John 10:28-29 - No snatching

This is why the Catholic church was afraid of letting the "common" folk study for themselves.
And this is why Luther formed the Concord formula and Catechisms.

And this is why I truly think that if man is REALLY serious about getting to know God's word ... he would LEARN IT! God gave us His word in GREEK and Hebrew not English... Believe me, this might sound arrogant but isn't it true? I put myself in the same boat... I'm not a scholar ... yet... if I live long enough..

Icthus ... I see you brought up "tetagmenoi"

The problem is ... you just can't "look up" WORDS or even deeper... IF you care to look into the tenses (like you Icthus, unlike most on the Armenian side) your doing better, but that is still not even close of being far enough... Tenses get MIXED and cause certain "conditions"... To understand them is to understand the Greek "meaning" properly. Dr. Geisler is committing a scholarly suicide for deliberately ignoring this condition. The reason he does is because it "destroys" the Armenian argument and was the reason in the council of Carthage, Orange, Ephesus, Dordt to be heresy.

This is it... The term "appointed" here is found in what is called a "periphrastic construction". A periphrastic construction involves the use of a PARTICIPLE with a form of the Greek verb of BEING, eimi. By combining different tenses of BOTH ELEMENTS, a PARTICULAR result is achieved. In this case, Luke uses the imperfect form of eimi together with the perfect passive participle. The result is that the PHRASE MUST BE translated as a "PLUPERFECT".

I have defined Pluperfect in the "freewill" thread but I'll do it again... Pluperfect speaks of a completed action in the past,but unlike the perfect tense, the pluperfect does not contain the idea of a continuation of the past action into the present action.

Therefore, the meaning of "appointed" refers to a past action.

How can we think that prior to this "They BEGAN rejoicing" they had somehow judged themselves worthy of eternal life as Buswell or Alford understand that it takes place at the very point (ignoring the pluperfect) where the Apostles quote Isaiah. Instead, the most natural way to take the text is to see this as Luke's explanation of why SOME who heard believed while other did not: the difference was not that some were better or more "disposed" toward the gospel than others (the very idea of someone being disposed toward the gospel is utterly contrary to Paul's teaching in Romans 8.7-8): the difference is that some were appointed to eternal life as part of the eternal decree of God, and other were not.

 

rc;
You called me a liar when I told you that Calvinism came out of the Catholic Church. Now you admit. Will wonders never cease.

May Christ Shine His Light On Us All;
Mike

 

Just how did the JEWS of hebrew lineage, who were under Roman jubjugation for decades, get so fluent in Greek as to make it impossible for English speaking people to correctly translate their writings?

 

Wes,
The septuanent... During Alexander... long before Rome....They were masters at Hebrew and Greek... like shooting fish in a barrel.

ILL,
Liar. Which council condemned Calvinism as heresy.... Liar...

Augustinianism was before Papal rule. The catholic church was not the CATHOLIC church with papal authority. Power wasn't even present in Rome AFTER Augustine. The council of Carthage rebuked Zosimus of Rome... You really don't know much do you?

Luther made catetchisms so common people would know deep truths which are the foundations of the chruch so they would not be swayed by heretical teachings. You know, like Arminianism.

 

Just how many Centuries before Rome was Alexander?

How many decades before Christ were the Romans?

How many decades from Christ's death before the Gospels were written?

What is the span of man's life?

Get the message?

 

I guess triangle back then means circle to us today if that's what you are implying...

To bad God can't keep the meaning of the texts through out time...

Horrible excuse.

 

Please refrain from calling others posters "liars." If you wish to contest the truthfulness of somethign they are saying, do it without calling anyone names.

I will not edit the previous occurrences out because there are several and they have been quoted. In the future, carry on this discussion like Christians, not barbarians.

 

What is deliberate deceiving? Should this go unconfronted? Should we forget Matt 18? You know as well as anybody else Calvinism has NEVER been condemned as heresy in any council outside of the papal controlled church. This is just a FACT. Should people be allowed to make such accusations without backing them up? Differing views and understandings BASED on untruths are tolerated but not deliberate deception, is this not sin? If I say Luther was a homosexual and broke from the Catholic church so he could molest choir boys, are you going to allow me to make such statements without having to back them up with documented proof? Is this not slander? Why should someone that says Calvinism has been by councils condemned as heresy any different? It's an untruth. And should be confronted by those who care to protect the truth.

 

The problem is that every generation wants to re-invent the wheel, refine the grist, "improve on" the word.

It is not my problem, I did not study the ancient languages in order to simply retranslate the ancient into "modern". I believe that God is in control of all that work, and that many of the modern translations are deliberate attempts by "evil forces" to "re-write" the scriptures making them mean something that is more palatable to them. I instead refer to a variety of translations already performed by "men of God" called to do that very thing. Except for the newest attempts which I find to be abominable tranlations, most of the older translations are pretty consistant without major meaning changes between them.

Modern scholars generally take there biases into their work with them, that is unfortunately unavoidable, and I perceive by what you say that you do the same thing.

If that means that an ancient triangle is now a circle, then it is merely a matter of perspective.

 

RC,

I have no problem confronting those who don't tell the truth. But do so in a spirit of gentleness (2 Tim 2:24-26) and without the use of derogatory names.

When I see someone say somethign that is not true, I often point it out (if it is a big deal). I am sure I have done it ungracefully at times. But I try to talk about issues, not people, and we all need to refrain from callign people names.

 

Point taken.
Sorry. Since he has not replied though I would like "another brother" to confront him on this.

 

May we quote you that the doctrines of grace came from the Catholic church then?

 

Whestone;