No, the view is totally consistent with all scripture including Romans 3.Which totally contradicts Romans 3.
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
No, the view is totally consistent with all scripture including Romans 3.Which totally contradicts Romans 3.
For readability, but just going with the actual text, as about 10 versions did works just as well.You add the word "yet"
Really? Because Romans 3 says there is none that are good, none that seek after God. So how does that mesh with there are some rich in faith? If none seek after God how can they be rich in the faith of God? Yes, that absolutely contradicts.No, the view is totally consistent with all scripture including Romans 3.
The truth is though that it does fit within both Context and the Greek Grammar and construction!No, an acceptable way was chosen by about 10 translations, and several others put the corruption in italics. For Calvinists to push for the corruption of the text to mesh with their bogus doctrine is disheartening.
Why would try to translate it in a way that contradicts other scriptures?Really? Because Romans 3 says there is none that are good, none that seek after God. So how does that mesh with there are some rich in faith? If none seek after God how can they be rich in the faith of God? Yes, that absolutely contradicts.
Asked and answered dozens of time. Does the verse say no one ever seeks God at any time, the Calvinist interpretation. Nope.Really? Because Romans 3 says there is none that are good, none that seek after God. So how does that mesh with there are some rich in faith? If none seek after God how can they be rich in the faith of God? Yes, that absolutely contradicts.
Utter bogus assertion. About 10 translations render the verse without "to be" therefore nothing in the context, Greek grammar or construction requires the corruption.The truth is though that it does fit within both Context and the Greek Grammar and construction!
That's actually not the Calvinist interpretation. The Calvinist interpretation is without divine aid they cannot seek God which is biblical.Asked and answered dozens of time. Does the verse say no one ever seeks God at any time, the Calvinist interpretation. Nope.
Yet another denial of Calvinism, the published doctrine is total spiritual inability. Full StopThat's actually not the Calvinist interpretation. The Calvinist interpretation is without divine aid they cannot seek God which is biblical.
We believe than sinners still seek after a god, but that is one of their own making, not the real one!Yet another denial of Calvinism, the published doctrine is total spiritual inability. Full Stop
Still is permitted to be done as a valid way to express what was intended.Utter bogus assertion. About 10 translations render the verse without "to be" therefore nothing in the context, Greek grammar or construction requires the corruption.
Utter false claim, Matthew 23:13We believe than sinners still seek after a god, but that is one of their own making, not the real one!
Just because the bible can be corrupted does not mean we should tolerate corruption. Adding "to be" alters and corrupts the text. Use one of the 10 or so versions that do not insert "to be" or put it in italics so you can ignore the corruption.Still is permitted to be done as a valid way to express what was intended.
Who are the ones trying to enter in> the elect of God....Utter false claim, Matthew 23:13
Yet another utterly false statement, if the men of Matthew 23:13 had been elected they would have been put into the kingdom by God.Who are the ones trying to enter in> the elect of God....
Yes, His elect chosen out by God beforehand!Yet another utterly false statement, if the men of Matthew 23:13 had been elected they would have been put into the kingdom by God.
In your opinion. That doesn't make you right.Adding "to be" alters and corrupts the text.
Where does it say they don't go in?Yet another utterly false statement, if the men of Matthew 23:13 had been elected they would have been put into the kingdom by God.
Please read Matthew 23:13 and if that does not answer your question, there is nothing I can say. No need to waste effort if all you have is denial and deflection.Where does it say they don't go in?