The Willingness of Men 2

[ad finitum]

Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ,
To those who reside as aliens, scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, who are chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, by the sanctifying work of the Spirit, to obey Jesus Christ and be sprinkled with His blood: May grace and peace be yours in the fullest measure.[1 Peter 1:1-2 NASB]

It is already proven that this is a mistranslation.

 

[Silverhair]

We can all see how hard you are working to twist what is written in scripture and interpret it with the twist.

We know that all who are in the flesh cannot please God. We know they suppress the truth. We know that no one seeks God. Paul, in Romans 1-11 lays out his judicial argument that only the elect receive the promise of being children of God, receiving faith from God which justifies their belief. He continually anticipates arguments to his thesis and brings up the question which he answers through quoting scripture.

We will not agree. I read Romans and see very clearly that our salvation is 100% of and from God alone. You want to be first and control your salvation. God never teaches what you want. However, I once held free will arguments and God slowly destroyed my arguments through me reading scripture and accepting the Bible over the human teachers who taught free will. There is hope that you will follow that path as God destroys your arguments in scripture.

Glad to see that you agree with what Paul wrote, I have a few comments to make on that that I know you will disagree with but then again it's not me that you will be disagreeing with.

Rom 10:12 For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek, for the same Lord over all is rich to all who call upon Him.

Rom 10:13 For "WHOEVER CALLS ON THE NAME OF THE LORD SHALL BE SAVED."

So now we know that it is "WHOEVER" not just the calvinist elect.

Well that is unless you decide to disagree with Christ Jesus.

Joh 3:16 For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.

God does not ask men to behave in order to be saved, but to believe. It is faith in Christ Jesus that saves the sinner.

Luk_5:32 I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners, to repentance."

And I am sure you would agree that we are all sinners.

How do we know that man can be saved because of his faith

Num 21:8 Then the LORD said to Moses, "Make a fiery serpent, and set it on a pole; and it shall be that everyone who is bitten, when he looks at it, shall live."

Num 21:9 So Moses made a bronze serpent, and put it on a pole; and so it was, if a serpent had bitten anyone, when he looked at the bronze serpent, he lived.

Are we to understand this as it was only those that God chose would look toward the bronze serpent and be healed because then we would have to say that only the chosen ones were sinners as they were the only ones that got bitten.

Joh 3:14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up,

Joh 3:15 that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life.

The following points of comparison are either specifically mentioned or clearly implied between Num_21:8-9 & Joh_3:14-15

a] In both (Numbers 21 and John 3) death threatens as a punishment for sin.

b] It is God himself who, in his sovereign grace, provides a remedy.

c] This remedy consists of something (or some One) which (who) must be lifted up, in public view.

d] Those who, with a believing heart, look unto that which (or: look, with faith, unto the One who) is lifted up, are healed.

Simply having the serpent on the standard wasn’t sufficient. One had to look upon it, in order to receive healing from it. Otherwise the person died. This principle is something that is lacking in the Calvinistic explanations of the Atonement which they say, saves independently of the application of faith, but instead, merely results in faith. The person must believe before they can be atoned.

Heb 11:6 But without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him.


Back to Paul, what does he tell us about the means of salvation?

Eph 1:13 In Him you also trusted, after you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation; in whom also, having believed, you were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise,

Eph 1:14 who is the guarantee of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, to the praise of His glory.

That seems quite clear don’t you think?

But Paul does not leave us to guess about this does he. Why would the “WHOEVER” he speaks about in Rom 10:13 call on the Lord and be saved? Well Paul is nice enough to tell us, we just have to keep reading.

Rom 10:14 How then shall they call on Him in whom they have not believed? And how shall they believe in Him of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher?

Rom 10:15 And how shall they preach unless they are sent?

Gospel → Hearing → Believing → Calling → Salvation

Now go ahead and disagree I know you will but it is not me you are disagreeing with it is the bible.

 

[ad finitum]

On the contrary, 'elect sojourners' is absolutely fine.

Earlier you said, "'Hand-picked' means pretty much the same as 'chosen'". Therefore, let's use that and see how it comes across to the reader.

So you think something like:

"Peter...to hand-picked sojourners of the dispersion of Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bythinia -- according to the foreknowledge of God..."

gives the same impression as:

"Peter, to sojourners of the dispersion of Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bythinia, ELECT according to the foreknowledge of God..."

Notice that "elect" by itself is a technical term in Calvinism. "Hand-picked sojourners" is not. So how about this:

"Peter, to sojourners of the dispersion of Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bythinia, hand-picked according to the foreknowledge of God..."

Hand-picked for what? Selected for what? Chosen for what? You can't really tell, can you? But if you say "ELECT according to the foreknowledge", well we all know that is a Calvinist technical theological word and phrase. All we needed to do was move the word FAR away from it's suffix twin and then translate it as ELECT, and we have now successfully performed eisegesis on Peter's greeting.

 

[AustinC]

I didn't see a word for all. Paul identifies a particular kind of people who hold the truth in unrighteousness. Why didn't he just say, "all men" like you do? Your paraphrase left out all of Paul's qualifying adjectives.



What is the grammar that says "all humans substitute the Creator for their own created image" but then says that "only some of these" are turned over to homosexuality?

You mean this all?

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them.

For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.
~ Romans 1:18-19,21-23

Not sure how you missed it.

 

[AustinC]

It is already proven that this is a mistranslation.

Only to those who reject what God says and look for loopholes to be their own rulers.

 

[AustinC]

Glad to see that you agree with what Paul wrote, I have a few comments to make on that that I know you will disagree with but then again it's not me that you will be disagreeing with.

Rom 10:12 For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek, for the same Lord over all is rich to all who call upon Him.

Rom 10:13 For "WHOEVER CALLS ON THE NAME OF THE LORD SHALL BE SAVED."

So now we know that it is "WHOEVER" not just the calvinist elect.

Well that is unless you decide to disagree with Christ Jesus.

Joh 3:16 For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.

God does not ask men to behave in order to be saved, but to believe. It is faith in Christ Jesus that saves the sinner.

Luk_5:32 I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners, to repentance."

And I am sure you would agree that we are all sinners.

How do we know that man can be saved because of his faith

Num 21:8 Then the LORD said to Moses, "Make a fiery serpent, and set it on a pole; and it shall be that everyone who is bitten, when he looks at it, shall live."

Num 21:9 So Moses made a bronze serpent, and put it on a pole; and so it was, if a serpent had bitten anyone, when he looked at the bronze serpent, he lived.

Are we to understand this as it was only those that God chose would look toward the bronze serpent and be healed because then we would have to say that only the chosen ones were sinners as they were the only ones that got bitten.

Joh 3:14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up,

Joh 3:15 that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life.

The following points of comparison are either specifically mentioned or clearly implied between Num_21:8-9 & Joh_3:14-15

a] In both (Numbers 21 and John 3) death threatens as a punishment for sin.

b] It is God himself who, in his sovereign grace, provides a remedy.

c] This remedy consists of something (or some One) which (who) must be lifted up, in public view.

d] Those who, with a believing heart, look unto that which (or: look, with faith, unto the One who) is lifted up, are healed.

Simply having the serpent on the standard wasn’t sufficient. One had to look upon it, in order to receive healing from it. Otherwise the person died. This principle is something that is lacking in the Calvinistic explanations of the Atonement which they say, saves independently of the application of faith, but instead, merely results in faith. The person must believe before they can be atoned.

Heb 11:6 But without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him.


Back to Paul, what does he tell us about the means of salvation?

Eph 1:13 In Him you also trusted, after you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation; in whom also, having believed, you were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise,

Eph 1:14 who is the guarantee of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, to the praise of His glory.

That seems quite clear don’t you think?

But Paul does not leave us to guess about this does he. Why would the “WHOEVER” he speaks about in Rom 10:13 call on the Lord and be saved? Well Paul is nice enough to tell us, we just have to keep reading.

Rom 10:14 How then shall they call on Him in whom they have not believed? And how shall they believe in Him of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher?

Rom 10:15 And how shall they preach unless they are sent?

Gospel → Hearing → Believing → Calling → Salvation

Now go ahead and disagree I know you will but it is not me you are disagreeing with it is the bible.

Whosoever believes has already been addressed to you multiple times, yet you refuse to accept that whosoever believes are..."as many as were appointed to eternal life believed." (Acts 13:48)
Was Luke lying, Silverhair?

 

[Van]

Thank you for the very nice reply. I probably failed to be clear about this but the point about 1 Peter 1:1-2 is that "elect" or "chosen", in all Greek texts, it is an adjective describing "sojourners". It's not modifying "salvation" or anything related to it. However, virtually all translators have moved the word from in front of "sojourners" in verse 1 and installed it at the front of verse 2 (or the end of verse 1) so that it modifies a different idea.

Click this Biblehub link for the detail:
1 Peter 1:1 Interlinear: Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the choice sojourners of the dispersion of Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia,

If you follow the gloss in the Biblehub interlinear, the translation should be something like this (the word for "elect" is underlined):

1. Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to select (or favored) sojourners of the dispersion of Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bythinia,

2. According to the foreknowledge of God the Father by the sanctification of the Spirit unto the obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ, grace to you and peace may be multiplied.
​

The English translations are mistranslating from the Greek in order to fabricate a verse that seems to support Calvinist theology, but in fact it is doing no such thing.

The "sojourners" were chosen, and that is what the verse says. The way one reverse interlinear reads, "to chosen" "expatriates" "of dispersion." Both "to chosen" and "expatriates" are adjectives modifying the noun "of dispersion."

ASV
Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the elect who are sojourners of the Dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia,

CSB
Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ: To those chosen, living as exiles dispersed abroad in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia,

LEB
Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the chosen who are residing temporarily in the dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia,

And on the other hand, here is an example of a biased translation pouring Calvinism into the text:
NIV
Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, To God’s elect, exiles scattered throughout the provinces of Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia,

I believe just because we can find many poor or ambiguous translations, do not nullify the actual text as translated by many versions.

 

[37818]

Verse 1 describes the thinking of the fool. But how did he get what way?

The Apostle does no refer to the first half of that verse, but Romans 3:10 is where he by Holy Spirit starts the argument. "As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one. . . ."

 

[Silverhair]

Whosoever believes has already been addressed to you multiple times, yet you refuse to accept that whosoever believes are..."as many as were appointed to eternal life believed." (Acts 13:48)
Was Luke lying, Silverhair?

Can you read scripture Austin. You want to base your theology on one or two verses but I use the whole bible to support mine.

 

[AustinC]

Can you read scripture Austin. You want to base your theology on one or two verses but I use the whole bible to support mine.

Of course you realize that the whole of scripture tells us that God chooses to be merciful to whom he wills and to justly condemn those he wills.

Now, was Luke lying?

 

[ad finitum]

You mean this all?

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them.

But it doesn't say "all men" It says all who do a particular thing. How does that mean all men? If it's all men, why describe a subset of them and say it's just all of them?

For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.

~ Romans 1:18-19,21-23

Not sure how you missed it.

Were you going to answer the questions? How could one part mean "all men" to you (which it doesn't) and the other about being given over to homosexuality not mean all? Can you explain how you figured that out?

 

[AustinC]

But it doesn't say "all men" It says all who do a particular thing. How does that mean all men? If it's all men, why describe a subset of them and say it's just all of them?



Were you going to answer the questions? How could one part mean "all men" to you (which it doesn't) and the other about being given over to homosexuality not mean all? Can you explain how you figured that out?

Honestly, you keep looking for an excuse to not accept what God tells you. You literally just worked to deny what Paul tells you.

 

[AustinC]

But it doesn't say "all men" It says all who do a particular thing. How does that mean all men? If it's all men, why describe a subset of them and say it's just all of them?



Were you going to answer the questions? How could one part mean "all men" to you (which it doesn't) and the other about being given over to homosexuality not mean all? Can you explain how you figured that out?

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men...

Tell me, is there any human beside Jesus who is righteous?
No, there is not. Therefore, all men suppress the truth of God and exchange that truth for a lie.

I am amazed at your attempts to get around what God tells you, just so you can say you're in control, not God.

 

[Silverhair]

When do you think that the division of the Bible into verses occurred? Do you really think that Peter wrote his letter in verses?
Of course the Greek word elektois agrees with parapidemois. That is a given; the -ois gives it away. The people to whom Peter is describing are 'chosen (or 'elect') pilgrims.' Elektos does not mean 'favoured;' that would be kecharitomenos (see Luke 1:28). 'Hand-picked' means pretty much the same as 'chosen,' but there is no verb 'to be' in the text; you have added that to bolster your rather weak case. The reason that most Bible versions have separated 'elect' and 'sojourners' is because the verses would otherwise read clumpily in English.
1 Peter 1:1-2 does not refute Calvinism; it proves it.

I have read a number of commentaries on 1Pe 1:1-2 and the one thing that comes through is that both views are supported by Greek Scholars. So for someone to claim that it proves X is just allowing your view to be read into the text.

 

[Silverhair]

Of course you realize that the whole of scripture tells us that God chooses to be merciful to whom he wills and to justly condemn those he wills.

Now, was Luke lying?

Austin I gave you a number of texts that show that we have the God given ability to choose. Were they all wrong? I know you want to support your calvinist view and that is fine but I will support what I see in the bible. Do you think that God would expect us to make choices if we did not have the ability to do so?

 

[Silverhair]

You mean this all?

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them.

For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.
~ Romans 1:18-19,21-23

Not sure how you missed it.

Austin did you read the words or just see a few key words and jump on the text?

>>For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men<<

The text says that God shows His wrath against "ungodliness and unrighteousness" that men do. That is what the ALL in this text is referring to.
Now because they did not "honor him as God or give thanks to him" we see the result "they became futile in their thinking,
foolish hearts were darkened, they became fools"

Now if you are going to say all men are included in this then you will need to explain why all men are not like those described in Rom 1:24-32.

 

[Silverhair]

Honestly, you keep looking for an excuse to not accept what God tells you. You literally just worked to deny what Paul tells you.

Austin the same thing could be said to you "you keep looking for an excuse to not accept what God tells you".

 

[ad finitum]

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men...

Tell me, is there any human beside Jesus who is righteous?

You cut off Paul's sentence. The wrath is revealed against all ungodliness and righteousness of men who hold the truth in unrighteousness. It doesn't say that all men hold the truth in unrighteousness. There is a way to say that very clearly but Paul isn't saying that (or he would have said it that way).

I am amazed at your attempts to get around what God tells you, just so you can say you're in control, not God.

If Satan chooses to rebel of his free will, how is that different than a fallen man choosing to search for God with his free will? According to you, I can't choose because that would mean I'm in control. By implication, Satan's choosing was not his will either, otherwise he would have been in control.

To you, the exercise of free will is the exercise of control. But then Satan couldn't possibly be in control, yet he used his free will to exercise control of his destiny.

I hope you don't mind my pointing out that I don't think you know what you're talking about.

 

[Silverhair]

You cut off Paul's sentence. The wrath is revealed against all ungodliness and righteousness of men who hold the truth in unrighteousness. It doesn't say that all men hold the truth in unrighteousness. There is a way to say that very clearly but Paul isn't saying that (or he would have said it that way).



If Satan chooses to rebel of his free will, how is that different than a fallen man choosing to search for God with his free will? According to you, I can't choose because that would mean I'm in control. By implication, Satan's choosing was not his will either, otherwise he would have been in control.

To you, the exercise of free will is the exercise of control. But then Satan couldn't possibly be in control, yet he used his free will to exercise control of his destiny.

I hope you don't mind my pointing out that I don't think you know what you're talking about.

Ad Finitum you have to realize that they are just determined to think that way.

 

[AustinC]

You cut off Paul's sentence. The wrath is revealed against all ungodliness and righteousness of men who hold the truth in unrighteousness. It doesn't say that all men hold the truth in unrighteousness. There is a way to say that very clearly but Paul isn't saying that (or he would have said it that way).



If Satan chooses to rebel of his free will, how is that different than a fallen man choosing to search for God with his free will? According to you, I can't choose because that would mean I'm in control. By implication, Satan's choosing was not his will either, otherwise he would have been in control.

To you, the exercise of free will is the exercise of control. But then Satan couldn't possibly be in control, yet he used his free will to exercise control of his destiny.

I hope you don't mind my pointing out that I don't think you know what you're talking about.

You keep looking for a loophole.
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men