John 3:16-18

[Dave G]

I don't see how that dictionary definition is supposed to counter the verses presented.

I'm sorry that you don't see it, George.

Acts 2:47's should has nothing to do with the purpose of God in some mysterious eternal decree.

The verse says that He added to the church daily such as should be saved.
I see no reason why you should doubt the words.

I believe them as they are,
and that is why I see that He does the saving, apart from our efforts as men.

He adds to the church...we do not.

 

[George Antonios]

I believe them as they are,

Translation: "I'll now just ignore the fact that in formal English should often means would, and will choose the normative sense of should because that's the sense that allows me to 'prove' my Calvinistic system, and which, added bonus, allows me to claim that, technically, I am believing the words".

 

[Dave G]

Translation: "I'll now just ignore the fact that in formal English should often means would, and will choose the normative sense of should because that's the sense that allows me to 'prove' my Calvinistic system, and which, added bonus, allows me to claim that technically, I am believing the words".

" And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart,
47 praising God, and having favour with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved." ( Acts of the apostles 2:46-47 ).

George,
Is there some reason you are rejecting the words as they are laid out?
Is there something that is causing you not to believe them?

I'm sorry, but I don't see the problem.
It says what it says...
The Lord added to the church daily, such as should be saved.

We don't add ourselves to it.

It doesn't allow me to "prove" any "Calvinistic system"...
I'm simply believing what I see, and what is written.
It really is no more difficult than that.


If you don't see it, then you don't see it.

 

[George Antonios]

We don't add ourselves to it.

Irrelevant. Not the point being discussed. And already addressed that in previous post though not addressed to you.
Of course we don't add ourselves. It's God that adds to the spiritual body of Christ by baptizing the believer through the Holy Ghost into Christ.
You guys moan about strawmen when you're the kings of that kind of argument.

 

[George Antonios]

George,
Is there some reason you are rejecting the words as they are laid out?
Is there something that is causing you not to believe them?

Not sanctimonious, eh?

 

[Dave G]

Not sanctimonious, eh?

Not at all, my friend.
Just genuinely confused.

 

[George Antonios]

Not at all, my friend.
Just genuinely confused.

Sure.

 

[Dave G]

You guys moan about strawmen when you're the kings of that kind of argument.

George,
I do not condone strawman arguments, nor do I believe in discussing things in any other manner then honestly and straightforwardly.

I am not a debater;
Others may use that sort of tactic, but I will not.

Good evening to you.

 

[George Antonios]

Others may use that sort of tactic, but I will not.

But of course, because you are more spiritual than that, sir.

 

[Dave G]

But of course, because you are more spiritual than that, sir.

George,

All of God's children are to strive for godliness ( Romans 12, 1 Peter 1:16, 1 Timothy 6, Titus 2, etc ).
Is there some reason I'm to be ashamed of not trying to be something that the Lord wants me to be?

Also, I don't see how I've offended you, but it seems that I have.
That was not my intention.
I feel that I'm only asking questions that anyone who reads the words would ask, given the situation.

To me, the words are plain.

If they are not plain to you, then I respect that you do not see them the same way that I do.
Perhaps if you took a look at them more closely, we would be in agreement with each other?
I can only hope that you will.


Again, I wish you a good evening, sir.

 

[Iconoclast]

if you have been following my last thread on the Bible vs Reformed Theology, it is clear that this person questions my knowledge of Greek. Also his remarks here are an indirect attack on this in the OP. I challange anyone here to disprove my Greek grammar in the OP or anywhere else.

I offered 8 sources which you ignore.
You do. Not want an answer..
You do not want truth

 

[Van]

There is no shall and have in the Greek text. Look at Youngs translation

Right, the NASB, NET, NIV, CSB and LEB all mistranslate the verse to say shall or will.

Note the final phrase "have eternal life" in many translations? Once a person has eternal life, they cannot lose it, because then it would not be eternal life, but limited life. Therefore all the translations with "have eternal life" require that the person will/shall not perish. While about 2/3 of all the English translations have eternal or everlasting life, basically the older ones mistranslate the subjunctive verb, such as the KJV and YLT. While it is true not all of humankind will have eternal life, it is also true everyone believing into Him will have eternal life.

 

[Salty]

Six hour warning
This thread will be closed no sooner than 130 am (Tue) / 1030 pm (Mon)

This Thread is closed