee, had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day.

Mat 12:41 The men of Nineveh shall rise in judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it: because they repented at the preaching of Jonas; and, behold, a greater than Jonas is here.

The scriptures do not show men are unable to repent and seek God, they show the exact opposite, that men are ABLE to turn to God and seek him.

Jesus said if the mighty works he had performed had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented. Jesus then implies that if the mighty works he did were seen in Sodom, they would likewise have repented and would have remained unto this day.

Total Inability is absolutely false doctrine. And you don't need to know Greek to determine this from scripture.

 

[Iconoclast]

preacher4truth

When I see any person dismiss the study and academic understanding of theology with this lame excuse (or such like) 'I do not know Greek, nor Greek grammar, so your argument means nothing to me' I just shake my head in disgust of such a weak, shameful and shallow position.

The quote comes to an ignorant, arrogant and dismissive conclusion that is irrational and bogus. We are both Spiritually and intellectually responsible for where we are at in this life, thus was Nicodemus rebuked for 'not knowing' and for being Spiritually ignorant as well. This goes hand in hand.

Yes...this sad attitude demonstrates an agenda, rather than a desire for truth.

That cretinous and benighted attitude right there describes one of the major problems in the church today -- lack of knowledge -- 2 Peter 3:18, or what we can call 'ignorance' according to the Scriptures.

yes....willful ignorance:thumbsup:

Using the above quoted excuse is one simply turning a blind eye, and being willingly ignorant, and shows absolutely no desire to be challenged in their theology, thinking or understanding of Scripture and the things of God. It is to hold to a totally unteachable spirit while filled with arrogance.

Yes...this is clear:thumbsup:

These typically implement a 'proof text theology' (using a verse out of context that contradicts Scripture and dogmatic truth in many other areas of the Bible). The sad thing is they absolutely cannot and will not see the error of their ways.

Sadly....you are correct in this:thumbsup:

 

[Winman]

preacher4truth

Yes...this sad attitude demonstrates an agenda, rather than a desire for truth.

yes....willful ignorance:thumbsup:

Yes...this is clear:thumbsup:

Sadly....you are correct in this:thumbsup:

What a hypocrite! You do not know Greek or Hebrew yourself.

Matt
I am more than sure I can post my own response to anything you have to offer. I do not know greek and hebrew however,so if is alright with you I will cut and paste by those who do........and even if it is not alright with you.
I also know that many godly men have already taught much clearer than I could so I do not think I have to re-invent the wheel.
Let me take a look at some of your other posts...to see where you are coming from. I suspect I already know.

From what I can see from some of your "posts" there is almost no scripture offered by you. Just you spouting off your opinions.
Speaking of being lazy...it is ignorant professors like yourself who will not take the time to read an article much less a book and maybe learn something. You just post a sarcastic comment sharing your ignorance online, rather than reading and offering a biblical response. You cannot offer a theological thought so you attack the person.....I have seen this before amd I am not impressed.

Source- http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1613184&postcount=19

What a total hypocrite you are, you do not know Greek or Hebrew yourself.

 

[Luke2427]

What an idiot. You EXPECT every single Christian to know Greek? Really? How about Latin? How about ancient Hebrew?

Probably 99.94% (like Ivory Soap) of Christians do not know Greek. And English speaking people do not need Greek to understand the scriptures, because we have them in English.

Even if I were to know Greek, it would not settle the issue, Greek scholars have argued and debated over scriptures for centuries. Here is a detailed article showing that scholars cannot agree whether Ephesians 2:8 is saying faith is the gift spoken of.

http://chafer.nextmeta.com/files/v12n2_4is_faith_a_gift_from_god_according.pdf

So, if the greatest Greek scholars cannot agree (and they can't), how are we supposed to agree here at BB?

The fact is, there are many scriptures, perhaps dozens that all say you must believe to be made alive, to have life, to be saved, etc... In fact, Ephesians 2:8 is the ONLY scripture that Calvinism can find that can be wrested to support their view.

If there were 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 Scriptures that said you had to believe to be saved, what against Calvinism would that prove???

OF COURSE YOU HAVE TO BELIEVE TO BE SAVED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The greatest champions of that truth OF ALL TIME have been reformed people!!

What that does NOT say is how you COME TO HAVE THE FAITH TO BELIEVE.

How DO people believe?

WHY do people believe?

These are the pertinent questions that you seem UTTERLY unable to face. UTTERLY unable!

The answer is that God GIVES them the faith to believe.

God even GIVES them the WILL to believe.

The Bible could not be more clear on this- and no, not in just one place- but REPEATEDLY.

If you need the references, I'll give them to you. But if you need them, that automatically means that you are not scripturally educated enough to even be TALKING about these matters.

 

[Luke2427]

I know, that is why I was laughing at your rebuke of his quote.
So God deceives people by revealing one will and harboring another secret will? Interesting. I didn't see Spurgeon teach on that point...not denying it, but I just didn't see it.

You know that you have two wills on most things. Everybody does. Of COURSE GOD DOES!!!!

Right this moment, as you READ these words that I have typed there is part of you that wills to say, "To heck with this! I ought to be reading or praying or frolicking about with my children. I WILL not respond."

Then there is another part of you that say, "Yet I also WILL to not let Calvinists win the day. I have to respond to this post or else it will look like I am bested at my own favorite game- furthermore it will be yielding more ground to Calvinists which are already gaining ground in this generation by leaps and bounds. I MUST respond!!"

You have two wills.

God has two wills as well.

It is not at ALL difficult to comprehend.

God ALWAYS hates evil but God has a greater will to ordain that evil come to pass so that grace and mercy can exist and his Son can be glorified forever by saints redeemed from that evil by his Son's own unspeakable sacrifice.

It is really easy enough for a child to understand, isn't it?

 

[Luke2427]

I will bet Winman that you know as much if not more greek than he does. Surely God would never have intended that we all master the intricacies and nuances of the greek language. Surely God is sovereign and powerful enough to still communicate (without void) his message to humanity without the academic requirement of greek mastery.

Its not about his power. Its about the way he has designed this universe. Except for a very brief stint in history it has always required study to understand languages that you did not already know.

The New Testament was written in the most descriptive language of all time. NO English Bible can capture all the nuances and treasures of divine truth buried in the Greek language.

So we have to be educated to get right what God has given us.

It is often remarked that Peter and some of the other Apostles were not educated men. From that people argue that we don't have to be educated either.

But what is often TOTALLY missed by these people is...

PETER SPOKE GREEK AND HEBREW!!!

He did not HAVE to learn it.

PETER LIVED THE HISTORICAL BACKGROUNDS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT!!

He did not have to go to school to learn the historical context of the New Testament books.

Peter knew all too well about Atiochus Epiphanes.

I have taken NUMEROUS classes on nothing more than Backgrounds of the New Testament.

Peter KNEW the Gnostics FIRST HAND!!

Of course he did not have to be educated. His own LIFE was his educatoin.

We have to go to school for YEARS just to SCRATCH the SURFACE of the knowledge that Peter had as a fisherman.

This is why ALL clergy ought to seek education.

Stupidity in the pulpit is the NUMBER ONE problem of this age.

We have absolute backwater, fundamentalist, MORONS filling so many pulpits today!! And that has created churches filled with arrogant idiots who do not know up from down.

We don't need LESS education. We need MORE of it. More and more and more of it.

We need less snake handling morons and more well educated clergy in our pulpits today.

And quite frankly, most fundy churches today are not a much higher step above the stupid level of mountain snake handlers.

 

[Squire Robertsson]

This

What an idiot.

business has got to stop. Y'all need to work on your vocabulary or get a little more imaginative in your composition.