What every anti-calvinist needs to know

[Yelsew]

Like I said, In light of God's attributes of Grace and Mercy, the NJB makes more sense.

How does Christ's delaying his return mean Salvation?

Salvation cometh by hearing and hearing by the word of God. The more of mankind that hears the Word of God, the more have the opportunity to be saved. The longer the time the greater the number for salvation.

It is much more Gracious of God to allow more to hear and respond.

It demonstrates God's Mercy to those who will hear and respond. For If he had returned during Peter's lifetime, none of us would be saved. Thank God for His mercy that afforded me the opportunity to be saved.

See, All things do work together for good to those who love God!

 

[Yelsew]

Originally posted by Frogman:
The YCSOMNV of course.

Bro. Dallas

OK, I give up! What does your acronym represent?

 

[KenH]

Originally posted by Yelsew:
In light of God's attributes of Grace and Mercy, the NJB makes more sense.

Different strokes for different folks, Yelsew. I prefer a translation as accurate as possible to the original text. I prefer commentary to be relegated to commentaries, not inserted into the text of God's Holy Word. I will make sure to avoid using the NJB like it was the plague, as there is no telling what else of man's opinions it has inserted into the Holy Bible. Also, a translation that uses scholars from a multitude of denominations if preferable to one that is put out by one denomination that is going to read its biases into the Holy Bible.

 

[KenH]

Originally posted by Yelsew:
For if he had returned during Peter's lifetime, none of us would be saved.

But you also would not have to worry about going to Hell(since according to your scheme that is still a possibility even after being saved, right?) if Jesus had returned during Peter's lifetime.

 

[Yelsew]

Originally posted by KenH:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Yelsew:
For if he had returned during Peter's lifetime, none of us would be saved.

But you also would not have to worry about going to Hell(since according to your scheme that is still a possibility even after being saved, right?) if Jesus had returned during Peter's lifetime. </font>[/QUOTE]I don't think so, I wasn't here 2000 years ago! Jesus says that one must be born of flesh to be judged and sent to hell, and Born of spirit to be found righteous and Go to heaven. Since 2000 years ago, I was not here, I would not be judged.

PS: Really consider the parable of the sower.

 

[KenH]

Originally posted by Yelsew:
Jesus says that one must be born of flesh to be judged and sent to hell, and Born of spirit to be found righteous and Go to heaven. Since 2000 years ago, I was not here, I would not be judged.

What are you talking about, Yelsew? Do you ever try to comprehend what other people write?

 

[Yelsew]

Different strokes for different folks, Yelsew. I prefer a translation as accurate as possible to the original text.

Then by all means avoid all English language versions. Go back to school and learn Hebrews, Aramaic, and Greek. Then if the keepers of the documents will let you into where the archived manuscripts are kept and allow you to even look at them, let alone read them, you will then satisfy your own specifications for the Word of God.

I frankly do not have the time to do such an unnecessary task as that. The meaning presented in the New Jerusalem Bible is accurate enough for God's word to speak the truth to me. Besides I, have at least 21 other translations available to me, and find so very little difference among them that the scrutiny you demand is vanity.

You however, being a bible scholar of the highest order may feel cheated by Plain English versions that substitute more easily understood words for those that leave your mind dangling to find the more accurate meaning.

As for Peter's words and the use of the phrase "opportunity to be saved", in place of "Salvation", you would be hard pressed to explain the true meaning to someone who asks the question, "Why hasn't the Christ returned for the Church?" I can hear it now, "Oh, he's waitin' for salvation".

Thus it is we find, according to scriptural use, the meaning of "Delayed Return" turns out to be "Salvation".

 

[KenH]

Your NJB changes the meaning of that verse to fit in with the interpreter(s) presupposition and theological bias. That this is so is not even questionable to an unbiased observer.

 

[Frogman]

There is nothing wrong with the KJV except that it caters less to the will of man;

YCSOMNV---The Yelsewian Common Sense of Man New Version.

If I were choosing, I would still choose 1 FROGMAN 2.2, why? FULLY Rely ON GOD Man.

Bro. Dallas

 

[Aki]

Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
5) Calvinists do believe in man's responsibility, but deny his ability to repent and believe the gospel.

and why is he unable to repent? the next statement from the same item answers it:

Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
5)...Calvinists believe that man's inability to repent and believe are caused by his own sin ... not any positive imposition on God's part.

caused by his own sin? does this mean personally comitted sins? if that would be the case, then is a born child gets to have that inability only after his first sin?

calvinists believe that a child is born dead and has the sin nature with him. this is due to Adam's sin and sin nature. Adam's sin/guilt was imputed to each man while his sin nature is seminally transmitted. combined, spiritual death and inability results for each man. so why say "casued by his own sin" when in fact even before an individual commits his first sin he is already dead and unable?

i see it a common approach by calvinists here that while they see Adam's sin and sin nature, both received by each inidivual with no regards to each one's volition, to be causing spiritual death and inability and thus condemnation. but come condemnation, they would rather dwell on one's personal or own sins. this can be justified, however, when a calvinist is able to prove that one recieves Adam's guilt and the sin nature since birth due to his own volition.

 

[Yelsew]

I'm not a bible scholar, but I do have the sense that the Father delays the return if Jesus til the fulfillment of the time of the Gentiles. It is during that time that the gentiles have the opportunity to become believers in Jesus, and thereby have eternal life. So it seems fitting that the phrase "opportunity to be saved" is quite appropriate as used in this scripture.

Peter is writing to whom? Believers. Why would a delay in the return of the Christ be salvation to believers? A hasty return would be more appropriate to salvation of believers so that none should fall away from the faith.

 

[Frogman]

Then he will never come, if God must wait for all men at any given time to validate his work at the first advent. Peter is talking to believers, and believers are instructed to pray for his coming, then why are we so instructed if God is stalling for more to enter into the straight and narrow gate?

Bro. Dallas

 

[Yelsew]

nevermind!

 

[William C]

Originally posted by KenH:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Brother Bill:
The truth is everyone wants to be saved! Who wants to go to hell?

So you don't think there is any such thing as a true atheist? Interesting. </font>[/QUOTE]Nope. Logically speaking they can only be agnostics. You can't prove God exists, but the reverse is also true you can't prove he doesn't, therefore the best you can do is say "I don't know." That's an agnostic. Even they want to be saved if there is a God and a place called hell. They just don't know if that is true or not.

 

[Larry in Tennessee]

oops!

[ May 08, 2003, 10:08 PM: Message edited by: Larry in Tennessee ]

 

[William C]

Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
Yelsew,

Thanks for demosntrating yet again that you are not listening, and that you do not understand. Your objections are met with our understanding of Scripture. I wish you would just listen sometimes. Just put a sock in your cyber mouth and listen to what others are saying. You too Bill. Both of you raise up an objection that has been explained so many times it is nauseating but you plow right on like Scripture doesn't say what it says.

It is really disappointing.

Galluping by to speak to us earthlings again pastor?

What do you think this board is about? Coming up with arguments that have never been discussed? That's not possible. As long as you all keep propagating a false view of the scripture we will debate you, so stop acting surpised when we don't bow down and kiss your holy feet for imparting truth to us everytime you post this nonsense!

 

[William C]

Originally posted by KenH:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Brother Bill:
They now will turn to Romans 9

Nope. The best explanation of the doctrine of man's inability are the words spoken by Jesus in John 6:43 and John 6:65.

I guess you keep wanting to jump to Romans 9 since you don't want to say that Jesus was in error since what He taught in John chapter 6 is not what you teach. </font>[/QUOTE]Jesus is speaking to hardened Jews just as John 12:37-41 explains. You believe Jesus' audience can't believe because they are born totally depraved. Where is that is scripture? No where.

I believe Jesus' audience can't believe because John later tells me that they can't believe because God hardened their hearts.

Who is reading their dogma into the text now??? I have a specific support text in the very same book. You have the Calvinistic dogma. Hmmm, I wonder which is right?

 

[KenH]

Originally posted by Brother Bill:
hardened... hardened

Hmmm, I wonder which is right?

Okay, One-Note Bill, there you go again! I guess you never dismount from that theological hobby horse of yours, do you?

I'll tell you which is right - the Bible is right and you are quite wrong on the issues you are debating in this forum.

 

[William C]

Originally posted by KenH:
the Bible is right

Oh good we agree on something:

This is why they were unable to believe, because Isaiah also said: He has blinded their eyes and hardened their hearts, so that they would not see with their eyes or understand with their hearts, and be converted, and I would heal them.

We can close down this argument now because the bible says they were unable to believe because God had hardened them and you said the Bible is right--so I guess we agree.

 

[KenH]

Call it hardening, inability, depravity, whatever. The result is the same. You can argue into the air over semantics until you are blue in the face as far as I care.