Salvation Equation

[freeatlast]

Politics? Come on now, they're not THAT bad!

Perhaps your right. :thumbs:

 

[canadyjd]

You are a politician. :smilewinkgrin: predestination cannot be overruled, but the one predestined has a choice? What is the other choice from saying yes?

The other choice is rejecting the offer of salvation, which I already stated.

The one "predestined" will never make that choice because God has so intervened in their lives that their response will be to choose Christ every time Holy Spirit so moves in that person's life.

The person joyfully and eagerly choses Christ, as a man suffocating in a dark room would joyfully and eagerly chose fresh air and sunshine when offered.

peace to youraying:

 

[freeatlast]

The other choice is rejecting the offer of salvation, which I already stated.

The one "predestined" will never make that choice because God has so intervened in their lives that their response will be to choose Christ every time Holy Spirit so moves in that person's life.

The person joyfully and eagerly choses Christ, as a man suffocating in a dark room would joyfully and eagerly chose fresh air and sunshine when offered.

peace to youraying:

Then they have no choice! If the person is overwhelmed because of being predisposed they have no choice. Man I have got to go fishing.

 

[Van]

Reply to Gabe

You really have no idea how the Greek language works---do you? Consider the term peirazo—James 1:13 says God will never do it; Heb 11:17 gives an example of God actually doing it. Why—b/c the term can mean something completely different based on the context. Now—you’ve obviously put time into your personal theological views, & I commend you for this (b/c it shows you understand the importance of Scriptural study)---but your lack of understanding in certain areas is causing you overall equation to fall short.

Most modern versions render the word tempted in James 1:13
Most modern versions render the word tested in Hebrews 11:17

Both usages indicate a person is being challenged or put through some sort of trial. When the challenge or trial involves choosing to do something sinful, then tempted is used, and when the challenge or trial involves choosing to follow God, then tested is used.

So much for usage turning a word into something "completely different." The concept is a fiction, for the purpose of twisting scripture.

Now lets test this hypothesis: Could not the same word - test (tested, testing, tester) be used in ever case? Yes. Lets look at James 1:13.

Let no one say, when he is tested with evil, that I am being tested by God; for God cannot be tested with evil and He Himself does not test anyone with evil.

I know it is a difficult concept to grasp, that by translating the same Greek word into so many different English words, we have actually made the study of scripture more difficult. We should simply trust scripture and render it as coherently as possible. If we want to add it some "helpful" information, we can footnote it, or as I did, stick it in the text in italics so the reader knows the translator added it for clarification.

 

[Gabriel Elijah]

Van-

Both usages indicate a person is being challenged or put through some sort of trial. When the challenge or trial involves choosing to do something sinful, then tempted is used, and when the challenge or trial involves choosing to follow God, then tested is used.

Absolutely correct—the only thing you forgot was the source behind each—but other than that—correct!

So much for usage turning a word into something "completely different."

Lol- how is that not completely different---choosing what is sinful & choosing what is Godly—last time I checked those 2 things were utterly opposed to each other (ie complete opposites!) yet the word peirazo can mean both--only context determines!

 

[Van]

Being tested means being tested in both places. Your assertion is unsound.

 

[Gabriel Elijah]

Being tested means being tested in both places. Your assertion is unsound.

Not really—peirazo is translated “tempted” when the intent is to get someone to sin or go against the will of God— while peirazo is translated “test” when the intent is to put someone through a trial to prove their faithfulness to God’s will—with the motive being success. But regardless—go get a lexicon, or google, or where ever it is you get your Greek information---The verb peirazo may express both the nuance of testing to achieve approval & that of tempting to achieve disapproval. Meanings that are polar opposites & can only be determined by context. Lets put it this way—if you just saw the word “peirazo” you wouldn’t really know what was meant—unless you saw how it was being used in specific context.

 

[Van]

Hi Canadyjd, you posted in post #27, assertions without biblical support. They are not biblical. Where in scripture does it say God chose individuals by name before the foundation of the world? Nowhere. It is an invention that conflicts with scripture. Have you read 1 Peter 2:9-10. Do you see where it says we were chosen so we could proclaim the excellencies of Him who called us out.... We were called out during our physical lives. You have God choosing us before we were called out.

Then it says you were once not a people, so at sometime during our lives we had not been chosen, otherwise scripture would say you were a people always. But it doesn't. Then it says we had not received mercy. How could we receive mercy before we lived without mercy?

I frankly do not see how anyone could continue to hold to Calvinism in light of the many passages like this that blow it out of the world of the possible.

 

[jbh28]

Hi Canadyjd, you posted in post #27, assertions without biblical support. They are not biblical. Where in scripture does it say God chose individuals by name before the foundation of the world?

By name, never says "by name" and we never said it was "by name." But Scripture does teach that individuals were chosen before the foundation of the world in Ephesians 1:4.

Have you read 1 Peter 2:9-10. Do you see where it says we were chosen so we could proclaim the excellencies of Him who called us out.... We were called out during our physical lives. You have God choosing us before we were called out.

Of course God chose use before we were called.

Then it says you were once not a people, so at sometime during our lives we had not been chosen,

No, at sometime during our lives we were not saved

otherwise scripture would say you were a people always. But it doesn't.

You are not born saved.

Then it says we had not received mercy. How could we receive mercy before we lived without mercy?

You don't receive mercy before you lived. You are not born saved. You were not "in Christ" until you are saved(when you become "a people" and receive "mercy."

I frankly do not see how anyone could continue to hold to Calvinism in light of the many passages like this that blow it out of the world of the possible.

Actually, this is a pretty good verse on election and the fact that we are not born saved.

 

[canadyjd]

Hi Canadyjd, you posted in post #27, assertions without biblical support. They are not biblical. Where in scripture does it say God chose individuals by name before the foundation of the world? Nowhere. It is an invention that conflicts with scripture. Have you read 1 Peter 2:9-10. Do you see where it says we were chosen so we could proclaim the excellencies of Him who called us out.... We were called out during our physical lives. You have God choosing us before we were called out.

John 10, Jesus tells us He calls His sheep "by name". This is calling them so as to bring them to salvation. That is a specific call of a specific people... "by name". Not just of Jews, but also of Gentiles (v.16). Jesus says He already knows their names, prior to their following Him. He says they will "hear His voice" and follow Him. Each and every one of His sheep that He calls will follow Him.

In fact, some of the Pharisees are told they do not follow Jesus because they are not of His sheep (v.26). He doesn't say they are not His sheep because they do not follow Him (which would support your view), but they don't follow Him because they are not His sheep.

Then it says you were once not a people, so at sometime during our lives we had not been chosen, otherwise scripture would say you were a people always....

That is simply nonsense. God can and does choose a specific people for salvation before the foundation of the world (Eph. 2) and still have those people come to salvation at a certain point in time with full certainity of it coming to pass. So, at some point in their lives they are not saved, but they are most certainly chosen for salvation before the foundation of the world. That is the testimony of scripture.

I frankly do not see how anyone could continue to hold to Calvinism in light of the many passages like this that blow it out of the world of the possible.

I agree that you do not see.

peace to youraying:

 

[glfredrick]

So we have no choice but to be saved, correct?

It is not as "deterministic" as you make it out to be.

God DRAWS us, not FORCES us. By the time He is done with His drawing, we WANT to be saved! Sometimes, during this process, it appears to us as if WE are doing all the work -- coming to God, making a decision, or rejecting a decision, etc. -- but that is merely our perspective, not God's. He knows whether He is drawing a person or not, and if He is, His drawing WILL be effectual in His timing.

 

[glfredrick]

Most modern versions render the word tempted in James 1:13
Most modern versions render the word tested in Hebrews 11:17

Both usages indicate a person is being challenged or put through some sort of trial. When the challenge or trial involves choosing to do something sinful, then tempted is used, and when the challenge or trial involves choosing to follow God, then tested is used.

So much for usage turning a word into something "completely different." The concept is a fiction, for the purpose of twisting scripture.

Now lets test this hypothesis: Could not the same word - test (tested, testing, tester) be used in ever case? Yes. Lets look at James 1:13.

Let no one say, when he is tested with evil, that I am being tested by God; for God cannot be tested with evil and He Himself does not test anyone with evil.

I know it is a difficult concept to grasp, that by translating the same Greek word into so many different English words, we have actually made the study of scripture more difficult. We should simply trust scripture and render it as coherently as possible. If we want to add it some "helpful" information, we can footnote it, or as I did, stick it in the text in italics so the reader knows the translator added it for clarification.

Run

To unravel (nylons, sweaters)
To leave or depart (have to run)
To accomplish (errands)
To move swiftly with human foot power
To tend to persist (this runs in the family)
To accumulate or accrue
A play in football
To pass over or through (run a canoe over the rapids)
To submit for decision (run that by you)
To smuggle (run Bibles or guns)
To cause to function (I run that machine)
To move quickly (fingers across keyboard)
To hunt or chase someone or something with dogs
To evade a roadblock
A series of operations or events
To move or transport (run me into town)
A successful sports campaign (they are on a run)
To take a certain mind-set (my thoughts run to...)
To spread rapidly (disease runs its course)
What paint does if applied too wet or too thick on vertical surfaces
What an engine or motor does when some power-producing agent is introduced
To be subject to risk
An unbroken streak
To execute a computer program
To comb or brush (fingers through hair)
To cause to crash (run the car into a tree)
To exist in a certain range (the sizes run to)
A series of musical notes
To be performed for a certain length of time (this play will run...)
To continue in effect or operation
To penetrate (run a nail into my foot)
To be valid in only a certain jurisdiction (speed limit runs to the edge of the city limits)
To have a financial obligation (run a deficit)
What happens when all the balls in a game of pool are pocketed
To advertise in a periodical (run an add)
To conduct or perform (experiment)
To cause to flow (fill a tub)
To pass (time runs on)
To flow in a steady stream (as in water)
To make a short trip to pick up some small amount of supplies
An order of parts or assemblies produced at some factory or shop
A race or event of some type
To melt and flow
A specific valid accomplishment (hunting rights run with ownership of the land)
The action of a fast-moving animal
To extend, stretch, or reach (this road runs to..., Ivy runs up...)
The action of weeping bodily fluids (nose, sore, etc.)
To move without hindrance at a fast pace
The act of something dissolving or being diluted (color in fabric)
The act of being covered by some fluid (oil runs over the plate of steel)
The act of migration of certain animal or aquatic species
To engage in the election process of a political or other office
To roll freely downhill (wheels, a ball, etc.)
To go back and forth on schedule (as in a ferry or train)
The action of a sail craft before the wind
What happens when we eat wrongly


I'm sure there are more "USAGES" for the word "run" but these cover the main bases. Note that the EXACT same word is used in each case.

CONTEXT derives the exact expression desired. Simply saying "run" without context can produce any number of false impressions -- akin to concording one particular biblical word (as is often done here and elsewhere by well-meaning persons that do not understand the hermeneutical issues with context) and "running" with that single meaning instead of suppling a valid context.

 

[Van]

Hi Glfredrick, you contention misses the point. We are not taking about us writing something and using a word the way we want to use it, i.e a run in a nylon being a figurative description of a run as in a dog run, a narrow strip, because we run in a line.

Every word of scripture was chosen to express what the author intended to express, and so we are to use his words in the manner he used them. Of course words, through usage can change, i.e something that describes something physical can be used to describe some metaphorically. He spilled the beans meaning he gave up a secret.

So I do not say a Greek NT word can be used in only one way, but I do say we should translate it in a few ways as is possible as our best chance of deriving the actual message rather than one we read into it, and therefore chose uninspired words to make it conform with our point of view.

None of this should be controversial, it is basic to bible study.

 

[glfredrick]

Hi Glfredrick, you contention misses the point. We are not taking about us writing something and using a word the way we want to use it, i.e a run in a nylon being a figurative description of a run as in a dog run, a narrow strip, because we run in a line.

Every word of scripture was chosen to express what the author intended to express, and so we are to use his words in the manner he used them. Of course words, through usage can change, i.e something that describes something physical can be used to describe some metaphorically. He spilled the beans meaning he gave up a secret.

So I do not say a Greek NT word can be used in only one way, but I do say we should translate it in a few ways as is possible as our best chance of deriving the actual message rather than one we read into it, and therefore chose uninspired words to make it conform with our point of view.

None of this should be controversial, it is basic to bible study.

You are partially correct and partially incorrect. The writers of the Scriptures had to make a (Holy Spirit guided) choice in their word usage. In many cases, they took rather standard Greek (or Hebrew for that matter) terms and modified them for a brand new use, to detail the revelation of God to God's people. Because almost every book of the Bible was written by a different author, for a different purpose, in a different land, to different people, we cannot simply assume that every concorded use of any given word will be similar across the board. CONTEXT is our clue, and actually our only clue. To avoid the context of the pericope in order to "proof text" (as is SO often done on this board, and obviously in the churches where those here teach) is a horrendous problem, for often the true usage of the word is not brought out by exegesis in context, but by the theological bent or desire of the reader, for his or her own purpose.

They then say, with assurance, "thus saith the Lord," except that what they are saying is not quite what the Lord actually caused to be said!

I've seen you do just that in this thread...

 

[Iconoclast]

Hi Glfredrick, you contention misses the point. We are not taking about us writing something and using a word the way we want to use it, i.e a run in a nylon being a figurative description of a run as in a dog run, a narrow strip, because we run in a line.

Every word of scripture was chosen to express what the author intended to express, and so we are to use his words in the manner he used them. Of course words, through usage can change, i.e something that describes something physical can be used to describe some metaphorically. He spilled the beans meaning he gave up a secret.

So I do not say a Greek NT word can be used in only one way, but I do say we should translate it in a few ways as is possible as our best chance of deriving the actual message rather than one we read into it, and therefore chose uninspired words to make it conform with our point of view.

None of this should be controversial, it is basic to bible study.

Van
Is it possible it is you who are missing the point?
No one else in church history is coming up with your understanding of the verses and words.For you to set aside previous teachers who knew the greek and hebrew as well as several good brothers in here who are offering correction....is dangerous. You are saying,not asking...that we all have it wrong.
And yet the very thing you are saying about pastors and teachers who lived before us,if you look at your posts ,you are suggesting we follow you instead.

You might have noticed......in every post I am highly critical of your ideas.These are not just opinions about things indifferent.They are serious error. You might not receive correction from me as I am very critical of your ideas and see them as needing to be opposed. Some of the other men are more gracious in trying to offer correction so perhaps they can get through.

 

[Van]

Hi Glfredrick, charges without specification are unbecoming. For example I have never said nor implied my view is the God's truth. To imply that I have is simply slander.

My question is why are Calvinists so insecure with their beliefs, they try to shift the discussion to my poor behavior. For me it is a red flag showing the Calvinists cannot defend their views biblically.