The Freewillers Shell Game part 1.

Wonder if they think foreknow is really foreplay?
:laugh: :laugh:

 

You are right. I am an Arminian and I appall myself at how often I have to exegete my way around Calvinist passages. But I can do it. I've been doing it for so long, I can do it in my sleep. It's second nature.

It's a rewarding activity. You should try it. There are easily a hundred passages in the NT that state or assume Arminianism. Pick a few and explain them away. The boost to one's self-esteem is just remarkable.

No cheating, now. You can't look at a contradiction and say "It's a mystery, but it's HIS mystery, not mine :saint: " That's dealing off the bottom of the deck (to use a shell-game-type analogy). No, you have to get past the passages by redefining terms, only to define them back to normal once the Arminian taint has been purged from the passage.

Try it; it's a blast. Theologians have been doing it for centuries.

 

THink about what you are saying for a minute Bob, that isn't funny.

 

It was in response to this which is not funny also. Did you explain that to the others or just me?

James said the word "knew" was as when Joseph "knew" Mary which was sexual.

It was in response to the OP, which is foolish and it was my attempt to bring that out.

Are you going to mention to James about comparing "foreknow" as when Joseph "Knew" Mary?

 

Hi Brandon.

OK, now to review once again Eph 2:8s' clear teaching that mankind is active in believing and passive in receiving.

Let me tell you again exactly the make up of “you are” (1), it is a verb (2) God made sure it was in the text not me not you; (3) It is Indicative (The mood of certainty - it declares, asserts, how about that.); (4) It is in the present tense; (5) and it is ACTIVE - You talk about a real slap in the kisser of Tulip philosophy this one little thorn in the side of Philosophical Calvinism will drive them nuts. They can’t stand it. Here it is again

Indicative mood, Present tense, Active Voice VERB - What does it mean? Here is exactly what it means - it means that the subject on the verb “plural you” are really real and it is certain happening at the point of belief and they are actively believing and passively receiving the free Gift of Salvation.

The question: How are they saved? Faith. Notice what the verse says “are having been saved” HOW by faith


These folk are actively having faith and passively being saved. This absolutely nails Calvinism to the Wall as if it were Tulip wall paper. It does not get any better than that.

Are the Tulip troopsgoing to join the ranks of JW,s and twist yet another portion of the scripture? I have a feeling they will. We can :1_grouphug: for them.

Question: At what point does Tulip Troops’ blood boil'? At the temperature of Truth.

Here it is Truth that rides in on the wings of hope and Triumphs over Tuplipism.

Tulipism can be CURED. It must be cured or we too might be persecuted like free believers were when Calvin lived. SEE BELOW



"In 1541 the reforming forces again gained control in Geneva and Calvin was invited back there. That same year he had the Ecclesiastical Ordinances promulgated. This outlined the activities of the four classes of office bearers in the Church. It provided for an association of pastors to administer discipline, a group of teachers to teach doctrine, a group of deacons to administer the work of charity and, most important of all, the consistory, composed of six ministers and twelve elders, to supervise the theology and morals of the community and to punish when necessary the wayward members of the Church by excommunication. In order to set up an effective system Calvin used the state to inflect more severe penalties.

Such penalties proved to be much too sever ,fifty-eight being executed and seventy six exiled by 1546."
Source

"Christianity Through The Centuries" by Cairns and Published by Zondervan, Copy right 54, and 57
page 342

If He lived today would he be tried for Murder?

Last Jab This Post :saint:

Now Who Qualifies as "Shell Gaming " hoo doers? You guessed it the TULIP TROOPS

 

Bro. Gordon, since you are new to the board, you may not be aware that large type and sentences in all-capital letters is equated with shouting, and for some of us is a hindrance to civil discourse.


To all,
My take on "know" being analogous to Joseph "knowing" Mary is this. Paul is describing God's love for his children as being so intense and intimate that the best way to describe it is to use a word associated with the intense and intimate love a husband has for his wife in a physical way. Paul is not describing that intimate act. He's using a term human beings would understand. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

Restating what you said earlier is a non-response.

Do you even know what a periphrastic perfect is? I'll give you a hint, it means that "este" is not a verb in its own right and simply supplies the subject and perhaps lends one's English translation to stress the present ongoing results of the verb and nothing more. Yes, God made sure it's in the text and it is part of the periphrastic perfect in this verse; so-called "tulip philosophy," whatever that is, has nothing to do with what I said earlier.

You have shown that I might have overestimated that you have even had one year of Greek under your belt because your posts show that you are brash, cocky, and lack any humility in the tough task of exegesis. Such attitudes shows much less than the love of Christ for fellow brothers and sisters, in my opinion.

Methinks it's time for the ignore feature on this innane shouter!

 

Foreknow has no comparison with Joseph "knew" Mary at all.
To love your wife is not as Joseph "knew" Mary for Joseph already "loved" Mary".

Foreknow is to know something before it takes place and not some other innuendo as we are to stay away from. Please use the correct definition of "foreknow" in the first place.

 

I've notice for a long time now that will-worshipers can't stand the thought of God having an intimate, special love for those he has chosen. We commonly define grace as "unmerited favor". Freewillers don't have a problem with "unmerited" (although their theology betrays them on that point), but they certainly don't seem to go along with "favor". This is the rub for the humanistic egalitarians. "God must love all people equally or else He is not just" say they.

Innuendo is the result of freewiller's shock at the thought that God could love someone, but not everyone, INTIMATELY. The overwhelming pleasure of knowing God, or rather, being known of Him, is analogous to the physical act of sex but far superior to it. It's a shame that some folks miss the blessing of God's Love poem in the Song of Solomon. Some say that the Song is nothing more than some sort of sex manual for married couples. But it is there to express the intensity of God's Love for His elect. It scares some people to read it in that light. Just like a new bride might blush at the intense passion of her young groom, we would also blush if we fully comprehended the fullness of God's love for us.

 

Never heard "they" say that before.

 

Matthew 6:3 But when thou doest alms, let not thy left hand know what thy right hand doeth:

The same Greek word (ginosko) is used for "let" and "know" in the above verse. Are we not to allow our left hand to "intimately love" what our right hand is doing? And, how do you fit "intimately love" in the place of "let"?

Come on, King of Context!!!

 

Matthew 22:18 But Jesus perceived their wickedness, and said, Why tempt ye me, ye hypocrites?

In the above verse (ginosko) is translated "perceived".

Are you saying Jesus "intimately loved" their wickedness?

There are many examples. (Do a search on ginosko)

 

Well, it sells cars, clothes, movies, houses, racing you name it. Will it sell Calvinism, Who knows? Stay tuned.

 

Let's stick with this verse.

No, I do not agree that Jesus "intimately loved" their wickedness.
I do agree that he was aware of it.