The Willingness of Men 2

[ad finitum]

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.

It seems like what you're saying is that from a Calvinist perspective, it would seem "clumpily" placed as an adjective to "sojourners" because that doesn't suggest Calvinism.

 

[37818]

. . . category who claim "NO GOD". It is the entirety of that category of whom it is said that none seek God.

Why does the Apostle not cite the "no God" of either of the two Psalms. And neither has the words of the Apostle's conclusion. Your argument is false.

 

[37818]

The Psalm explains itself, that the phrase "no one understands; no one seeks for God"

That is the Apostle's answer for the two Psalms. But not the question the two Psalms asked

 

[ad finitum]

Why does the Apostle not cite the "no God" of either of the two Psalms. And neither has the words of the Apostle's conclusion. Your argument is false.

But you are not including the rest of Paul's quotations and cross references. Instead, you are cherry-picking (proof-texting) one phrase. Instead of doing that, read through verse 18, which is like Psalm 14:1 and Psalm 94, "no fear of God" and "...no God..", "God is not in evidence (no God), therefore take from the weak". Read all of Psalm 94 and take particular note of verses 7 and 8. These are the same people described in Psalm 14.

The new Testament writers used Old Testament quotations as indexes for the entire context of the passage being quoted. For example, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me" is a reference to Psalm 22 and all of its text, not just the one phrase. Those who heard Jesus say those words would have recalled all of it to their minds, just as we do when we study the crucifixion. We go back and read Psalm 22 -- THE WHOLE THING. The whole Psalm is relevant to Jesus on the cross, not just the one phrase that got written down in the Gospel.

It is no different with Paul. His quotation is an index, not a proof-text. We are invited to visit Psalm 14, and Psalm 94, and Jeremiah, and on and on. Scripture is not a game of "Word Salad" where we pick and choose the snippets of what we like and ignore all the rest.

Your questions which you answer for yourself with a single phrase of a verse are classic proof-texts. Proof-texting is a fallacy. When I point out the meaning in context, all the Calvinists repeat the proof-text and claim that I just don't understand.

I don't know if people know this or not but the Spirit of God does not communicate using fallacies.

 

[ad finitum]

You do not understand biblical foreknowledge. Satan did what he wanted to do in his sin and rebellion.
God is omniscient so He is never a spectator as you would like to posit

You said that if God would foresee in eternity past a fallen human using his free will to seek God, say, after receiving the revelation of creation (as in Romans 1), this would mean God was a mere spectator. But if God would foresee anyone using their free will to seek evil, God is not a spectator.

I hope you don't mind my pointing out that that doesn't make any sense.

 

[Iconoclast]

You said that if God would foresee in eternity past a fallen human using his free will to seek God, say, after receiving the revelation of creation (as in Romans 1), this would mean God was a mere spectator. But if God would foresee anyone using their free will to seek evil, God is not a spectator.

I hope you don't mind my pointing out that that doesn't make any sense.

God does not "foresee".
God knows.
Your creative writing does not point anything out.
There is no free will to be seen.
No one seeks God, He seeks and saves His sheep.
Rom1 condemns all men and demonstrates they are responsible to Him.

 

[37818]

But you are not including the rest of Paul's quotations and cross references. Instead, you are cherry-picking (proof-texting) one phrase. Instead of doing that, read through verse 18, which is like Psalm 14:1 and Psalm 94, "no fear of God" and "...no God..", "God is not in evidence (no God), therefore take from the weak". Read all of Psalm 94 and take particular note of verses 7 and 8. These are the same people described in Psalm 14.

Proof texting is what it is about. Otherwise the text does not in any way teach a thing. Further more there are two Psalms, 14 and 53.
The question posed by the statement, which Paul does not quote, but answers for the quote.
14:2, ". . . The LORD looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any that did understand, and seek God. . . ."
53:2, ". . . God looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any that did understand, that did seek God. . . ."
The Apostle by the Holy Spirit writes for them, ". . . There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. . . ." So without God's intervention it is total of none.

 

[ad finitum]

God does not "foresee".
God knows.
Your creative writing does not point anything out.

You said that if God would foreknow in eternity past a fallen human using his free will to seek God, say, after receiving the revelation of creation (as in Romans 1), this would mean God would be a mere spectator. But if God would foreknow anyone using their free will to seek evil, God would not a spectator.

I hope you don't mind my pointing out that that doesn't make any sense.

There is no free will to be seen.
No one seeks God, He seeks and saves His sheep.
Rom1 condemns all men and demonstrates they are responsible to Him.

Is everyone given over to homosexuality, e.g. Romans 1:26-27? You too?

 

[ad finitum]

Proof texting is what it is about. Otherwise the text does not in any way teach a thing.

Proof-texting is defined as quoting out of context to arrive at a meaning that was not intended by the author. Satan used scriptural proof-texts to temp Jesus in the desert.

I'm pretty sure that proof-texting is wrong.

Further more there are two Psalms, 14 and 53.

Sure, but do you know the difference between them?

The question posed by the statement, which Paul does not quote, but answers for the quote.
14:2, ". . . The LORD looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any that did understand, and seek God. . . ."
53:2, ". . . God looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any that did understand, that did seek God. . . ."
The Apostle by the Holy Spirit writes for them, ". . . There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. . . ." So without God's intervention it is total of none.

You haven't addressed my rebuttal that addresses all of this.

 

[AustinC]

You said that if God would foreknow in eternity past a fallen human using his free will to seek God, say, after receiving the revelation of creation (as in Romans 1), this would mean God would be a mere spectator. But if God would foreknow anyone using their free will to seek evil, God would not a spectator.

You are speculating and then making an assertion on your speculation.

In Romans 1 Paul tells you that no one comes to God, to be reconciled, by observing nature alone. Instead, all humans substitute the Creator for their own created image.

There is no free will teaching in Romans 1.

I hope you don't mind my pointing out that that doesn't make any sense.

Here's your problem. You want to have God in your own image. Since what the Bible says doesn't make sense to you, you attempt to speculate a rational argument to make your theory work.

Is everyone given over to homosexuality, e.g. Romans 1:26-27? You too?

This is a logical fallacy on your part. What Paul tells us is that everyone outside of Christ is a slave to sin.

 

[ad finitum]

You are speculating and then making an assertion on your speculation.

In Romans 1 Paul tells you that ... all humans substitute the Creator for their own created image.

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.

Is everyone given over to homosexuality, e.g. Romans 1:26-27? You too?

This is a logical fallacy on your part. What Paul tells us is that everyone outside of Christ is a slave to sin.

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?

 

[37818]

Proof-texting is defined as quoting out of context to arrive at a meaning that was not intended by the author. Satan used scriptural proof-texts to temp Jesus in the desert.

I'm pretty sure that proof-texting is wrong.

That maybe. But that terminology does in and of itself say out of context.

Sure, but do you know the difference between them?

For my argument made no difference.

You haven't addressed my rebuttal that addresses all of this.

You fail to understand your rebuttal was wrong. I cannot cause you to hear what you do not understand. Read verse 2 in either Psalm.

 

[ad finitum]

I cannot cause you to hear what you do not understand. Read verse 2 in either Psalm.

I understand verse 2 in light of the rest of the Psalm, which also talks about the righteous generation being persecuted by those who are not righteous. You can't have 100% unrighteous people when a portion of the people in the context are a righteous generation (verses 4-6).

Can you see that?

 

[37818]

I understand verse 2 in light of the rest of the Psalm, which also talks about the righteous generation being persecuted by those who are not righteous. You can't have 100% unrighteous people when a portion of the people in the context are a righteous generation (verses 4-6).

Can you see that?

No. I see it as in Romans 3:10 and so Romans 3:23. Ecclesiastes 7:20, "For there is not a just man upon earth, that doeth good, and sinneth not."

 

[MB]

No. I see it as in Romans 3:10 and so Romans 3:23. Ecclesiastes 7:20, "For there is not a just man upon earth, that doeth good, and sinneth not."

Of course;, There is none righteous, although there are men who wear the righteousness of Christ. And because of this they are declared righteous. No one is righteous on his own. The reason I fear is that man cannot control his own desires.To avoid sin we must catch the thoughts of our mind before we have a chance to think of them. Even though thoughts travel faster than light. By the time thoughts of sin enter our mind we have already sinned because, just as fast we have already considered it. Even though resisting sin is impossible. The Lord made a way we could be saved anyways. He died for our sins and I believe this includes the past, present, and future. This is how we have no sin. Because Jesus covered everyone of them on the cross..
MB.

 

[MB]

.

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
.

Nonsense the word elect should not even be there.
1Pe 1:1 Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the choice sojourners of the dispersion of Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia,
1Pe 1:2 according to a foreknowledge of God the Father, in sanctification of the Spirit, to obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace to you and peace be multiplied! YLT
MB

 

[SovereignGrace]

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]

 

[Martin Marprelate]

.


Nonsense the word elect should not even be there.
1Pe 1:1 Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the choice sojourners of the dispersion of Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia,
1Pe 1:2 according to a foreknowledge of God the Father, in sanctification of the Spirit, to obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace to you and peace be multiplied! YLT
MB

Well, the fact that the Greek word is elektos might give you a hint of the best translation, but 'choice' is fine. Whose choice? God's choice. Chosen by God. Elect.

 

[ad finitum]

No. I see it as in Romans 3:10 and so Romans 3:23. Ecclesiastes 7:20, "For there is not a just man upon earth, that doeth good, and sinneth not."

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

Psalm 14:3 elaborates that they have "turned aside" and "have become corrupt". That means they didn't used to be that way.

"Turning" and "becoming" are processes that go from good to bad. Is that what Calvinisms says, that all humans go from good to bad? You can't turn aside from a path that you were never on in the first place. These are those who have gone astray from the paths of the righteousness. All of them who have done this (i.e. the fool from verse 1) are the category in view. In other words, these are those among God's chosen people who have turned aside from God's laws and as a result, have become corrupt.

Paul's Greek puts it this way, "All have turned away together, they have become worthless [notice they were not always worthless but have become so because they turned away], none there is, who is practicing good, not there is so much as one.

So when a Calvinist says "none are righteous, not one" he is misquoting Paul and Psalm 14. It says none are practicing good and that they became this way from turning aside. Well, that's not very Calvinist, is it.

What is the subject of Psalm 14? It's about people, who have turned aside and become corrupt (a process) who are devouring God's people (verse 4). And it is they who are in fear, for great is the God who is with the generation of the righteous (verse 5). [But wait! I thought none were righteous, not one? Context, context, context.]

When we view proof-texted verses in their proper context, we find that they don't mean what the Calvinist claims that they mean.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

It seems like what you're saying is that from a Calvinist perspective, it would seem "clumpily" placed as an adjective to "sojourners" because that doesn't suggest Calvinism.

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