-
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!
For God so loved the world
- Thread starter King James Bond
- Start date
Hello all,
I am a late comer so I will address the initially posted topic.
[John 3:16]
For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.
In this passage the first thing evident is that God's love is not confined or limited to a specific ethnic group or nationality. His former program in the old economy targeted a specific ethnic group as the objects of His special affection.
Secondly it is evident of God's general love towards all ethnic groups, nationalities, and individuals. Yes... individuals. Each group is comprised of individuals. This is a general love in that He provides for each and every creature. He gives everyone breath, sunshine, rain, etc.
Thirdly, it is evident of God's specific love for those who will believe. Those who beleive are the objects of His saving love.
It must be noted that the passage in question does not indicate anything specific regarding the "whosever will beleive." It does NOT indicate that they beleive of their own free will... NOR does it indicate that they were miraculously given faith by God, or predestined to such an end.
The passage does indicate both a general and specific aspect of God's love. Unlimted in it's value and scope, yet limited in it's efficacy or application. That is God's special love is limited to ONLY "whosoever will beleive."
So this verse does not support or contradict any notion of free will. For that matter it says little if nothing regarding God's foreordination, or predestination. So God loves all most certainly... yet the whosever will crowd are specific opjects of His redeeming love... No one else.
Affectionately Yours,
Kismet
I am a late comer so I will address the initially posted topic.
[John 3:16]
For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.
In this passage the first thing evident is that God's love is not confined or limited to a specific ethnic group or nationality. His former program in the old economy targeted a specific ethnic group as the objects of His special affection.
Secondly it is evident of God's general love towards all ethnic groups, nationalities, and individuals. Yes... individuals. Each group is comprised of individuals. This is a general love in that He provides for each and every creature. He gives everyone breath, sunshine, rain, etc.
Thirdly, it is evident of God's specific love for those who will believe. Those who beleive are the objects of His saving love.
It must be noted that the passage in question does not indicate anything specific regarding the "whosever will beleive." It does NOT indicate that they beleive of their own free will... NOR does it indicate that they were miraculously given faith by God, or predestined to such an end.
The passage does indicate both a general and specific aspect of God's love. Unlimted in it's value and scope, yet limited in it's efficacy or application. That is God's special love is limited to ONLY "whosoever will beleive."
So this verse does not support or contradict any notion of free will. For that matter it says little if nothing regarding God's foreordination, or predestination. So God loves all most certainly... yet the whosever will crowd are specific opjects of His redeeming love... No one else.
Affectionately Yours,
Kismet
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
obviously you can not claim to accept the clear Bible teaching that God LOVES ALL and is not willing for ANY to perish but for ALL to come to repentance AND ALSO cling to the Calvinist eisegetical myth that the "hate" shown in Romans 9 is arbitrary selection of INDIVIDUALS TO HATE by an "impartial" God!
You simply can not cling to error AND truth and then blame the contradiction on God!
I did not see that.
I saw you post a one liner from Romans 9 and "hope" that the context of the use for hate in Romans 9 AND in the NT (AND in the text of Malachi 1 from which Paul quotes) would not be "necessary" since it does not make your case for "hate" as needed by Calvinsm.
I have brought up a number of points BOTH in the chapter of Romans 9 and in Malachi 1 AND in the use of the term "hate" in the NT as in the command for saints to "HATE their PARENTS".
And all you do is ignore "The inconvenient facts" while clinging to this eisegetical phantom created by Calvinism for Romans 9.
Then you embrace both the error of Calvinism and the truth of God's Word on Loving ALL as IF God had handed you the contradiction in cases where Calvinism contradicts the Word of God!!
That simply is not reasonable.
In Christ,
Bob
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
You have pointed out a rejection of the NATION of Edom after CENTURIES of rebellion.
At the time Malachi was writing - Israel was the servant of Persia. TO BE Later subjects of Greece and then of Rome and THEN WIPED OUT as a Theocracy.
A Theocracy that to this very day has not returned.
So devastating is this point that Paul in Romans 9 argues for the INDIVIDUAL basis for OT PROMISES made to the NATION of Israel.
You then cling to this notion of Edom being hated (as a nation) AS THOUGH this accomplishes the arbitrary selection for hatred (or hatred AT ALL) when in fact it SHOWS that God is displeased with rebellion and those that choose rebellion.
In fact as Romans 2 points out - He sends them to hell!
But as we have already seen regarding the wicked THAT PERISH - God WEEPS over them !!
So when we go to that worst case scenario where "God is indignant" and even SEND THEM TO HELL - we find that THE LOST - THESE are those for whom God weeps!
Love REMAINS EVEN in that case where you sought to find only hate!
In Christ,
Bob
At the time Malachi was writing - Israel was the servant of Persia. TO BE Later subjects of Greece and then of Rome and THEN WIPED OUT as a Theocracy.
A Theocracy that to this very day has not returned.
So devastating is this point that Paul in Romans 9 argues for the INDIVIDUAL basis for OT PROMISES made to the NATION of Israel.
You then cling to this notion of Edom being hated (as a nation) AS THOUGH this accomplishes the arbitrary selection for hatred (or hatred AT ALL) when in fact it SHOWS that God is displeased with rebellion and those that choose rebellion.
In fact as Romans 2 points out - He sends them to hell!
But as we have already seen regarding the wicked THAT PERISH - God WEEPS over them !!
So when we go to that worst case scenario where "God is indignant" and even SEND THEM TO HELL - we find that THE LOST - THESE are those for whom God weeps!
Love REMAINS EVEN in that case where you sought to find only hate!
In Christ,
Bob
Jarthur001
Active Member
RC,
I was trying to catch up on all the postings in this thread and came across what appears to be your last post here. It is evident that you have thoroughly done your homework regarding that passage. It would seem to me, as you indicated, if one rejects one aspect of Paul's series of arguments, the entire argument position becomes tenuous. It would seem that each argument Paul makes forms the foundation or formation of his subsequent arguments that follow. I personally think you were absolutely true to the text (which is rare)and ask the following question of you, based upon this verse.
Romans 9:6 But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For they are not all Israel who are (descended) of or from Israel.
The following texts in Romans clearly indicates that he, in the latter sense of his use of the word Israel, is discussing those who have derrived their origins of or from Israel according to the flesh.
My question is... Do you think Paul was making a play on words using the terms Israel with two differing meanings or senses.
I understand the term 'Israel' to be a word to designate all those descended from 'the wrestler with God' yet it is also used to designate Israel as contrasted with those of Judah. In Isaiah, I seem to remember the Prophet using the term 'Israel' in the first half as refering to the nation (commonwealth more preferrably called), while in the latter half using it to refer to the Messiah himself or at least the Messianic hope.
I think the term may be used in several similar but different ways. That is to say similar but not the same, just as with types and antetypes. Anyhow, would you concur in part or in whole with such an observation as I have just put forward.
Affectionately Yours,
Kismet
I was trying to catch up on all the postings in this thread and came across what appears to be your last post here. It is evident that you have thoroughly done your homework regarding that passage. It would seem to me, as you indicated, if one rejects one aspect of Paul's series of arguments, the entire argument position becomes tenuous. It would seem that each argument Paul makes forms the foundation or formation of his subsequent arguments that follow. I personally think you were absolutely true to the text (which is rare)and ask the following question of you, based upon this verse.
Romans 9:6 But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For they are not all Israel who are (descended) of or from Israel.
The following texts in Romans clearly indicates that he, in the latter sense of his use of the word Israel, is discussing those who have derrived their origins of or from Israel according to the flesh.
My question is... Do you think Paul was making a play on words using the terms Israel with two differing meanings or senses.
I understand the term 'Israel' to be a word to designate all those descended from 'the wrestler with God' yet it is also used to designate Israel as contrasted with those of Judah. In Isaiah, I seem to remember the Prophet using the term 'Israel' in the first half as refering to the nation (commonwealth more preferrably called), while in the latter half using it to refer to the Messiah himself or at least the Messianic hope.
I think the term may be used in several similar but different ways. That is to say similar but not the same, just as with types and antetypes. Anyhow, would you concur in part or in whole with such an observation as I have just put forward.
Affectionately Yours,
Kismet
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
And obviously (as stated repeatedly) this is in the sense where "hate" is merely a statement about the outcome and comparison.
For example Saints are to "HATE parents" Luke 14.
And in the case of Hosea 9 and 11 Ephraim is HATED and THEN we see that God is WEEPING over them with "ALL HIS COMPASSIONS stirred".
This is the kind of "hate" Calvinism pretends to ignore.
When the context is PAST history - where the rebellion principle that APPLIES TO BOTH the saved and the lost is in play then "hate" as in the case of Ephraim where ALL COMPASSIONS are stirred up over the one supposedly hated is takes on a non-Calvinist meaning.
This is mentioned as the "Israel that is LOVED"!!
And in fact Malachi 1 starts with Israel QUESTIONING that conclusion
Ahhh but this is SUPPOSED to be the perfect example of the arbitrary nature of God in SELECTING one to love and the other to hate WITHOUT respect to history.
Seeing them BOTH CURSED seems to wipe out that Calvinist argument.
Paul does not argue that God is CHOOSING one nation over the other - because in Malachi 1 their history is PAST and God is SHOWING the FAIR and IMPARTIAL basis on which their history has progressed.
The SAME prinicple of "curses and blessings" given in Deuteronomy is in play for BOTH!
The SAME principle applied to BOTH the saved and the lost as seen in Romans 11.
The SAME principle applied to BOTH Israel and the surrounding nations as SHOWN in LEv 18 and 20.
Remember?
Already posted!!
Repeatedly.
Again - the SAME principle applied to BOTH the saved and the lost!! As seen in Romans 2. 1Cor 6, Romans 8, Lev 20, Lev 18, ...
God has chosen that IMPARTIAL model - and His choice stands! Proven! Revealed in history!
Well - at least we can agree on that.
You spin Romans 9 trying to "Get it" to say that God selected Esau to HATE as an infant - arbitrarily of course since Esau was just an infant.
You spin Romans 9 to trying to get it to ALSO say that God "selected Edom to hate" apart from any history or any impartial principle applied to BOTH Israel and Edom.
(I keep pointing that out).
In fact as noted "ALL His compassions are stirred up" over the one "hated".
This is a kind of "hate" that is ingored by Calvinists here.
So what kind of "hate" is that?
James - calm down. When I said "in the place where you seek only to find hate" I am specifically referring to Edom and Esau and NOT to Jacob and Israel.
IF you have been posting "The LOVE of GOD for Esau and Edom" I have missed it.
Go ahead and post the link to those affirmations regarding Esau and Edom and God's unfailing love for them that you have been promoting -- and I will retract that statement in a heartbeat.
What?
Nothing to link to??
Hmmm.
In Christ,
Bob
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
Most glaring of all - in this thread is the way the Calvinist must flee from the obvious problem of John 3:16. (The subject of the OP) and title.
The specific fact that is being obviously and blatantly ignored on this thread is that when God was SO LOVING THAT He chose to GIVE - the only thing to SO LOVE - was a fallen sinful doomed world of UNBELIEVERS.
There is no such thing as BELIEVERS BEFORE the Gospel that is BASED on the GIVING of God.
So in the sequence of "God SO LOVED that HE GAVE" the GIVING is coming FROM the SO LOVING.
(It is not coming from the PROPITIATING of an angry diety as pagan greeks would have it).
This means that God FIRST is confronted with a lost world - and then SO LOVES that HE GIVES His Son for that lost world of humanity.
The circular argue that He was SO LOVING all the believers that He dedided to make the Gospel - is just not there.
Obviously
In Christ,
Bob
The specific fact that is being obviously and blatantly ignored on this thread is that when God was SO LOVING THAT He chose to GIVE - the only thing to SO LOVE - was a fallen sinful doomed world of UNBELIEVERS.
There is no such thing as BELIEVERS BEFORE the Gospel that is BASED on the GIVING of God.
So in the sequence of "God SO LOVED that HE GAVE" the GIVING is coming FROM the SO LOVING.
(It is not coming from the PROPITIATING of an angry diety as pagan greeks would have it).
This means that God FIRST is confronted with a lost world - and then SO LOVES that HE GIVES His Son for that lost world of humanity.
The circular argue that He was SO LOVING all the believers that He dedided to make the Gospel - is just not there.
Obviously
In Christ,
Bob
Hey Bob
This is incredible. A Christ-denying Arminian dares to criticize Christ honoring Calvinists.
The error of determinism is nugatory compared to your GIGANTIC error of justification.
Have you noted in the John 3:16 passage how much Greek you missed?
In verse 14, Jesus begins His third and last attempt to get through to Nicodemus. He used the illustration of Moses and the serpent (Num 21:8-9). He begins using the Greek word kathos which means according as, just as, even as, in proportion as, in the degree that. So the teaching of John 3:16 is just like the teaching of Num 21:8-9. So what happened in Num 21:8-9?
The rebellious and stiff necked Israelites had once again murmured. For discipline, God sent poisonous snakes among the people to which they cried to Moses for help. God told Moses to put a serpent on a brazen pole such that that “when he beheld the serpent of brass, he lived” (Num 21:9). The words used are most enlightening.
The Hebrew word for when he beheld is a Hiphil Perfect. The Hiphil stem is that which expresses the causative action of the Qal stem. The Perfect mood expresses a completed action. Hebrew tenses are not constructed about past/present/future like English and Greek. Rather, the Hebrew tenses express action as completed or not completed. Hebrew does not allow anything like the double meaning in the Greek present tense: I wash or I am washing. The idea of durative continuing looking is an easy task in Hebrew. Therefore, we must note that the action in Numbers 21 is completed. The context for John 3:14-18 dictates a one time completed look.
Similarly, the Hebrew words for looketh and shall live are a Qal Perfect. The Qal stem is that of simple action while the Perfect mood expresses a completed action. The future in English was the KJV translators’ choice for us English speakers. The Hebrew idea conveys the idea that any one completed action of looking at the pole results in a once for all certain completed salvation.
The key to the story is that the act of merely looking up to the bronze serpent was an act of faith. The murmuring rebellious Israelites didn’t have to get cleaned up, confess sins, or offer up sacrifices. All they had to do was LOOK and LIVE! This is what the context must bring into our understanding of John 3:16. The Greek words chosen must reflect the teaching of context and be understood in the same way that it was chosen.
GREEK GRAMMAR: Gnomic Truth
Your errant view abuses the interpretation of the present tense. This abuse reveals less than first year knowledge of biblical Greek. Advanced knowledge shows many other present tense categories; such as: Instantaneous, Aoristic, Progressive, Extending-From-Past, Gnomic, Historic, Perfective, Tendential, Futuristic, and Indirect Discourse.
Since the Greek present tense doesn’t have to be continuous, it is absolutely crucial to understand the context to determine the translation. Proper exegesis of a passage cannot happen until we realize that Greek words have a broad range of definitions which must be determined by context.
This is why Jesus used the story of the murmuring Israelites and the serpent of brass. The Greek words are trying to replicate the idea of the Hebrew – a difficult task in many instances.
The choices in Greek to represent a completed action are: (1) the simple aorist, (2) the perfect tense, (3) the Instantaneous Present, (4) the Gnomic present or (5) the Perfective Present.
It is true that once faith has been placed in Jesus such that the results of that action continue as in the Perfective Present. But it is also true that this is a truth whether or not the decision to believe in Jesus is made. A key to recognizing the Gnomic Present is a generic subject or object. Furthermore, the general formula is ho + present participle. This is used in verses 15 and 16 (whoever believes). The KJV translators were right to use the word whoever.
Hence the general, timeless Gnomic truth is the best translation of this passage. I expect ALL my second year Greek student to know: aktionsart (context) is superior to aspect (grammar)!
In summary, the text action represents a timeless truth such that the actions are completed at the moment of faith just like the Hebrew Qal Perfect in Numbers 21. Whoever believes just once has complete, sufficient, final eternal life. The combination of context with the force of the Gnomic Present is biblical and OSAS.
So your little exegesis of John 3:16 fails again. You only read into it what you want and close your eyes to what demolishes your process justification theology.
What a contradiction!
Consistency is the hallmark of theology.
Give up the denominational lies - repent!
LLoyd
This is incredible. A Christ-denying Arminian dares to criticize Christ honoring Calvinists.
The error of determinism is nugatory compared to your GIGANTIC error of justification.
Have you noted in the John 3:16 passage how much Greek you missed?
In verse 14, Jesus begins His third and last attempt to get through to Nicodemus. He used the illustration of Moses and the serpent (Num 21:8-9). He begins using the Greek word kathos which means according as, just as, even as, in proportion as, in the degree that. So the teaching of John 3:16 is just like the teaching of Num 21:8-9. So what happened in Num 21:8-9?
The rebellious and stiff necked Israelites had once again murmured. For discipline, God sent poisonous snakes among the people to which they cried to Moses for help. God told Moses to put a serpent on a brazen pole such that that “when he beheld the serpent of brass, he lived” (Num 21:9). The words used are most enlightening.
The Hebrew word for when he beheld is a Hiphil Perfect. The Hiphil stem is that which expresses the causative action of the Qal stem. The Perfect mood expresses a completed action. Hebrew tenses are not constructed about past/present/future like English and Greek. Rather, the Hebrew tenses express action as completed or not completed. Hebrew does not allow anything like the double meaning in the Greek present tense: I wash or I am washing. The idea of durative continuing looking is an easy task in Hebrew. Therefore, we must note that the action in Numbers 21 is completed. The context for John 3:14-18 dictates a one time completed look.
Similarly, the Hebrew words for looketh and shall live are a Qal Perfect. The Qal stem is that of simple action while the Perfect mood expresses a completed action. The future in English was the KJV translators’ choice for us English speakers. The Hebrew idea conveys the idea that any one completed action of looking at the pole results in a once for all certain completed salvation.
The key to the story is that the act of merely looking up to the bronze serpent was an act of faith. The murmuring rebellious Israelites didn’t have to get cleaned up, confess sins, or offer up sacrifices. All they had to do was LOOK and LIVE! This is what the context must bring into our understanding of John 3:16. The Greek words chosen must reflect the teaching of context and be understood in the same way that it was chosen.
GREEK GRAMMAR: Gnomic Truth
Your errant view abuses the interpretation of the present tense. This abuse reveals less than first year knowledge of biblical Greek. Advanced knowledge shows many other present tense categories; such as: Instantaneous, Aoristic, Progressive, Extending-From-Past, Gnomic, Historic, Perfective, Tendential, Futuristic, and Indirect Discourse.
Since the Greek present tense doesn’t have to be continuous, it is absolutely crucial to understand the context to determine the translation. Proper exegesis of a passage cannot happen until we realize that Greek words have a broad range of definitions which must be determined by context.
This is why Jesus used the story of the murmuring Israelites and the serpent of brass. The Greek words are trying to replicate the idea of the Hebrew – a difficult task in many instances.
The choices in Greek to represent a completed action are: (1) the simple aorist, (2) the perfect tense, (3) the Instantaneous Present, (4) the Gnomic present or (5) the Perfective Present.
It is true that once faith has been placed in Jesus such that the results of that action continue as in the Perfective Present. But it is also true that this is a truth whether or not the decision to believe in Jesus is made. A key to recognizing the Gnomic Present is a generic subject or object. Furthermore, the general formula is ho + present participle. This is used in verses 15 and 16 (whoever believes). The KJV translators were right to use the word whoever.
Hence the general, timeless Gnomic truth is the best translation of this passage. I expect ALL my second year Greek student to know: aktionsart (context) is superior to aspect (grammar)!
In summary, the text action represents a timeless truth such that the actions are completed at the moment of faith just like the Hebrew Qal Perfect in Numbers 21. Whoever believes just once has complete, sufficient, final eternal life. The combination of context with the force of the Gnomic Present is biblical and OSAS.
So your little exegesis of John 3:16 fails again. You only read into it what you want and close your eyes to what demolishes your process justification theology.
What a contradiction!
Consistency is the hallmark of theology.
Give up the denominational lies - repent!
LLoyd
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
Lloyd -- I have to admit your antics here are pretty incredible.
Why not try responding to the texts instead of simply blathering about how you like Calvinism and don't like Arminians.
It makes for much more useful exchange of Bible study notes.
Try it. You might find that simply whining that you are not Arminian and you don't like the fact that other's ARE -- is not really the best form of exegesis in the world.
In Christ,
Bob
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
A. You did not actually address the point raised (again)
B. Your misdirection does nothing to solve the problem for Calvinism.
C. The point remains - you can not argue that God so loved the SAVED that He then GAVE -- anything. Nor can you argue that a world of believers existed such that "God so loved the Believers that He GAVE His Son" since believers COULD NOT EXIST (in ANY TENSE) prior to a decision by God to GIVE Christ and create the Gospel.
Get it? Yet?
In Christ,
Bob
Hey Bob
In a small way you are right about the point. I just find it incredible that one who consistently denies Christ misses so much like in John 3:15-16 and feels so confident criticizing those who truly believing in Jesus.
I addressed the far larger point - your continuous confusion of the words justification and sanctification. Determinism is nothing. Although I disagree with it, they at least get justification correct.
Typical of cults, you want to major in the minors and are totally oblivious to the larger concepts of salvation, mercy and grace. You ought to have concentrated on these rather than the tiny error of determinism.
Get it? Yet?
In Christ - everything is Yea!
Lloyd
In a small way you are right about the point. I just find it incredible that one who consistently denies Christ misses so much like in John 3:15-16 and feels so confident criticizing those who truly believing in Jesus.
I addressed the far larger point - your continuous confusion of the words justification and sanctification. Determinism is nothing. Although I disagree with it, they at least get justification correct.
Typical of cults, you want to major in the minors and are totally oblivious to the larger concepts of salvation, mercy and grace. You ought to have concentrated on these rather than the tiny error of determinism.
Get it? Yet?
In Christ - everything is Yea!
Lloyd
Hey Bob
I have good news for you. I'm going to follow your example and start copying my posts to my hard drive. That way I can show you your error in John 3 in the future without a lot of extra work on my part.
I bet that gnomic present went way over your head. You'll have to see that many times before you start seeing the power of OSAS at every spot in the Bible.
TEN THOUSAND on the way.
Lloyd
I have good news for you. I'm going to follow your example and start copying my posts to my hard drive. That way I can show you your error in John 3 in the future without a lot of extra work on my part.
I bet that gnomic present went way over your head. You'll have to see that many times before you start seeing the power of OSAS at every spot in the Bible.
TEN THOUSAND on the way.
Lloyd
Hey Bob
I have good news for you. I'm going to follow your example and start copying my posts to my hard drive. That way I can show you your error in John 3 in the future without a lot of extra work on my part.
I bet that gnomic present went way over your head. You'll have to see that many times before you start seeing the power of OSAS at every spot in the Bible.
TEN THOUSAND on the way.
Lloyd
I have good news for you. I'm going to follow your example and start copying my posts to my hard drive. That way I can show you your error in John 3 in the future without a lot of extra work on my part.
I bet that gnomic present went way over your head. You'll have to see that many times before you start seeing the power of OSAS at every spot in the Bible.
TEN THOUSAND on the way.
Lloyd
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
Apparently you are also going to start repeating your own "non-text" rant-posts as well.
I guess we could expect "no more" at this point.
What about finding LESS ways to duck the points raised and MORE ways to respond TO THE TEXTS and the Points MADE from them??
Is there ever a point where scripture becomes of interest to you -- or do you insist that one must BE CALVINIST before scripture can be read?!!!
Its like you do not fathom the concept of exegesis in a venue where your every assertion/speculation/slam is not taken as pure "gold".
What is up with that?!!
Surely you have "some capacity" to discuss in this venue! Try responding DIRECLTY to points raised!
In Christ,
Bob
I guess we could expect "no more" at this point.
What about finding LESS ways to duck the points raised and MORE ways to respond TO THE TEXTS and the Points MADE from them??
Is there ever a point where scripture becomes of interest to you -- or do you insist that one must BE CALVINIST before scripture can be read?!!!
Its like you do not fathom the concept of exegesis in a venue where your every assertion/speculation/slam is not taken as pure "gold".
What is up with that?!!
Surely you have "some capacity" to discuss in this venue! Try responding DIRECLTY to points raised!
In Christ,
Bob
Hey Bob
Every one of your posts is thoroughly exposed as ignorance of context. You can't see where Romans 2 fits into the first unit. You can see enough of Rom 11 to criticize the Calvinists but then warp it just like they do into an errant personal application. You botch all the Hebrews warnings by ignoring Jesus' more powerful ministries as SURETY, MEDIATOR, HIGH PRIEST, FINISHER, NEVER LEAVES, UTTERMOST. Again, you pit the Bible against the Bible. How can this be a Bible method?
But without this cut the Bible technique, you have nothing Bob. You deny Christ's ministries, denigrate God's faithfulness, and reject the Spirit's sealing.
No wonder the Islamics think so badly of Christianity.
Lloyd
Every one of your posts is thoroughly exposed as ignorance of context. You can't see where Romans 2 fits into the first unit. You can see enough of Rom 11 to criticize the Calvinists but then warp it just like they do into an errant personal application. You botch all the Hebrews warnings by ignoring Jesus' more powerful ministries as SURETY, MEDIATOR, HIGH PRIEST, FINISHER, NEVER LEAVES, UTTERMOST. Again, you pit the Bible against the Bible. How can this be a Bible method?
But without this cut the Bible technique, you have nothing Bob. You deny Christ's ministries, denigrate God's faithfulness, and reject the Spirit's sealing.
No wonder the Islamics think so badly of Christianity.
Lloyd
Hey Bob
I'm not a Calvinist and I don't (unwittingly) deny Christ like you do in every post. Get it?
Of course you don't. You are in the deepest part of the ditch way below the road of truth. You are so deep in confusion over justificaiton that you can't even see the WAY. Yet you castigate Calvinists who can at least give a biblical definition of justification.
This is quite a contrast. I wish I had a good word to describe your topsy turvy theology.
So you argue with a Calvinist without knowing what a Calvinist is?
Do you actually think there are only two views of theology here?
TEN THOUSANDS posts and hasn't learned anything. I wish I had a word for this.
Lloyd
Standard confusion on your part Bob. Haven't you noticed that I've consistently described the errors of determinism as the sawdust in comparison to your GIGANTIC guffaw on justification?
I'm not a Calvinist and I don't (unwittingly) deny Christ like you do in every post. Get it?
Of course you don't. You are in the deepest part of the ditch way below the road of truth. You are so deep in confusion over justificaiton that you can't even see the WAY. Yet you castigate Calvinists who can at least give a biblical definition of justification.
This is quite a contrast. I wish I had a good word to describe your topsy turvy theology.
So you argue with a Calvinist without knowing what a Calvinist is?
Do you actually think there are only two views of theology here?
TEN THOUSANDS posts and hasn't learned anything. I wish I had a word for this.
Lloyd