Thoughts on, Propitiation.

[Van]

It was the professed knowledgeable person, Biblicist, who said Aorist verbs in John 3:3 and 3:5 (see and enter) referred to a future event.

Then the supposed expert says the magical "context" [attack snipped] turns things completed in the past into future events. Go figure.

Then we get a restatement of the bogus argument, you must be born anew to begin the process of entry, rather than to view entry as a done deal. [attack snipped].

 

[The Biblicist]

It was the professed knowledgeable person, Biblicist, who said Aorist verbs in John 3:3 and 3:5 (see and enter) referred to a future event.

Then the supposed expert says the magical "context" (read Calvinist distortion) turns things completed in the past into future events. Go figure.

I don't think the readers are as stupid as you suggest! They can read what I said much better than you have distorted what I said.

I said "born" and "enter" and "see" are all Aorist tense, however, as anyone who can read English or Greek can see is that the new birth is set forth as the conditional cause for seeing and entering. The action as far as time is simletaneous, but as far as logical cause and effect relationship the new birth is the cause and entering and seeing is the effect. Do you know the difference between logical and chronological order???? I think not, but the readers do.

Then we get a restatement of the bogus argument, you must be born anew to begin the process of entry, rather than to view entry as a done deal. No verse or passage is safe from Calvinist rewrites.

Another distortion of what I said. I never said there was any "process of entry" but that seeing and entry are simultaneous puntilliar completed consequential actions of new birth.

You have no clue what you are talking about and surely don't have any clue to what I said. Anyone can read Jn. 3:3-5 and easily see that the new birth is set forth as the condition for entry and seeing the kingdom of heaven. To put it in baby terms that you can understand, you got to be first saved before you can see or enter heaven.

 

[Dr. Bob]

Haters are gonna hate. Momma taught me that as a lad and sadly see it over and over on the BB. Part of growing up is learning to just expect it and if it DOESN'T come, it will be a miracle! :BangHead:

 

[Van]

I see forum leadership has ruled my assessment of Calvinism reflects vile hate. Sorry about that.

Jesus Christ is our propitiation, our means of salvation from the wrath of God. This is biblical truth.

 

[Dr. Bob]

Not your assessment; your attack. Not allowing it.

You want to rant on about your misconceptions of Calvinism, do it on the C/A forum here.

 

[Van]

In order to view entry into the Kingdom, as a done deal, you have to be born anew. That is biblical truth.

 

[The Biblicist]

In order to view entry into the Kingdom, as a done deal, you have to be born anew. That is biblical truth.

Now you have changed your position entirely.

In this new quote above "you have to be born anew" IN ORDER to view entry into the kingdom as a done deal.

However, in your former quote one must already be in the kingdom BEFORE they are born again:


When God credits your faith in Christ as righteousness, He transfers you spiritually from the realm of darkness into the kingdom of His Son. Once you arrive in Christ, you are saved, propitiated, justified, made alive, made holy, made blameless, made perfect and so forth. You are forgiven, your sin burden has been removed by the circumcision of Christ. - Van

Hence, here in Van's words the transfer into the kingdom has already occurred BEFORE one is "made alive" whereas Christ says the very opposite. Again, all the verbs are found in the Aorist tense because the action is simultaneous whereas the new birth is clearly set forth in the LOGICAL order of occurrence and the condition to "see" and "enter" the kingdom. This is self-evident to even the English reader.


However, van's words "in order to veiw entry" is not what either the English or the Greek text says. In order for Jesus to mean what Van is saying, the words "view entry" would have to be found together in either verse 3 or verse 5 because "view" is being used to modify "entry" by Van, but Jesus does not use the term "see" to modify "enter" or else he too would have had to use them together just as van did in his sentence. As anyone can see the only place they are found together is in Van's sentence as a result of Van's imagination.

Verse 3 does not say "in order to view entry" but in order to "see". Verse 5 does not say "in order to view entry" but in order to "enter."

Van simply does not know what he is talking about, and he proves he does not by stating his position by two different statement that are in direct contradiction to each other and then by rewriting John 3:3,6 to read what the text does not say and in no way can be made to say.

 

[Van]

Again, there is no point in discussion with those who misrepresent the words of others. Once you arrive, you have been (past tense) saved, made alive, born anew. Thus the process of entry involves undergoing the circumcision of Christ, and arising in Christ a new creation.

And then once more, we have the verb enter in the Aorist tense. Thus in order to fully enter, and thus be a done deal, once must be born anew.

Matthew 23:13 tells us that folks can be "entering" (present tense)but then blocked from entering (a done deal, aorist tense).

 

[The Biblicist]

Again, there is no point in discussion with those who misrepresent the words of others.

You are describing yourself! You misrepresented Paul's words in 1 Thes. 1:4-5. You have misrepresented Dr. Wallace's words by assuming he is referring the entire content of verse 5 when you do not know that to be a fact,when in fact both the context and grammar mitigate against such a foolish assumption, but rather you force his GENERAL statement to fit your defense of perverting Paul's words.


Obviously you are incapable of understanding even English grammar much less Greek grammar or that your interpretation "view entry" is grammatically IMPOSSIBLE for either John 3:5, or John 3:6 as it would require the same choice of terms found together in each verse as you are grammatically using "view" to modify "entry" and that is not found in either the English or Greek text of John 3:3-5. It is only found in YOUR IMAGINATION.

Does anyone on this forum give any serious attention to Van? I doubt it!

 

[Van]

Folks, just listen to the kind of rebuttal offered:

"You misrepresent Paul's words"
"You have misrepresented Dr. Wallace's words"
"Obviously you are incapable of understanding"
"Does anyone on this forum give any serious attention to Van?"

Next we get the absurdity that we do not view or apprehend ideas based on the words used and the form of the words used.

Lets take "He ran into the house." How do we view this? He is going to run into the house, a future event? He is running into the house, a present event? Or He ran into the house in the past?

The Bible says in order to view "entry" into the kingdom as an event completed in the past, you have to also have been born anew. Because Matthew 23:13 says folks can begin entry, because they were "entering" present tense, but not complete entry, Aorist tense, the idea that you must be born anew to begin entry is simply unbiblical, ungrammatical, and misrepresents scripture.

Here is biblical truth, Jesus Christ is our propitiation or means of salvation.

 

[The Biblicist]

Lets take "He ran into the house." How do we view this? He is going to run into the house, a future event? He is running into the house, a present event? Or He ran into the house in the past?

What utter nonsense!

First He ran" is active voice demonstrating "he" is doing the action. However, in John 3:3,5 "man" is not doing this action but is passive in this action. God is doing the action.

Second, in John 3:3,5 the new birth is the CONDITION to enter or see the kingdom but in Van's made up sentence there is no condition presented at all.

Third, "view entry" are words that only have meaning if found together in one sentence because "view" is being used to modify "entry" but no such language and no such arrangement can be found in John 3:3 is the only place in this context "see" is found and it modifies "kingdom" and not "enter" as Van's interpretation forces upon scripture. Likewise, "enter" is found in verse 5 and modifies "kingdom".

Van simply rewrites the Bible to support his false doctrines.

The Bible says in order to view "entry" into the kingdom

This is an absolute flat out lie! The Scripture says no such thing, and neither can it be PROPERLY translated or interpreted to mean any such thing. What translation can Van offer for such a translation "view entry"????????

as an event completed in the past, you have to also have been born anew.

Again, Van rewrites the Bible to please himself. Van wants you to believe that Christ really said and meant the following:

"except a man views entry into the kingdom of God he cannot be born again"

However, that is not what Jesus said or meant! He said "except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God" thus placing new birth as the condition to see or enter the kingdom.

Because Matthew 23:13 says folks can begin entry, because they were "entering" present tense,

Another false imagination found only in Van's mind! He is not asserting that anyone is entering heaven but asserting that everyone is being stopped from entering heaven due to a false gospel that makes those receiving it a TWO FOLD MORE CHILD OF HELL.

It is sad to have such people as Van claiming to be interpreters of God's Word - sad indeed.

Aorist tense, the idea that you must be born anew to begin entry is simply unbiblical, ungrammatical, and misrepresents scripture.

Pathetic! First, John 3:3,5 says NOTHING about "begin entry" as "enter" and "see" are both aorist tense as is "born" because they are simultaneous punctillar completed actions that occur together at the point of new birth. If Jesus wanted to say what Van is forcing the language to say he would have said, either "except a man be born again he SHALL not" see or enter the kingdom of heaven OR "except a man begin entry into the kingdom of heaven he cannot be born again." Jesus said neither. Just an overactive heretical imagination produces such nonsense.

 

[Van]

Yet another rebuttal based on attacking the poster rather than the post.

Behold the content:

"What utter nonsense"
"Van simply rewrites the Bible to support his false doctrines."
"Another false imagination found only in Van's mind!"
"It is sad to have such people as Van claiming to be interpreters of God's Word - sad indeed."
"Just an overactive heretical imagination produces such nonsense."

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, in order to view entry as a done deal, a completed action of the past, you have to have been born anew. But according the Matthew 23:13, you can be entering without being born anew. Therefore you have to be born anew in order to complete entry into God's kingdom.

 

[The Biblicist]

Yet another rebuttal based on attacking the poster rather than the post.

Behold the content:

"What utter nonsense"
"Van simply rewrites the Bible to support his false doctrines."
"Another false imagination found only in Van's mind!"
"It is sad to have such people as Van claiming to be interpreters of God's Word - sad indeed."
"Just an overactive heretical imagination produces such nonsense."

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, in order to view entry as a done deal, a completed action of the past, you have to have been born anew. But according the Matthew 23:13, you can be entering without being born anew. Therefore you have to be born anew in order to complete entry into God's kingdom.

Yet another post that cannot answer a single solitary objection. Another post that confirms every single solitary word Van complains about. Go figure!

 

[Van]

Yet another rebuttal devoid of content, but rather an attack.
Consider this:
[Van]"cannot answer a single solitary objection."

The Bible says in order to view "entry" into the kingdom as an event completed in the past, you have to also have been born anew. Because Matthew 23:13 says folks can begin entry, because they were "entering" present tense, but had not completed entry, Aorist tense, the idea that you must be born anew to begin entry is simply unbiblical.

Christ is our propitiation, our means of salvation. If you are not "in Christ" you are not propitiated, saved, justified, made alive, born anew, made holy, and so forth. If God transfers you into Christ, you are propitiated, saved, justified, made alive, born anew, made holy and so forth. Then you are sealed in Christ with the Holy Spirit forever, completing your entry into the Kingdom of God.

 

[The Biblicist]

Yet another rebuttal devoid of content, but rather an attack.
Consider this:
[Van]"cannot answer a single solitary objection."

The Bible says in order to view "entry" into the kingdom as an event completed in the past, you have to also have been born anew. Because Matthew 23:13 says folks can begin entry, because they were "entering" present tense, but had not completed entry, Aorist tense, the idea that you must be born anew to begin entry is simply unbiblical.

Christ is our propitiation, our means of salvation.

I have provided post after post full of substantive objections to your interpretation NONE OF WHICH YOU HAVE RESPONDED TO but all of which you simply ignore.

For example, John 3:3 nor John 3:5 can be interpreted to mean "view entry" unless both words are found together in the same verse as anyone who knows anything about English or Greek grammar knows the words "view entry" are dependent upon each other for their meaning and must be used together just as van uses them in his made up sentence. In his made up sentence the term "view" modifies "entry" but in John 3:3 the word "see" does not modify "enter" but has for its direct object "kingdom of heaven" just as "enter" has for its direct object "Kingdom of heaven."

So, Van's interpretation is simply wrong - period - end of story and grammatically IMPOSSIBLE for John 3:3 or John 3:5.

 

[Van]

Yet another rebuttal devoid of content. There have been no substantive objects, for I provided Dr. Wallace's footnote in full.
My arguments from grammar stand, aorist verbs refer to actions completed in the past.
The idea that readers do not "view" the idea being presented, based on the grammar, i.e. future, present, or past, is underwhelming.

The Bible says in order to view "entry" into the kingdom as an event completed in the past, you have to also have been born anew. Because Matthew 23:13 says folks can begin entry, because they were "entering" present tense, but had not completed entry, Aorist tense, the idea that you must be born anew to begin entry is simply unbiblical.

Christ is our propitiation, our means of salvation.

 

[The Biblicist]

Yet another rebuttal devoid of content. There have been no substantive objects, for I provided Dr. Wallace's footnote in full.
My arguments from grammar stand, aorist verbs refer to actions completed in the past.
The idea that readers do not "view" the idea being presented, based on the grammar, i.e. future, present, or past, is underwhelming.

The Bible says in order to view "entry" into the kingdom as an event completed in the past, you have to also have been born anew. Because Matthew 23:13 says folks can begin entry, because they were "entering" present tense, but had not completed entry, Aorist tense, the idea that you must be born anew to begin entry is simply unbiblical.

Christ is our propitiation, our means of salvation.

My frustration with the kind of person you are, is that you never deal with the objections presented against you EXCEPT by ridicule or by ignoring them and then merely repeat what you have stated. That shuts down any kind of rational and reasonable discussion. it shows you have no objectivity or are willing to confront evidence that opposes your theory.

Your interpretation of "veiw entry" is impossible and it does not take a genius to see that, just common sense and basic grammar ability.

I have addressed your misuse and abuse of Dr. Wallace's comment on the other thread.

 

[Van]

Here is this posts rebuttal:
"My frustration with the kind of person you are,"
"you have no objectivity"
"your misuse and abuse of Dr. Wallace's comment"

The poster continues to claim readers do not view actions as future, present or past. Such as assessment is said to be impossible.

The Bible says in order to view "entry" into the kingdom as an event completed in the past, you have to also have been born anew. Because Matthew 23:13 says folks can begin entry, because they were "entering" present tense, but had not completed entry, Aorist tense, the idea that you must be born anew to begin entry is simply unbiblical.

Christ is our propitiation, our means of salvation.

 

[The Biblicist]

Here is this posts rebuttal:
"My frustration with the kind of person you are,"
"you have no objectivity"
"your misuse and abuse of Dr. Wallace's comment"

These statements correctly assess the problem. The problem is not the text as the text does not say "except a man view entry of the kingdom he cannot be born again" although that is what Van is attempting to force the text to say.

The text does not say "view entry" nor cannot it possibly be made to mean that.

The poster continues to claim readers do not view actions as future, present or past. Such as assessment is said to be impossible.

The text uses three Aorist tense verbs, which are all COMPLETED PUNCTILLAR ACTIONS - that is simply the grammatical facts and therefore Van's insistence the text refers to present or future is baseless as there is no future or present tense used by Christ in the use of "see" or "enter" or "born." They are grammatically SIMULTANEOUS events all AORIST TENSE. The sentence in each verse makes new birth the logical cause in both instances. "EXCEPT a man be born again he CANNOT.....see.....enter"

Enter and see both have "kingdom of heaven" as their direct object. There is no grammatical basis for the idea of "viewed entry" as that would make "entry" the direct object of "viewed" and that cannot be found in the text, nor is it a possible translation or interpretation simply because it has no textual basis at all.

The Bible says in order to view "entry" into the kingdom

This is simply a lie, a flat lie, as the text provides no grammatical or textual basis for this lie. The Bible simply does not say "viewed entry" and to say it does is to lie - just that simple - it is not true. Neither is it a grammatical possibility - it is simply a lie to say the Bible says this.

as an event completed in the past,

This is also a lie, as it denies the whole truth of the text, which is that to "see" or "enter" the kingdom is regarded a past completed event ONLY UPON THE BASIS OF new birth being also a past tense completed event as all three verbs are Aorist tense and "see" and "enter" are contextually conditioned upon new birth being also a completed action that PRECEDES the actions to "see" and "enter." Hence, van is simply perverting the Biblical text denying the actual grammar of the text.

you have to also have been born anew.

Finally, he admits this is a past tense completed action that must accompany "see" and "enter" but continues to pervert that the text makes "see" and "enter" CONDITIONED upon new birth FIRST. "EXCEPT a man be born again, he CANNOT" see or enter - that is a CONDITION which must be met FIRST. Jesus does not say "except a man see/enter the kingdom of God he CANNOT.." but that is precisely how Van is interpreting, and thus perverting the scriptures.

Because Matthew 23:13 says folks can begin entry,

This is another flat lie! The text says the very opposite. Jesus uses the word "NEITHER" this is a negative and says that the kingdom is being "SHUT UP" not opened. Furthermore, the present tense entering is describing the ATTEMPT to enter the WRONG WAY not which makes them a TWO FOLD MORE CHILD OF HELL. So the reality of the text is that this is actually an attempt in progress to ENTER HELL not heaven as the completion of their entry is HELL not heaven as when this attempted entry is completed they are a "TWO FOLD MORE CHILD OF HELL" - Mt. 23:15. So this is not an actually attempt in progress toward heaven but toward hell as this attempt finds its completion in hell not heaven.

Hindu's, Bhudists, Jehovah's Witnesses, etc., are equally all attempting to ENTER heaven to, according to their understanding but that does not mean they are ACTUALLY ENTERING or ever will enter through the way they are attempting to enter but also are TWO FOLD MORE CHILDREN OF HELL in their attempt to enter heaven.

but had not completed entry,

This is also a lie! A flat lie! Jesus condemns them for preaching a FALSE Gospel which SHUTS THE DOOR. That is what a false gospel does it SHUTS THE DOOR and makes ALL ATTEMPTING TO ENTER that SHUT DOOR two fold more children of hell. However, Van makes it look like Jesus is saying it is not only POSSIBLE for entry through their SHUT DOOR but they have actually BEGUN ENTRY through a SHUT DOOR.

Tell me, how many of you could enter a house through a SHUT DOOR????? Could you be described as in the process of entry through a SHUT DOOR????

But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselve, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in.

Here is the real truth, those van refer are in the process of entry no more than the Scribes and Pharisees as Jesus says "NEITHER GO IN YOURSELVES"! So Van's interpretation provides as much as a process of entry already begun as it does for the Scribes and Pharisees WHO REJECT JESUS CHRIST as Savior. These CHRIST REJECTORS as much in the process of entry as those they preach their false gospel unto. So Van, are these Christ rejectors already in the process of entry into heaven through a SHUT DOOR gospel?????? By the way how does one already begin entry into heaven through a SHUT DOOR????

Van cannot answer the above objections, and so he will simply repeat his mantra.




Aorist tense, the idea that you must be born anew to begin entry is simply unbiblical.

Christ is our propitiation, our means of salvation.[/QUOTE]