Cured

[Tom Butler]

Are you suggesting all person’s once they are saved that they should change the statement "I was saved because I believed in Christ" to "He saved me because He made me believe in Christ"

Now Gordon, my brother, you didn't ask the question because you didn't know the answer, did you? It's just an excuse to bring up the tired old "God forced salvation on me. I didn't want it, but God jammed it down my throat. He dragged me kicking and screaming into His kingdom."

Gordon, you are a briliant debater. Wrong on some things, but brilliant nonetheless. You are a worthy adversary. You don't need to trivialize the debate with that old saw. You're better than that.

Oh, wait a minute.......now I see. You were just joking. Having a little fun.

Then never mind. Forget what I just said.

 

[Pastor Larry]

It means what it says Knowledge before hand. That is what it means.

I have cited four sources from people known and widely accepted for their study of Greek and the meanings of Greek words. So far, you have not addressed them. The truth is that you know very little about Greek, and you are not qualified to tell us what the word means. So cite someone who is.

The verb “foreknew” in Romans 8:29 is indicative aorist active third person singular. …Taking words for what they are and what they mean. "pro - before" "gnoo from ginooskoo" to know

All of which is true. None of which helps you since that is not the point of disagreement.

God knew before in the past - that is what it means. Pure Simple Truth.

God did know before in the past. (Think about the absurdity of that sentence: Before in the past is redundant.) But the issue here is the meaning of proginosko. You have yet to offer any citation of a lexical source for your opinion.

What does Aorist Active mean: It means the occurrence of an action in the past?

Technically, No. But that’s irrelevant. There is no question that God’s “proginosko” happened in the past. The question is about the meaning of the word.

I am not screaming all I am doing is making it big enough so that you don't miss it.

When you are going to make errors, it is best to put them in really small type, in hopes that people will miss them.

Calvinist are constantly trying to make foreknow refer to relationship but if we are intellectually honest with the grammar and the meaning of the words that is absolutely impossible in the Romans 8:29 passage.

That is simply false. I have demonstrated from the meaning of the words, as well as the context of Rom 8 that you are wrong. And you have offered nothing in response.

…we have this word telling us that God foreknew an action in the past. What action was it that He foreknew. Your salvation.

Here is an example of your abuse of the text. When you read the text, and look for the object of the verb “foreknown,” you see very clearly that it is not an action that was foreknown, but a person. You have changed the text to fit your theology. That is simply wrong.


The reality is, Gordon, that you are not even challenging on any of these issues. You will not address the meaning of the word from recognized lexical sources. You only give your opinion about it. You will not address the exegesis of these passages and answer the objections to your view. You simply repeat what you have already said. That doesn't help, especially given the overwhelming evidence against your position.

 

[Pastor Larry]

No, I don't have his book. The objectionable theory is as plain as the nose on my face.

You should get the book, or one similar to it to at least find out what you are disagreeing with. You don’t even know what you don’t believe. That’s a serious problem.

So we're back to some form of regeneration before hearing again.

Nope.

"Works" of belief and repentance are certainly objectionable to many other Calvinists here if they result in salvation.

Again, you need to understand what they are objecting to, and what Calvinism believes. Begin with Westminster. It will help your understanding, and help you to avoid making these silly arguments that don’t address real issues.

Good, what are they?

Faith and obedience.

Pastor, yes. You know -- the ones who say the elements of communion are changed to blood and flesh. Who invite people to a closer walk (sanctification) but neglect to offer them salvation. Yeah -- you?

The question was about seeing a reformed Methodist church. By definition, Methodists are not Reformed. They are Arminian. They typically do not believe in transubstantiation (elements turned to body and blood. They may or may not offer salvation. Some do; some do not. My dad was saved as a Methodist. Evangelist Bob Jones Sr and Evangelist Bob Schuller (the old guy, not the recent one) was a Methodist evangelist who eventually left Methodism over the issue of the lack of the gospel. So some Methodists do preach the gospel; they are not Reformed.

Thankfully, I have recently, too. It's NOT the norm, though, Larry.

Quite frankly, you are not qualified to say what the norm is in Presbyterian churches.

I KNEW it! Regenerated before hearing, before believing, before salvation! Here we go again!

I have answered explicitly on this issue.

limiting oneself from freedoms one has is NOT lack of freedom -- it is self-discipline.

God has not chosen to limit himself from something he could legitimately do. He is bound by his nature. He cannot choose to cease being God. The Bible says it is impossible for him to lie. That doesn’t mean he could lie but chooses not to. It means that he cannot (a word of ability) lie.

Precisely! Thank you! Man can choose good and evil as I've said all along. All he has to do is "will" to do it -- that is, be convicted of the necessity by, say, the Holy Spirit.

Can a person with only a sinful nature will to do something contrary to that nature? No.

No, you backed off this at one point saying that faith and regeneration were simultaneous.

They are simultaneous. Please don’t get confused on this.

I said after hearing and believing, God gives faith and regeneration.

But this is nonsense. God doesn’t “give faith” after “believing.” To believe is to have faith. These two, as we have shown from Scripture are the same thing.

Now you're back to denying hearing and believing as prededent for faith and regeneration.

No, I am not. You are clueless. Your only hope here is the multiplication of words. You keep talking perhaps in hope of confusing others. You make no sense.

Q: Is faith now before hearing since it is simultaneous again with regeneration?

Faith is after hearing; it is logically after a unilateral, effectual work of God, called by some regeneration, by other effectual call. Again, remember that the distinction between faith and regeneration is a logical one, not a chronological one.

And God didn't make the covenant with the disciples and the Christian Jews in Jerusalem and on down through the 'branches" that weren't "whacked off?" The "day coming" wasn't Pentecost?

No. Read Jeremiah and notice that the things promised there did not happen at Pentecost.

And I would make this comment as well -- just because you see it promised to Israel in Jeremiah does NOT mean it doesn't appear in NT scripture for the church. But I'll research what I think is a appalling oversight on your part.

It is not an appalling oversight. It is taking Scripture for what it says.

Like those other words (all, world, whosoever, etc. that can't find natural meaning in Calvinism) Always try to remember when you use terms Calvinistically to add that caveate, Lar. Some will take exception if they find our you are using another language to communicate with them.

I insist that words be used as they are used in the Bible. I reject any attempt on your part to redefine them to fit your theology.

 

[russell55]

Is this what you are looking for?

That doesn't look like a lexicon entry. A lexicon gives you definitions, and that entry you posted just gives the declensions of the verb and tells you what words it's a compound of. It doesn't give you an actual definition of the whole compound word. What source is that?

Anyway, long story short, you need to use a lexicon to define Greek words for you. BDAG would be considered the standard, but there are others.

Now you know. No thrill, No spill, Just the simple truth. Taking words for what they are and what they mean. "pro - before" "gnoo from ginooskoo" to know

But that isn't how you define compound words, is it? That would make a butterfly into a flying stick of butter.

Calvinist are constantly trying to make foreknow refer to relationship but if we are intellectually honest with the grammar and the meaning of the words that is absolutely impossible in the Romans 8:29 passage.

Calvinists are not trying to make foreknow mean anything. They are simply looking it up in a Greek lexicon and finding out what it really means and then adjusting their theology to fit.

Being intellectually honest means using the best sources. For definitions of N.T. Greek words, being intellectually honest means using a lexicon. If you are going to be arguing the definitions of Greek words, you need to get yourself one.

 

[skypair]

Larry,

Think about it: In Rom 8:29 those who are foreknown are called, justified, and then glorified. In the passage there are none who are foreknown who are not eventually glorified.

See, here's the thing -- there's a word already in the context (you leave it out for some reason) that HANDLES the "chosen" part you seek. That word is PREDESTINE! There is no sense putting it in there twice (foreknow meaning predestined and predestined meaning predestined) unless your theology doesn't acknowledge that foreknow means "foresaw."

Now, wanna tell us why you left out predestine? Why that word already covers what you want foreknow to cover? Why your lexical is not just "covering all the theological bases" and not just being contextually definitive considering that in another CONTEXT it can have that other meaning?

Here's something that might go a long way in your line of work, Lar -- we live in the age of the "spirit," not in the age of the "letter." That is, in the OT they would copy each letter carefully (well, you would know that) because the "letter" was so important. Today we understand largely by CONTEXT and PRECEPT UPON PRECEPT. You know -- like Jesus taught us when He said that hate is murder. Hate wasn't the "letter" of that commandment but it WAS the "spirit" of it as Jesus taught us, right?

Paul said (and I repeat) "...charging them before the Lord that they strive not about words to no profit, but to the subverting of the hearers." 2Tim 2:14 Now see, the OT Jews would have strove over each word but we are not to do so. That is one thing that makes Calvinism so repulsive to me -- that it takes words with common meanings and assigns them other definitions (obvious words like "all" and "whosoever" and "world"). And ya know -- if you believe in Calvinism, it's pretty easy to swallow those. But if you believe in the Bible, not so easy.

skypair

 

[skypair]

Actually, what I'm doing is trying to make my testimony consistent with what I believe the scripture teaches.

Tom -- sorry I said what I did. I know you are trying to be the best Christian you know how to be. And I realized that when I was 16, I had no idea of anything but the "simplicity that is in Christ Jesus."

My testimony doesn't need any "massaging" since then. My faith hasn't become more complex since that day -- just deeper. If Calvinism helps you, then at your age have at it! I just happen to think it is going to be one of those things that is consumed at the Bema along with the other thoughts, wisdom, and glroy of men (wood, hay, and stubble), 1Cor 3.

skypair

 

[psalms109:31]

Meaning

The diffenation of the word foreknew is both to know beforehand and also to predestined.

God has a way always to protect His word, so have faith in God.

That is why the writer said that He foreknew so He also predestined to show that these go hand and hand.

It is God who keeps us, because His word says that He will keep the humble and meek who trust in the name of the Lord.

Just trust in the Lord and not men and you will not be disappointed.

Only men will try to take away the hope that this world has in Jesus.

 

[skypair]

Again, you need to understand what they are objecting to, and what Calvinism believes. Begin with Westminster. It will help your understanding, and help you to avoid making these silly arguments that don’t address real issues.

I think I read Hunt's "rundown" on it once. And yes, I have read the Confession but it doesn't stick out in my mind what you are referring to.

Faith and obedience.

The "response of faith" is faith and obedience? First off, faith is not mine to have but only to receive as a "gift" according to you and 1Cor 12:9 and according to ME, TOO! So how can I give God faith? Try this simpler to understand "response" -- "which ye RECEIVED, and wherein ye STAND: By which ye are also saved..." 1Cor 15:1-2 (part of the simplest gospel anywhere in the Bible, Lar.) They received the gospel applying it to themselves and stand in it before God. I'd say a little prayer of repentance and receiving and thanks would be a good place to STAND before God, wouldn't you? There -- I've done it. I've committed my life to my Savior and future "Husband!" raying:

The question was about seeing a reformed Methodist church. By definition, Methodists are not Reformed.

Yeah, I know that but more "intellectuals" are accepting parts of the Reform dogma. I even detect it in Charles Stanley. Do you?

I have answered explicitly on this issue.

Yeah, I thought you did and that is what I got out of what you said. Now you come up with this "effectual calling" that you (apparently) didn't quite explain (until below).

God has not chosen to limit himself from something he could legitimately do.

Sure He has! He limited His knowledge so He could become a man. He limited His sovereignty so that man could be sovereignly make his own decisions. What you are saying -- that "God does not limit Himself from something He could legitmately do" -- makes us all the "images of God" in our sin!

But this is nonsense. God doesn’t “give faith” after “believing.” To believe is to have faith.

Here's why they are different -- we believe and then we get the "evidence" of faith which is the indwelling Holy Spirit. That's essentially what Heb 11:1 says "Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things believed [Dr. Ed Young's interp but its pretty good, I think]." We believed "sight unseen" -- we got faith so we would see Him!

No, I am not. You are clueless.

Clueless as one who believes in "the simplicity that is in Christ Jesus?" 2Cor 11:3 Good for me! :laugh:

In fact, this comes on the heels of another text you don't quite believe -- our espousal to Christ. Here in this same text, Paul is saying "I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted [as say, by Calvinism] from the simplicity that is in Christ Jesus." I gladly accept all your taunting on His account!

Faith is after hearing; it is logically after a unilateral, effectual work of God, called by some regeneration

Just as I have always surmised, Lar. You're "tricking up" the gospel! That "unilateral, effectual work" is really just a totally depraved individual BELIEVING the gospel. He has processed the gospel through his natural intelligence and CHOSEN to believe it. You're/Calvinism is making it seem that we have to do NOTHING. Do you think doing NOTHING gets you into heaven, Lar?? Do nothing and the "sovereign, unilateral, effectual work" results in faith and regeneration. Larry, it is NOT without reason that they Bible says, "We beseech you also that ye receive not the grace of God in vain [don't just "hear"]. 2 (For he saith ... in the day of salvation have I succoured thee: behold, now is the accepted time [be RECONCILED and RECEIVE}; behold, now is the day of salvation.) 2Cor 6:1-2

skypair

 

[skypair]

As to the "new covenant"...

No. Read Jeremiah and notice that the things promised there did not happen at Pentecost.

I did -- now you read Jer 31:34. Same thing Jesus said in John 6:45 would come to those who "come unto Me." Same thing 1John 2:27 says of the "annointing that abideth in you." It's the operation of the "new covenant" in our times.

I insist that words be used as they are used in the Bible. I reject any attempt on your part to redefine them to fit your theology.

Fit MY theology?? Since when does the common defintion of "whosoever" mean "whoso of the elect?" Is that from your "lexical?" Or from your theology? Or maybe BOTH need to be thrown out the window!!

Let's face it -- Calvinists assume (even though it is unspoken) that anyone who comes to their church is "justified." That is part of their "sacralist" heritage (state church -- Calvinism was established like RCC, the "Mother of Harlots for this very obvious reason). So to cover all that "Mickey Mouse" about believing and receiving, they just assume that God handles all the "preliminaries" and they just have to grow the "wheat."

It's a lazy man's theology, in my view. Calvinists don't want to sow the seed -- they just want to reap the harvest. They don't want to provide answers to the tough theological questions like "How can I be saved?" Calsinism's answer: "You can't be saved [have any input into your salvation], only God can save."

And please don't accuse me of not knowing what I am talking about. This is obviously not the perception of one, such as yourself, who is on the inside looking out (I've always thought I was the luckiest guy in the world cause I didn't have to see me unless I looked into a mirror. Same often goes for theologies. Maybe you are blessed and cursed that you don't see the flaws.)

skypair

 

[Pastor Larry]

See, here's the thing -- there's a word already in the context (you leave it out for some reason) that HANDLES the "chosen" part you seek. That word is PREDESTINE! There is no sense putting it in there twice (foreknow meaning predestined and predestined meaning predestined) unless your theology doesn't acknowledge that foreknow means "foresaw."

I don’t think predestined and foreknew mean the same thing. I haven’t left it out. It simply wasn’t the topic of conversation.

Now, wanna tell us why you left out predestine? Why that word already covers what you want foreknow to cover? Why your lexical is not just "covering all the theological bases" and not just being contextually definitive considering that in another CONTEXT it can have that other meaning?

See your problem is that you don’t understand the word meanings. Foreknow deals with God’s electing love; predestine deals with God’s working out the electing love to bring people to conformity to Christ. A longer explanation could be given, but I am not sure you are interested. If you were, you probably would be doing some of the research and study I have suggested.

That is one thing that makes Calvinism so repulsive to me -- that it takes words with common meanings and assigns them other definitions (obvious words like "all" and "whosoever" and "world"). And ya know -- if you believe in Calvinism, it's pretty easy to swallow those. But if you believe in the Bible, not so easy.

This is simply dishonest. Your whole line of argument over word and spirit is terribly misguided, but then you add this to it. Calvinism does not take words with common meanings and give them other definitions. The definitions I have given you are the “common meaning” of the words in question, and I have given you the resources to check it out. You have so far refused apparently. It is you who is taking a word that means essentially to choose and reducing it merely to knowing ahead of time. Yet it does not mean that with respect to God.

I think I read Hunt's "rundown" on it once. And yes, I have read the Confession but it doesn't stick out in my mind what you are referring to.

Hunt is a notoriously bad resource on this topic. His book was a travesty and has been soundly refuted, both in terms of method and content. Westminster clearly declares the Calvinist position on faith and salvation. Take some time to review it. Many of your false statements here would be corrected simply by reading that.

The "response of faith" is faith and obedience? First off, faith is not mine to have but only to receive as a "gift" according to you and 1Cor 12:9 and according to ME, TOO! So how can I give God faith?

Why would you give God faith? That’s silly. No one has suggested you should.

Try this simpler to understand "response" -- "which ye RECEIVED, and wherein ye STAND: By which ye are also saved..." 1Cor 15:1-2 (part of the simplest gospel anywhere in the Bible, Lar.) They received the gospel applying it to themselves and stand in it before God. I'd say a little prayer of repentance and receiving and thanks would be a good place to STAND before God, wouldn't you? There -- I've done it. I've committed my life to my Savior and future "Husband!"

Good. But it couldn’t be more irrelevant to this topic. Perhaps start another thread on that if you wish.

Yeah, I know that but more "intellectuals" are accepting parts of the Reform dogma. I even detect it in Charles Stanley. Do you?

They are accepting parts of Reformed theology because as they study the Bible, it is what they see in it. As for Stanley, I have no idea. I don’t read or listen to Stanley.

Sure He has! He limited His knowledge so He could become a man. He limited His sovereignty so that man could be sovereignly make his own decisions. What you are saying -- that "God does not limit Himself from something He could legitmately do" -- makes us all the "images of God" in our sin!

Again, irrelevant to the topic. You are subtly trying to change topics. Please do not do that. The context of my comments was not about the incarnation, but about God being able to choose not to be God, or God being able to lie. He is not free to lie. He is not free to be anything other than God. Do not change the subject and twist my words like that.

Here's why they are different -- we believe and then we get the "evidence" of faith which is the indwelling Holy Spirit. That's essentially what Heb 11:1 says "Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things believed [Dr. Ed Young's interp but its pretty good, I think]." We believed "sight unseen" -- we got faith so we would see Him!

I am not sure what Ed Young says, but if that is it, then he has taken a word and changed it. The words in Heb 11:1 are ou blepomenon. Ou is a negative. Blepomenon is the passive passive participle of blepo, which means to see. It doesn’t say “believed.” It says “not seen.” For all your complaining about changing words and meanings, that is exactly what you do here. It makes it hard for me to understand how you do not have a double standard. To have faith (noun) is to believe (verb) in what you have not seen.

In the NT, the word pistis is the word for faith; the word pisteuo is the word “to believe.” You see, it’s the same word. Scripture makes no distinction between faith and belief. So you should abandon your distinction.

In fact, this comes on the heels of another text you don't quite believe -- our espousal to Christ. Here in this same text, Paul is saying "I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted [as say, by Calvinism] from the simplicity that is in Christ Jesus." I gladly accept all your taunting on His account!

I am not taunting you. I am encouraging you to be serious about God and his word. I am urging you to set your theology by Scripture. I totally believe the passage at hand.

Just as I have always surmised, Lar. You're "tricking up" the gospel! That "unilateral, effectual work" is really just a totally depraved individual BELIEVING the gospel. He has processed the gospel through his natural intelligence and CHOSEN to believe it.

I am not tricking up the gospel, unless by “tricking up” you mean “saying what God says.” If you say the unilateral effectual work is a totally depraved individual believing the gospel, then you are showing you have no idea what you just said. Even arminians accept that God does a unilateral work for people enabling them to believe. They simply believe that the work is done for all, and is not effectual. For you to say a unilateral work is done by the individual completely omits God.

You're/Calvinism is making it seem that we have to do NOTHING. Do you think doing NOTHING gets you into heaven, Lar?? Do nothing and the "sovereign, unilateral, effectual work" results in faith and regeneration. Larry, it is NOT without reason that they Bible says, "We beseech you also that ye receive not the grace of God in vain [don't just "hear"]. 2 (For he saith ... in the day of salvation have I succoured thee: behold, now is the accepted time [be RECONCILED and RECEIVE}; behold, now is the day of salvation.) 2Cor 6:1-2

Again, read the Westminster Standards. It makes explicit that Calvinism teaches that man must believe for salvation.

I did -- now you read Jer 31:34. Same thing Jesus said in John 6:45 would come to those who "come unto Me." Same thing 1John 2:27 says of the "annointing that abideth in you." It's the operation of the "new covenant" in our times.

John 6 and 1 John 2 have nothing to do with the NC.

Fit MY theology?? Since when does the common defintion of "whosoever" mean "whoso of the elect?"

It doesn’t mean “whoso of the elect.” You are being dishonest about what we believe. A Calvinist believes that “whosoever” means just that. But whosoever, as the Bible makes clear, is modified by belief or come or some such. It says “Whosoever believes.” That is what Calvinism believes. Whoever believes will be saved. No one who comes will be cast out. That is Calvinism, plain and simple.

Let's face it -- Calvinists assume (even though it is unspoken) that anyone who comes to their church is "justified."

Again, dishonest. I am a Calvinist, and when someone comes to this church, I assume they are unbelievers until I have evidence otherwise. I don’t know of any Calvinist that believes as you say, and I am sure I know more than you do.

It's a lazy man's theology, in my view.

Here’s your main problem. It is “your view.” That is why it is so treacherous. You are taking your view and foisting in on Calvinists and on the Scripture.

And please don't accuse me of not knowing what I am talking about.

It’s hard not to, given the overwhelming evidence that you have no clue what you are talking about.

Seriously, Skypair, these contributions by you are absolutely shameful. They are completely without justification. You are being outright dishonest about stuff you know better about. There is no excuse for that and it should not be tolerated on this board.

You may feel free to disagree with what I or someone else believes. You have no right to misrepresent it, or be dishonest about it.

 

[pinoybaptist]

PL:

You and I may have our differences although we both hold to the Doctrine of Grace but let me tell you that these guys are here not to really sharpen iron but to prove that Calvinists and those who adhere to the Doctrine of Grace are pure evil at worst and misguided at best.
But I will watch your debate.

 

[GordonSlocum]

That doesn't look like a lexicon entry. A lexicon gives you definitions, and that entry you posted just gives the declensions of the verb and tells you what words it's a compound of. It doesn't give you an actual definition of the whole compound word. What source is that?

Anyway, long story short, you need to use a lexicon to define Greek words for you. BDAG would be considered the standard, but there are others.


But that isn't how you define compound words, is it? That would make a butterfly into a flying stick of butter.

Calvinists are not trying to make foreknow mean anything. They are simply looking it up in a Greek lexicon and finding out what it really means and then adjusting their theology to fit.

Being intellectually honest means using the best sources. For definitions of N.T. Greek words, being intellectually honest means using a lexicon. If you are going to be arguing the definitions of Greek words, you need to get yourself one.

Be right back

 

[GordonSlocum]

That doesn't look like a lexicon entry. A lexicon gives you definitions, and that entry you posted just gives the declensions of the verb and tells you what words it's a compound of. It doesn't give you an actual definition of the whole compound word. What source is that?

Anyway, long story short, you need to use a lexicon to define Greek words for you. BDAG would be considered the standard, but there are others.


But that isn't how you define compound words, is it? That would make a butterfly into a flying stick of butter.

Calvinists are not trying to make foreknow mean anything. They are simply looking it up in a Greek lexicon and finding out what it really means and then adjusting their theology to fit.

Being intellectually honest means using the best sources. For definitions of N.T. Greek words, being intellectually honest means using a lexicon. If you are going to be arguing the definitions of Greek words, you need to get yourself one.

My computer is acting cracy.

 

[Jarthur001]

My computer is acting cracy.

Don't blame it on the computer.

 

[saturneptune]

Don't blame it on the computer.

Best one of the day. :laugh:

 

[skypair]

I don’t think predestined and foreknew mean the same thing. I haven’t left it out. It simply wasn’t the topic of conversation.

1) They don't mean the same thing -- you're right this time. 2) You left them out of the litany "call, justify, glorify" -- admit it, Lar. 3) And it IS the topic if you are trying to make Foreknow = predestine (since what your distinction is is still unclear).

See your problem is that you don’t understand the word meanings...

...of SOME theologies.

Foreknow deals with God’s electing love; predestine deals with God’s working out the electing love to bring people to conformity to Christ.

Are you saying that God "elected" Christ, then? Is that where your defintion leads you?

This is simply dishonest. Your whole line of argument over word and spirit is terribly misguided,...

...in light of what? Certainly not in the light of the scriptures that I provided they're not. but then you add this to it.

The definitions I have given you are the “common meaning” of the words in question,...

Among Calvinists and any academia would contemplate Calvinism as an option, I suppose that is true.

It is you who is taking a word that means essentially to choose and reducing it merely to knowing ahead of time.

It's a compound word, Lar. Pretty simple to "intepret -- fore (beforehand) know (well, you know).

Why would you give God faith? That’s silly. No one has suggested you should.

Only because you listed it as one of your "responses of faith."

The context of my comments was not about the incarnation, but about God being able to choose not to be God, or God being able to lie. He is not free to lie.

Beg your pardon? God is not omnipotent? Or His omnipotence is not free? Let's put it this way -- if God is not free to do anything He pleases, then I can at least see where you get the false impression that man is not free to choose either.

But if God cannot lie, then how does He sovereignly make men lie and not be a liar Himself? Or are you saying that He didn't make Adam fall, for instance?

I am not sure what Ed Young says, but if that is it, then he has taken a word and changed it.

We prefer to say "rightly interpretted" it. :laugh:

The words in Heb 11:1 are ou blepomenon. Ou is a negative. Blepomenon is the passive passive participle of blepo, which means to see. It doesn’t say “believed.” It says “not seen.”

Actually, your word study is OK. It's possible that he said "faith is the substance of things believed" and something like " the evidence of things promised." How would interpretation work out (I'm on the road and my Strong's is just too big to lug)? And what's the "evidence" under your view?

In the NT, the word pistis is the word for faith; the word pisteuo is the word “to believe.”

We've studied this before. Again it's CONTEXT, Larry.

If you say the unilateral effectual work is a totally depraved individual believing the gospel, then you are showing you have no idea what you just said.

And so the "elect" are not totally depraved to begin with. Is that your theology?

Even arminians accept that God does a unilateral work for people enabling them to believe.

Enabled by the Spirit and Word, yes! And no one is saying it is unilateral on the part of the believer (since the Spirit must reveal always) that he is saved. What we ARE saying is that no one is "advantaged" in the way you make the 'elect' advantaged. Call it "regeneration" before hearing, if you will. That's NOT the formulation of scripture. The formulation of scripture is that we ALL sin and come short of the glory of God. There is NONE that has a "leg up," so to speak.

"There is NONE righteous, no not one!" You know what that means, Larry? That means that NNE is regenerated nor has faith before they "hear" because hearing is how they get regenerated = JUSTIFIED = given the righteousness of God! Yet Calvinists have it that some people that ARE assumed to be justified and in no need of a sinner's prayer or walking the aisle because they are already justified before even hearing. Do you comprehend the magnitude of the error here, Larry?? How could one be "regenerate" and not be rightous first?

John 6 and 1 John 2 have nothing to do with the NC.

You're hardening yourself, Larry. Soon you won't be able to receive the truth even if you recognize it as truth! To YOU it has nothing to do with NC. To believers, it is life from the dead -- our resurrection!

It doesn’t mean “whoso of the elect.” You are being dishonest about what we believe. A Calvinist believes that “whosoever” means just that. But whosoever, as the Bible makes clear, is modified by belief or come or some such.

You know what your problem with seeing this term is? It's that it proposes "conditional election!"

"...that whosoever believeth on Him should have everalsting life" is pretty simple. "...that whosoever who believeth will believe on Him should have everlasting life is 1) equating (again) belief with faith and 2) reading into "whosoever" their prior regeneration. Exactly the Calvinist "formulation" of salvation!! I mean I can see it precisely as a Calvinist would -- "whosoever who believeth will [have faith] on Him shall not perish but have everlasting life."

Again, dishonest. I am a Calvinist, and when someone comes to this church, I assume they are unbelievers until I have evidence otherwise.

Well forgive me for thinking you are a real Calvinist, then :laugh: Calvin organized his "church" in Geneva on the principle that all the society would be "church." So all you had to do is "be from around here" and come to church -- presto! You're regenerate (not "degenerate," Lar, REgenerate although some "stepchildren" of the Reform movement thought otherwise). Luther before him couldn't make up his mind at first -- baptize and commune as society or just with believers. Unfortunately, he too fell into the "state church" Constantinian frame of of reference ragarding who the believers were. Heck, he believed that the best we can do is make society better! It appears he opted to just sanctify the believers with the unbelievers.

Seriously, Skypair, these contributions by you are absolutely shameful.

Like Jesus and His disciples -- kinda turned the then world "upside down," didn't they?

They are completely without justification. You are being outright dishonest about stuff you know better about. There is no excuse for that and it should not be tolerated on this board.

How do you know I know better? And what would be my motivation if, knowing better, I tried to subvert anyone? You see plain and clear that I defend no one but the Bible against erroneous and fallicious interpretation. You can see that my understanding "squares" with Rev 2-3 regarding what Jesus said about the churches to come.

You may feel free to disagree with what I or someone else believes. You have no right to misrepresent it, or be dishonest about it.

I don't have that right and I don't claim it either! But like I said -- you're on the inside seeing everyone else's flaws but your own. I told you, I'm a pretty ugly guy, didn't I?

skypair

 

[skypair]

Effectual Call - Chapt 10

I. All those whom God hath predestinated unto life, and those only, he is pleased, in his appointed and accepted time, effectually to call, by his Word and Spirit, out of that state of sin and death in which they are by nature, to grace and salvation by Jesus Christ: enlightening their minds, spiritually and savingly, to understand the things of God, taking away their heart of stone, and giving unto them an heart of flesh; renewing their wills, and by his almighty power determining them to that which is good; and effectually drawing them to Jesus Christ; yet so as they come most freely, being made willing by his grace.

II. This effectual call is of God's free and special grace alone, not from any thing at all foreseen in man, who is altogether passive therein, until, being quickened and renewed by the Holy Spirit, he is thereby enabled to answer this call, and to embrace the grace offered and conveyed in it.

III. Elect infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit, who worketh when, and where, and how he pleaseth. So also are all other elect persons who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word.

Larry -- this is fatally flawed!

First, it says God gives them spiritual vision by hearing the word and Spirit. Problem is, it is circuitous logic. They, according as I read it, can't hear the Word and Spirit until they are enlightened and they can't be enlightened until they hear. The missing, unidentified link is BELIEF. Hear -- believe -- enlightened. (IF He calls by His Word and Spirit that they can't hear, how can they be enlightened by the Word and Spirit??).

Second, there's your NC (underlined) right there in the Confession! "Physician, heal thyself!"

Next -- faith before repentance. That's good! Faith received passively -- then the "will" to obey. That's "unconditional" alright! Wish we all could be that "lucky!" Saved before obedience. Just imagine!

"Elect infants?!" Be still! IOW, it is granted by the church on God's behalf to declare this?! How gracious of the church! Understand, Larry, the doctrine of "unconditional election" is sustained only by the notion of "elect," saved infants who did NOTHING for their own salvation. It's just Calvinist's answer to a very troubling question they foisted upon themselves: "where do dead infants go according to the (also flawed) doctrine of total depravity and sin guilt in Adam?" "Hoisted on their own petard," as they say! :laugh:

And we can just leave the heathen alone, I guess. Like free will has always averred of Calvinism -- if they're "elect," why go? Paul's words in Rom 10:13-15 notwithstanding, God'll manage to draw them somehow. The Confession says so, right?

Larry, I almost hate you offer this up. I'd rather you hadn't. It was a primitive response to a confession offered up by the Armenians (that was probably just as flawed, BTW). They were both reflective of the doctrines of men, striving over words to no profit.

skypair

 

[GordonSlocum]

OK I am back. Had to rescue a damsel in distress. I love my work. Get to help people and get paid for it. What can I say.

Now, back to the more weightier matters. I what all you folk to look at the following verses form this site. Romans 8:29

The site is: http://www.greeknewtestament.com/B45C008.htm#V29

Whatever you are this should appease everyone.

OK, here is your assignment: I want you to locate the Greek word “Tina” and we are not talking about Tina Turner either, if you can in the Roman‘s 8:29 passage. If you can not find it is it inferred with in the verse and if so - demonstrate it with your Greek Language Skills.

Tau Eta Nu Alpha This word is plural, nominative, neuter, indefinite pronoun if you must know.

 

[GordonSlocum]

More on TINA

I would like to nail the myth of mind bending to the wall. We have witnessed an attempt to derail the truth but diversion. I have been ask to list all the Greek Dictionaries, Lexicons that I have as a demonstration that if I have them some who some why I should humbly bow down and worship them.

Now to point out the fallacy of the attempt to dethrone the truth. Using Bauer, Arndt, and Gingrich we read this as an explanation to define proginooskoo. This Lexicon states this concerning Romans 8:29, “Choose beforehand ‘TINA’ someone.”

(1) The word Choose is not in verse 29,
(2) The word TINA “someone” is not in verse 29.

Why then is this statement assigned to verse 29?

It is an interpretative statement and not a meaning. The author is interpretation and not defining.

I know this for a fact because I know the Greek and all the attempts to derail the truth and appeal to the Greek Lexicons is fine but futile when it is use to confuse you. Definition are not the same as interpretation. This verse does not, will not and never has stated or suggested or inferred this the idea “chosen beforehand someone” or to choose beforehand.


Here is a word for word listing of verse 29 Because whom he foreknew, also foreordained conformed of the image of the Son of him for the to be him firstborn among many brothers.

Here is the Greek transliterated, Hoti hous proegnoo kai pro,oopisen summorphous taas eikonos tou uion autou eis to einai auton proototokon en pollois adelphois.

Do you see this spelling in these words “Tana”? No it is not there. If you did not know Greek and someone showed you this from in the Lexicon you could be convinced that what is said was in the Greek. I am here to tell you that it is not. It is an interpretative statement period.

Here is it as it appears in the Lexicon, “Choose beforehand “tina” someone Ro 8:29:

Because you may be one that does not have the Greek language skills This may lead you to think or believe this statement is actually the wording of the text.

Go back and read all the translation I list. These are language experts and they simply translate it as it is.

 

[skypair]

Larry

Ever read Letters Between an Evangelical and a Catholic? It's like what we are doing right here except it was published by Zondervan and sold at Lifeway. If you'd get half serious about my reponses instead of accusing me of being dishonest, we got - what, 25 pages? With sources and biblical references, we could boost that to - what, 100 pages? Then you could submit it without telling my about it and make a fortune! :laugh:

Seriously, I have enjoyed our discussions. I appreciate that you spend so much time on my behalf here empty-nester pilots have time, in case you didn't know that already). I know it has helped me see many issues in a new light, an understanding of "sovereignty" being foremost among my discoveries while engaging with you.

As I write, I imagine you as my nephew -- also a pastor (youth pastor) and Calvinist thinker looking to step up the ladder career-wise. Only he's more like a "catcher" to my elderly "pitcher's" role. Seldom does he pitch back -- but he preaches a great sermon!!

Anyway, just wanted to let you know that I love you for your respect in even answering me. :thumbs:

skypair