Plain, Simple, Un-adulterated Easy to Understand Truth

[amity]

No, Donna. That verse does not mean that no matter how you stretch it. It is the same idea as Hebrews 6. All the land gets rain. What the land does with it makes all the difference. All the people have been exposed to Christ's light. What they do with it is what makes all the difference. Exposure is not the same as salvation.

So are you saying that "the light" is prevenient grace? If so, then we would have no choice but to walk in it, would we? But Christ says we can walk in darkness.

You quoted the section about Jesus coming to HIS OWN, but His own receiving Him not. If Calvinism were true, then those who were His would of course have received Him! They would have had no choice in the matter.[/B][/I]

"His own" means the Jews, I assumed. Do you agree?

 

[GordonSlocum]

Gordon, you always seem to lose me in your first sentence.


Again, I want to point out that whatever you say would be more powerful without the invective.

Amity, when you read the definition of "Foreknowledge" do you disagree with the meaning?

If so why?

Don't get caught up in me but let me know your definition of Foreknowledge. I am by the way an expert in the meaning of Foreknowledge. I can say with absolutely assurance that the view of Calvinism is wrong. You can look in all the dictionaries in the world on Foreknowledge and you will find my statements solid, firm, factual, and correct. Calvinism has forced a false meaning on the word in an effort to support their false teachings.

Your turn.

Gordon.

 

[amity]

... I can say with absolutely assurance that the view of Calvinism is wrong. ...

With absolute assurance ?!?!?!

Does God speak to you in an audible voice? Or do you place that much confidence in yourself and your own mental faculties?

 

[GordonSlocum]

Gordon, you always seem to lose me in your first sentence.


Again, I want to point out that whatever you say would be more powerful without the invective.

But can you demonstrate what I say is wrong. No you can't. If you could you would. I don't expect those who don't agree with me to be able to defend their view. But I might be wrong.

Again I am an expert on the word "foreknowledge". John Calvin and his followers are forcing a new meaning on the term. They have to - to support their doctrine.

If you like I will give it to you in the Greek. Transliterated: prognoosin = Pro a preposition meaning "Before" and gnoosin means Knowledge and is a noun in the accusative case in I Peter 1:2 It means Knowledge before hand. God elected on the basis of His knowledge before it happened. The word points to something in the future that God knows about. In this case it is the person believing in Christ and that is what God sees, or knows and God elects on that basis, not Calvin's philosophy or any follow of this false teacher. I have the Scripture on my side and I don't need philosophy to interpret Scripture. Prove me wrong form the definition of the word. You can't and you know you can't - but if so do it - and everyone else know it too. So I am more than glad to deal with the facts but Most Calvinist can't and won't. They get personal. I have dealt with fact here now you do the same if you can and will.

I welcome your defense of your view. Tell me why and for what reason you think like you do. Forget me and teach your view. Can you? OK your turn.

 

[Rippon]

GS , does God KNOW those whom He will announce " I never knew you." ? If He never "knew" them He had no biblical foreknowledge of them . He did not set His special , intimate love on them before the foundation of the world .

 

[Jarthur001]

But can you demonstrate what I say is wrong. No you can't. If you could you would. I don't expect those who don't agree with me to be able to defend their view. But I might be wrong.

Again I am an expert on the word "foreknowledge". John Calvin and his followers are forcing a new meaning on the term. They have to - to support their doctrine.

If you like I will give it to you in the Greek. Transliterated: prognoosin = Pro a preposition meaning "Before" and gnoosin means Knowledge and is a noun in the accusative case in I Peter 1:2 It means Knowledge before hand. God elected on the basis of His knowledge before it happened. The word points to something in the future that God knows about. In this case it is the person believing in Christ and that is what God sees, or knows and God elects on that basis, not Calvin's philosophy or any follow of this false teacher. I have the Scripture on my side and I don't need philosophy to interpret Scripture. Prove me wrong form the definition of the word. You can't and you know you can't - but if so do it - and everyone else know it too. So I am more than glad to deal with the facts but Most Calvinist can't and won't. They get personal. I have dealt with fact here now you do the same if you can and will.

I welcome your defense of your view. Tell me why and for what reason you think like you do. Forget me and teach your view. Can you? OK your turn.

Gordon,

You have been shown over and over again by many on this board how wrong your views are on foreknowing. We have shown you that the greek does not work for you. We have shown that the logic you use makes it just the same as a Hyper-Calvinist. When will this silly line of thought stop?

Why not believe the Bible for a change. Why not stop frighting for mans rights, and start praise God for His power?

 

[amity]

Gordon,
... We have shown you that the greek does not work for you. We have shown that the logic you use makes it just the same as a Hyper-Calvinist. ...

How is that? What would a hyper-Calvinist say?

 

[GordonSlocum]

Gordon,

You have been shown over and over again by many on this board how wrong your views are on foreknowing. We have shown you that the greek does not work for you. We have shown that the logic you use makes it just the same as a Hyper-Calvinist. When will this silly line of thought stop?

Why not believe the Bible for a change. Why not stop frighting for mans rights, and start praise God for His power?

Really, where specifically have you dealt with the Greek on any passage. If you want to go toe to toe with me on any passage in the NT concerning the Greek have at it. Let me hear from you personally on this matter. Can you personally demonstrate from the Greek what you believe? Show me. Don't quote from others you do your own work.

Your turn

 

[npetreley]

Why not believe the Bible for a change. Why not stop fighting for mans rights, and start praise God for His power?

God forbid. Oh, that's right, He can't forbid since we can overrule. Sorry, couldn't resist.

 

[GordonSlocum]

Well for starters...11 says Christ had come, and the world did not know Him.
12 says His own did not receive Him.
5 says the world in its darkness did not comprehend it the light..(Christ)

But that is not all...you must move on to the next verses as well.

What else does it say?

OK that is a good start. Now we are looking at Scripture.

On the one side we are told that every man born into the world has this Light.

On the other hand we are told the Jews did not receive Him (a corporate statement not intended to mean absolutely every person in the family of Hebrew linage - some did receive Him and believe)

Here are verses 4 and 5

4. In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men.
5. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.

We have a clear statement that says Jesus is the life and this life is the light of men.

We have in context further understanding concerning the light with respect to mankind,

9. There was the true Light which, coming into the world, enlightens every man.

OK, now we know it means that Jesus the light and life enlightens every man.

Now, we have verse 5. Jesus comes into the world and the world is described as darkness. The system of the world is as we know controlled by Satan and his world system is darkness and mankind lives in this environment. The darkens of this system or world correctly does not comprehend light or life or Jesus.

I agree 100 percent with that statement. However, I don't press it to define that the light is not the light of men. Why? Because the Bible is God's word and God tells us that Jesus the life and light "enlightens every man." This statement does not negate verse 5. Verse 5 is understood as addressing the system or world system ruled by Satan by permission of course. God is in control.

The world is in darkness - agree - darkness does not comprehend the light - agree - the light is Christ - agree.


Lets look further:

10. He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, and the world did not know Him.

The world here in my understanding speaks to all aspects of this world, that includes people who are influenced and even controlled by the system of Satan.

11. He came to His own, and those who were His own did not receive Him.

His own are of course the Hebrew families knows as the Jews. It is a corporate statement. There were many Jews that believed so we do not press it as absolute in a wooden literal sense. It is normal literal. You have herd your kids say, Everyone is doing it. Perhaps that will clear the point. This is that kind of statement. It is a true statement understood according to proper genre.

12. But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, {even} to those who believe in His name,

The reason we can assert as we have is this statement further gives us clarification that "his own did not receive him" is not absolutely exclusive and binding on all Hebrew persons." Some did believe out of the corporate body of Jews. The darkness is real and the light that is given to all men is real and while the darkness is there the light is there and given to all men and as a result "many received Him, the life, the light and what happened - they became children of God - those who believed the Jesus, the life, the light.

It is so simple it is scary. We must not read into the text what is not there. It is so simple and real and truthful. I just can see it any other way than what it actually says.

Well it is your turn.

I am liking this post: Why? We are staying away for them and doing our own thinking. Lets keep it so. We both are capable of doing our own thinking.

Let it fly.

 

[GordonSlocum]

With absolute assurance ?!?!?!

Does God speak to you in an audible voice? Or do you place that much confidence in yourself and your own mental faculties?

Yes, I have the Word of God on this subject straight from God's heart, mind, and soul. I speak with unwavering solid firm thinking and understanding. I have defined Foreknowledge Absolutely Correctly - My Heavenly Father is my Witness and my Love. He is the most wonderful God, magnificent one to be worshipped, honored, praised, and of which I humble my soul, heart and mind. My He be praised and glorified. Blessed be the name of the Lord.

Yes I am 100 percent correct. Yes God has spoken to me directly from His word and the word Foreknowledge is as I have stated and God and I are in total agreement. Will you join us in believing the absolute truth?

 

[amity]

Really, where specifically have you dealt with the Greek on any passage. If you want to go toe to toe with me on any passage in the NT concerning the Greek have at it. Let me hear from you personally on this matter. Can you personally demonstrate from the Greek what you believe? Show me. Don't quote from others you do your own work.

Your turn

You probably have the advantage of most of us there! But you do not have the advantage of the theologians of old of course.

BTW, did Christ speak Greek? No? Has anyone ever consulted the Aramaic texts to see what He might have said in His own language? This question is only half facetious. I realize it is probably impossible to find out directly.

 

[Jkdbuck76]

You probably have the advantage of most of us there! But you do not have the advantage of the theologians of old of course.

BTW, did Christ speak Greek? No? Has anyone ever consulted the Aramaic texts to see what He might have said in His own language? This question is only half facetious. I realize it is probably impossible to find out directly.

We don't know whether or not he spoke Greek.

 

[J.D.]

He said of Himself that "I am Alph and Omega". Isn't that Greek? And since the Gospel tells us that at certain times He spoke in the "Hebrew tongue", we can assume that He normally spoke another language.

 

[webdog]

Since Jesus is God...couldn't He speak any language He wanted?

 

[amity]

He said of Himself that "I am Alph and Omega". Isn't that Greek? And since the Gospel tells us that at certain times He spoke in the "Hebrew tongue", we can assume that He normally spoke another language.

My understanding is that that other language was Aramaic. And Aramaic still exists today, along with some very old Biblical texts in that language. It is not credible that Christ spoke koine Greek to Jews who did not speak that language well, if at all.

And so He must be capable of preserving His words in translation. Translation into Greek or into English.

 

[J.D.]

My understanding is that that other language was Aramaic. And Aramaic still exists today, along with some very old Biblical texts in that language. It is not credible that Christ spoke koine Greek to Jews who did not speak that language well, if at all.

And so He must be capable of preserving His words in translation. Translation into Greek or into English.

The original autographs N.T. were written in Greek, no?

 

[reformedbeliever]

Ok Gordon, you say that God chose people before the foundatin of the world, based upon those He saw would believe.

Could those He did not forsee believe have a chance to come to faith in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior? Not if God foresaw them not believe.

If that is what you believe, you are a fatalist.

 

[Jkdbuck76]

Since Jesus is God...couldn't He speak any language He wanted?

correct. that

 

[Jkdbuck76]

Since Jesus is God...couldn't He speak any language He wanted?

correct. that is good