by Yoki Maurx
“The doctrine of election is biblical and true” can be said by any Bible believing Christian. There have been numerous debates about the doctrine of election and reprobation for hundreds of years. Without defining terms, two people may have completely different understandings of the doctrine of election. Election, simply defined, means “to choose”. When such a common word is used, we must look at the surrounding context to determine the who, what, when, where, why, and how of the choice. According to The Lexham Bible Dictionary, the Greek terms associated with election (ἐκλέγομαι, eklegomai; ἐκλεκτός, eklektos; ἐκλογή, eklogē) also describe a choice or something that is chosen.”1
The reformed Calvinist would say that election means that God chose some people for salvation prior to the foundation of the world.2 As a non-Calvinist who holds to the Traditional Southern Baptist or Provisionist view of Soteriology3 I will be defending the non-Calvinist view of election. I will show that divine election of individuals is conditional, corporate, and to service, not salvation. In the same way that the logical end of unconditional election to salvation includes unconditional reprobation, the logical end of conditional election is a rejection that God reprobates anyone from before the foundation of the world. Elect, or some variation of the word, is used just over 225 times in the Bible, but only a few dozen of them can be construed to include salvation. In this paper, I will focus on Ephesians 1:4 and 2 Peter 3:9 as I defend my position.
Ephesians 1:4
“even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him.”4
Consistent hermeneutics demand that verses be read in context. The letter to the Ephesians was written to Christians, Ephesians 1:1 “To the saints who are in Ephesus and are faithful in Christ Jesus.”5 Paul then begins an exposition of the blessings that are theirs in Christ and, by extension, to all Christians, the Body of Christ, at all times and in every place wherever they may be. Verse 3 shows this, “Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places.”6 Once the Christian is born again (John 3:3-7) by the washing of regeneration and the renewing of the Holy Spirit (Titus 3:4-7) they receive every spiritual blessing immediately, in Christ, who is seated in the heavenly realm at the right hand of God. Furthermore, the Christian receives the promise of eternal life and all the promises of inheritance that are associated with it, the moment that they believe and trust in Christ for salvation.
Snodgrass, in his commentary on Ephesians 1:4, said that “Individuals are not elected and then put in Christ. They are in Christ and therefore elect.”7 Klein agrees with Snodgrass and points out that “Christ is the principal elected one, and the corporate body included in him consists of the ones God has chosen.”8 Notice that it is God choosing what those of us who are in him will receive (Eph 1:5-14). We are not chosen “to be” in him but instead that those who have repented and believed and are now “in him” are promised and predestined to an inheritance, adoption, and to be holy and without blame. In Ephesians 1, the only being in the passage that existed before the foundations of the world is Christ, the elect one.
Ephesians 1 teaches that election has positional implications which can be seen by the fact that Paul uses the words “in him” no less then eleven times in Ephesians 1 alone. Paul is showing a positional truth. Richard Beals and Earl Radmacher wrote, “When we follow Paul’s use of the expression, we discover that to be in Christ means that in a real sense the Christian has been placed, located within Christ. In Christ signifies that whatever Jesus Christ is before God the Father, the believer shares his identity, because he or she is within the Savior.”9 Shawn Lazar, in his book Chosen to Serve, wrote, “Believers are predestined insofar as they are ‘in Christ’ and so share His identity… you are not individually elected from all eternity. The group is. The Body of Christ is. And you are put ‘in Christ’ when you believe in Him.”10 We do not need to read Ephesians 1:4 to mean that God is selecting specific individuals for salvation and thereby rejecting others. It is more likely that God was determining the means by which his people will be identified as his Children.
2 Peter 3:9
“The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance.”11
The idea that God chooses some for salvation and then the remainder of humanity is reprobated to hell is a doctrine that neither scripture nor logic can support. If God is a maximumly great being, as Anselm argued for,12 then the maximumly great being must be omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, and omnibenevolent. Unless one wants to state that God is not omnibenevolent, then God, who is all-loving, must want the best for all people. This philosophical idea is supported by scripture here in 2 Peter 3:9.
Looking at the text, we see that the identity of the “any should perish” is linked to the “all” in 9b which would include any unsaved people who have not yet come to repentance. But some believe that the “any” points back to the personal pronoun “ὑμᾶς” (you) then the personal pronoun choice ὑμᾶς would point to the readers of this epistle as the “you”. Peter is writing to them as believers whom he believes already profess salvation, but that interpretive choice would go against the “come to repentance” phrase. Michael Green, in his commentary on 2 Peter wrote that “Peter’s third refutation of the scoffers is drawn from the nature of God and has many antecedents in Jewish apocalyptic thought. It is not slowness but patience that delays the consummation of all history and holds open the door to repentant sinners, even repentant scoffers.”13 God has always been slow to anger (Exod. 34:6), and God does not wish that any should perish but wants all to be saved (1 Tim. 2:4). God is ready to show his mercy upon all (Rom. 11:32) and has no pleasure in the death of the wicked but would rather have the wicked turn from his ways and live (Ezek. 18:23). God does not plan damnation for select individuals making them reprobates but instead gives all a real opportunity to come to repentance.
Conclusion
God choosing specific individuals for salvation may sound like such a loving thing to do; after all, God is not required to save anyone. But the doctrine of individual election to salvation from before the foundations of the world leaves those who hold to it with problems that do not have answers. If God is a maximumly great being, then he would not pass over those that he has the power to save and thereby reprobate them to hell. This belief removes the omnibenevolent attribute from God and omnibenevolence is a core aspect of what makes him God.
The doctrine of election being corporate or to service provides solid biblical and philosophical answers that will positively impact the church and should be applied in the local church for three main reasons. First, it is consistent with Scripture and God being a maximumly great being. Since all theological doctrine should be derived from Scripture, we must examine every passage used to support a doctrine to see if it holds up. When we allow Scripture to interpret Scripture, we find that some of the more challenging verses get clearer. When Scripture teaches that God desires that all will be saved (1Timothy 2:4; Titus 2:11; 2 Peter 3:9) we do not have to cite “mystery” as the reason that God wants all to be saved but chooses to only save some.14
The second reason is that it will aid in evangelism and prayer. When the doctrine that only a predetermined list of people can be saved is understood and accepted by a Christian, the motivation for evangelizing can become a drudgery. Praying for the salvation of the lost can start to feel like asking God to check the reservation list and see if the person we want to come to saving faith is also the person that God wanted to save. The words of Scripture that teach us that we are to pray for the salvation of all people and take the gospel to all the world suddenly can feel like a false offer. But knowing that anyone who repents and believes in Christ will be given the gracious gift of salvation adds urgency and importance to what we as Christ-followers are called to do (Matthew 28:19-20). The corporate view of election is a conditional view where people must not reject the truth in unrighteousness but instead by placing their faith in the finished work of Jesus, they are placed in him (Ephesians 1:4) and are united with the Elect One. It removes any doubt that there are some out there who are not able to be saved.
Third, an improper view of election will influence the hermeneutics of other passages. When we presuppose the meaning of a word, like election, we unconsciously import that doctrine into other areas of Scripture. Holding to the doctrine presented here will allow verses like 1 John 2:2, 1 Timothy 2:6, 4:10, Titus 2:11, and John 3:16-17 to be read in context, and we do not have to say that “all” means “some of all nations” or “all those chosen from before the foundation of the world.” But instead, we see that God loved the whole world so much that he sent his son to die so that any who believe will not perish but have eternal life.
14The reason that not all people are saved is not a problem that those who hold to this view have not provided well researched and scripturally sound answers to. There is not space in this paper to cover the objections and challenges to this position but a considerable amount of work has been done on the subject of libertarian free will and the problem of evil. See Norman L. Geisler’s Chosen but Free (2010), Timothy A. Stratton’s Human Freedom, Divine Knowledge, and Mere Molinism: A Biblical, Historical, Theological, and Philosophical Analysis, and C.S. Lewis’ Mere Christianity and many other books and articles that address the subject.
1Thornhill, A. C. (2016). Election. In J. D. Barry, D. Bomar, D. R. Brown, R. Klippenstein, D. Mangum, C. Sinclair Wolcott, L. Wentz, E. Ritzema, & W. Widder (Eds.), The Lexham Bible Dictionary. Lexham Press.
2For a detailed explanation of the Calvinistic doctrine of election see Loraine Boettner’s, Reformed Doctrine of Predestination, (1991) “Unconditional election”, pp 84-140
3For more information on Traditional Southern Baptist Soteriology see Anyone Can be Saved by Eric Hankins, David Allen, and Adam Harwood, Wipf and Stock, (2016)
4The Holy Bible: English Standard Version (Eph 1:4). (2016). Crossway Bibles.
5The Holy Bible: English Standard Version (Eph 1:1). (2016). Crossway Bibles.
6The Holy Bible: English Standard Version (Eph 1:3). (2016). Crossway Bibles.
7Snodgrass, Klyne. (1996). The NIV Application Commentary (p. 84). Zondervan, Grand Rapids, Michigan. 8Klein, W. W. (2015). The New Chosen People: A Corporate View of Election (Revised and Expanded Edition, p. 154). Wipf & Stock.
9R.S. Beals, Jr. and Earl Radmacher, Ephesians: Life and Love in Christ. Chino Valley, One Word Press, 2012, pg 6
10Shawn Lazar, Chosen to Serve, Denton, Grace Evangelical Society, 2017, Pg 204
11The Holy Bible: English Standard Version (2 Pe 3:9). (2016). Crossway Bibles.
12Garrett, J. L., Jr. (2014). Systematic Theology: Biblical, Historical, and Evangelical (Fourth Edition, Vol. 1, p. 100). Wipf & Stock. Garrett wrote that, “This is a syllogistic argument rather than an argument from effect to cause. Its first exponent, Anselm of Canterbury (1033–1109), expounded it in deductive fashion in his Proslogium. First, contended Anselm, a human being has in his mind the idea of an infinite and perfect being. Second, “[e]xistence is an attribute of perfection.” Third, an infinite and perfect Being, therefore, must exist.”
13Green, M. (1987). 2 Peter and Jude: an introduction and commentary (Vol. 18, p. 159). InterVarsity Press.
From the article:
The reformed Calvinist would say that election means that God chose some people for salvation prior to the foundation of the world
br.d
In Calvinism – per the doctrine of decrees – it LOGICALLY FOLLOWS – the function of “CHOICE” is the SOLE and EXCLUSIVE function of a Calvin’s god.
And ONLY Calvin’s god has the function of “CHOICE”.
ALL “CHOICES” without exception – concerning WHATSOEVER COMES TO PASS – are made at the foundation of the world – before any creature is created.
NOTHING is left UNDETERMINED
Therefore there is NOTHING left-over for any other being or creature to DETERMINE.
Additionally – the standard definition of “CHOICE” contains a NECESSARY CONDITION of multiple options available from which to select – and the ability to REFRAIN from one option or the other.
And the doctrine of decrees – LOGICALLY EXCLUDES all but one RENDERED-CERTAIN option for every event and every creaturely impulse.
And the doctrine of decrees – LOGICALLY EXCLUDES the creatures ability to REFRAIN.
No Option(s) + No ability to REFRAIN = NO CHOICE
In Calvinism – humans are NOT granted the function of “CHOICE” in the matter of anything.
Any PERCEPTION within the Calvinist’s mind of having the function of “CHOICE” is an infallibly decreed FALSE PERCEPTION.
And the Calvinist is forced to betray his own doctrine – in order to argue that his god grants him any CHOICE in the matter of anything.
“In Ephesians 1, the only being in the passage that existed before the foundations of the world is Christ, the elect one.”
Ephesians 1, “…God chose us in Him before the foundation of the world…” Paul writing to believers, includes himself, in saying, “God chose us.” That is his main point. This is expanded by two phrases, “in Him,” and “from the foundation of the world.” Both phrases apply to “us.” God chose “us” in Him, and God chose “us” before the foundation of the world.
While it is true that, “the only being in the passage that existed before the foundations of the world is Christ, the elect one,” that is not a key point. The key points Paul wants to get across are (1) God chose believers, (2) God chose believers in Christ, (3) God chose believers from the foundation of the world.
Rhutchin
The key points Paul wants to get across are (1) God chose believers, (2) God chose believers in Christ, (3) God chose believers from the foundation of the world.
br.d
This statement does nothing more than assert the Calvinist position – having to do with Calvinism’s doctrine of decrees – which stipulates a “CHOICE” reserved solely and exclusively for Calvin’s god.
That part of Calvinism’s camel – which the Calvinist cannot bring himself to swallow however – is the fact that per his doctrine of decrees – the Calvinist is NEVER granted ANY CHOICE in the matter of anything.
No Option(s) + No ability to refrain = NO CHOICE
A Calvinist’s brain is however at least endowed with A POSTERIORI knowledge
It becomes aware of WHATSOEVER impulses Calvin’s god at the foundation of the world – DETERMINED to come to pass within its brain – after those impulses come to pass.
Aren’t Calvinists blessed! ;-D
br.d: “This statement does nothing more than assert the Calvinist position…”
…and what the verse actually says. Calvinism asserts that which the verse says. br.d does not dispute this.
Exactly. God chose believers, not unbelievers. He chose those in Christ. No-one is in Christ until they believe.
Pastor Loz,
I’m a bit confused at your statement.
I read Ephesians 1:4 that the words to the right of “to be” is the subject of “chose”. The CONDUCT of Christians are TO BE holy and blameless, and that is what was chosen, not the person(s).
Ed Chapman
He chose those who already believe, to be holy and blameless.
Pastor Loz,
OK, thanks for clarifying. I concur.
Ed Chapman
rhutchin
and what the verse actually says. Calvinism asserts that which the verse says. br.d does not dispute this.
br.d
Jesus asks 2 questions to the lawyer who tempts him.
1) What does scripture say
2) How do you read it.
The lawyer had no problem quoting the verse verbatim.
In other words – he had no problem addressing what the verse says.
What he avoided was Jesus’ question ‘How do you read it”?
Everyone here already knows what scripture says
The point of difference is how the Calvinist reads it.
In other words – what the Calvinist AUTO-MAGICALLY reads into what the text says. ;-D
br.d still doesn’t dispute the Calvinist understanding of the verse. Maybe, he is hoping someone else will, at least, try.
rhutchin
br.d still doesn’t dispute the Calvinist understanding of the verse.
br.d
Br.d doesn’t dispute what scripture says.
But that has nothing to do with what the Calvinist AUTO-MAGICALLY reads INTO it.
br.d still doesn’t dispute the Calvinist understanding of the verse and cannot explain what he thinks the Calvinist “AUTO-MAGICALLY reads INTO it.”
rhutchin,
So, please tell us what you auto-magically read that THAT verse to mean. Let’s see if it equates what my study of it means.
Ed Cahpman
rhutchin
br.d still doesn’t dispute the Calvinist understanding of the verse and cannot explain what he thinks the Calvinist “AUTO-MAGICALLY reads INTO it.”
br.d
Boring!!!
Everyone here already knows what the Calvinist AUTO-MAGICALLY reads into scripture.
Its called EXHAUSTIVE DIVINE DETERMINISM
aka UNIVERSAL DIVINE CAUSAL DETERMINISM
Now – recognizing how and why the Calvinist is forced to hold his doctrine as TRUE while treating it *AS-IF* it is FALSE – is the FUN part! ;-]
Yes. br.d can be boring.
The DOUBLE-SPEAK world of Calvinism is hardly boring!
Along with observing how the Calvinist mind is conditioned to treat his belief-system *AS-IF* it is FALSE.
Its like watching the Solipsistic – who similarly treats his belief-system as FALSE – but does do in order to get along people who according to his belief system – are figments of his imagination and don’t exist.
I still think Calvinism was given to mankind for its entertainment factor! 😀
Hey, br.d.
That reference of How do you read…notice what the question was??????
“What Shall I “DO DO DO DO DO DO DO” (WORKS) to inherit eternal life?”
James 2:27 (Faith without works is dead).
Luke 10:25-37
25 And, behold, a certain lawyer stood up, and tempted him, saying, Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?
26 He said unto him, What is written in the law? how readest thou?
27 And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself.
28 And he said unto him, Thou hast answered right: this do, and thou shalt live.
29 But he, willing to justify himself, said unto Jesus, And who is my neighbour?
30 And Jesus answering said, A certain man went down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell among thieves, which stripped him of his raiment, and wounded him, and departed, leaving him half dead.
31 And by chance there came down a certain priest that way: and when he saw him, he passed by on the other side.
32 And likewise a Levite, when he was at the place, came and looked on him, and passed by on the other side.
33 But a certain Samaritan, as he journeyed, came where he was: and when he saw him, he had compassion on him,
34 And went to him, and bound up his wounds, pouring in oil and wine, and set him on his own beast, and brought him to an inn, and took care of him.
35 And on the morrow when he departed, he took out two pence, and gave them to the host, and said unto him, Take care of him; and whatsoever thou spendest more, when I come again, I will repay thee.
36 Which now of these three, thinkest thou, was neighbour unto him that fell among the thieves?
37 And he said, He that shewed mercy on him. Then said Jesus unto him, Go, and do thou likewise.
So, based on Jesus’ answer, what is the WORKS necessary?
Answer (LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF).
The question to Jesus was “Who is my neighbor?”. But Jesus expounded not only who is neighbor is, but what WORKS, AKA LOVE, is all about.
Faith, without love, is dead, or, works = love your neighbor as yourself.
Jesus is saying that you must PROVE YOUR FAITH.
So, WHAT MUST I “DO DO DO” to inherit eternal life? WORKS!
So much for the Calvinist routine that you can’t do anything to merit grace.
Ed Chapman
Great point Ed!!!
And the typical Calvinist way of dealing with a text that contradicts the underlying doctrine – is to make it a declaration from scripture that is both TRUE and FALSE at the same time. :-]
If we assume the Calvinist premise of decree being based on absolute determinism and God being incapable of middle knowledge, then God also has no choice. What had to be must be. What must be becomes necessity. When the Calvinist uses a posteriori reasoning to define decree, deeper theological problems come along for the ride.
jb81854
If we assume the Calvinist premise of decree being based on absolute determinism and God being incapable of middle knowledge, then God also has no choice.
br.d
Excellent observation!
Yes – if Determinism is what rules Calvin’s god – then yes – his every impulse is determined by factors outside of his control.
This is where Calvinism’s appeal to Determinism breaks down however.
Some Calvinists try to embrace this form of determinism – and claim the Calvin’s god’s every impulse is Determined by his nature.
But then I ask that Calvinist – what determine his nature?
Is his nature determined by factors outside of his control?
If so then he does not have the function of choice any more than humans do.
Typically – even though this Calvinist wants to maximize his embrace of Determinism – he can’t bring himself to hold that his god’s impulses are determined by factors outside of his god’s control.
So at some point – the Calvinist appeal to Determinism becomes compromised.
And most Calvinists – James White for example – will say that Calvin’s god has Libertarian choice – but that he does not grant the function of Libertarian choice to his creatures.
But for the Calvinist – if Calvin’s god has Libertarian choice – then it follows Libertarian choice obviously must exist and for the Calvinist must be biblical.
Great point jb81854!
Rhutchin: “The key points Paul wants to get across are (1) God chose believers, (2) God chose believers in Christ, (3) God chose believers from the foundation of the world.”
Heather: God chose that anyone who chooses to be “in Christ” will be saved. It’s like two buses: One is the “in Christ” bus and one is the “not in Christ” bus. And God predestined that the “in Christ” bus will go to heaven. He doesn’t decide who gets on that bus or block anyone from getting on it, but He gives the offer to all people and lets the people decide. And anyone who chooses to get on the “in Christ” bus is now predestined to heaven.
Heather: “God chose that anyone who chooses to be “in Christ” will be saved.”
OK. However, Ephesians 1 deals specifically with those who have chosen to be “in Christ.”
rhutchin,
Just a quick question.
What does “in-Christ” mean in English?
Nevermind. I’ll answer for you:
Answer: Christian. Period.
What made me come to that conclusion?
John 17:22-23
22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:
23 I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.
NOTE: ONE IN CHRIST. That’s why I included verse 22.
Romans 12:5
So we, being many, are one body in Christ, and every one members one of another.
2 Corinthians 12:2
I knew a man in Christ…
Galatians 3:28
…one in Christ Jesus.
Conclusion:
ONE “BODY” OF CHRIST is MANY PEOPLE. ONE HOLY SPIRIT IN ONE BODY OF CHRIST. CHRISTIANS.
JESUS: HE HIMSELF IS ONE BODY OF CHRIST. THE FATHER IS HIS SPIRIT. (JOHN 4:24)
John 10:38
But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him.
John 14:10
Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.
John 14:11
Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me: or else believe me for the very works’ sake.
John 14:20
At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you.
ONE IN “US”.
John 17:21
That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.
I discuss this all the time…spirit/soul/body. But few pay attention.
LIFE=spirit plus body.
Death=spirit only
ETERNAL LIFE=YOUR SPIRIT PLUS GOD’S SPIRIT PLUS BODY.
ETERNAL DEATH=YOUR SPIRIT, NO BODY.
The difference between “IN CHRIST” and not “IN CHRIST” IS THE SPIRIT OF GOD…JESUS (HOLY SPIRIT)
Proof of the previous sentence:
2 Corinthians 13:5
…Know ye not your own selves, how that Jesus Christ is in you, except ye be reprobates?
Now, you have to ask yourself…how can Jesus be IN YOU, if Jesus is in heaven? Your answer will be THROUGH the Holy Spirit, where I will say, “Through”? That’s not what the above verse states.
IN CHRIST. Your spirit is in the WE, BEING MANY ARE ONE BODY…of Christ. And in that ONE BODY…of Christ…is the Holy Spirit. I in them, and they in me.
IN CHRIST. CHRISTIAN. ETERNAL LIFE. And that comes the moment that you believe. And you believe BASED ON persuasion only, part of the definition of faith.
Ed Chapman
rhutchin,
In my last comment, I state:
“LIFE=spirit plus body.
Death=spirit only
ETERNAL LIFE=YOUR SPIRIT PLUS GOD’S SPIRIT PLUS BODY.
ETERNAL DEATH=YOUR SPIRIT, NO BODY.
The difference between “IN CHRIST” and not “IN CHRIST” IS THE SPIRIT OF GOD…JESUS (HOLY SPIRIT)”
——————————————-
I want to include this reference to back it up:
Romans 8:16
The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:
2 Corinthians 13:5
…Know ye not your own selves, how that Jesus Christ is in you, except ye be reprobates?
2 Corinthians 3:17
Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.
Galatians 4:6
And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father.
Romans 8:9
…the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.
Romans 8:10
And if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the Spirit is life because of righteousness.
Romans 8:11
But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you
Who is the Holy Spirit? Jesus!
Ed Chapman
Rhutchin: “Heather: “God chose that anyone who chooses to be “in Christ” will be saved.” OK. However, Ephesians 1 deals specifically with those who have chosen to be “in Christ.””
I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make. But the big difference is that Calvinists believe God pre-decided who will be “in Christ” and who won’t, and He causes what He pre-decided to happen. And so those who weren’t chosen can never believe or be saved because Jesus never died for them anyway.
Whereas I believe anyone can become part of the “in Christ” group, that God wants all people to believe and be saved, and so Jesus died for all and God gives all people the real offer of salvation, the ability to choose between accepting or rejecting Jesus. And so if we end up not “in Christ,” it’s because we rejected the offer of salvation, not because God predestined us to hell and prevented us from believing in Jesus.
“And you are put ‘in Christ’ when you believe in Him.”
Roland
No, we are chosen in Christ before the foundation of the world. The object of the choosing in verse 4 is believers. The text does not say that God determined means, though as a Calvinist I would not reject that assertion but it is not found in Ephesians.
The author would have us believe that Christ and the apostle Paul were not in agreement. The author would have us believe that Paul teaches belief before election. However, according to Christ’s own words, God’s people believe because they belong to Christ.
John 10:26
26 But you do not believe, because you are not of My sheep, as I said to you.
Jesus says to His hearers, you do not believe because you are not of my flock. Belonging to Jesus precedes belief in Jesus. Being an elect in the body of Christ precedes the Christian’s faith. Jesus and Paul are in agreement.
Roland: “No, we are chosen in Christ before the foundation of the world. The object of the choosing in verse 4 is believers….”
But what are we chosen for?
To be holy and blameless. Not to become believers. Believers (anyone who chooses to be “in Him”) are chosen/destined to be holy and blameless in God’s sight. And why? Because Jesus’s righteousness covers us when we put our faith in Him.
But if you read it as God choosing who will believe, then since you say the object of choosing is “believers,” you are essentially saying “God chooses believers to believe.” Redundant nonsense.
Heather:
To be holy and blameless. Not to become believers. Believers (anyone who chooses to be “in Him”) are chosen/destined to be holy and blameless in God’s sight. And why? Because Jesus’s righteousness covers us when we put our faith in Him.
roland
I agree almost fully with your post except where you disconnect salvation from holiness and blameless. To be a believer in Christ is to be holy and blameless. And much more than a positional sense but also a practical sense as in practicing our faith.
I don’t believe Ephesians 1 is teaching us that God chose all these things, i.e., holy and blameless, yet He did not choose people to be those things. It sounds like you are saying that God chose a certain class of individuals; believers but not people. To believe that God chose a person because they believed is to make God
Election precedes our faith:
Romans 8:30
30 Moreover whom He predestined, these He also called; whom He called, these He also justified; and whom He justified, these He also glorified.
God’s predestination of believers precedes their calling, their calling precedes their justification, and their justification precedes their glorification.
Acts 13:48
48 Now when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad and glorified the word of the Lord. And as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed.
Our appointment to eternal life precedes our belief; faith.
Titus 1:1
1 Paul, a bondservant of God and an apostle of Jesus Christ, according to the faith of God’s elect and the acknowledgment of the truth which accords with godliness,
We believe because we are elected. We are not elected because we believe. That would mean that we first choose God, then God chooses us. Which is scripturally incorrect.
Heather: To be holy and blameless. Not to become believers. Believers (anyone who chooses to be “in Him”) are chosen/destined to be holy and blameless in God’s sight. And why? Because Jesus’s righteousness covers us when we put our faith in Him.
<<>>
She isn’t separating salvation from being holy and blameless. We are saying that God chose believers (who are saved), to be holy and blameless. The holiness and blamelessness flows from salvation. How is that disconnecting them.
<<>>
Ephesians 1 teaches that God chose those IN CHRIST to be holy and blameless. Verse 13 clarifies that we are IN CHRIST by FAITH. That is a corporate category or class of individuals, believers. That corporate category is made up of individuals. God knows who those individuals will be.
<<>>
How about you address the following verses which I recently posted, all with explanations as to why faith precedes regeneration? Since Romans 8:30 doesn’t even mention where faith comes in that sequence. The verses (again) are:
John 5:40, 1 John 5:11-12, John 20:31, John 3:36-4:1, John 5:24-25, Acts 15:9, John 1:12-13, Galatians 3:26, John 12:36, Eph 1:13, Gal 3:2, Romans 6:23, 1 Tim 1:16, Jas 1:18, Galatians 3:14.
<<< roland: Acts 13:48: Now when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad and glorified the word of the Lord. And as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed. Our appointment to eternal life precedes our belief; faith.
The pre-suppositions / assumptions Calvinists bring to this text are:
1. God did the appointing (whereas in reality the verb is in the middle voice in Greek)
2. That it was by eternal decree
3. That it was salvation
In doing so they completely ignore the context of the surrounding verses. No surprises there.
<<>>
Irrelevant as it says nothing about how they became elect.
<<>>
No, as explained to you numerous times, God has already chosen the category. When we believe, we become part of that category. No need for God to choose us again, as individuals.
Roland
I don’t believe Ephesians 1 is teaching us that God chose all these things,
br.d
Hey Roland – I have a thought experiment for you.
Lets say you are required to take a TRUE / FALSE exam.
Lets put a LABEL the moment you look at the first question.
Let’s call that moment TIME-T
At TIME-T you look at the first question and you mark TRUE as the answer.
And the PERCEPTION which exists in your brain is that TRUE is the correct answer.
According to the doctrine of decrees – Calvin’s god – at the foundation of the world – determined which answer you would mark for that question – at TIME-T.
And he determined that you would mark TRUE as the answer to that question.
But he did so – knowing that TRUE is the wrong answer.
So what we can see – is that he decreed the following come to pass
1) He decreed which answer you would mark
2) He decreed you would mark the wrong answer
2) He decreed the PERCEPTION in your brain would be that the answer you marked was the correct answer.
Are you with me so far?
Roland,
First of all, the word ELECTION has nothing to do with any of the conversation. That’s a different topic for the Jews only, who are already God followers under the law of Moses.
NEXT…
Your reference for Acts 13:48 is misleading.
First of all, YOUR version of the Bible is different than mine is.
Yours states:
Acts 13:48
48 Now when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad and glorified the word of the Lord. And as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed.
and then you state:
Our appointment to eternal life precedes our belief; faith.
Now, mine states:
Act 13:48
And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed.
Let’s look at ORDAINED.
Greek Ref # G5021
τάσσω tássō, tas’-so; a prolonged form of a primary verb (which latter appears only in certain tenses); to arrange in an orderly manner, i.e. assign or dispose (to a certain position or lot):
English words used for G5021: addict, appoint, determine, ordain, set.
So, yours uses “appointed”, whereas mine uses “ordained”. NO BIGGIE…but there are also alternatives for that same Greek word.
Uses:
1Co 16:15
I beseech you, brethren, (ye know the house of Stephanas, that it is the firstfruits of Achaia, and that they have addicted G5021 themselves to the ministry of the saints,)
That verse uses G5021 as the English word ADDICTED, as in “addicted themselves”.
So, in Acts 13:48, they addicted themselves TO ETERNAL LIFE.
In other words, they WANTED eternal life BEFORE hearing about how to get it. They addicted themselves to it. Then the story is told to them how to get it, and then they believed the story, BOOM, SAVED.
Simple explanation.
But now, I’m concerned about your issue of Ephesians 1:4. We are being FORMED to the likeness of Christ, because that is what was predestined. And that is where your reference of Romans 8:30 comes into play…but back up to verse 29. The PERSON saved is not predestined. The CONDUCT of the Christian is predestined.
29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.
30 Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.
Those who Christ foreknew…JEWS ONLY.
Romans 11:2
God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew. Wot ye not what the scripture saith of Elias? how he maketh intercession to God against Israel saying,
Gentiles are a totally different topic.
You are a Gentile. And for that alone, you are not elect. Elect is not a synonym of Salvation.
Ed Chapman
Roland:
Things are only “scripturally incorrect” cuz you decide they are.
God chose Israel and each Israelite as His people . That is stated many, many more times in the Bible then the other “chosen” ideas.
And yet….time and time again….they “unchose” themselves. They were only chosen if they stayed in the chosen people. That aint hard to see in the Scriptures.
I love CS Lewis on this matter: “The chosen were chosen for the sake of the unchosen.”
Good answer, Pastor Loz. And I agree!
And here’s my reply to the verses Roland posted to support the idea that election comes before belief:
1. He quotes Romans 8:30, but leaves off the important previous verse 29: “For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son.”
God “predestined” those whom He “foreknew” (I believe He foreknows those who will choose to put their faith in Jesus) … and what does He predestine them for? Eternal life? Salvation?
No. He predestined those He foreknows “to be conformed to the image of His Son.” This is not a verse about God predestining certain “elected” sinners to salvation, but about God predestining true believers (anyone who chooses to believe in Him) to be conformed to Jesus’s image. God doesn’t predestine who will believe but He predestines where our path leads once we become a believer (and anyone can become one).
2. Acts 13:48: Look at who Paul is referring to when he talks about the Gentiles “appointed for eternal life”. They were people who were willing to believe Paul’s message, who were eager to hear it. Contrast them with the Jews referred to in verse 46 who rejected the message and who didn’t consider themselves worthy of eternal life. The word “reject” in verse 46, according to the concordance, means that the people thrust the message away from themselves. They deliberately chose to refuse the Truth. And because of that, God opened the door of salvation up to the Gentiles instead, granting them the right to obtain eternal life. He appointed eternal life for the Gentiles too (in general), not just for the Jews.
Also, according to online sources and the concordance, “appointed/ordained” could also basically mean being “in position for eternal life” or “disposed for eternal life” (which some say is the best translation). “Disposed” would mean “positioned for eternal life … inclined to it … resolved to it … settled on it … etc.”. But this doesn’t have to mean that GOD positioned them, as in predestination. It could mean that they positioned themselves for eternal life, by their eagerness to hear the Gospel and their willingness to accept it (as seen in previous verses). They were “inclined” to eternal life, leaning towards it, settled on it. This is the other side of the coin to the Jews who deliberately refused the Truth. The Gentiles were eager for it and convinced of it, and this puts them in a position to accept the offer of eternal life, to believe.
It wouldn’t make sense to say that the Jews deliberately refused the truth but the Gentiles had no control over accepting it. Acts 13:26-52 is showing the contrast between the resistant Jews and the willing Gentiles. And so both of these should be read in a way that places the responsibility for believing on the people, that the people positioned themselves either for eternal life by accepting the truth or for eternal death by rejecting it.
[The Greek word for “ordained/appointed” is also in Matthew 28:16 when Jesus “appoints” a place to meet with the disciples. Jesus arranged the meeting place, but the disciples had to show up. Could this not also be similar to God arranging eternal life for us, but we have to “show up”?
And it’s used in 1 Corinthians 16:15 to say that some of the first converts in Achaia had “devoted” (“addicted”) themselves to the service of the saints. This is clearly a self-chosen devotion. They were not predetermined to be devoted or “forced” to be devoted. They chose to be devoted. They addicted themselves to the saints. Like the Gentiles positioning themselves for eternal life?
And it’s used in Romans 13:1 where it says that we are to obey the governing authorities because God has established (instituted/ordained) them. Does this have to mean that God predestined/prechose each leader, that He forced them into position? No. It could simply mean He allowed it. (Calvinists say that “sovereignty” means that God actively causes everything. But I agree with Tony Evans who says that there are two ways God works sovereignly: one way is by causing things and the other is by allowing what we do.)
Because if “ordained/appointed” meant God actively predestined/pre-chose all leaders, then why would Hosea 8:4 say “They [Israel] set up kings without my [God’s] consent; they choose princes without my approval”?
The only way both these verses can be true (that God ordains the authorities and that Israel chose leaders without God’s consent or approval) is if “ordains” doesn’t necessarily mean “predetermined” or “God-caused” – if it’s that sometimes God causes and that sometimes He just allows. This supports the idea that God has given us the right (and responsibility) to make decisions for ourselves. Whatever “ordains” means, Hosea shows us that it can’t mean “predestined” or “forced by God” because the Israelites made decisions He didn’t approve of, which wouldn’t be possible if God “predetermined” or “caused” everything.]
3. Titus 1:1: “Paul, a bondservant of God and an apostle of Jesus Christ, according to the faith of God’s elect and the acknowledgment of the truth which accords with godliness,”
Where does this say that individual election precedes belief? Because what I see is that God chose Paul to be an apostle, to spread the gospel (confirmed in verse 3), not that God predestined/caused him to believe.
Heather
No. He predestined those He foreknows….
br.d
And in Calvinism – Calvin’s god lacks the divine omniscience necessary to foreknow who will freely choose to believe in Christ.
Due to his lack of divine knowledge and omniscience – the only way he can know who will believe is to decree it – and thus LEARN – having been INFORMED by that decree.
All because he lacks knowledge of what the creature that he created would do in any circumstance.
Not much of a god is he??
Br.d.: “And in Calvinism – Calvin’s god lacks the divine omniscience necessary to foreknow who will freely choose to believe in Christ.”
Yeah, it’s kinda funny because Calvinists claim God is omniscient but, apparently, He can’t foreknow what will happen unless He preplans/causes it. In Calvinism, He only foreknows things because He preplanned them to happen that way. How is that “foreknowing” anything or being truly omniscient?
And Calvinists claim God is all-powerful, but apparently not powerful enough to handle people thinking, making decisions, or acting on their own. He can only handle the factors and circumstances that He causes. How is that all-powerful?
They claim God is good and loving and gracious … but only to a few people. Apparently, a good, loving, gracious God can create most people just for hell, preplan their sins and their rejection of Him, cause evil like murder and child rape (for His glory) … and yet still be considered good, loving, and gracious. (If that’s a good, loving, gracious God, I’d hate to see what a bad, unloving, ungracious one would be like?)
They claim God is full of justice … while also claiming He punishes people for the sins He preplanned them to do and caused them to do and that they had no real choice about. (If that’s justice, I’d hate to see injustice!)
They claim He is sovereign, but then they tell Him what “sovereign” means – that He has to preplan/control EVERYTHING, even every sin and evil and speck of dust, or else He couldn’t be God. A god that can be dethroned by one rogue speck of dust is no god at all. A god who can only be god as long as he preplans, causes, controls all evil is not deserving of worship. (And how exactly is a god like that different from Satan?)
Good points Heather!
Yeh – Calvin’s god is a really mess!
He treats things he knows are TRUE *AS-IF* they are FALSE
He gets angry at the very events he decrees *AS-IF* his decree permitted an alternative.
He gives a HUGE MULTITUDE of Calvinists a -quote “SENSE such as can be felt without the spirit of adoption” – so that he can -quote “ILLUMINE them for a time” and then -quote “STRIKE them with greater blindness”.
And all of that forces the Calvinist into a host of DOUBLE-SPEAK in order to keep from acknowledging it.
Calvinists are sure blessed!
Makes you want to run right out and be one – right now!! 😀
Roland,
In the book of John…
Again, he was speaking with Jews who were already God followers to begin with. The Law of Moses. He said that they are not HIS (JESUS) Sheep.
That does not mean that they are not followers of God. It is God, the Father, that gives Jesus those Law of Moses God followers.
This is not how it works for the Gentiles. Just the Jews.
NEXT.
There is NO PERIOD after the word “world” in Ephesians 1:4. Why do you put it there?
Ed Chapman
Verses that show faith precedes regeneration (not an exhaustive list)
John 5:40 “you refuse to COME TO ME TO HAVE LIFE.” 1. Come to Me (by faith) 2. Have Life. It does not say that they refused to come to Him because they did not have life.
1 John 5:11-12 God has given us eternal life, + this life is IN HIS SON. He who has the Son has life; HE WHO DOES NOT HAVE THE SON OF GOD DOES NOT HAVE LIFE. You can only have Son by faith, + if you do not have Son by being united to Him by faith 1st, you do not have life (regeneration). You cannot have life before you have the Son.
John 20:31 But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that BY BELIEVING YOU MAY HAVE LIFE in his name. It does not say “that by having life you may believe”
John 3:36-4:1 Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, WHOEVER REJECTS THE SON WILL NOT SEE LIFE, FOR GOD’S WRATH REMAINS ON HIM.” 1. Those who do not believe will not see life 2. Those who believe have life 3. Eternal life begins at regeneration
John 5:24-25 WHOEVER HEARS MY WORD + BELIEVES him who sent me has eternal life + will not be condemned; HE HAS CROSSED OVER FROM DEATH TO LIFE…a time is coming and HAS NOW COME when the DEAD WILL HEAR the voice of the Son of God + THOSE WHO HEAR WILL LIVE. 1. Word 2. Hear (receive the Word) 3. Live. It does not say life/alive and then hear, but hear and then live.
Acts 15:9 He PURIFIED THEIR HEARTS BY FAITH. Does not say faith was result of pure hearts. Pure hearts are made by having faith first. Again the order is: 1.Faith 2.Pure (new) hearts.
John 1:12-13 TO ALL WHO RECEIVED him, TO THOSE WHO BELIEVED in his name, HE GAVE the right to become CHILDREN of God- CHILDREN born not of natural descent or a husband’s will, but BORN OF GOD. Right to be born of God given to those who believe. V13 simply clarification of birth that takes place for those who believe in v12. The order presented is: 1. Belief 2. Right to become children born of God
Galatians 3:26 You are all SONS OF GOD THROUGH FAITH in Christ Jesus, Through faith you are born again into the family. You become a spiritual son by faith. 1.Faith 2.Regeneration into a spiritual son.
John 12:36 PUT YOUR TRUST IN THE LIGHT…SO THAT YOU MAY BECOME SONS OF LIGHT. When you put your trust in the Light, you then can become sons. 1.Trust 2.Become regenerated spiritual sons
Eph 1:13 you also were INCLUDED IN CHRIST WHEN YOU HEARD THE WORD OF TRUTH, the gospel of your salvation. HAVING BELIEVED, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised HOLY SPIRIT 1. Hear the Word of truth 2. Believe the Word of truth. 3. Included in Christ / Sealed by the Spirit.
Gal 3:2 DID YOU RECEIVE THE SPIRIT by observing the law, or BY BELIEVING WHAT YOU HEARD? 1. Recipient hears Word 2. Recipient believes Word 3. Spirit is received
Romans 6:23 For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.
Regenerated eternal life is only “in” Christ, not “outside of”, and “prior to” Christ.
1 Tim 1:16 I was shown mercy so that in me…Christ Jesus might display his unlimited patience as an example for THOSE WHO WOULD BELIEVE on him + RECEIVE ETERNAL LIFE. 1. Belief 2. Life (regeneration) Eternal life begins with new birth.
Jas 1:18 He chose to give us BIRTH THROUGH THE WORD OF TRUTH 1. Word of truth 2. Belief in truth Birth (regeneration). In Calvinism the Word is always rejected by an unregenerate sinner, therefore, it could never be the means of birth. It does not say He chose to give us faith in the Word through the new birth.
Galatians 3:14 that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.
Great list, Pastor Loz. It’s so clear in the Bible that it’s amazing the amount of mental gymnastics Calvinists have to go through to deny it. They are so protective of their “God specifically chose ME, not the non-elect” status that they deny clear, repetitive teachings of Scripture. it’s like the meme that says something like “Calvinist: Someone who is offended by the idea that God would truly love all people and want all people to be saved”.
Many are called, few are chosen.
Yes, a few were chosen before the foundation of the world. The apostles and prophets were predestinedly chosen and then called. Their calling was irresistible.
The rest of humanity are called and then chosen depending upon how they respond to their calling. Humility, willingness to do works and submission to Christ’s teaching are essential. They have a choice (free will).
Discerning who pronouns modify is the key to understanding Paul’s epistles.
Generally, “we” refers to Paul and the other apostles, “you” refers to those he’s writing to and “us” may include both groups, only apply to Paul and the apostles, or apply to all those saved by grace, through faith, in Christ.
Greetings, 1saved! I don’t think it works to have the apostles and prophets chosen for salvation before creation. I really would almost set up for the predestination of all things that would lead up to they births and to their decisions of salvation. Perhaps I’m wrong about that.
But if you are going to open up the rest of history to free will choices leading to salvation, I think you can do the same for prophets and apostles. Consider this argument.
Jer 1:5 NKJV – “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you; Before you were born I sanctified you; I ordained you a prophet to the nations.”
I believe God knows each and everyone as he forms them in His image in the womb for a good purpose, which includes to glorify Him and enjoy Him forever (which the WSC calls the “chief end of man”). He makes a perfect plan for each one in His mind. He’s not eternally immutably locked in to a plan for each. But He also knows all the ways that plan could still change.
What the Calvinist and Molinist have a hard time seeing in Scripture is that God in His sovereignty adds contingent elements to those plans so that covenant love based on trust freely offered can exist, and so free rejection of elements of His plan must also be able to exist.
We were all “elected” and formed in the womb to each glorify God and enjoy Him forever as the chief end for each of us, as designed for us in God’s plans which He makes while we were in the womb… but He includes some conditions in that plan and gave us the freedom to fulfill or reject some of those conditions.
Is David only talking about himself being “fearfully and wonderfully made” by God, or is that true of all infants (Ps 139:14-18)? We can become marred in His hands by our own doing, away from the original design He had for us (Jer 18:4).
Being “chosen”/”elect” to be a prophet like Jeremiah or an apostle like Paul (Gal 1:15) from the womb, or even in the seed of the Messiah didn’t happen before creation in some decree, nor does it guarantee personal salvation. Look at the prophet Balaam, the apostle Judas, and Davidic king Amon.
Hello 1saved and welcome.
Yours is a very different approach!
In Calvinism – (aka EXHAUSTIVE DIVINE DETERMINISM) – per the doctrine of decrees – every human impulse is AUTHORED and FIXED at the foundation of the world – and comes to pass within the human brain by antecedent factors outside of the brain’s control.
Additionally – per the doctrine of decrees
1) For every event and human impulse – there is ever only ONE SINGLE RENDERED-CERTAIN option
2) Humans are granted NO CHOICE about what that option will be
3) Humans are granted NO CHOICE about their role in that option
4) Humans are granted NO ABILITY to refrain.
Therefore – in Calvinism – humans are not granted any CHOICE in the matter of anything.
Your view is a new one for me – and appears to be a kind of unique spin-off from that.
Thank you for replying br.d.
…4 just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before Him in love, 5 having predestined us to adoption as sons by Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will, 6 to the praise of the glory of His grace, by which He [a]made us accepted in the Beloved.
7 In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of His grace 8 which He made to abound toward us in all wisdom and [b]prudence, 9 having made known to us the mystery of His will, according to His good pleasure which He purposed in Himself, 10 that in the dispensation of the fullness of the times He might gather together in one all things in Christ, [c]both which are in heaven and which are on earth—in Him. 11 In Him also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestined according to the purpose of Him who works all things according to the counsel of His will, 12 that we who first trusted in Christ should be to the praise of His glory.
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, Ephesians 1:4-13 NKJV
“…He chose us” (v4) are the predestinedly chosen prophets, apostles, writers of Scripture, etc..
“In him you also trusted…” (v13) are those Paul is writing to. They were/are chosen after hearing the word of truth and believing.
Two distinctly different groups, i.e. Us and You. Two different paths to salvation. One elected and then called. The other called and then may be elected.
Thank you for your post 1saved
Jesus asks the lawyer who tempted him 2 questions
1) What does the text say
2) How do you read it
Obviously Jesus differentiates a difference between those two.
So Jesus is showing us – there is a WAY Person_1’s mind can read (i.e. interpret) a given text.
And Jesus is showing us – that Person_2’s mind can interpret that same text in a different WAY
An interesting question then becomes – what is going on within the mind that make it interpret a given text in one way or another?
What do you think goes on within the human mind which makes it interpret a given text in one way or another?
Br.d,
You asked me, “What do you think goes on within the human mind which makes it interpret a given text in one way or another?”
I believe false teachers have led many astray.
I believe our teacher is the in-dwelling Holy Spirit and we are taught by discernment or ask God for wisdom believing, without doubt, He will answer.
I believe we are to trust in the Lord with all our heart and lean not on our own understanding.
I also believe discernment and wisdom are spiritual gifts freely given to some believers. Do you know any who have received those gifts of the Spirit?
1saved
I believe false teachers have led many astray.
br.d
But that is an answer to a different question.
The question is – what goes on in the human mind – which makes it the case – as Jesus points out – that one human mind interprets data as [X] – while another human mind interprets the same exact data as [NOT X]
Why does one human mind read an ink-blot and interpret that ink-blot as a rabbit?
And then a different human mind reads that same ink-blot and that mind interprets something different?
1saved
I believe our teacher is the in-dwelling Holy Spirit and we are taught by discernment or ask God
br.d
So then the Holy Spirit by-passes the interpretive processes of the human brain?
The holy spirit simply IMPLANTS information into human brains such that when that information is IMPLANTED – it is exactly identical in all human brains?
If that were the case – then when the Holy Spirit IMPLANTS information into your brain – then he would IMPLANT the same information into other people’s brains – and you they would all think exactly alike.
Do you know anyone who thinks exactly like you do?
Br.d,
You wrote, “So then the Holy Spirit by-passes the interpretive processes of the human brain?
The holy spirit simply IMPLANTS information into human brains such that when that information is IMPLANTED – it is exactly identical in all human brains?
If that were the case – then when the Holy Spirit IMPLANTS information into your brain – then he would IMPLANT the same information into other people’s brains – and you they would all think exactly alike.”
With regard to interpreting Scripture, all believers are to be of one mind; i.e the mind of Christ. The purpose of Scripture is for correction, enlightenment, edification and reproof. I think Dr. John MacArthur’s book entitled Why One Way is an excellent argument for this doctrine.
When you make statements and draw your conclusions like above, you are leaning upon your own understanding.
Scripture repeatedly states, “There is none who understands…” Psalm 14&53:3, Romans 3:11 I believe this is because new believers are led astray by false teachers.
You never answered my question. Do you know anyone who has received the spiritual gift of discernment or wisdom?
1saved
I think Dr. John MacArthur’s book entitled Why One Way is an excellent argument for this doctrine.
br.d
So according to your thinking – if John MacArthur reads a text – and interpretd that text as [X] – and John Piper reads the same exact text and interprets it is [NOT X] – then John MacAurthur’s interpretation is from the Holy Spirit – and John Piper’s interpretation if from a false teacher?
1saved
You never answered my question. Do you know anyone who has received the spiritual gift of discernment or wisdom?
br.d
Yes – I do.
But I also see the following
Person_A claims to have Holy Spirit discernment and with that discernment concludes [X]
Person_B claims to have Holy Spirit discernment and with that discernment concludes [NOT X]
What do you conclude from that situation?
1saved
Scripture repeatedly states, “There is none who understands
br.d
If your interpretation of verses like that is LITERAL then that means NONE understand scripture including you. Somehow I don’t think that is the way you interpret those verses.
1saved
new believers are led astray by false teachers.
br.d
Sure – but the critical question is – what factor concerning the way the human mind works allows a false teacher to lead someone astray?
Again – refer to the ink-blot.
One human mind looks at the ink-blot and that mind interprets the image as a rabbit.
Another human mind looks at the same ink-blot and that mind does not interpret the image as a rabbit.
What factor within the human mind causes that to be the case?
Br.d,
If Dr. John MacArthur’s book “Why One Way” correctly explains why the Bible has only one correct interpretation, then it is useful for teaching correct doctrine. Dr. MacArthur may or may not have been guided by the in-dwelling Holy Spirit at the time of his writing that book.
The same could be said for John Piper.
Yes, I take Scripture literally and believe there is none who understands EVERYTHING in Scripture, including me. The apostle Paul couldn’t have understood everything, since Scripture wasn’t complete until after his death; and parts of Revelation remain a mystery to me.
Person_A claims to have Holy Spirit discernment and with that discernment concludes [X]
Person_B claims to have Holy Spirit discernment and with that discernment concludes [NOT X]
What do you conclude from that situation?
Person A and/or person B have deceived themselves. God, the Holy Spirit, cannot lie and does not deceive us.
Scripture and mathematics are perfect and have only one correct answer.
Is it possible for twin students, who have always had the same teachers, to answer a mathematical question differently? I’d say, “Yes.”.
Here’s two simple math questions to illustrate.
1) How much is two plus three times 5?
2) What is the square root of 25?
Sure – but the critical question is – what factor concerning the way the human mind works allows a false teacher to lead someone astray?
False teaching comes in may forms and often with the best of intentions. I was raised differently than you, so of course we have different points of view, but was our teaching on the fundamentals of mathematics different? Or, does the entire world agree on math principles?
I was taught in mathematics that for every A and every B; A + B = B + A
Then, I went to chemistry class and was taught, “ALWAYS add acid”.
So, in that instance the order for addition is very important, even volatile.
What about cooking recipes that call for a certain order for adding ingredients? Do these examples that make my math teachers wrong?
One human mind looks at the ink-blot and that mind interprets the image as a rabbit.
Another human mind looks at the same ink-blot and that mind does not interpret the image as a rabbit.
What factor within the human mind causes that to be the case?
It could be anything: a whim, a fear, a previous experience, etc. I’m wondering what ink blots have to do with understanding Scripture?
“Trust in the Lord with all your heart and do not lean on your own understanding.” Proverbs 3:5
On what basis do you believe MacArthur’s interpretation of Scripture is the one correction interpretation? Maybe you could explain specifically in relation to his interpretation of 1Tim 4:10 and his use of extr-biblical scripture to interpret “malista” as “that is”, rather than “especially”?
Pastor Loz,
Don’t misinterpret what I said.
I said there is only one way to correctly interpret Scripture and Dr. MacArthur’s book “Why One Way” is a good source for explaining why there is only one way.
Are you trolling me?
Who decides which is the correct way?
Pastor Loz,
Scripture interprets Scripture.
So when a Calvinist and a non-calvinist claim they are using Scripture to interprets Scripture, who decides which of them is right?
Pastor,
Have you thought both Calvinists and non-Calvinists could each be partly correct?
Jesus said, “Many are called, few are chosen.” Two paths to salvation. One for the few and another for the many.
Calvinists say all those saved were predestined, but Jesus said only a few are chosen.
Those few were elected, then called, then justified, then glorified. Their calling is irresistible.
Non-Calvinists say we are called, then perhaps elected by grace through faith in Christ, then justified, then glorified.
Their calling can be resisted, which is why satan deceives using false teachers.
If Calvinism were to be correct, satan would have no power to thwart those seeking God and what is the point of preaching, since only those who are already saved can believe and obtain salvation.
<<>>
When it comes to the TULIP distinctives of Calvinist soteriology, both Calvinists and non-calvinists have asserted that they stand or fall together. Thus in relation to those distinctives, it is not possible for both Calvinists and non-calvinists to be partly correct.
<<>>
Sorry, but that is truly shocking eisegesis. It completely ignores the parable of the wedding feast in which it sits. Jesus’s point is that the invitation goes out to all, but only those who respond positively to the invitation, in the correct “clothing” (faith) are actually chosen. In no way, shape or form can that parable be construed to suggest that there are two different paths to salvation.
<<>>
Perhaps? No, we say that God calls all, God draws all and enables all to believe. Those who believe become part of the category that God has already chosen – those who are in Christ. Ephesians 1:4-13.
<<>>
Actually if Calvinism is followed to its inescapable conclusion, it is God himself who irresistibly ordained satan to thwart people from seeking Him.
From my observation – the Calvinist’s TULIP is simply an OBFUSCATION tool – designed to hide aspects of the doctrine – the Calvinist knows the rest of the Christian world will reject.
The “T” in Calvinism’s TULIP points to the state of man’s nature as the CAUSE of man’s eternal fate.
What is being obfuscated is the fact that per the doctrine of decrees – the state of man’s nature at any instance in time – is 100% meticulously FIXED by infallible decree – and man (starting with Adam) is granted NO CHOICE in the matter of anything.
The “U” in Calvinism’s TULIP points to the “Unconditional” nature of man’s election status.
What is being obfuscated here – is the fact that in Calvinism election is also “conditional”.
It is “conditioned” upon an infallible decree
And since it is “conditioned” upon an infallible decree – then it CANNOT be “conditioned” upon anything having to do with man. And in that sense – it can be called “Unconditional”.
Why would the Calvinist want to obfuscate this?
Because it follows EVERYTHING that comes to pass – including all sins and evils – are “conditioned” upon the infallible decree.
Which means – all sins and evils in Calvinism are just as “Unconditional” as election is.
The “L” in the Calvinist’s TULIP points to a “limited” atonement
What is being obfuscated here is the fact that in Calvinism – every event and every human impulse is “limited” to one SINGLE RENDERED-CERTAIN option – which humans are granted NO CHOICE in the matter of.
The “I” in the Calvinist’s TULIP points to “Irresistible” grace
What is being obfuscated here is the fact that per Calvinism’s doctrine of decrees – EVERY impulse that comes to pass within the human brain and body – comes to pass infallibly – making it impossible for a fallible creature to “Resist”.
Which means every impulse that comes to pass within the human brain and body – is made “Irresistible” to humans.
The “P” in the Calvinist’s TULIP points to “Perseverance” of the saints
What is being obfuscated here is the fact that per the doctrine of decrees – EVERYTHING that is coming to pass – is coming to pass by infallible decree – and while the decree concerning [X] is in effect – then [X] will “Persevere” by virtue of that decree.
And since Calvin’s god gives to many Calvinists a -quote “SENSE such as can be felt WITHOUT the spirit of adoption” and many Calvinists are thus -quote “ILLUMINED for a time to partake of it” and later -quote “STRICKEN with greater blindness” then it follows many Calvinists are divinely deceived with a FALSE SENSE of election/salvation. And while the decree for divine deception of those Calvinists is in effect – the divine deception of those Calvinists will “Persevere”
So we have a few TRULY elected Calvinists “Persevering” by virtue of an infallible decree
And we also have many FALSELY elected Calvinists “Persevering” by virtue of an infallible decree
And no Calvinist knows whether he is TRULY elect or FALSELY elect because that is a divine secret.
Now the Calvinist is pragmatic enough to know – if he tells these TRUTHS about his doctrine – no one would embrace it.
So the TULIP makes a good advertising tool to strategically mislead the NON-Calvinist consumer while OBFUSCATING unpalatable TRUTHS.
Pastor Loz,
You wrote, “it is not possible for both Calvinists and non-calvinists to be partly correct.”
With God, all things are possible.
“It completely ignores the parable of the wedding feast in which it sits.” Is that a problem for legitimate hermeneutics?
There are two paths – a wide road and a narrow gate and Jesus warns us to go in by the narrow gate – many called, few chosen.
Jesus says in the end-times many will come to Him saying, “Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in your name?” But He will reject them – many called, but few chosen.
I would say “Many are called, few are chosen” is a common theme in Scripture.
You wrote, “No, we say that God calls all, God draws all and enables all to believe.”
28 And we know that all things work together for good to those who love God, to those who are the called according to His purpose. 29 For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren. 30 Moreover whom He predestined, these He also called; whom He called, these He also justified; and whom He justified, these He also glorified. Romans 8:28-30 NKJV
Notice the order for Calvinist election in v30:
predestined, called; justified; glorified.
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, 14 who[d] is the [e]guarantee of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, to the praise of His glory.
Notice the order for non-Calvinist election:
Called by the word of truth, having believed you were sealed with the Holy Spirit.
Or, called, elected (having believed), justified, glorified
Calvinist election is before being called and non-calvinist election is after being called.
Clearly there are two paths as I have said.
Notice the order for Calvinist election in v30:
predestined, called; justified; glorified.
br.d
The Calvinist concept of “predestined” has its foundational core in what is called EXHAUSTIVE DIVINE DETERMINISM (EDD).
This is per the Calvinist doctrine of decrees – which stipulates WHATSOEVER comes to pass – is AUTHORED at the foundation of the world prior to creation – and then FIXED at the foundation of the world prior to creation – and thus comes to pass by antecedent factors totally outside of human control (i.e. by an infallible decree)
As John Calvin puts it:
-quote
**NOTHING** happens that is not knowingly and willingly decreed.
Consequently within Calvinist thinking – EVERYTHING without exception is “predestined”
EVERY human event and EVERY human impulse no matter how sinful or evil is “predestined”.
And humans are granted no say in the matter of that which is “predestined”.
The Non-Calvinist Christian (representing the preponderance of Christianity) is not a determinist.
Determinism – in its theistic and non-theistic forms – is a belief system unique to Calvinists, Islamist’s and Atheists.
A presupposition of EDD (is obviously going to affect one’s concept of the “ORDER” of how events come to pass within time – because with EXHAUSTIVE DIVINE DETERMINISM “Predestined” presupposes EVERY human event and EVERY human impulse comes to pass totally outside of human control – having been CAUSED to infallibly come to pass – by antecedent factors totally outside of human control.
So the Non-Calvinist Christian (i.e. NON-Determinist) may conceive “Predestined” as human souls who are granted the availability of two options (choose Christ or reject Christ) – and are granted the LIBERTY of refraining from one option or the other – and those who choose the Christ are thus “Predestined”.
Obviously – with EDD – humans are never granted more than ONE SINGLE RENDERED-CERTAIN option for any human event or any human impulse. And humans are never granted the ability to refrain. No Option(s) + No ability to refrain = NO CHOICE.
Pastor Loz,
Why not search the scriptures to find out whether or not what I’m saying is true.
That is what the noble Bereans did and it’s much easier with modern technology using search engines like at biblegateway.com
Been doing that for over 15 years but thanks for the suggestion.
And the human mind is not involved! :-]
Br.d,
Scripture is not from man. All Scripture was guided (superintended) by the Holy Spirit. Men wrote, using their own words, as they we directed by God.
20 knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private [a]interpretation, 21 for prophecy never came by the will of man, but [b]holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit. 2 Peter 21:20-21 NKJV
1saved,
I just noticed this that you addressed to br.d.:
You had said:
“Br.d,
Scripture is not from man. All Scripture was guided (superintended) by the Holy Spirit. Men wrote, using their own words, as they we directed by God.
20 knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private [a]interpretation, 21 for prophecy never came by the will of man, but [b]holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit. 2 Peter 21:20-21 NKJV”
My response:
That’s a Catholic tactic to tell us that we have NO AUTHORITY to interpret scripture…and you are doing the same thing.
But you misword it to suit your dogma, too.
It is discussing PROPHECY, not scripture in general. It does NOT say that we don’t have authority to interpret scripture at all. It’s discussing PROPHESY, in that prophesy is NOT AN INVENTION OF MAN, but by God.
Somehow, you, and Catholics OMIT the word PROPHESY, and just use the word SCRIPTURE.
Don’t fall into the Catholic trap.
Ed Chapman
1saved
Br.d,
Scripture is not from man. All Scripture was guided (superintended) by the Holy Spirit. Men wrote, using their own words, as they we directed by God.
br.d
That is elementary school information here.
No revelation to anyone.
But once again – we have one more statement which fails to factor in the human equation.
Statements like that are common here – especially from posters who assume every imagination that comes into their brain is from the Holy Spirit.
There is the possibility that underlying your statement is the belief in MECHANICAL DICTATION.
The writers of scripture merely recorded word-for-word each word god spoke to them.
Is that your position?
1Saved,
I’ll be your Huckleberry troll if Pastor Loz isn’t.
You had said that JMac wrote a book. Whoopti-do-da. JMac writes books to GET RICH, not to teach. Why do I say that? Because the title of the book is…Why One Way.
But his title is WRONG, because there are MORE THAN one way to interpret scripture.
1. Carnally, which many call EXPOSITORY, but I always thought that was something you shove…nevermind.
2. Spiritually
JMac wants to MISDIRECT, and makes money off his congregation. Why do you think he put a lawsuit out there when Covid restricitons took place. He loses income if no one shows up. It’s not really about the congregation gathering…it’s that plate.
The WORD OF GOD is the Bible, not JMac books. He puts his pants on the same way that I do. I feel sorry for his congregation. They will be SO LOST without him when he dies…and that’s shortly, cuz he’s pretty old now.
Ed Chapman
Mr. Chapman,
Even a broken clock is right twice a day and I choose to give credit where credit is due.
I received my free copy of “Why One Way” from Grace To You many years ago.
No one can serve two masters. You cannot serve God and money.
Shame on Dr. MacArthur is he’s just in it for the money as you say.
But, how sure are you that Dr. MacArthur is just out for the money?
7 “Judge not, that you be not judged. 2 For with what judgment you judge, you will be judged; and with the measure you use, it will be measured back to you. 3 And why do you look at the speck in your brother’s eye, but do not consider the plank in your own eye? 4 Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me remove the speck from your eye’; and look, a plank is in your own eye? 5 Hypocrite! First remove the plank from your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye. Matthew 7:1-5 NKJV
You say there are at least two correct ways to interpret Scripture. You mention carnally and Spiritually, and imply there are other correct ways.
I subscribe to the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy.
1saved,
I have no problem judging JMac. The verse states, Don’t judge unless I’m PREPARED to be judged. I am prepared. JMac has an attitude problem. He put himself on a pedastal. Gathering together…what’s it really for? LOOK IT UP, and tell me if that is really what goes on in church. Gathering together has nothing to do with attendance in a church building at all. It’s Christian gathering together ANYWHERE for a purpose. What’s the purpose? LOOK IT UP, 1saved, look it up.
He claims to be the expert, but he’s not, as you have already noted, you have a few issues with his interpretations of things. I, too, take issue with divorce/remarraige. I’ve written a blog post on it myself, refuting the Calvinist doctrine.
Like I said before, he puts his pants on the same way that I do. But he’s a Calvinist, and I’m not. And I don’t buy off on anything Calvinism. Not one thing.
So I judge. It’s not a sin to judge. The verse does not tell me not to judge. It goes further.
Now…you had said:
“I subscribe to the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy.”
My response to that:
I have NO IDEA what that means in English. Are you talking the Rock Band Chicago, or the City of?
I don’t subscribe to ANYTHING that someone else decided FOR ME. I have to read it for myself, and make my own determination.
And yes, I did say that there are 2 ways to interpret the bible. Carnally, and spiritually. And I have many examples to give. Such as:
Who is the promised seed in Genesis? Answer: Isaac. That’s carnal, aka expository. But there is a spiritual interpretation. The spiritual answer can be found in Galatians 3:16. But that does not negate out Isaac in the carnal, which many wish to do.
In other words, the carnal HISTORIC story is NOT REALLY about the carnal historic story. It’s about a spiritual story about Jesus…but most don’t want to see it that way. They think that’s silly garbage talk. I don’t.
Ed Chapman
1saved
If Dr. John MacArthur’s book “Why One Way” correctly explains why the Bible has only one correct interpretation, then it is useful for teaching correct doctrine.
br.d
And if it doesn’t “correctly explain” what you assume it does – then I assume from your previous statement – that you would say it is from a false teacher.
So from that – you would conclude the possibility that John MacArthur may be a false teacher.
1saved
Dr. MacArthur may or may not have been guided by the in-dwelling Holy Spirit at the time of his writing that book. The same could be said for John Piper.
br.d
But that statement evades the question.
MacArthur interprets scripture as [X] and Piper interprets the same exact scripture as [NOT X]
What is your conclusion about that particular situation?
1saved
Yes, I take Scripture literally and believe there is none who understands EVERYTHING in Scripture, including me.
br.d
OH!
Now you have ADDED a new qualification
If your original statement had been “None understand EVERYTHING”
Then that statement adds nothing to the conversation.
So that statement can be discarded as tangential.
br.d
Person_A claims to have Holy Spirit discernment and with that discernment concludes [X]
Person_B claims to have Holy Spirit discernment and with that discernment concludes [NOT X]
What do you conclude from that situation?
1saved
Person A and/or person B have deceived themselves.
God, the Holy Spirit, cannot lie and does not deceive us.
br.d
But that answer assumes both of them are wrong in what they conclude
Lets say Person_A is you – and your interpretation of the scriptures you quoted so far
Per you answer above – you have concluded that you have deceived yourself – and your interpretation of the verses you originally quoted are not from the Holy Spirit.
Your answer doesn’t seem very well though out – did you get it from the Holy Spirit?
1saved
Scripture and mathematics are perfect and have only one correct answer.
Is it possible for twin students, who have always had the same teachers, to answer a mathematical question differently? I’d say, “Yes.”.
br.d
We are not talking about answering a question differently
We are talking one person whose answer to the question is TRUE
While another person’s answer to the question is FALSE.
MATHEMATICS tells you – that you have 3 possibilities in this situation:
1) Person_A’s interpretation is TRUE – and Person_B’s interpretation is FALSE
2) Person_B’s interpretation is TRUE – and Person_A’s interpretation is FALSE
3) Both interpretations are FALSE
But we are still left with HOW to ascertain which is the case.
1saved
Here’s two simple math questions to illustrate.
1) How much is two plus three times 5?
2) What is the square root of 25?
br.d
I’m sorry to say – you’ve made another mistake in thinking
Squaring a number simply means to multiply that number by itself
The square root of 5 is approximately 2.23
It would have been correct if you stated it as
1) What is the total of ((2+3) X 5)
2) What is the square of 5
I wouldn’t anticipate the Holy Spirit as the author of your thoughts concerning those numbers.
Now about false teachers:
The critical question is – what factor concerning the way the human mind works allows a false teacher to lead someone astray?
1saved
False teaching comes in may forms and often with the best of intentions. I was raised differently than you, so of course we have different points of view, but was our teaching on the fundamentals of mathematics different? Or, does the entire world agree on math principles?
br.d
Yes – but what I’m getting at is – some factor concerning how the human mind works must be involved in the process of someone leading that human mind into a falsehood.
The ink-blot example will help you to see what I’m getting at.
One human mind looks at the ink-blot and that mind interprets the image as a rabbit.
Another human mind looks at the same ink-blot and that mind does not interpret the image as a rabbit.
What factor within the human mind causes that to be the case?
1saved
It could be anything: a whim, a fear, a previous experience, etc. I’m wondering what ink blots have to do with understanding Scripture?
br.d
AH! A previous experience!
Now your getting closer to grasping it!
But now we need to unpackage what factor within the human mind is involved when it comes to “a previous experience”
For example – a little girl reaches out to a dog who growls at her.
But she has never had “a previous experience” with dogs.
She doesn’t correctly interpret the dogs behavior.
She reaches out to touch the dog – and the dog viciously bites her.
*NOW* she has an experience!
And from that experience – her mind – if it is functioning normally – will interpret the dog’s behavior differently from now on.
So from this – we should be able to see that the human mind’s process of the interpretation of any data – has a factor which is related to “previous experience”.
But we need to pin-point what that factor within the human is – in order to understand why one person interprets scripture differently than another person.
And to ignore factors concerning the human mind and how it works – is not going to lead us into a correct understanding.
1saved
“Trust in the Lord with all your heart and do not lean on your own understanding.” Proverbs 3:5
br.d
Yes – but now you have gone in a complete circle.
I am assuming you don’t want to be ensnared in the trap of circular reasoning.
Br.d,
Here’s two simple math questions to illustrate.
1) How much is two plus three times 5?
2) What is the square root of 25?
br.d
I’m sorry to say – you’ve made another mistake in thinking
Squaring a number simply means to multiply that number by itself
The square root of 5 is approximately 2.23
It would have been correct if you stated it as
1) What is the total of ((2+3) X 5)
2) What is the square of 5
No, I expressed by questions correctly.
2 + 3 X 5 = 17 Many would say the answer is 25, but multiplication precedes addition regardless of the order.
The square root of 25 is {+5, -5} Many would say the answer is 5, but that is only half right.
The errors are yours.
1saved
Person A and/or person B have deceived themselves.
God, the Holy Spirit, cannot lie and does not deceive us.
br.d
But that answer assumes both of them are wrong in what they conclude
Again you are wrong.
I could have said Person A or Person B have deceived themselves.
“Or” in logic means one or the other or both statements are included.
Because I thought you might not know that, I said “and/or” to clarify, which you misunderstood anyway.
Per you answer above – you have concluded that you have deceived yourself – and your interpretation of the verses you originally quoted are not from the Holy Spirit.
Wrong again.
Person A can be correct while Person B is wrong.
Or, Person A can be wrong while Person B is right.
Or, Both Person A and Person B are wrong.
Scripture cannot contradict Scripture, so Person A and Person B cannot both be correct while holding contradicting doctrines.
1saved
“Trust in the Lord with all your heart and do not lean on your own understanding.” Proverbs 3:5
br.d
Yes – but now you have gone in a complete circle.
I am assuming you don’t want to be ensnared in the trap of circular reasoning.
You really should check your work more closely BEFORE replying.
1saved
The square root of 25 is {+5, -5} Many would say the answer is 5, but that is only half right.
The errors are yours.
Go back and read your post
You didn’t ask about the square root of 25
You asked what is the square root of 5
The square root of 5 = 5
5 and 17 are not the same number
It was obvious to see – by adding the parenthesis – one would derive 25 in both cases.
And it was assumed your intent was to derive the same number in both cases.
Otherwise – the there is no point to the statement.
My post stated the following:
It would have been correct if you stated it as
1) What is the total of ((2+3) X 5)
2) What is the square of 5
Those two equal 25
This was my error indeed!
I didn’t read your statement correctly
My mistake
br.d
Br.d,
Ignore my last post.
I hadn’t read your last two replies.
1saved
Bd.r,
Here’s your own post.
1saved
Here’s two simple math questions to illustrate.
1) How much is two plus three times 5?
2) What is the square root of 25? <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
br.d
I’m sorry to say – you’ve made another mistake in thinking
Squaring a number simply means to multiply that number by itself
The square root of 5 is approximately 2.23
It would have been correct if you stated it as
1) What is the total of ((2+3) X 5)
2) What is the square of 5
You keep telling me I'm asking what is the square root of 5? Are you incapable of checking your work or are you just lazy?
A child can see you are wrong! But just to help your eyes focus on what I said, I added arrow to point it out, so there can be no mistake.
I expect an apology, but I'm not holding my breath.
1saved
1) How much is two plus three times 5?
2) What is the square root of 25?
br.d
AH!
I read this wrong!
My mistake!
1saved
I think Dr. John MacArthur’s book entitled Why One Way is an excellent argument for this doctrine.
br.d
You must know – John MacArthur is a Calvinist – and reads scripture in accordance with the Calvinist interpretation of scripture. And what his mind sees within scripture is Calvinism’s doctrine of decrees.
Is it your position that Calvinism’s doctrine of decrees is Holy Spirit inspired?
Br.d
Is it your position that Calvinism’s doctrine of decrees is Holy Spirit inspired?
No of course not!
I have written to Dr. MacArthur many times to explain where he is wrong on other points of doctrine – in particular his understanding on divorce and remarriage.
Dr. MacArthur doesn’t reply.
I do recommend his book entitled “Reckless Faith – When the Church Loses Its Will to Discern”
I also recommend his 5-part sermons entitled “The Way To Heaven”
You obviously put a lot of stock in John MacArthur
Could you answer my question concerning his interpretation of scripture – being a Calvinist interpretation – and as such an interpretation which entails Calvinism’s doctrine of decrees as divine TRUTH.
So I ask the question for the second time
is it your position that Calvinism’s doctrine of decrees is divine TRUTH?
Br.d,
You assume incorrectly.
Dr. MacArthur has written two books and one sermon I have recommended. Do not assume I agree with everything or anything further.
I told you before I have written to Dr. MacArthur to explain his doctrinal errors and he doesn’t reply.
Dr. MacArthur is a dispensationalist, Baptist, Calvinist theologian and he claims he is unleashing God’s truth one verse at a time.
As such, he is a false prophet dressed in sheep’s clothing.
Jesus warns us of false prophets dressing sheep’s clothing and teaches we will know them by their fruit.
Exactly who is Jesus warning believers about?
1saved
Dr. MacArthur is a dispensationalist, Baptist, Calvinist theologian and he claims he is unleashing God’s truth one verse at a time.
As such, he is a false prophet dressed in sheep’s clothing.
br.d
So there are obvious verses which his mind interprets and his interpretation is the opposite of yours.
His interpretation would equal TRUE on a given matter
While you interpretation of that same text will equal FALSE on that given matter
Both of you cannot be correct.
One of you must have the wrong interpretation
He claims his interpretation is from Holy Spirit discernment
You claim your interpretation if from Holy Spirit discernment
But as you noted – one interpretation must be wrong.
And I suspect – as far as you are concerned – his interpretation is wrong.- and your’s is right – because you assume your interpretation of the scriptures you originally quoted – as the Holy Spirit inspired interpretation.
Br.d,
Dr. MacArthur believes in recent creation (https://www.amazon.com/Battle-Beginning-John-MacArthur/dp/0785271597); i.e. the earth is about 6,000 – 10,000 years old.
All of science contradicts this position.
For example, moon rocks are determined to be hundreds of millions to billions of years old, so the flood cannot account for the discrepancy.
Dr. MacArthur should admit he is wrong and recant his previous testimony.
I’ve even know of theologians claiming dinosaurs were aboard the ark. These people are incredibly naive. Who, but a fool, would trust their judgement?
Dr. MacArthur doesn’t claim his understanding comes from the in-dwelling Holy Spirit, so once again you are wrong.in your assumptions.
Like you, Dr. MacArthur trusts his own judgement. As president of the Master’s College, he believes in men teaching rather than Holy Spirit teaching.
Just once, I’d like to agree with something you say, but you keep expressing your own understanding rather than trusting in the Lord.
Furthermore, you do not check your “facts.”
1Saved,
I’m always amused when anyone indicates for someone to not lean on their own understanding, because what they are really saying is that we need to lean on YOUR understanding instead, in that YOU think you are right, and everyone else is wrong. Don’t lean on our understanding, but lean on YOUR understanding instead. Is that how it works?
Ed Chapman
1saved
you keep expressing your own understanding rather than trusting in the Lord.
br.d
Just because one attempts to fill in the blanks – where another person is vague in his statements – doesn’t mean one is not trusting in the Lord.
But it does mean someone is being vague in his statements – and there is typically a reason why.
I’m happy to keep asking questions in order to fill in the blanks – whether you like it or not – and I’ll eventually get a full enough picture.
1saved… Consider this biblical truth and make a choice… Clear Scriptures or scientific theory.
Ex 20, 9-11 Young universe.
A logical assumption is that Genesis 1 was written for intelligent laypeople who would read it as God creating everything in six days. Moses could have easily written “6 myriads of ages of ages”.
These were the same people who heard God’s voice from heaven at Sinai saying clearly out loud that everything was created in six days, just like their work week is six days.
Exodus 20:9-11 NKJV — Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the LORD your God…. For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and 👉all👈 that is in them, and rested the seventh day….
A presupposition to consider as true is that any miraculous creation out of nothing, or the miraculous forming immediately of anything that normally needs an aging process, requires an appearance of age. Consider the forming of Adam, the water immediately turned to wine, the multiplying of loaves & fish, and then consider a star light beam created on the fourth day.
How old did each look and how old was each one actually?
Brian,
The word “day” has many definitions.
The earth rotates on its axis in one “day” consisting of 24 hours.
“He called the light day and the darkness night.” In parts of the world daylight remains for months at a time.
“A day unto the Lord is as a thousand years and a thousand years as one day.” 1 day = 1000 years
The Day of the Lord and the end days are undefined periods of time lasting years.
Are you applying the correct definition of “day” for every instance it’s used in Scripture?
On the sixth day He created them male and female and told them to be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth.
God rested on the seventh day.
Then God created Adam, and afterwards Eve from Adam (man and woman) and they lived in a garden in which they could not leave without being in great danger – Cain needed a mark to protect him from whoever was living outside the garden. “The Lord put a mark on Cain, so that no one who came upon him would kill him” (Gen 4:15).
So, who was threatening to kill Cain if there were only his own family members anywhere on earth?
The answer is Cain was afraid of descendants of humans God had created on the sixth day.
Who was Cain wife? One of the female descendants.
Anthropologists call them Neanderthal, Cro-Magnon and Java Man, The public calls them cavemen.
1saved – I guess you noticed that you ignored the evidence I gave. The lay person reading “evening and morning was the first day” certainly would know what “day” means in that phrase. It’s amazing you don’t.
Did you even read slowly what the Israelites heard that God’s voice literally said about comparing His creation week with their work week? Do you really think it is impossible for God to create everything in six days? Did Jesus turn water into wine? Did He rise physically from the dead?
You need to realize that the fear of man brings a snare. Don’t be afraid to go against scientific theory when Scriptures are clear in presenting truth against it. You also need to read Genesis more carefully.
Adam and Eve were already outside the garden when Cain killed Abel. How many were born to Adam and Eve and to their children by that time, only one can guess. Cain knew he would be in danger for years to come.
Your willingness to believe in speculation and to deny clear Scriptures is alarming.
Brian,
One piece of evidence that a day is more than 24 hours is Hebrews 4. God is still resting. It’s still the 7th day. We enter into his rest. The 7th day is perpetual.
And, as much as I would love nothing more than to disagree with 1saved, we actually agree on Genesis 1:5, in that he called the light day, and the dark night.
There was no sun yet to measure day and night, or evening and morning.
It’s the same exact argument about three days and three nights. It was dark when Jesus died. That’s night.
When Jesus said, are there not 12 hours in the day… during that part of the year, yes, there was 12 hours of sun light.
Now, me, I separate Genesis 1 from Genesis 2. Genesis 1 is about seed and spirit, Genesis 2 is about planting seed and spirit in dirt.
You discuss already mature plants, but Genesis 2 shows that God planted. What is planted other than seed?
Seed created, then planted. The garden of eden was planted.
Therefore, Genesis 1’s usage of morning and evening can’t be the same explanation as those on your side claims. There was no sun to measure the first 4 days.
But the one thing I do disagree with 1saved is his determination of another human race in which Cain war afraid of. Another creation of peoples.
Genesis 3:20
And Adam called his wife’s name Eve; because she was the mother of all living.
Cain married his sister. Seth was Adams 7th child, but third son.
That means that there were 4 sisters between Cain and Seth.
And they all lived a very long time back in those days. Enough time to populate the earth with nieces, nephews, cousins, grand kids, etc.
Again, Genesis 3:20 debunks 1saved claim of another creation of people.
Ed Chapman
Brian,
Addendum to my last:
Genesis 2:5-6, 8
5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.
6 But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.
8 And the Lord God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed
NOTE:
Nothing grew (Because there was no man to till the ground) until…the mist (to water the ground).
And verse 8. God “planted” a garden.
Ed Chapman
Brian,
“A presupposition to consider as true is that any miraculous creation out of nothing, or the miraculous forming immediately of anything that normally needs an aging process, requires an appearance of age.”
I could accept an appearance of age that does not deceive; for God does not deceive us.
Does the appearance of age include fossil remains, fossil fuel, paintings on cave walls?
What about Mammoths in ice or Saber Tooth tigers in tar?
What about vast coral reefs with a known growth rate?
What about genetic DNA of Neanderthal man? Would that be considered an appearance of age or a deception?
https://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/genetics/ancient-dna-and-neanderthals/interbreeding
FYI, I was not able to down load your earlier post and only got a portion from Ed Chapman’s post this morning.
No, Brian, I am not ignoring you and I do respect your honest comments based upon Scripture.
“1saved… Consider this biblical truth and make a choice… Clear Scriptures or scientific theory”.
I choose clear Scripture which says the things of the Spirit of God are spiritually discerned. 1 Corinthians 2:14
I choose to trust in the Lord and not lean on my own or others’ understandings. Proverbs 3:5
Scripture says God created in 6 days (with an undetermined length of time each).
Then God rested for one day (with an undetermined length of time).
Then God created Adam; 4000 years before Christ.
Furthermore, I believe we are living in the end days just before the return of Jesus Christ.
Hey guys…this site is about Calvinism. And talk about “deception”! God says He wants everyone to be saved….but wink, wink it is only “all kinds” of everyone says the Calvinist.
I dont want to prolong the creation discussion, but Brian’s point is that God “deceives” (according to the definition of 1saved) regularly with miracles (the water turned to wine—- good wine—- implied a time aging process). Anyone drinking it would assume that it was aged grapes made into wine and aged. But no. So was that deceptive 1saved?
1saved makes the point of the tar pits etc., without realizing that there are whole ministries that exist to explain how a flood would account for the geology and fossils (see the case of the eruption of Mount St Helens).
But anyway, I dont think this is the forum for this discussion.
Fromoverhere.
You wrote, “Anyone drinking it would assume that it was aged grapes made into wine and aged. So was that deceptive 1saved?
1saved makes the point of the tar pits etc., without realizing that there are whole ministries that exist to explain how a flood would account for the geology and fossils (see the case of the eruption of Mount St Helens.”
Regarding Christ’s first miracle – Deceptive to who?
The wine steward knew where the wine came from, so he was not deceived and everyone at the wedding would have known there was no more wine.
You say they would have assumed it was aged grapes made into wine and aged.
On what do you base your assumption, if not pure speculation?
Regarding the tar pits:
Any book explaining God’s work saying, “It could have happened this way” is essentially stating that with God all things are possible.
I agree that with God all things are possible, but disagree that God deceives us.
Here’s a link to a thesis on this point:
https://tms.edu/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/tmsj16d.pdf
The KJV for Matthew 24:24 says the “very elect” can not possibly be deceived by false teaching, false christs and by the showing of great signs and wonders in the End Times. I’d like someone to explain here who these “very elect” are.
Yours in Christ,
1saved
George 1Saved,
This is PART 1 of my response:
I wouldn’t get too worried about the word “VERY” in Matthew 24:24.
In the KJV, there is only 4 NT verses that uses the ENGLISH word VERY by using the same Greek Word.
Matthew 10:30
But the very hairs of your head are all numbered.
Luke 9:5
And whosoever will not receive you, when ye go out of that city, shake off the very dust from your feet for a testimony against them.
Luke 12:7
But even the very hairs of your head are all numbered. Fear not therefore: ye are of more value than many sparrows.
Very, in the KJV in BOTH Matthew 24:24, and 10:30 is the same Greek word, and is used as a “conjunction”.
For the most part, the word AND is what it is used for.
G2532
καί kaí, kahee; apparently, a primary particle, having a copulative and sometimes also a cumulative force; and, also, even, so then, too, etc.; often used in connection (or composition) with other particles or small words:—and, also, both, but, even, for, if, or, so, that, then, therefore, when, yet.
There isn’t a SPECIAL KIND OF HAIRS that are counted, or a SPECIAL KIND OF DUST from your feet to shake off. So there isn’t a SPECIAL KIND OF “Elect”, either.
Part 2 comming shortly.
Ed Chapman
Ed Chapman,
Even the “very hairs” of our heads are numbered and known by God as opposed to the hairs growing elsewhere. The number of these hairs would include the hairs in/on our face, chin, ears, nose, eye brows and lids, but may not include the neck, shoulders, etc.
…shake off the very dust of your feet as a testimony against them. This means to shake off (let go) of everything as a testimony even down to the dust on your feet. Very is used to refine what it modifies more like an adjective than conjunction.
You overlook the meaning of ‘very” as though it’s of little value. Thus, you misunderstand the passages.
In Matthew 24:24, Jesus isn’t saying everyone elected cannot be deceived by false teaching, false christs and false prophets dressed in sheep’s clothing. He’s saying the very elect cannot be deceived by them and I’d argue the two witnesses in Revelation 11:3-12 are among His very elect who cannot be deceived by false teaching.
Happy Easter,
1saved
I PROVIDED Strongs Concordance info, and yes, the word very is VERY insignificant in four verses.
It’s a conjunction and you need to look up what the function of a conjunction is.
It’s not too DISTINGUISH.
Try again, buddy!
Ed Chapman
Ed Chapman,
A conjunction connects two clauses or phrases or is used to coordinate two words. There are seven coordinating conjunctions in the English language, i.e. for, and, nor, but, or, yet, so. “Very” isn’t one of the seven and Mathew 24:24 very can’t be considered to connect two clauses or phrases in Matthew 24:24.
I found this from Gill’s exegesis of the phrase in question:
…if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.
By whom we are to understand, not the choicest believers, or the persevering Christians: not but that such who are truly converted, are choice believers in Christ, and persevering Christians are undoubtedly the elect of God; but then the reason why they are elect, and why they are so called, is not because they are converted, are choice believers, and persevering Christians; but, on the contrary, the reason why they are converted, become true believers, and persevere to the end, is, because they are elected; conversion, faith, and perseverance being not the causes or conditions, but the fruits and effects of election: besides to talk of the final seduction of a persevering Christian, is a contradiction in terms. Such an interpretation of the phrase must be absurd and impertinent; for who knows not that a persevering Christian cannot be finally and totally deceived? But by the elect are meant, a select number of particular persons of Adam’s posterity, whom God, of his sovereign goodwill and pleasure, without respect to their faith, holiness, and good works, has chosen, in Christ, before the foundation of the world, both to grace and glory: and to deceive these finally and totally, is impossible, as is here suggested; not impossible, considering their own weakness, and the craftiness of deceivers, who, if left to themselves, and the power of such deception, and the working of Satan with all deceivableness of unrighteousness, might easily be seduced; but considering the purposes and promises of God concerning them, the provisions of his grace for them, the security of them in the hands of Christ, and their preservation by the mighty power of God, their final and total deception is not only difficult, but impossible. They may be, and are deceived before conversion; this is one part of their character whilst unregenerate, “foolish, disobedient, deceived”, ( Titus 3:3 ) yea, they may be, and oftentimes are, deceived after conversion; but then this is in part only, and not totally; in some lesser, and not in the greater matters of faith; not so as to let go their hold of Christ their head, and quit the doctrine of salvation by him, or fall into damnable heresies: they may be seduced from the simplicity of the Gospel, but not finally; for they shall be recovered out of the snare of the devil, and not to be left to perish in such deceivings. This clause, as it expresses the power of deceivers, and the efficacy of Satan, so the influence and certainty of electing grace and the sure and firm perseverance of the saints, to the end, notwithstanding the cunning and craft of men and devils; for if these, with all their signs and wonders, could not deceive them, it may be pronounced impossible that they ever should be finally and totally deceived.
Gill provides a decent explanation until he tacks on “finally and totally deceived.” Thus, he paraphrases our Lord and deceives himself and his readers.
Are His Words inerrant and infallible, complete and sufficient or not? Man does not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God. It would be a mistake to overlook “very” in Matthew 24:24, yet many Bibles do not include very in Matthew 24:24.
They were warned – Do not take anything away from Scripture (Revelation 22:19).
1saved
I know that the word VERY isn’t. However, the Greek word used for that English word is indeed. We don’t speak 16th century King James English. Suffer the little children!! Again, Strong’s Concordance tells us the Greek word, and the definition, noting that this Greek word is a conjunction, as well as telling us all of the English words used for that one Greek word. I stand by what I said.
There is another like example for the KJV, and it involves EASTER. The word should not have been Easter, but Passover. But that’s not my issue. My issue is with the word AFTER. AFTER PASSOVER. BUT, it’s not AFTER, in the sense that we think. Easter is a one day celebration, whereas Passover is a seven day celebration. Now, look at the Strong’s Concordance for THAT particular use of the word AFTER. AMID. AMID is a term we sailors (In a USN Vet) are familiar with. AMIDSHIPS is in the midst or middle of the ship. Easter was on the 3rd day of a 7 day Passover Feast. That 3rd day would please the Jews to kill a couple of Apostles, because they preach Christ Resurrection.
So…AFTER and VERY…OH AND LET’S NOT FORGET SUFFER!!
Ed Chapman,
“I know that the word VERY isn’t. However, the Greek word used for that English word is indeed.”
So, you’re saying it’s impossible to know what the Bible says in Matthew 24:24 without being either a Greek scholar or looking up the passage in Strong’s concordance.
I disagree. I believe the things of the Spirit of God are spiritually discerned (1 Cor. 2:14) and if I lack wisdom, I’m to ask God in faith and He will answer (James 1:5).
Strong’s Concordance may be helpful. The MacArthur Study Bible may be useful. Nelson’s New Illustrated Bible Dictionary may be valuable, but none of them have authority in revealing the truth of Scripture.
Trust in the Lord with all you heart and lean not on your own understanding (Proverbs 3:5) – this applies to Strong’s Concordance, the MacArthur Study Bible and/or Nelson’s Bible Dictionary also. Reference texts do not have authority in matters of Scripture.
Blessings,
1saved
I’m saying that the translators of the KING JAMES version, translated in 16th century English, which we do not speak today. Thee, Thou, betwixt, etc. What matters is the DEFINITION of the Greek word used… not the English definition…SUFFER A the little children???????? Suffer? Come on, man, a little common common common sense.
Ed Chapman,
The KJV is only one of a few that include the word “very” in Matthew 24:24.
Other versions take out the word, which violates God’s intended meaning.
Why the editors leave “very” out of other versions could be for the same reasons Martin Luther wanted to leave out the entire book of James and numerous versions leave out the foot notes regarding other ancient authorities citing Matthew 19:9.
For example, the ASV, RSV and NASB have the foot note citation for Matthew 19:9, but leave “very” out in Matthew 24:24.
So, our bibles have been corrupted by well intentioned scholars, which goes a long way to explaining why God says there are none who understand (Psalm 14:2,3, Psalm 53:2,3, Romans 3:11).
Happy Easter,
1saved
br.d
If it helps anyone – – – – here is the word-for-word literal Matthew 24:24
ἐγερθήσονται γὰρ ψευδόχριστοι καὶ ψευδοπροφῆται
There will arise for false Christs and false prophets
καὶ δώσουσιν σημεῖα μεγάλα καὶ τέρατα
and they will give signs great and wonders
ὥστε πλανῆσαι εἰ δυνατὸν καὶ τοὺς ἐκλεκτούς
so as to mislead if possible even/and the elect
brdmod,
I’m glad that you posted this, by including the word, even, as well as “and”. We know that “and” is indeed a “conjunction”.
Not only that, in the KJV, the word “even” is ALSO used in many instances as the same Greek word (Kai).
For example:
Mat 13:12
For G1063 whosoever G3748 hath, G2192 to him G846 shall be given, G1325 and G2532 he shall have more abundance: G4052 but G1161 whosoever G3748 hath G2192 not, G3756 from G575 him G846 shall be taken away G142 even G2532 that G3739 he hath. G2192
Mat 20:14
Take G142 that thine G4674 is, and G2532 go thy way: G5217 G1161 I will G2309 give G1325 unto this G5129 last, G2078 even G2532 as G5613 unto thee. G4671
and in the following 2 different English words (and, even) is used in one verse for the same Greek word:
Mar 1:27
And G2532 they were G2284 ➔ all G3956 amazed, G2284 insomuch that G5620 they questioned G4802 among G4314 themselves, G846 saying, G3004 What thing G5101 is G2076 this? G3778 what G5101 new G2537 doctrine G1322 is this? G5124 for G3754 with G2596 authority G1849 commandeth G2004 he even G2532 the unclean G169 spirits, G4151 and G2532 they do obey G5219 him. G846
Ed Chapman
Yes – the word “Kai” – is used in that statement a number of times and in all but one cases is translated as “and” which I believe is its most common English translated word.
And in this verse where you see the English word “even” – it is also the Greek word “Kai”
The BDAG notes on the word “Kai” appear to show a pretty broad usage.
One usage the BDAG points out is “Emphasizing a fact which is unexpected or noteworthy”.
For example in Mat 3:14 where John the Baptist says to Jesus:
“I need to be baptized by you “KAI” yet you come to me!”
In that verse, my mind defaulted to the English word “and” automatically…and yet you come to me. The word “but” would also be appropriate. I never would have guessed the word “even”, let alone “very” in any instance, but that’s what KJV uses from time to time.
Ed Chapman,
Looking deeper into Matthew 24:24 revealed the following:
… kai eklektous
You are right, kai is a conjunction, which is translated in numerous bibles as “even.”
Eklektous is an adjective-AMP and occurs seven times in Scripture.
I believe these are those chosen, then called.
Matthew 24:22, 24:24, 24:31
Mark 13:20, 13:22, 13:37
2 Timothy 2:10
There are other words translated “elect.”
Eklektoi is an adjective-NMP and occurs four times in Scripture.
I believe these are those called, then chosen.
Matthew 20:16, Matthew 22:14
Colossians 3:12
Revelation 17:14
Eklektwv is an adjective-GMP and occurs three times in Scripture. Also eklekton – general term for plural chosen persons.
Luke 18:7
1 Timothy 5:21
Titus 1:1
Eklektov is an adjective-AMS and occurs two times in Scripture. Also eklekton – general term for a singular chosen person.
Romans 6:13
1 Peter 2:19
Eklektoc in Luke 23:35 is Messiah/Christ.
I’d like your understanding for the difference between eklektous and eklektoi in Scripture.
1saved
.
Hi 1saved
If you are interested – you might consider checking out Kevin Thompson’s Youtube video – dedicated to a Word Occurrence Analysis for “Election”.
If I remember – he provides an excel file which you can use to review every instance within the whole of scripture.
The excel file allows you to examine each instance within each book.
He did this so that people would have the full-picture in order to make up their own minds on the subject.
His ministry is called “Beyond the Fundamentals”
The title of the youtube is “Election Word Occurrence Analysis”
blessings
br.d
Br.d
I took your suggestion:
If you are interested – you might consider checking out Kevin Thompson’s Youtube video – dedicated to a Word Occurrence Analysis for “Election”.
I discovered it’s a wonderful analysis of the words “election” and “chosen” in scripture. Kudos to him for doing a great job and his spreadsheet can be bought on Etsy for $40.
He suggests Calvinists are completely wrong in their understanding of election and what it means to be chosen by God.
Then Kevin Thompson condemns Calvinism and Calvinists for their teaching.
The question I’d ask Kevin is, “Who did God choose and when did He choose them?”
God says He chose Noah, Abraham, Jacob/Israel, Joseph, Moses, Sampson, Samuel, Elijah, Isaiah, Daniel, David, Solomon and all His prophets.
How did God choose them?
By speaking directly to them, giving them verbal instructions; knowing they would faithfully carry out His instructions.
Thus, God foreknew all of these men and chose them beforehand. They were predetermined for His use.
Were these men righteous? Scripture says there are none righteous – no not one.
Noah is called righteous in his generation and Job is called righteous by both God and satan. So, how can Paul say there are none righteous in Romans 3:10? It’s because there is none who understand, none who seek God (Romans 3:11); all have turned away and become worthless nor have any done good (Romans 3:12). Calvinists would say all men are totally depraved.
Clearly there are those who were chosen and then called for God’s purpose. Paul includes himself in this group. because he was verbally called by Christ on the road to Damascus.
Paul tells us when he was chosen. “…even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love, he predestined us for adoption to himself as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will… Ephesians 1:4-5 ESV
Paul wrote, “In him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will” Ephesians 1:11 ESV
Paul says to the Ephesians they also became inheritors “…when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit, 14 who is the guarantee of our inheritance until we acquire possession of it, to the praise of his glory.” Ephesians 1:13-14 ESV
Paul chosen before the foundation of the world.
The Ephesians chosen after they heard the Word of truth, believed in Christ and received the Holy Spirit.
Yours in Christ,
1saved
Hello 1saved
Glad you liked the provision Kevin made on that topic.
I think we’ve already discussed – the reason why Calvinism has its own definitions for “elect” and “Chosen”
It is the same reason Calvinism has its own definitions for many words in found within the language of scripture.
The reason for this – is because what separates Calvinism – and makes Calvinism unique – is EXHAUSTIVE DIVINE DETERMINISM (EDD).
Calvinism – adopts EDD as unquestionable truth
And consequently EDD becomes a lens through which the Calvinist reads scripture.
So in Calvinism – the urgency is to conform the language of scripture to EDD.
And that is why Calvinists have their own unique definitions for words and terms.
People within societies use words to communicate.
And when people use a given word – they tend to ascribe a certain meaning to that word
That meaning eventually becomes the ***COMMON*** meaning associated with that word.
So when someone speaks that word – you don’t have to wonder what they mean by it.
As long as they are giving that word its ***COMMON*** meaning – then you can trust what they mean by that word.
A dictionary – is going to give you the ***COMMON*** meaning of a given word.
So lets take the word “Permission” or “Permit” for example
The etymological Dictionary has this:
Permit
From the French permetre and directly from Latin permittere
To “let pass, let go, let loose; give up, hand over; let, allow, grant.
The KJV dictionary:
Permit
To allow; to grant leave
Now you should be able to understand – that because Calvinism is predicated on EDD – then this word “Permit” does not work for the Calvinist’s conception of the divine relationship to man.
Calvin’s god does not “let pass”, or “Let go” or “Let Loose”, or “give up” anything
Calvin’s god maintains absolute control of the slightest movement of every atomic particle at every nano-second in time.
In Calvinism – every impulse that comes to pass in your brain was FIRST CONCIEVED in a mind external to yours – and MADE to come to pass within your brain infallibly.
So the word “PERMIT” does not apply to Calvin’s god as something that he does.
So the Calvinist cannot use the word “PERMIT” without misleading people.
So when the Calvinist uses the phrase “PERMISSIVE WILL” of god – they are using misleading language.
Because the term “PERMIT” has a ***COMMON*** meaning which is anathema to Calvin’s god.
What we see then – is the Calvinist will create ALTERED definitions for words.
The reason the Calvinist has ALTERED definitions for words is simply because the Calvinist has EXHAUSTIVE DIVINE DETERMINISM (EDD) as the core of his belief system.
The business of having ALTERED definitions for words is because of DETERMINISM.
This phenomenon is excellently described by Nationally recognized Theoretical Physicist – Sean Carroll – who is a DETERMINIST
Sean Carroll
-quote
There are 2 questions
1) How does the world work
2) What words should we **ATTACH** to how the world works
For Sean – the way the world works – is DETERMINISM.
Everything that comes to pass – is CAUSED by antecedent factors totally outside of human control.
Everything is FATED to happen the way it was DETERMINED to happen
And humans have NO CONTROL of what was DETERMINED.
The Calvinist is a DETERMINIST
So what words should the Calvinist **ATTACH** to the way his world works?
If he uses the word “PERMIT” or “PERMISSION” when he describes his god – then he is misleading people.
Because the word “PERMIT” or “PERMISSION” is the opposite of DETERMINISM.
Now once you understand the core of the Calvinist’s belief system is EXHAUSTIVE DIVINE DETERMINISM – then you understand how the Calvinist interprets the word “Elect” or the word “Chosen” from within scripture.
He interprets these words – in such a way as to give them DETERMINISTIC meanings.
So the word “Elect” for the Calvinist simply becomes synonymous with the world “DETERMINE”.
Consequently – there is no such thing as a human who can have an impulse in his brain that he can call his own.
Because every impulse that comes to pass within his brain is an impulse which Calvin’s god “Elected”.
And since whatever Calvin’s god “Elects” is infallible – then NO ALTERNATIVE impulse is permitted to come to pass within your brain.
For every impulse that comes to pass within your brain – only one “Elect” impulse is granted existence.
For the Calvinist “Election” along with everything else in the Bible – must conform to EXHAUSTIVE DIVINE DETERMINISM – because that is the way the world works for the Calvinist.
Now the Non-Calvinist looks at the way the world works for the Calvinist – and what he sees are humans being divinely designed to have the functionality of biological robots.
As Calvinist Robert R. McLaughlin explains:
-quote
“God merely *PROGRAMMED* into the divine decrees all our thoughts, motives, decisions and actions”(The Doctrine of Divine Decree pg 4)
Interesting stuff!! Along with br.d’s suggestion, this is also why the Strong’s Concordance is so useful.
I’ve got my take on this already, but before I jump the gun, I’ll take a better look at this sometime this evening and get back with you.
Great job at research here!!
Ed Chapman
Ed Chapman,
I wrote, “Looking deeper into Matthew 24:24 revealed the following: … kai eklektous You are right, kai is a conjunction, which is translated in numerous bibles as “even.” Eklektous is an adjective-AMP and occurs seven times in Scripture. I believe these are those chosen, then called. Matthew 24:22, 24:24, 24:31 Mark 13:20, 13:22, 13:37 2 […]
A month ago you replied, “Interesting stuff!! Along with br.d’s suggestion, this is also why the Strong’s Concordance is so useful.
I’ve got my take on this already, but before I jump the gun, I’ll take a better look at this sometime this evening and get back with you.
Great job at research here!!”
Did I miss your reply or are you still researching?
Blessings,
1saved
Interesting that the KJV incorrectly translated the word for Passover as Easter. The elect can be deceived. So it is possible. Galatians 3 is a gt example.
The history of the KJV follows the pattern of Adam and Eve
It is wonderful and yet troubled.
Most of the KJV is derived from the work of William Tyndale – whom as Ed points out – is doing his best to provide a translation that can be understood by those who speak the “Queen’s English”
That becomes a problem for current day English readers because the “Queen’s English” dictionary (meaning for words) is different than our current modern English language.
However – an additional issue arises with the KJV
Within the Apostolic and post-Apostolic period – the church is an extended FAMILY
But by the 1600s – due to the influence of Catholicism – we have Romanized church
which in this case is the the Church of England
And the Romanized church is an INSTITUTION rather than an extended FAMILY.
It is an INSTITUTION – having seats of authority – patterned after the system of Rome.
Consequently – the overseer of the KJV project – was charged with the instructions of making sure that the translation would not produce any representation in conflict with the Church of England.
The “chief overseer” of the KJV project was Richard Bancroft
He was promoted to “Archbishop ” which serves as a tell-tale sign of what they wanted him there for.
It is said that Bancroft took the completed translation which was submitted to him by the translators – and he locked it within his house for a period of time.
The translators afterwards examining it – complained that he altered the translation.
brdmod,
Having said all that, still, the KJV is my go-to for all of my studies, which is why the Strong’s Concordance is so important, due to the things you pointed out. There is a reason that I default to the KJV, but I won’t go into that now, but I think you are very accurate when saying QUEEN, instead of KING. LOL. And the more I learn about the Church of England…my my my…I’m glad our founding fathers defected.
I do use the NIV for faster/up to date language reading, but for study, it’s default to the KJV. I’m still waiting for the HIP HOP version to come out.
Ed Chapman
YES!
I grew up with the KJV
Its the bible that’s in my brain!
Every memorized verse in my brain is in KJV!!!
I sign psalms and hymns to myself in the KVJ
And I wouldn’t have it any other way! ;-]
Pastor Loz,
I never would have had a problem with the replacement, as I’m “pretty sure” that no one meant any harm in doing so, as they wanted to denote that particular day as the resurrection celebration, but…when I finally realized that Easter is a one day celebration, but that Passover is NOT a one day celebration, but a 7 day celebration, and in “conjunction” with the study of that word “after”, I had no choice but to conclude that they never should have used the word “Easter” in the first place.
Luke 22:1
Now the feast of unleavened bread drew nigh, which is called the Passover.
Here, Luke is telling us that Passover IS the Feast of Unleavened bread, and that feast is 7 days, not one day.
And because of the following, I had no choice in my head but to figure this out:
Acts 12:3
And because he saw it pleased the Jews, he proceeded further to take Peter also. (Then were the days of unleavened bread.)
And then see the next verse:
4 And when he had apprehended him, he put him in prison, and delivered him to four quaternions of soldiers to keep him; intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people.
I had to ask myself, WHY would it please the Jews, in “conjunction” with “Then were the DAYS…DAYS…DAYS of unleavened bread”.
So, my question of WHY would it please the Jews during the days of unleavened bread…
Why would it please the Jews to WAIT until Passover was OVER AND DONE WITH? That made no sense to me.
So when I saw the DEFINITION of the word “AFTER” in the KJV, and saw “amid”, I was like, “OK, so Easter makes NO SENSE, but Passover makes sense, because on the 3rd Day of Passover was what the Christians would be celebrating as the Resurrection day of Jesus, which is Easter, but the context is not about a Christian celebration, but the Jews MOCKING such a celebration of THEIR “Passover”, and it was AMID the Passover that Easter is celebrated. That’s it! And therefore, THAT would definately please the Jews to have a couple Apostles killed, mocking Easter.
And yes, I do know the OTHER arguments against the KJV’s use of the word Easter, but their arguments are based on the hatred for Catholics, and most of those are legalists who actually think that they must…
1 Corinthians 5:8
Therefore let us keep the feast
Ed Chapman
I think the simplest and strongest argument against celebrating Easter is that it is named after a demon.
Pastor Loz,
I’m not concerned with that, because we don’t celebrate a demon. In Acts 15, we are told:
Acts 15:29
That ye abstain from meats offered to idols…
Then in 1 Corinthians 8, we are told:
4 As concerning therefore the eating of those things that are offered in sacrifice unto idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is none other God but one.
7 Howbeit there is not in every man that knowledge: for some with conscience of the idol unto this hour eat it as a thing offered unto an idol; and their conscience being weak is defiled.
8 But meat commendeth us not to God: for neither, if we eat, are we the better; neither, if we eat not, are we the worse.
10 For if any man see thee which hast knowledge sit at meat in the idol’s temple, shall not the conscience of him which is weak be emboldened to eat those things which are offered to idols;
In other words, we not only can eat meat offered to idols, but can eat it in the TEMPLES of such. And why? Because we know (have knowledge) that those idols are NOTHING, because we know of only ONE GOD.
But if someone in our ranks don’t have that knowledge, and think that it’s an actual idol, then we are NOT to stumble that person in our ranks that has weak faith, because his conscience would be seared if he were to eat, and…he’d badmouth the Christian who actually ate it, too.
But we have that freedom to eat meat offered to idols.
It’s no different than Halloween, either. We are just trying to score a Kit-Kat chocolate bar, we aren’t “celebrating” evil demons.
And Easter, Ashtray…whatever…besides, I can counter the FERTILITY thing with:
John 12:24
Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone: but if it die, it bringeth forth much fruit.
What is the “fruit” of Jesus?
We are the “sons of God”.
I’ve heard all the stories from cults about Ashtray (sarcasm), but most of it is SPECULATION as to WHY they called it that. Personally, I don’t think that ANYONE knows why they called it Easter. People just see two words that Rhyme and think that they can conclude correctly that Rome wanted us to celebrate a goddess, rather than Jesus, when we ALL KNOW that Easter represents Jesus Resurrecting from the Dead, EVEN from a Catholic perspective, not Ishtar.
But there is FERTILITY on a spiritual side, if you see John 12:24 on the bringing of much fruit.
Ed Chapman
Eastre was a goddess the Anglo-Saxons worshipped. Known by many names in different cultures, including Isis, Astarte, Ashtoreth. The name Easter simply did not exist as a translation of pascha and is not translated that way in any of the other 28 times it occurs. I am not going to celebrate something named after a demon when there is a perfectly good, legitimate word that can be used. Each to their own.
I totally agree with this!!!
Many years ago – God commanded his people to “Cast down the high places”
The people of the OT did not fully obey that command
And the people of the NT have not either.
brdmod,
As I noted before, from Acts 15:
Acts 15:29
That ye abstain from meats offered to idols…
include the following as well:
21 For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day.
Then go to 1 Corinthians 8…the NT people have freedom that the Law of God of the OT did not allow, calling it an abomination, etc. You can eat the abominable bacon and lobster now, too.
Ed Chapman
Would you say, “Happy Baal day”, or “happy demon day”?
Or – lets go out and get ourselves a Baal bush and deck it with silver :-]
Some think that you just described a Chrismas Tree…but when actually reading all of scripture, a bust/statue is what is being discussed…or in your case…an idol.
Newsflash…Christmas Trees are not itdols…or a statue/bust…lol.
Ed Chapman
Provide evidence that Catholics, which PROFESSIONS such as yours proclaim that our CHURCH FATHERS came from, actually celebrated a fertility ritual.
Do you actually listen to CHURCH FATHERS on matters of Christianity given that you claim that they celebrate a fertility ritual? Seems kinda hypocritical and an oxymoron to me…right? But the truth is, you trust the CHURCH FATHERS in mulitiple aspects of Christianity…then condemn the CHURCH FATHERS for other things. Why listen to them at all in anything?????
Personally, I don’t care what you call it. The point is, we dont celebrate what you say we celebrate. Call it donkey day for all I care.
Ed Chapman
I don’t need to provide any such evidence, because that is not the point I am making. I am talking about what we call it. Names matter, whether you recognize that or not.
It doesn’t matter to me. What matters is the HEART, not the name of the day.
1 Corinthians 10:29
Conscience, I say, not thine own, but of the other: for why is my liberty judged of another man’s conscience?
Romans 14:5-6, 14, 22-23
5 One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.
6 He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it.
14 I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean.
22 Hast thou faith? have it to thyself before God. Happy is he that condemneth not himself in that thing which he alloweth.
23 And he that doubteth is damned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith: for whatsoever is not of faith is sin.
Ed
Provide evidence that Catholics…….
br,d
Catholic English historian, Theodore Maynard
-quote
“It has often been charged… that Catholicism has been overlaid with many pagan incrustations. Catholicism is ready to accept that charge – and to make it her boast.
The great god Pan is not really dead, he is baptized.” (The story of American Catholicism)
It is fairly well recorded that Catholics adoringly (how-be-it unwittingly) touch statues of Pan, Jupiter and the goddess Isis holding her child Tammuz – being told they are David, Peter, and Mary holding Jesus.
There are some ancient alters in which a cross is carved on one side and a symbol for Baal is carved on the other. It is believed that in some locations the priest who performed the Catholic mass also performed an earlier or later worship service for Baal and they simply turned the alter around for each service.
At that point in history – the Church fathers had long ago passed away.
br.d,
A couple things trouble me about your quotes here:
1. “It has often been charged…”
and
2. “It is believed that…”
From the following website:
https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=8399
br.d, This is a VERY interesting read…below is just an exerpt, but if your read the entirety of the story on this…there is NO WAY that I would take his word for ANYTHING. He is discredited.
Experpts:
“Maynard has been neglected since his death. When his old friend, the historian Robert F. McNamara wrote an article on Maynard for Moreana in 1973, he tellingly titled it, “Who Was Theodore Maynard?”1 Maynard is mentioned in books by William Halsey, Arnold Sparr, and Patrick Allitt.2 However, none of these scholars has examined Maynard’s historical work in detail or evaluated his contribution to the writing of United States Catholic history.”
…
“He was born in India to parents who were missionaries for the Plymouth Brethren. They sent him to school in England and expected him to follow them into the missionary field. However, Maynard broke with the Brethren and became a Baptist. After leaving school he found a job in London, where he read G. K. Chesterton’s Orthodoxy (1908). He claimed that that book was decisive in bringing him to Catholicism: “I was sliding at the age of nineteen from the Calvinist theology in which I had been brought up into a vague humanitarian scepticism, when I read Orthodoxy. And that work began in me a reaction which by the grace of God three years later carried me into the Catholic Church.”3 Chesterton offered Maynard an alternative to evangelicalism: he showed Maynard that faith could come through reason as well as through revelation and that a church could guide reason with an authoritative body of doctrine. These principles were the basis of Maynard’s understanding of Catholicism.
Maynard worked at odd jobs in the United States between 1909 and 1911. Returning to England on a cattle boat, he settled in London and took up Unitarianism, and made plans to enter the Unitarian seminary at Oxford….his last conversion: he was received into the Catholic Church just before Easter, 1913.”
NOTE:
He went from being a “Plymouth Brethren” to a Calvinist Baptist, read a book about Catholicism, but became a Unitarian, and later converted to Catholicism in 1913. He died in
…
Ed Chapman
Wikipedia on Theodore Maynard
-quote
during his lifetime he was best known and most influential as a historian of Roman Catholicism, especially in the United States.
I’m not going to make a war over this Ed
But anyone trying to convince himself that Catholicism does not historically have “many pagan incrustations” is probably not going to convince anyone other than himself.
I think its best to leave it at that.
br.d
I can only “leave it at that” when someone provides evidence that Catholics ACTUALLY celebrate a fertility ritual instead of the resurrection of Jesus. I see no evidence of that. Or that we celebrate demons on Halloween, or Solstice on December 25.
You can call it pagan incrustations, but I find that most who do that are those whose denominations are a result of the Catholic defections, aka Reformation. Therefore, you have a personal investment against certain things Catholic. I don’t consider myself in that category, as I am non-denom.
I’m not defending Catholicism at all. But I am stating that I don’t care if it’s called Easter/Ishtar, because we don’t celebrate a fertility god, because there is no such thing as a fertility god to begin with, even if you call her Ishtar. 1 Cor 8 tells us this in subtle words.
But as Romans 14 indicates, I can celebrate the resurrection of Jesus, and his birthday, and Halloween (as a means to score a 3 Musketeers bar), without any pagan worship (1 Cor 8).
Can you eat meat offered to pagan idols without worship of pagan idols? Of course you can. This is no different. And that’s my point.
Ed Chapman
Cmon Ed!!
You’ve created a straw-man
No one here claims Catholics **KNOWINGLY** celebrate a fertility ritual instead of the resurrection of Jesus!
But do they lovingly touch statues of Pan having been told it is young David the shepherd boy?
Do they lovingly kneel before statues of a mother and child – being told they are Mary with Jesus?
Yes they do.
Again – what we are talking about is “pagan incrustations”
Another body of evidence is with Augustine – the great Catholic theologian
There are many Augustinian scholars who in their examinations of his writings see him deriving a percentage of his theology from pagan sources.
One very well known source is the teacher whose name is Plotinus – known as the founder of Neo-Platonism. And Augustine is acknowledged as mixing NeoPlatonism into Catholic doctrine.
Here are two examples:
Augustine Manichaeism and the Good – by Dr. Kum Lun Lee
-quote
Augustine’s development of the idea of predestination reveals the Manichaean concept of the “Good” at work in three ways: on the framework of that development, in the implication of determinism, and on the context of the doctrine.
Augustine’s maturation of the concept of personal evil, which will have been shown to be of Manichaean influences, forces a change in the framework of the cosmic order that is reflective of the notion of hiddeness of the divine election.
Dr. Kenneth Wilson
-quote
Augustine himself singled out (Stoic) Providence as the one belief he never doubted throughout his diverse philosophical-religious journey (Comb-5,7; cf- Ord.2-12).
Like the Stoics, Plotinus (The founder of NeoPlatonism) attempts to convince us that the possibility of a contrary desire or alternative action need not be present for something to be voluntary, but is a product of “non-free free will” (Enn.6-8.3-4).
For these reasons, (and other persons familiar with Augustine’s writings) recognize Augustine was heavily influenced by the pagan deterministic writings of Plotinus, Porphyry, and Cicero.
—————————————————————————————————————————
Augustine thrives as an authority figure within the Roman Catholic system during a time which might be called its “Embryonic” phase.
Again – anyone who wants to convince himself that Catholicism is not historically plagued with “pagan incrustations” is probably not going to convince anyone except himself.
br.d,
Are they actually WORSHIPPING those things if they touch a statue? No, they are not.
No one in Catholicism worships David, Mary, Joseph, etc.
By kneeling, they are not worshipping Mary or Joseph, either. I think that they call it “veneration”, which is just another way of saying paying respects.
I remember the JW’s accusing non-JW’s of “worshipping” a cross, because Christians do wear a necklace with a cross on it.
Now, who do you know that actually “worships” a cross as if it’s God? I don’t know anyone who worships a cross…do you?
I do indeed believe that we have way too many Catholic bashers within protestantism, constantly accusing them of worshipping “idols”, when they kneel at a statue. It’s a false accusation. It is PERCEIVED as such, but it isn’t.
Do I believe that Catholics have STRANGE doctrines? Of course…but then again, I believe that Calvinism has strange doctrines, too.
Just to name a few…birth control…thinking that the book of James is discussing GOOD WORKS, as in CHARITY DRIVES that will score you points with Jesus, and Bingo Games on Friday’s…pergatory…divorce/remarraige, church discipline, COMMUNION (Which is actually a church banquet, not a ritual of grape juice and a cracker…and YOU participate in that ritual…do you not?), baptsim of BABIES, and I can go on and on and on about both Catholic and Protestant doctrines derived from Catholicism in which protestants have as baggage.
But to insinuate that Catholics are WORSHIPPING David just because they kneel at a statue…that, to me, is a bit too much. We Christians DO touch that cross on our necks when we pray…do we not? Is that a form of JEWELRY worship? Of course not. I think that it can get to the point where we can definately be way too overly dramatic in our criticisms of Catholicism.
And today is FERTILITY DAY! A day set aside to celebrate Jesus’ resurrection from the dead, not to worship a fertility god.
Let’s consider 1 Cor 8…please?
Ed Chapman
Ed
Are they actually WORSHIPPING those things if they touch a statue? No, they are not.
br.d
That depends on whether or not one classifies kneeling before an image of a person and praying to the person that statue is supposed to represent – a form of worship.
Would you kneel before a statue of Semiramis holding Tammuz – even if someone told you it was Mary and Jesus – and would you pray to Mary?
If not – why not?
br.d
You had said:
“br.d
That depends on whether or not one classifies kneeling before an image of a person and praying to the person that statue is supposed to represent – a form of worship.
Would you kneel before a statue of Semiramis holding Tammuz – even if someone told you it was Mary and Jesus – and would you pray to Mary?
If not – why not?”
My response:
No, I wouldn’t kneel. Why? My knees are bad/weak, and it’s hard for me to get back up again!!!!! LOL. That’s a true statement…but…
No, I would not kneeel before any statue, but I will not condemn those who do, because I KNOW that they are not worshipping those statues.
In regards to PRAYING TO THE DEAD MARY…they have NO IDEA that this is a form of necromancing…and so, to them, it’s NOT a sin.
Look, normal Christians talk to their dead mothers from time to time. I’m not going to knock those who do that.
But as I said about STRANGE CATHOLIC DOCTRINES, as well as STRANGE protestant doctrines…Catholics have a doctrine that Mary was SINLESS because she had to be as clean as a whislte to carry the sinless Jesus. That’s a DOCTRINE that I do not believe in. But I can also list a bunch of protestant doctrines that I don’t believe in as well. Just look at the doctrines of Baptists!!!!!
We have casino’s in my area about every ten miles or so. Do I gamble? YES! Is it a sin? Only to Baptists. I also drink alchohol. Is drinking alcohol a sin? Only to Baptists. I like White Russians. Is that racist? Oops, sorry, wrong blog…lol.
I eat pork and shellfish. Is that a sin? Only if your are a 7th Day Adventist or any of those “We Are Israel” groups who are fanatics about saying Yahweh. We so many denominations because none can agree on many facets of Christianity, and it’s no small contention, either. Catholics definately try to use that division as a weapon, too.
Ed Chapman
Ed
No, I would not kneel before any statue
br.d
I don’t remember you saying why not?
If you did say why not – can you remind me?
You are correct. I did not give a why not. Why? Because I do not have a “why not” mandate. I just don’t. But again, I will not knock, or condemn those who do, because I know that they are not worshipping a statue. But others think that they are. I don’t.
I believe that worshipping God is as John 4 states…in spirit, NOT RITUAL. It’s more that the “rituals” turn me off than anything else. And we know Catholics are about rituals.
But so are you if you participate in the “ritual” of “communion”. Where did you get the idea that communion is about a small cup of grape juice and a saltine cracker, and to evaluate yourself about being UNWORTHY? Did anyone read the whole chapter? Or do they take their que’s from the Catholics, and modify it to a protestant version?
Ed Chapman
I think I have a pretty good idea why not.
King Hezekiah broke in pieces the bronze serpent that Moses had made.
Why would he do that?
I’m going to re-refer you back to Acts 15 and 1 Cor 8 again for that answer. We can eat meat offered to idols IN THE TEMPLE of the idol, something that King Hezekiah was forbidden to do.
Ed Chapman
So if Hezekiah and the people in question were living in the NT dispensation – then what they were doing with the bronze serpent would be totally fine?
So, I will go over this again:
As I noted before, from Acts 15:
Acts 15:29
That ye abstain from meats offered to idols…
include the following as well:
21 For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day.
Then go to 1 Corinthians 8…the NT people have freedom that the Law of God of the OT did not allow.
Then in 1 Corinthians 8, we are told:
4 As concerning therefore the eating of those things that are offered in sacrifice unto idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is none other God but one.
7 Howbeit there is not in every man that knowledge: for some with conscience of the idol unto this hour eat it as a thing offered unto an idol; and their conscience being weak is defiled.
8 But meat commendeth us not to God: for neither, if we eat, are we the better; neither, if we eat not, are we the worse.
10 For if any man see thee which hast knowledge sit at meat in the idol’s temple, shall not the conscience of him which is weak be emboldened to eat those things which are offered to idols;
Ed Chapman
br.d
That doesn’t answer the question Ed
Is burning incense to a bronze serpent – even the one that Moses made – totally fine for either the OT or the NT age?
The answer is not that difficult.
John chapter 4, we worship God in spirit, not based on rules or regulations or statutes or laws. The Israelites did have rules of worship. They violated those rules. Based on the article link, the author did not think that they did anything wrong in the sense of worshipping am idol, but that they violated rules of worship. That they believed that what they were offering intense to was indeed Yahweh, not another god.
Again, I’m against any form of RITUALS. HOWEVER, I’m not going to knock those who have certain RITUALS.
So yes, it is fine in the NT, because it’s the heart that God judges, not the ritual.
We are not under the law of Moses, but it sure seems that no matter how much we know this, some do their best to be legalistic about the law of Moses, and in this case, the law of Moses specific rules of worship.
We don’t have those rules. And since we don’t, we are not punished for the manner of our worship, even in offering insense to Yahweh.
But I wouldn’t, because I don’t believe in RITUALS based on John 4.
If people wish to bash Catholics, base it on doctrines, rather that their RITUALS.
Ed Chapman
br.d,
You had mentioned Hezekiah here, about that Bronze Serpant that Moses made, which Hezekiah destroyed due to the Israelites burning insense to it.
That one really baffled me, I gotta admit, because of the reasoning that God told Moses to make it to begin with, and for the people to look at it, and those who did would be saved from death. In addition, even Jesus mentions that serpant, that Moses “lifted up”. It’s kind of a shadow (prophesy) of Jesus.
As the media always states, “This raises a lot of questions” (but they don’t research the answers…lol).
The following is a definate interesting read about this story:
https://amymantravadi.com/2018/11/16/why-hezekiah-destroyed-the-bronze-serpent-and-what-it-can-teach-us-about-worship/
It’s a long article, but it’s so worth the read, at least for me it was.
Ed Chapman
br.d
There is a difference in the relationship that God designed humans to have with himself – from the relationship that humans have with demon spirits.
The relationship between a human and demon spirit is essentially a bartering relationship.
You must give something to the spirits in order for the spirits to give something to you.
Whereas the relationship between a human and God is marked by trust of divine love.
When Elijah challenged the prophets of Baal – there is a marked difference in the way they go about getting what they want – from the way Elijah handles himself.
They began performing rituals, leaping and dancing and cutting themselves with knives, in order to incite the demon spirits to give them what they wanted. That is a bartering relationship.
You must give the demon spirit something that it wants – in order for the demon spirit to give you what you want.
When the children of Israel threw their first born babies into the fire of Molech – they were engaging in a bartering relationship with a spirit power. The sacrifice of their first born baby was supposed to represent a sufficient price to pay for the spirit power to give them what they wanted.
Elijah however – did not attempt to pay something to God.
He simply stood in faith and made a proclamation in faith because he trusted in divine love.
Balaam’s sin was that he tried to treat God as if God were a demon spirit that you must barter with.
King Saul follows the same pattern at Gilgal
He tries to barter with God by making a burnt offering – and in the process treats God as if he were a demon spirit who must be bartered with.
Samuel scolded him and told him you cannot barter with God – you are are acting like a witch
Witchcraft is essentially the performance of rituals which are essentially the act of bartering with demon spirits.
King Saul would continue to follow the same pattern and eventually seek a witch to get what he wanted.
The bronze serpent that Moses made – was an act of obedience – based on trust of divine love.
When the people of Israel started burning incest to that bronze serpent they were following the pattern of Balaam and King Saul and the priests of Baal. They were bartering with a spirit power.
Whether a person burns incense to either a bronze serpent or a statue of Mary is the same thing.
They are unwittingly involved in witchcraft. They are bartering with a spirit power.
The reason Hezekiah broke in pieces the bronze serpent – was to prevent the people from using it to perform acts of witchcraft.
What do you think the Catholic church would do – if they discovered the bronze serpent that Moses made? Do you think they would break in pieces to prevent people from burning incense to it?
Or would they mount in in a Cathedral somewhere – and have people put coins into a box in order to pay – be able to burn incense to it?
Bartering with spirit powers is witchcraft
Hence in Catholicism – that is how “pagan incrustations” manifest themselves
I take Catholics at their word that they are worshipping Jesus, not a demon. We are not under the law of Moses. Elijah was. Catholics are not conjuring up demons. Molech is a non-existant god. King Saul consulted a witch to conjur up the dead Samuel.
And again, you participate in the RITUAL of a Catholic origination of COMMUNION, for which there is no such thing if you read the chapter in context. It’s about a conduct at a church banquet, which is why it states that if you are that hungry, taking away from those who have nothing, eat at home.
But you participate in this ritual that came from the Catholics.
Ed Chapman
Ed,
I take Catholics at their word that they are worshipping Jesus, not a demon.
br.d
I’m sure if Hezekiah were a pastor or a priest alive today – he would take the people’s word when they told him they were worshiping God by burning incense to the bronze serpent that Moses made.
After all we are in the NT dispensation and no longer under the law of Moses.
So following in the pattern of Balaam, King Saul, and the priests of Baal is all fine an dandy.
Hezekiah – as a pastor or priest could setup a box for the people to put coins in.
Then they could pay for the opportunity to burn incense to the bronze serpent.
As long as Hezekiah is ok with it – there is no negative consequence.
Ok, so now I got this… The Jews did have a temple tax. They also had a census tax as well. We don’t.
God gave the commandments to his people as a loving school-master.
They were intended as a gift of love.
He gave them as principles of life.
He pleads with his people – to choose life.
People unwittingly turn the gifts which God gives them into legalism as a rejection of divine love.
A ministry of love and wisdom does not IMPOSE laws upon God’s people
He teaches them to understand the principle of divine love that is behind them.
The law was given as a loving schoolmaster
And the process of maturity is to grow up into the measure of the stature of Christ into the LIBERTY of the sons of god.
But it is just as much an act of self-ensnarement to use that LIBERTY as just one more way to reject divine love.
I totally disagree with this. Romans 5:20
The Law was given to INCREASE SIN.
Also, Abraham is the key, and Romans 4 explains why.
Also, 1 Cor 15:56, the strength of sin is the law.
We are sons of Abraham, not of Jacob or Moses.
The gentiles were never given the law.
The Law was a means to EARN righteousness.
Abraham shows that righteousness is obtained by faith without the law.
We are judged based on what we know, not what we don’t know.
Hence the name of the Tree in the garden…knowledge.
Romans 7 explains.
Romans 2 explains that there is a difference between the law of God written on scrolls vs the law of God written on our heart. NATURAL.
Did Abraham need a law telling him not to steal?
He had no law.
In Deu, God tells the israelites that the children who have no knowledge of good and evil will inherent the land God promised, and that’s why they wondered for 40 years, waiting for the generation before the children to die off.
It’s either faith, or law, not both. Which do you choose?
Ed Chapman
Ed
I totally disagree with this. Romans 5:20
The Law was given to INCREASE SIN.
br.d
Cmon Ed – you are smarter than that!
The law was not given to *MAKE* people sin
The law was given to shine a flashlight on sin
What is INCREASED is the visibility of sin – not sin itself
Ed
It’s either faith, or law, not both. Which do you choose?
br.d
If you walk in the spirit – you shall not fulfill the lusts of the FLESH.
There are two primary forms of FLESH
1) Lascivious Flesh
2) Religious Flesh
The drunkard walks in lascivious flesh
The pharisee walks in religious flesh
Both of these however are FLESH – which is antagonistic to the Holy Spirit.
Jesus healing on the Sabbath – antagonized religious flesh.
Jesus cleansing the Temple – antagonized religious flesh.
Religious flesh will always persecute those who walk in the Spirit – because it is born after the FLESH.
But as then he that was born after the FLESH persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now.
However:
The gentiles can “do by nature those things contained within the law”
The nature the believer wants to walk in – is a nature that is *SENSITIVE* to the Holy Spirit – such that we do not grieve the Holy Spirit.
In order to not grieve the Holy Spirit – we need to be *SENSITIVE* to the Holy Spirit.
But solid food belongs to those who are of *FULL AGE*, even those who *BECAUSE OF USE HAVE THEIR SENSES* exercised to discern both good and evil.
But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in *NEWNESS OF SPIRIT*, and not in the oldness of the letter.
CONCLUSION:
The Holy Spirit is not going to be in conflict with the law.
IF we walk in the Spirit – we will be in conflict with the law either.
The focus is not to walk in the law – because that is simply religious flesh
And religious flesh is antagonistic to the Spirit.
The focus is to walk in the Spirit.
ON CATHOLICISM:
But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, *AS THE HEATHEN DO* for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking.
Teaching people to perform rituals is not only religious flesh – it is *HEATHEN* flesh.
It is a form of witchcraft – which is demonic religious flesh.
If we love Catholics with God’s love – then we want better for them.
King Saul consulted Samuel because God wasn’t responding to him, and he needed advice. But, if you also see what Samuel told him, he said that Saul would be with him (Samuel). So did King Saul go to Hell, or to Abraham’s bosom?
Or, as the 7th Day Adventists claim, was this Samuel a demon that the witch of Endor conjured up?
Ed Chapman
I’m at work now, in a location that internet sucks. I can’t get your last comment on the WordPress app, but did in my email. So this is responding to that…
Hezekiah was under the law of Moses. Read the article I sent this morning, where the author didn’t think that they were worshipping an idol, but that they weren’t following RULES of worshipping. We are not under the law, we don’t have rules. But you wish to abide by rules. Ughhh.
Ed Chapman
Ed
But you wish to abide by rules. Ughhh.
br.d
No I wish to abide in the relationship that God designed for humans to have with himself.
And I think you wish that very same thing for yourself.
The relationship that humans have with spirit powers is a distorted counterfeit and an ensnarement.
And I believe you have a loving heart for people.
And that you would wish that the Catholic people would not be mislead by religious leaders who lead them into an unwitting relationship with spirit powers – whereby they treat God as if he were a demon spirit who must be bartered with – and in the process become entrapped in a distorted counterfeit.
And I believe out of love for the Catholic people – you would wish better for them than that.
God judges the heart. Keep that in mind. I may not like how the Catholics do things, but I’m not their judge. God judges their secrets in their minds. Romans 2:14-16.
The human conception of God’s judgement has also been distorted by the serpent in the garden.
Divine judgment is also predicated on divine love.
He does not judge in order to have random opportunities to punish people.
He judges because he yearns for people to choose life.
Following that model – we don’t use divine judgement as an opportunity to position ourselves morally over Catholics or anyone else.
We desire the Catholic to have a relationship with God – whereby they walk in the LIBERTY God has designed for them to have.
But if Hezekiah – the pastor or priest – sets up a bronze serpent for the people to burn incense to – he is not “Waring against principalities and powers” . He is collaborating with them.
And in the process he is leading the people into a distorted relationship with God – in which they are treating God as if he were a demon spirit to be bartered with. He is leading those people into bondage.
People can follow religious leaders the same way they can follow King Saul to their slaughter.
Hezekiah broke in pieces the bronze serpent that Moses made – out of God’s love for his people.
Based on my understanding, the Jews have judgment in the here and now. Romans 4:15. There are many reasons, but the purpose that sticks out to me the most, is to tell a story of the spiritual.
For gentiles, God judges the heart, and you can’t get around that. For the deeds of the law shall no man be justified.
Sure – but that makes no difference in what I’ve posted
Oh, and King Saul didn’t go to hell. What did Samuel tell him?
Ed
Oh, and King Saul didn’t go to hell. What did Samuel tell him?
br.d
The critical question is:
Was he dabbling with a form of witchcraft or not?
What did Samuel tell him about that?
He was. But what was the end result. He’ll, or Abraham’s bosom? But more importantly… why?
br.d
Ok so he was involved in a form of witch-craft.
And one of the consequences of that practice – was being afflicted by tormenting spirits during his reign as king.
The Catholic who is taught to unwittingly dabble in witchcraft – being taught it is the way to approach God – is going to face consequences for that practice because one does not play games with demons – (even without knowing it) and come out unscathed.
Whether King Saul – or a Catholic – ends up in Abraham’s bosom – or heaven – is determined by meeting the conditions which God sets.
And God has set other conditions concerning our relationship with demon spirits.
Witches and Warlocks are seduced into dabbling with spirits – because they are deceived into believing they can control the demon spirit – rather than the demon controlling them.
So deception is the way demons work – and the way demons gain ground in a person’s life.
Whether that person is a Witch or a Catholic – the spiritual principles are the same.
It is a relationship with the demonic world – and the consequences are some degree of bondage.
So if we love Catholics with God’s love – then we want LIBERTY for them – rather than bondage.
Whooh, whoooh, wait a minute now…
King Saul did NOT dabble in witchcraft. HE consulted a witch. HUGE DIFFERENCE. The witch dabbled in witchcraft. King Saul could not conjur up the dead Samuel. If he could, then you can accuse him of dabbling in witchcraft.
And I totally, and completely disagree with your “unwittingly” statements about the Catholics.
We can find fault in EVERY SINGLE CHURCH around the world, if you want to go down that rabbit trail. There is NO PERFECT church that has it right. None. Why do you think we argue with them all. The problem is, every one of those church’s thinks that thier church is the correct church with the correct doctrines, and all others have heresy.
And, if you stick around long enough, and I’m sure you have, each one of them states a similar, “You have to believe this and that and this and that and this and that, or you are going to hell”.
Very few acknowledge that church “B” is going to heaven.
Again, King Saul did not dabble in witchcraft. He needed to talk to Samuel, and he consulted a witch. The witch was afraid to do it, because she was forbidden by KING SAUL…she had no clue that he was King Saul who was asking. Once she did…she abliged.
And we know that Samuel was Samuel, not a demon. And in the end, Samuel did NOT go to hell, but to Abraham’s bosom to be WITH SAMUEL…because that’s what Samuel said to him, noting his death the next day.
I’ll get to your other comments sometime tomorrow morning or evening. Gonna be busy tomorrow working.
Ed Chapman
Ed
King Saul did NOT dabble in witchcraft…….
br.d
You are not getting the principle that scripture reveals:
– Israelite parents threw their first born babies into the fire of Molech – as an act of *BARTERING*
– The priests of Baal went leaping and dancing and cutting themselves – as an act of *BARTERING*
– Israel made burnt offerings to the bronze serpent that Moses made – as an act of *BARTERING*
– Sacrifices to pagan gods are all acts of *BARTERING*
– The sin of Balaam was his attempt to *BARTER* with God.
The *ESSENCE* Witchcraft – which is the performance of rituals and verbal sayings – is an attempt to *BARTER* with a spirit.
So any time a person uses a ritual to get something from God – they are attempting to *BARTER* with God. And in the process – they are treating God as if he were a demon spirit who will give you what you want if you PAY him something. And there is a price to pay for that sin.
Isaiah 66:3A
He that killeth an ox is as if he slew a man; he that sacrificeth a lamb, as if he cut off a dog’s neck;
The cutting off of a dog’s neck was an EGYPTIAN sacrifice to an EGYPTIAN demonic deity.
So God is saying – your sacrifices follow the pattern of *BARTERING* with a demon.
Isaiah 66:3B
He that offereth an oblation, as if he offered swine’s blood; he that burneth incense, as if he blessed an idol.
Matthew 6:7
But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, *AS THE HEATHEN DO* for they think that they shall be heard for their *MUCH SPEAKING*.
Ed – are you getting the picture yet???
NOW concerning King Saul:
1st Samuel
-quote
And Saul said, Bring hither a burnt offering to me, and peace offerings. And he offered the burnt offering.
King Saul was trying to *BARTER* with God.
Bartering with a spirit – is the ESSENCE of Witchcraft
That is why King Saul would later have tormenting spirits afflicting him.
Saul unwittingly tried to treat God like he was a demon spirit – and that gave demon spirits ground to afflict him.
He did not learn from his sin at Gilgal however.
He kept on doing the same thing – and eventually went to see a Witch.
In Gilgal – he had attempted to PAY God to give him what he wanted
After attempting to PAY God for what he wanted – he did not learn from that sin and eventually went to PAY a witch for what he wanted
The sin of Balaam was manifested early in King Saul’s reign – and continued until his death.
br.d,
Yes, I get your point. But each and every one of those Israelites were under the Law of Moses (The law of sin and DEATH).
For all have sinned. But we are not under the law.
Unwittingly, you keep referring to the law of Moses, and keep hammering on repetitions of prayer.
And that is what brings me to say that I can find fault in every church known to man, regarding procedures that Jesus talked about. In this case, you have a problem with prayer repetitions. I have a problem with those who misinterpret Matthew 18, thinking that it’s a form of Church Discipline, or the thought that communion is a doctrine in the bible, or that remarraige after a divorce is forbidden, and I can go on and on about stupid things that church’s do…not just repetitions of prayer.
It’s not a sin to do repetitions of prayer. What is the intent of those who do?
Matthew 6:7
for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking.
Basically, Jesus is saying that “Hey, I heard you the first time!”.
So, they pray to Mary…do I think that is wrong? Of course I do. But do I think that they are praying to an evil spirit? Of course NOT.
I think it’s a prayer that NO ONE hears. NO ONE. They think Mary, as being the mother of God (in the flesh) as already being in a glorified resurrected body, because she is supposedly sinless for carrying Jesus in her womb, and they are afraid to boldly approach God, so they ask Mary to ask in their behalf.
Their intent is NOT EVIL, and with that, you think that they UNWITTINGLY invite evil spirits. I don’t.
1 John 3:4
for sin is the transgression of the law.
We are not under the law.
There is only one God. Those idols are nothing. They don’t exist. 1 Cor 8 tells us this:
Verse 4
4 …we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is none other God but one.
I’ve read some Jewish stories that Abraham’s father was a merchant who sold idols. And there was a moment that his father would be out of town for a few days, and he had Abraham tend the shop while he was gone. When a customer would buy an idol, Abraham would ask the customer how old he was.
He’d say like, “50”, and Abraham would then say, “You are 50 years old, and you want to buy an idol that is only a few days old?”
Eventually, Abraham destroyed all the idols in the shop before his father returned, except for the biggest one, and put a big stick on the idol to indicate that it was the biggest one who destroyed all the others.
In any case, for sin to be imputed, it must first be KNOWN to be a sin. In other words…INTENT OF THE HEART, motive. Abraham was married to his sister…a sin. But he didn’t know it to be a sin, and God didn’t tell him.
Mark 7:20-22
20 And he said, That which cometh out of the man, that defileth the man.
21 For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders,
22 Thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness:
What is the INTENT of the Catholics? What witch are they consulting? Who are they conjuring up from the dead? Who has a familiar spirit? Who is the wizard?
What is the REQUIREMENT to be a Christian?
1. Believe that there is an afterlife.
2. Believe that Jesus is the way for that afterlife
3. Live out that belief.
2 without 3 is dead (James 2:26).
That’s it.
Acts 15:28
For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things;
But people wish to add rules and regulations to “be saved” or to worship God.
Colosians 2:
20 Wherefore if ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why, as though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances,
21 (Touch not; taste not; handle not;
22 Which all are to perish with the using;) after the commandments and doctrines of men?
23 Which things have indeed a shew of wisdom in will worship, and humility, and neglecting of the body: not in any honour to the satisfying of the flesh.
Romans 2:14-16
14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:
15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;)
16 In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.
The intent of the heart!
Now, regarding King Saul…I’ve never read that bartering with God was a sin. Didn’t Abraham do that with God, regarding a designated number of righteous in Sodom and Gamorah?
Saul kept disobeying God for other issues, and God left him, wouldn’t answer his prayers, etc., etc. And that’s why he went to a witch, to inquire of Samuel as to what to do.
1 Samuel 15:
23 For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry. Because thou hast rejected the word of the Lord, he hath also rejected thee from being king.
We are all guilty of rebellian and stubbornnes.
But what was the JUDGMENT of Saul? Eternal torment in hell? No.
1 Chronicles 10:13
So Saul died for his transgression which he committed against the Lord, even against the word of the Lord, which he kept not, and also for asking counsel of one that had a familiar spirit, to enquire of it;
1 Samuel 28:19
19 Moreover the Lord will also deliver Israel with thee into the hand of the Philistines: and to morrow shalt thou and thy sons be with me: the Lord also shall deliver the host of Israel into the hand of the Philistines.
Ed Chapman
Ed
Yes, I get your point. But each and every one of those Israelites were under the Law of Moses (The law of sin and DEATH). For all have sinned. But we are not under the law.
br.d
If we say that we have fellowship with God, but we walk in darkness, we lie, and do not the truth
But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.
It is not the removal of the law that cleanseth us from sin. The blood of Jesus Christ cleanseth us from sin.
If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.
But if we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
When people are taught to pray to Mary or to burn incense to Mary – they are being taught to dabble with the spirit world. They are in fact unwittingly dabbling in a form of witchcraft. They are unwittingly dabbling with demon spirits. And that gives ground for demon spirits to gain influence in their lives.
King Hezekiah understood that principle.
He understood what the people were doing with the bronze serpent – was dabbling with the spirit world. He understood the consequence of people dabbling with the spirit world. That is why he broke in pieces the bronze serpent which Moses made. By doing that – he was warring against principalities and powers.
The leaders of the Catholic church are not warring against principalities and powers. They are collaborating with principalities and powers – by dabbling in the spirit world and teaching people to dabble with the spirit world. They are teaching people to sin. And there is consequence to that sin.
If we say the leaders of the Catholic church are not leading people into sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.
But if Catholics learn what they are doing dabbling with spirits – and they learn that that is sin – and they confess that sin, the Lord is faithful and just to forgive their sin, and to cleanse them from all unrighteousness.
As long as they continue to unwittingly dabble with the spirit world – they remain vulnerable to demon spirits.
If we love Catholics with the love of God – we want better for them.
OK, br.d,
I am home now.
Just going to respond “quickly” to your last segment where you said:
“As long as they continue to unwittingly dabble with the spirit world – they remain vulnerable to demon spirits. ”
I will finish the rest of your comment after I do this, but it’s gonna take a little while tonight.
So, my response to that portion, however, is that I do NOT BELIEVE that they dabble in the spirit world, let alone “unwittingly”
My aunt and uncle were Catholics, and I can assure you, that they didn’t walk in darkness.
I can’t believe that you look at an elderly couple, being Catholic, and determine that they “unwittingly” dabble in the spirit world. That is so to accuse them of that.
Ed Chapman
No problem Ed
You don’t see praying to Mary and burning incense to Mary – and praying repetitions which Jesus tells us is a HEATHEN practice – as akin to burning incense to the bronze serpent that Moses made – and as a form of *BARTERING* following the pattern of Balaam and King Saul.
That’s fine
Perhaps some day you’ll change your mind. ;-]
That’s right…I don’t see anything wrong with it.
I think that for accusing Cathollics of repetition prayers, they would have a DEFENSE in that what you say is NOT TRUE.
Do you really think that they don’t know that verse?
And in regards to incense…is Mary God?
And in regards to BARTERING? I’ve NEVER SEEN anything in the bible that suggested that bartering was wrong to begin with…since Abraham bartered.
Saul didn’t barter. He disobeyed. For example, God told him to kill everyone and everything in a certain city…he kept some alive. Samuel was PI…I mean, very upset with King Saul for not obeying God.
I have no idea how you think that Saul bartered, when I don’t see it, but not only that, bartering is not a sin.
In the days of Hezekiah, they didn’t follow the RULES for worship, they were not worshipping an idol.
Your accusations, I think, are misplaced.
Ed Chapman
Ed
And in regards to incense…is Mary God?
br.d
Was the bronze serpent that Moses made God?
If there is no spiritual consequence for people to burn incense to Mary – then there would be no spiritual consequence for people to burn incense to the bronze serpent that Moses made.
And King Hezekiah broke it into pieces for nothing.
And there was no spiritual consequence for King Saul’s offering at Gigal
And there was no spiritual consequence for Balaams offerings
The Catholics are NOT burning incense FOR a bartering tool, or as a prayer. They are burning insense for the purpose of:
Light a Candle, Burn Sweet Incense and Contemplate Emulating Mary. “Let, then, the life of Mary be as it were virginity itself, set forth in a likeness, from which, as from a mirror, the appearance of chastity and the form of virtue is reflected. From this you may take your pattern of life, showing, as an example, the clear rules of virtue: what you have to correct, to effect, and to hold fast.
Ed Chapman
From what I’ve gathered, I see no indication that the bible even discusses the spiritual consequences of the “sons of Israel” burning incense to the bronze serpant that Moses made. It only states that Hezekia destroyed it.
But in regards to King Saul…I already showed you what his punishment was…His kingdom was taken from him, he died, and went to Abrahams bosom.
And that’s why I keep asking you, WHY did he go to Abraham’s bosom with all the evil that he did? But you seem to bypass that question of mine several times now.
Ed Chapman
BTW:
Where does it say King Saul ended up in Abraham’s bosom?
Dude, what do you think I’ve been discussing the last few days? I showed you.
First of all, WHERE DID SAMUEL GO WHEN HE DIED? Logic alone tells you that he went to Abraham’s bosom, right? That’s Samuel. Now to Saul…
Verse 19 below tells you that Saul, and his sons, will be with Samuel the following day (after they die).
That’s how I know Saul went to Abraham’s bosom.
Unless, of course, you believe the 7th Day Adventists claim that the witch brougt up a demon, not Samuel…but the Bible states 3 times in this story:
“AND SAMUEL SAID…” (Not a demon pretending to be Samuel).
1 Samuel 28:15, 18-19
And Samuel said to Saul, Why hast thou disquieted me, to bring me up? And Saul answered, I am sore distressed; for the Philistines make war against me, and God is departed from me, and answereth me no more, neither by prophets, nor by dreams: therefore I have called thee, that thou mayest make known unto me what I shall do.
18 Because thou obeyedst not the voice of the Lord, nor executedst his fierce wrath upon Amalek, therefore hath the Lord done this thing unto thee this day.
19 Moreover the Lord will also deliver Israel with thee into the hand of the Philistines: and to morrow shalt thou and thy sons be with me: the Lord also shall deliver the host of Israel into the hand of the Philistines.
Ed
First of all, WHERE DID SAMUEL GO WHEN HE DIED?
br.d
I don’t reach conclusions based on conjecture or guessing.
Where does the scripture say Samuel was – when he told Saul – today you will be with me?
OMG, you’ve got to be kidding me? Really? If you don’t have a conclusion of Samuel, then I don’t know what to tell you.
Ed,
If you don’t have a conclusion of Samuel, then I don’t know what to tell you.
br.d
What we need here is what scripture specifically says.
What does the scripture specifically state on this subject of where Samuel was – when he said to Saul “Today you will be with me”?
Just like the JW’s tell us that Jesus never explicitely said that he is God! You have to look for it. Seek, and ye shall find.
Luke 16 is a GREAT place to look to start.
And that is JUST A START. That’s not the end-all-be-all explanation. You will see things like GATHERED TO HIS PEOPLE, when people die, you will see in the epistle of Peter where Jesus “preached to the spirits” of those who were in the flood, and in that same area, it states that Jesus died for them (The UNGODLY), too.
And the term SET THE CAPTIVES FREE, after Jesus died.
No one could go to heaven when they died, because Jesus didn’t pay the price for sin yet, including the sin of Adam and Eve.
So, where would they go?
Ed Chapman
Ed,
Just like the JW’s tell us that Jesus never explicitely said that he is God! You have to look for it.
br.d
That is silly!
Jesus expressly said “Before Abraham was I AM”
And the people instantly knew what that meant because they wanted to stone him.
Jesus asked: “For which of my good works do you want to stone me?”
They replied: “Not for a good work – but for blasphemy – because you make yourself God”
So there is no conjecture or guessing needed on the subject of who Jesus is.
Its obvious we don’t have a scripture that states Samuel was in Abraham’s bosom.
And we don’t have a scripture that states Mary’s conception was immaculate or Mary was without sin or that we are instructed to pray to Mary or burn incense to her.
The people of the Catholic church today are taught those things – for the same reason in Paul’s day – the people of Ephesus were taught to pray to Diana of the Ephesians.
If you remember – the ones who were upset about people not praying to Diana of the Ephesians in Paul’s day – were the merchants and craftsman who made money out of that religious practice.
Isn’t it interesting what role money plays! ;-]
Regarding Jesus saying Before Abraham was, I Am, the Jw’s states that he never said “Before Abraham was, I am God”. They don’t take this as the Exodus introduction to Moses. They think that Jesus is created. There is a verse in revelation that states something like Jesus being the first of God’s creation ( Rev 3:14, Col 1:15). They think the Jews misunderstood what Jesus was saying. Besides, they don’t take the words “Son of God” as meaning “God”, because Adam was a son of God, and we are sons of God.
But Jesus himself never explicitly said, I am God… the Jews understood that’s what he said.
But as far as samuel goes… just take a guess… in your guestimation, where do you THINK he is right now? Use your conjecture, please.
Now, regarding Mary…I agree with you… and this is a DOCTRINE to correct them on. But I don’t see this being demonic… just plain ignorance.
Ed
Even if a person is not knowingly worshipping demons, if they unwittingly open the door to them, demons will take full advantage. Ignorance does not protect us.
I disagree. First, I don’t believe they are worshipping demons, unwittingly or wittingly. And, 1 cor 8 tells us that idols are nothing. And…Acts 17:30…Mars Hill. Ignorance God WINKS at.
Why do you suppose Paul warned about the devil masquerading as an angel of light?
Pastor Loz,
As James White would always say…”What’s the exe-JESUS?
False Apostles, false teachers, etc.
2 Cor 11:
13 For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ.
14 And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.
15 Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works.
A few verses really stick out to me in that chapter of this subject:
3 But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.
4 For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him.
SIMPLICITY – or as some would say KISS (Keep it simple…).
Preaching Another Jesus is something else that I note.
But wait, that’s not all…if you order now…
17 That which I speak, I speak it not after the Lord, but as it were foolishly, in this confidence of boasting.
18 Seeing that many glory after the flesh, I will glory also.
19 For ye suffer fools gladly, seeing ye yourselves are wise.
20 For ye suffer, if a man bring you into bondage, if a man devour you, if a man take of you, if a man exalt himself, if a man smite you on the face.
21 I speak as concerning reproach, as though we had been weak. Howbeit whereinsoever any is bold, (I speak foolishly,) I am bold also.
NOTE VERSES 19-20. Oh, and also notice the word SUFFER, as in SUFFER THE LITTLE CHILDREN. It’s not the same suffer as we think today. It’s more in line with the word PERMIT, ALLOW.
People are permitting teachers to BRING THEM INTO BONDAGE (SOUNDS LIKE WORKS TO ME), and treat them badly (sounds like CHURCH DISCIPLINE TO ME), exalting himself (Sounds like JMac to me, and others).
This Angel of light thing can be attributed to MANY church’s.
And since I’m on the subject of Paul BOASTING here, beginning in verse 17…note that the conversation does not end with Chapter 11, but continues thru 12.
The Thorn in Paul’s side…he wanted to boast that it was him that was the subject of “I knew a man in Christ” of Chapter 12, but he refrained from that boasting. OH, BUT HE WANTED TO. Badly.
At least, that’s my take on the Thorn in Paul’s side.
My point…Satan transforming himself into an angel of light has nothing to do with the Catholics VENERATING Mary in the context in which it was written.
Ed Chapman
He who plays with fire – is liable to get burnt!
Dabbling with a Ouija Board would be one example.
Ahhhh…but those dabbling with a ouji board generally KNOWS what they are doing, and KNOWS that it goes against Christianity already.
We have the famous Salem Witch Trials that proves that witches knows Christians do not allow such things.
Ed
Ahhhh…but those dabbling with a ouji board generally KNOWS what they are doing, and KNOWS that it goes against Christianity already. We have the famous Salem Witch Trials that proves that witches knows Christians do not allow such things.
br.d
That is a good one! ;-D
But Jesus is fully God and fully man! To deny this is to deny the incarnation of God who is to be worshipped as God! Like Thomas, I also proclaim to Jesus – “My Lord and My God!”
Amen to that! There is a Filipino church called Iglesia night Christo that has similar beliefs as the JW’S about Jesus. They quote the verse that states, “God is not a man that he should lie” to prove that the Bible states that God is not a man, but Jesus was a man. I sarcastically countered them with the verse that states that “God is a man of war…”. Knowing that both references have nothing to do with proving Jesus as both man and God. I just wanted to show that their reference proves nothing regarding the deity of Jesus.
Yes, that statement by Thomas is huge. It’s also interesting the word LORD.
Hear o Israel the Lord our God is one Lord.
Compare the Hebrew and then the Greek regarding this.
There is no Greek for Yahweh, so the word Lord is used.
So, for anyone who states that the KJV erroneously replaced the word Yahweh with the word LORD… well… who penned the Greek equivalent? KJV translators had nothing to do with it.
There is a lot of ways to prove Jesus is God. But it took me to study my adversary to find these nuggets.
Ed
Brian,
When I asked who penned the Greek of:
Deu 6:4
Hear, H8085 O Israel: H3478 The LORD H3068 our God H430 is one H259 LORD: H3068
Mark 12:29
…Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord:
Looks like Mark did!
—————————
Yahweh:
Hebrew
Yahweh our Elohim is one Yahweh.
Lord:
Greek
kyrios our theos is one kyrios
—————————-
And, last I remember, there is only ONE LORD:
Jesus is Lord!!
So, since Mark translated Yahweh as Lord, why do people blame the KJV translators, or others that do the same?
Anyway, that was for the JW’s, but I just wanted to share.
Ed Chapman
Hello Ed,
The Gospel story indicates that when the Temple veil was rent – graves were opened – and many bodies of the saints which slept – arose out of those graves.
There we have a clear indicator of where those people were.
They are in graves.
Samuel was buried somewhere in a grave where he slept.
When he spoke to Saul – he had been brought out of sleep and out of that grave.
On Jesus saying “I AM” –
if you were to take a college course on hermeneutics they would tell you – the fact that the Jewish people understood Jesus’ was declaring himself to be God – and they said so – tells us that is what the author of the text also meant by Jesus’ words.
The JWs of course won’t follow proper hermeneutics on that issue because it contradicts their agenda.
Oh, boy…dude, we definately do not agree with that logic.
You actually refer to the word SLEEP as we know it to be, like sleeping sleeping, with snoring and all that? Unconsciousness?
No, I don’t agree with that at all.
You didn’t read Luke 16 yet? Seems like one of those folks was in DIRE PAIN and thirst, and another spoke to him…not sleeping.
Ed Chapman
The veil is rent:
καὶ πολλὰ σώματα τῶν *****κεκοιμημένων*****
And many bodies of those who had fallen asleep
Jesus is talking with his disciples:
Λάζαρος ἡμῶν φίλος *****κεκοίμηται*****
Lazarus our friend is asleep
Get the picture???
I know those verses very well, and no, I don’t get the picture you are painting.
I do not believe in “soul sleep”. I believe that you are very conscious when you die.
In Luke 16, the dude in torment wanted to be able to come back to WARN OTHERS, but Abraham told him that they have MOSES (THE LAW OF). In other words, they’ve already been warned thru the law.
19 There was a certain rich man, which was clothed in purple and fine linen, and fared sumptuously every day:
20 And there was a certain beggar named Lazarus, which was laid at his gate, full of sores,
21 And desiring to be fed with the crumbs which fell from the rich man’s table: moreover the dogs came and licked his sores.
22 And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham’s bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried;
23 And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.
24 And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.
25 But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented.
26 And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence.
27 Then he said, I pray thee therefore, father, that thou wouldest send him to my father’s house:
28 For I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torment.
29 Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.
30 And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent.
31 And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.
Ed
no, I don’t get the picture you are painting.
br.d
Well – I presented the verses.
And the Greek word translated as “sleep” – which shows common use of the word in that culture and time.
So I brought the water to the horse.
But the horse doesn’t have to drink if he doesn’t want to :-]
Ed
I do not believe in “soul sleep”.
I believe that you are very conscious when you die.
br.d
Well – perhaps you’ll enjoy sharing jokes with Groucho Marx – if you end up in a seat next to him on Abraham’s bosom.
But if I were Abraham I don’t think I would be comfortable with all those people sitting on my bosom
;-D
Ephesians 4:8
Wherefore he saith, When he ascended up on high, he led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men.
Abraham’s Bosom does not exist anymore.
The location of this place was in the “heart of the earth”. Heart, in this case, is defined as “core”. An apple core is in the middle of the apple. The core of the earth is a LONG WAYS DOWN.
The reason that this place was occupied was because Jesus had not died on the cross yet, which is the meaning behind the above Ephesians 4:8 verse.
After that, the place does not exist anymore. But the place for the RICH MAN still does. He’s still thirsty and in torments.
Why use the term “Abraham’s Bosom”?
Bosom is an idiom used to denote comfort. Abraham is the FATHER of the faith. Sleep is an idiom, as well, to denote REST, and REST can also be used to denote Sabbath.
Hebrews 4:
3 For we which have believed do enter into rest, as he said, As I have sworn in my wrath, if they shall enter into my rest: although the works were finished from the foundation of the world.
4 For he spake in a certain place of the seventh day on this wise, And God did rest the seventh day from all his works.
5 And in this place again, If they shall enter into my rest.
6 Seeing therefore it remaineth that some must enter therein, and they to whom it was first preached entered not in because of unbelief:
7 Again, he limiteth a certain day, saying in David, To day, after so long a time; as it is said, To day if ye will hear his voice, harden not your hearts.
8 For if Jesus had given them rest, then would he not afterward have spoken of another day.
9 There remaineth therefore a rest to the people of God.
10 For he that is entered into his rest, he also hath ceased from his own works, as God did from his.
11 Let us labour therefore to enter into that rest, lest any man fall after the same example of unbelief.
Ed Chapman
The JW’s are not worried about hermanuetics (however that’s spelled), as they’ve got their own translation of the Bible. They created their own hermanuetics.
So, was Jesus SLEEPING in his “grave”?
br.d,
Sounds like you adhere to the doctrine of “soul sleep”, that once you die, the next conscious thought is the resurrection. Unless, of course, a witch conjurs you up.
Ed
Ed
Sounds like you adhere to the doctrine of “soul sleep”
br.d
Nothing I get into
I suppose people imagine all sorts of things don’t they ;-]
I couldn’t help it. You were emphatic on the word “sleep”. I’d like to know what your view on the death (sleep) of Jesus. What was he doing for 3 days and 3 nights?
One of the things he was doing during his “sleep” was:
1 Peter 3:18-20
King James Version
18 For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:
19 By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison;
20 Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.
How could he preach to those people if they were “sleeping”, in the sense that you use it?
We beleive that Jesus went to HELL FIRE to defeat Satan. When Jesus took our sins, that means the he had to be PUNISHED for our sins.
Being put on the cross is NOT spiritual judgment.
Hebrews 9:27
And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:
judgment comes after death.
Jonah Chapter 2 SPIRITUALLY describes what Jesus went thru…but most think it’s only about Jonah…LOLOLOLOLOL.
But 2 other references shows what Jesus went thru as well.
Read AND compare 2 Samuel 22:4-51 with Psalms 18:3-50. You gotta read it SPIRITUALLY as prophesy of Jesus, not as a ROSES ARE RED VIOLETS ARE BLUE poetry. But you will see similar words as what Jonah 2 describes.
Sleep is an idiom, not a state.
The JW’s wish to refrerence Ecclesiastes 9:5, the dead know nothing.
But, when you determine that the whole book of Ecclesiastes is discussing the “HERE AND NOW”, or CARNAL or “UNDER THE SUN” or THIS LIFE, then you might see that what Ecclesiastes is discussing is a CORPS, a dead body.
If you see a dead man laying on the street, and you ask a dead body a question, the corps will not answer. The dead know nothing.
The only place SPIRITUALLY known as “THE GRAVE”, and the word DEAD, is hell fire, because IN HEAVEN there is no death.
But carnally, everyone goes to the grave on earth.
I spent 6 years of my life studying the JW’s and 7th Day Adventists…and it took me a long while to debunk their doctrine of soul sleep.
I had a 7th Day Adventist tell me, “Dead means dead”, and I responded, “Well, I’m glad that we finally got that settled, now what does dead mean?”
Ed Chapman
This appears to be a really big issue of you
Perhaps you are bored?
For me – the fact that Jesus was did what he did after his body was crucified does not correlate to normal people – because normal people cannot truthfully say “when you see me you see the Father”.
I’m content with what the scripture expressly says on this subject.
The Jewish authors of the text write – that people came out of graves from a state of what the authors called “sleep”
And Jewish authors of the text write – that Lazarus was in a state which the authors called “sleep”
I don’t have any interest in guessing or projecting anything beyond that.
I think on this subject – the difference between us – is a matter of preference.
Bored?
The study of scripture is hardly boring. It’s the most interesting thing that one can do, is to study the word of God.
I’ll just note, that the majority of Christendom does not interpret the word “sleep” as you do, which seriously surprises me about you.
But, it’s your preference, I suppose. You will see this differently once you die, and find out that you are not sleeping. To each his own!
I can’t fathom ignoring what Peter said about those who died in the flood, or what Luke 16 said about the Rich man.
Ed
As much as you’ve invested in the subject – I think you could write a book on it.
It could be a big winner on Amazon!
Nah…I do it to gain knowledge, and for fun. Not to make a buck. Too many religious folks selling books, cuz your ten percent contribution isn’t enough, I suppose.
When I was growing up, the pastor of the church I attended was an electrician during the week…Paul was a tent maker.
I think that if people are interested, they’d study on their own. Why do people write books, when they can study just one book?
And…
Romans 8:6
For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace.
Carnally, a grave is what we would call “6 feet under”…ON THE EARTH. That’s for the body.
Spiritually, a grave is hell below (in the heart of the earth). That’s for the spirit/soul
The place of the dead was in the heart of the earth, not 6 feet under.
Abraham’s bosom was the good side…it is now emptied:
Ephesians 4:8
Wherefore he saith, When he ascended up on high, he led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men.
Ed
Romans 8:6
For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace.
Carnally, a grave is what we would call “6 feet under”…ON THE EARTH. That’s for the body.
Spiritually, a grave is hell below (in the heart of the earth). That’s for the spirit/soul
br.d
Not that is the most unique use of the words “carnal” and “spiritual” that I think I’ve ever heard. ;-D
Ed
Abraham’s bosom was the good side…it is now emptied
Ephesians 4:8
Wherefore he saith, When he ascended up on high, he led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men.
br.d
Abraham must be pretty uncomfortable by now with all of those people sitting on his chest! ;-D
it’s an idiom.
vs 23 of Luke 16
23 And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.
But go back to verse 22
22 And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham’s bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried;
You do know – that is a parable don’t you?
A parable, huh? Who told you it was a parable? And why do you believe it to be a parable?
I can prove it’s NOT a parable.
Matthew 13:
10 And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables?
11 He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.
Each of the 4 Gospels are written in the ORDER OF EVENTS as they took place, and you can prove this by zippering the gospels together to get a complete picture of history.
When you zipper the gospels, you will note that Matthew leaves some things out that Mark or Luke or both will mention, and the same goes for the others, as well.
In the mouth of 2 or 3 witnesses shall ever word be established. This is why we can believe the gospels.
Having said that, the following link will show WHO Jesus was talking to, and WHERE Jesus was at based on zippering the gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke.
https://chapmaned24.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/click-to-open-table.pdf
If you were to only rely on Luke’s account, you would be apt to believe that Jesus was in Galilee, speaking to the Pharisees.
But when you zipper, you will see that Jesus was NOT in Galilee, but in Judea, and he was not speaking with the Pharisees, but with disciples only.
Yes, I know that MANY think that Abraham’s bosom is a parable. Problem is, what is missing, regarding a parable?
In parables, Jesus always EXPLAINED the meaning of a parable to his disciples. The paables were for the UNBELIEVERS, the explaination was for the believers.
Ed Chapman
Ed – you obviously have a very significant investment in the business of Abraham’s bosom
I don’t see it as beneficial for anyone to go to war over the subject.
However – I still think you could consider writing a book on it.
Really? I think that the afterlife is extremely important to discuss, because we still exist after we die, as well as after the resurrection.
But, you are not interested?
The lake of fire of Revelation…the people who “die again” (2nd Death) are not sleeping (again), but suffering for eternity…with no body.
It is important to note that we are a spirit, and spirit’s are eternal, not mortal. The body is not eternal, but mortal. The resurrected body is immortal, thereby eternal life. Life requires a body for your spirit to reside in, but existance of your spirit is not dependent on a body.
2 Corinthians 4:18
While we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen: for the things which are seen are temporal; but the things which are not seen are eternal.
Luke 16, 19f
The story of the rich man and Lazarus was a literal historical account. Luke uses the indefinite pronoun “a certain” numerous times in his gospel as a historian to point out real people. See 1:5, 7:2, 8:2, 8:27, 10:25, 10:38, 11:27, 11:37, etc.
Jesus does the same thing when telling a true story as a sermon illustration. He also uses the indefinite pronoun, “a certain”. I believe there may have been people in the crowd listening who knew whom Jesus was talking about!
The term “parable” is broad and includes both made up stories and true ones. The indefinite pronoun, “a certain”, tells us which one were true accounts.
Also, the whole point of the story of the rich man and Lazarus was to confirm the reliability of the OT (16:17, 16:31) If this story was not true, it would undermine its main point.
Luke 16:31 NKJV — “But he said to him, ‘If they do not hear Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded though one rise from the dead.’ ”
Before Jesus came on the scene, where did people go when they died?
br.d
You had said:
“When people are taught to pray to Mary or to burn incense to Mary – they are being taught to dabble with the spirit world. They are in fact unwittingly dabbling in a form of witchcraft. They are unwittingly dabbling with demon spirits. And that gives ground for demon spirits to gain influence in their lives.”
My response:
That is your OPINION, and I can assure you it is an INCORRECT conclusion.
Do you know what I hate? I hate sweet smelling candles burning around the house. I hate potpouri stinking up the house. I’m a US Navy Vet. I’d rather smell pine oil, and bleach all day long. Maybe some pledge for the woodwork.
Having said that, I have NO PROBLEM of people burning incense. I’ve been to people’s homes that burn incense without any religious meaning behind it. They like the smell. I hate the smell.
You claim that burn incense TO Mary. Where did you get the idea that they think Mary is God?
They VENERATE Mary, meaning RESPECT, and this is what the Catholics say about this subject:
————————-
Light a Candle, Burn Sweet Incense and Contemplate Emulating Mary. “Let, then, the life of Mary be as it were virginity itself, set forth in a likeness, from which, as from a mirror, the appearance of chastity and the form of virtue is reflected. From this you may take your pattern of life, showing, as an example, the clear rules of virtue: what you have to correct, to effect, and to hold fast.
————————-
Since they don’t believe that Mary is God, I have NO PROBLEM with this at all.
They also burn insence at funerals, too.
—————————–
Why do they burn incense at Catholic funerals? Incense is used during the funeral rites as a sign of honor to the body of the deceased, which through baptism became the temple of the Holy Spirit. Incense is also used as a sign of the community’s prayers for the deceased rising to the throne of God and as a sign of farewell.
—————————-
The insense is INSIGNIFICANT regarding demonic stuff.
Oh, my, goodness, I can’t believe that you think this stuff is evil.
Ed Chapman
So we agree to disagree :-]
That’s fine.
br.d,
You HAVE to admit that all REFORM church’s have Catholic baggage STILL to this day. A lot of baggage. Everytime someone quotes a CHURCH FATHER for determining their doctrines…CATHOLIC BAGGAGE.
Ed
Absolutely yes!
Calvinists essentially practice a form of CANONIZING themselves.
They are completely oblivious to the possibility that they could possibly be READING things INTO the text of scripture.
Making sure their belief system APPEARS the way they want it to APPEAR results in them contradicting themselves and denying their own doctrine.
And when you point out the contradictions – they claim their minds operate in a DIVINE realm above the imperfections of fallible Christians who think logically.
Up there in their heavenly thrown of DIVINITY – self-contradictions are not really self-contradictions.
All of those characteristics are what we’ve seen exhibited years ago during the persecutions of protestants.
Calvinists have no idea how Catholic all of those characteristic are.
In this, we definately agree!!
As many before me have said, I say it too…the Catholic leadership is going to be held to account…but I think that the “little people” (Catholics in the pews), will be fine at judgment day.
It’s like the difference between the Blind Jews vs. the Pharisees who claim that they can see. If you can see THAT, then you will understand why I’m not judging what the Catholics in the pews do, or don’t do. It’s their Pharisees that troubles me.
Ed Chapman
br.d,
Now, it is the following that I wish to discuss:
You had said:
“It is not the removal of the law that cleanseth us from sin. The blood of Jesus Christ cleanseth us from sin.
If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.
But if we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. ”
My resonse:
First of all, the removal of the law is as a RESULT of cleansing us from sin.
I can say that because FOR ALL HAVE SINNED, including Abraham…but Abraham had NO CLUE that he sinned, because there was NO LAW, and therefore, his sin was NOT IMPUTED to him.
You’ve got to have that little thing called KNOWLEDGE of the sin before it can even be imputed to you. But, because that sin had not been CLEANSED yet, he could not go directly to heaven when he died…he instead went to ABRAHAM’S BOSOM…the pre-paradise.
Abraham was RIGHTEOUS before the law, and NO SIN was ever imputed to him. But yet, for all have sinned. He had no knowledge.
Once the Blood of Jesus cleansed him of his sin…then Jesus let the captives [of Abraham’s bosom] go free to heaven…Paradise.
Romans 3:21
But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets;
Just like it was under Abraham…righteousness without the law.
Now, are you one of those who believe that for every sin that you do, that you lose your salvation each time?
You sound to me that you are a borderline legalist.
The 1 John 1 quote that you gave me needs to include the following:
1 John 3:9
9 Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.
And regarding the fellowship with God…
Same chapter:
14 We know that we have passed from death unto life, because we love the brethren. He that loveth not his brother abideth in death.
15 Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer: and ye know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him.
16 Hereby perceive we the love of God, because he laid down his life for us: and we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren.
17 But whoso hath this world’s good, and seeth his brother have need, and shutteth up his bowels of compassion from him, how dwelleth the love of God in him?
18 My little children, let us not love in word, neither in tongue; but in deed and in truth.
19 And hereby we know that we are of the truth, and shall assure our hearts before him.
20 For if our heart condemn us, God is greater than our heart, and knoweth all things.
21 Beloved, if our heart condemn us not, then have we confidence toward God.
22 And whatsoever we ask, we receive of him, because we keep his commandments, and do those things that are pleasing in his sight.
23 And this is his commandment, That we should believe on the name of his Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, as he gave us commandment.
Our fellowship with God is THRU people and we prove that we love God thru loving people. And that is all it is.
We are under the law of faith, and the commandment is to love your neighbor…and God doesn’t care about incense for reverance to Mary…UNLESS they think that Mary is God.
1 Corinthians 6:12
All things are lawful unto me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any.
1 Corinthians 10:23
All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but all things edify not.
1 Corinthians 10:29
Conscience, I say, not thine own, but of the other: for why is my liberty judged of another man’s conscience?
Ed Chapman
Ed
First of all, the removal of the law is as a RESULT of cleansing us from sin.
br.d
We’ll have to disagree with this also.
The law is superseded by walking in the Spirit and not fulfilling the lusts of the flesh.
Jesus did not disobey the law and he was never in conflict with the law.
He was in conflict with the religious leaders because they operated in religious flesh which is antagonistic to the Spirit.
Jesus walked in the Spirit – and fulfilling the law perfectly – came along for the ride.
When we walk in the Spirit – we are in God’s will and God’s will is also manifest in the law.
We do not focus on the law – because that is simply religious flesh which is antagonistic to the Spirit.
We focus on the Spirit – and in the process we follow the pattern and example that Jesus set.
1 Samuel 28:19
“Moreover the LORD will also deliver Israel with thee into the hand of the Philistines: and tomorrow shalt thou and thy sons be with me.
Where was Samuel when he said that?
br.d,
You had said:
“Whether King Saul – or a Catholic – ends up in Abraham’s bosom – or heaven – is determined by meeting the conditions which God sets.”
My response:
What were those conditions that allowed Saul to be with Samuel in Abraham’s bosom?
Ed Chapman
If you properly read 1 Cor 8, you SHOULD note that Baal does NOT EXIST to begin with. There is only one God. Idols are NOTHING.
Baal is a name of a non-existant god. But people were indeed worshipping a non-existant god. But we know of only ONE GOD.
Baal doesn’t exist. So how can Christians worship Baal?
br.d,
It’s kinda interesting how you worded the following:
“No one here claims Catholics **KNOWINGLY** celebrate a fertility ritual instead of the resurrection of Jesus!”
That insinuates that they “UNKNOWINGLY celebrate a fertility ritual instead of the resurrection of Jesus!”
What exactly is that “ritual”?
Easter egg hunts? Based on what I’m reading, in multiple sources, states that this “ritual” is a game that began in Germany in the 16th century.
Another story I read states that it can be traced back to Luther:
“During this time, men would hide eggs for women and children to find. The joy the women and children experienced as they found eggs mirrored the joy the women felt when they found Jesus’ tomb empty and realized He had risen. Just like early Easter egg hunts, we hide eggs for children to find.”
I actually had the priveledge of eating a Passover Meal at our church one year hosted by Jews for Jesus, and they told the story of Jesus thru the Passover in explicit detail.
And one of them was about the BREAD that is broke. It is torn in half, and half is eaten…the other half is first wrapped up in white linen, and then it’s hidden for a game for the children to find. That is a significant PROPHESY of the resurrection of Jesus.
But I guess for some, God never commanded games in a serious ceremony called Passover!
Ed Chapman
And this is also the same argument regarding Christmas. The word Christ is in Christmas, but the argument is that Jesus wasn’t born on December 25, but probably sometime in the spring, and others speculate in September.
Who cares, readlly? Why does that matter so much to some? God judges the heart, not the legalistic aspect of a day. And that is what is being missed on Fertility Day! The heart is celebrating Jesus, not Ishtar. Ishtar is NOTHING according to 1 Cor 8…and we can eat in her temple, too. And to some, we are eating meat offered to idols, which is PROHIBITED in the OT.
We’ve got JW’s not celebrating any day, just because the ONLY DAY that is mentioned about someone’s birthday, a head got served on a platter. And they have the nerve to tell people that it’s a sin to celebrate birthdays, because, according to them, God never told them to celebrate birthdays.
Yes, I know that argument…but I’m not convinced that’s what Catholics, which some call “Church Fathers” intended. We all know that Catholics do NOT celebrate a fertility goddess. If anyone can convince me that Catholics celebrate a fertility goddess on Easter, provide that evidence, please. In my lifetime, I’ve only seen Catholics celebrate the resurrection of Jesus on Easter.
Ed Chapman
I’m also in total disagreement with your use of the HOLY SPIRIT to SPIRITUALLY define a GREEK word.
And last… I’m always amused when I’m told to not lean on my own understanding. What you really mean is that I’m to lean on YOUR understanding.
Ed
What you really mean is that I’m to lean on YOUR understanding.
br.d
That is hilarious isn’t it Ed!
I wish I had a dollar for every Calvinist I’ve bumped into – with whom every imagination that pops into his brain is ***THE WORD OF GOD***
And every word that pops out of his mount is EX-CATHEDRA! ;-D
Br.d and Ed,
Ed
What you really mean is that I’m to lean on YOUR understanding.
br.d
That is hilarious isn’t it Ed!
My understanding is what Scripture literally says.
Scripture tells me to help my brethren understand God’s Word.
In obedience to Christ, I’ll continue to do so whether you find that hilarious or not.
There may be others who find my posts enlightening, edifying or faith strengthening.
Happy Easter to all,
1saved
1saved
My understanding is what Scripture literally says.
br.d
If that is the case – then you are following the pattern of the lawyer who tempted Jesus
Jesus asked the lawyer 2 questions concerning scripture
1) What does the text say?
2) How do ***YOU*** read it?
The lawyer – answered Jesus’ 1st question
But he EVADED answering Jesus’ 2nd question – because he did not want to acknowledge the possibility that his reading of the text could possibly be tainted with a HUMAN agenda.
This is the unfortunate pattern we observer with most Calvinists.
That is why I say – Calvinists go around speaking EX-CATHEDRA
In the Greek:
EX = “Out of”
CATHEDRA = “The throne”
This pattern of behavior as a derivative of Catholicism
Which we would expect – because Calvin is a Catholic with a small “c”
Calvinism does not completely “come out of” Babylon
So it is still partaking of her plagues
Br.d,
I’m not a Calvinist.
I’m non-denominational like John Bunyan.
The Methodists George Whitfield and John Wesley disagreed on soteriology.
Whitfield agreed with Calvin and Wesley agreed with Arminius, yet they remained lifelong friends.
Perhaps you could learn from their example.
Blessings,
1saved
1saved
I’m not a Calvinist
br.d
I didn’t say you were.
So that point is mute.
What I pointed out – is a PATTERN
Anyone can call himself whatever he likes.
A Duck can call itself a cow – but that doesn’t make him one. :-]
br.d
Yep, that’s funny! Since learning about Calvinism, I’ve seen a lot of the quotes from Calvinists that state for me not to “lean on my own understanding”. It’s quite the common statement. They are stating that they KNOW the “spiritual” aspects, but I can give example after example that they can’t know the spiritual aspects when doing “expository” study, which is why I constantly give examples of Isaac vs. Jesus as the promised seed…but, they can’t understand that concept, and reject it, yet Galatians 3:16 shows us point blank, and also in Hebrews 11, where the reason that Abraham was going to be “obedient” (expository), was due to Abraham’s faith that God would have to raise Isaac (Jesus) from the dead in order to fulfil his promise of Isaac’s (Jesus’) descendents of inheriting the Promised Land (Expository: a small piece of real estate in the middle east for the descendents of Jacob; Spiritual: Eternal Life with Jesus).
And that is the reasoning behind:
1 Corinthians 2:14
But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
Natural=Isaac
Spiritually discerned=Jesus
In other words, the totality of the Law (Torah) and the Prophets, and the Psalms is Jesus, told in the natural…and supernatural stories of real people, i.e. Abraham (God the Father), Isaac (Jesus), David (God the Father), Solomon (Jesus), and the list goes on and on and on.
And that’s why I don’t like expository much.
The book of Jonah…about a bad man that didn’t want to go to Nineveh and got punished? Expository. About Jesus (3 days/3 nights)=spiritual.
Much much more, too.
Ed Chapman
Ed Chapman,
“I’m also in total disagreement with your use of the HOLY SPIRIT to SPIRITUALLY define a GREEK word.”
Your unwillingness to ask God in faith for wisdom in this matter testifies to your lack of faith in Him to provide an answer.
The indwelling Holy Spirit is our teacher.
Blessing to all,
1saved
There are 144000 other than the two.
George 1Saved,
Part 2 (ESCHATOLOGY).
I’m going to begin by stating that I am a full fledged ZIONIST to the max. That should explain my further explanation, in regards to your Deception during the TRIBULATION questions.
First of all…WHO is doing the deceiving? God? Or the devil?
2Th 2:11
And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
It’s the first 4 words that tells us that we need to BACK UP A LITTLE BIT to see what the cause is, right?
But before I get to that, the two books of Thessalonians are written to WHO, exactly?
Acts 17 tells us:
Acts 17:1
Now when they had passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where was a synagogue of the Jews:
Paul always went to THE JEW FIRST before ever preaching to the Gentiles. And, in this case, he was able to convert SOME JEWS to Christianity. BUT, there were a LOT OF JEWS who he didn’t convert, and they really got angry at Paul, as well as the Jews who converted.
Both epistles of Thessalonians are written to JEWS ONLY, who converted from Judaism to Christianity.
JEWS ONLY are the Elect.
Isaiah 45:4
For Jacob my servant’s sake, and Israel mine elect, I have even called thee by thy name: I have surnamed thee, though thou hast not known me.
1 Thessalonians 1:4
Knowing, brethren beloved, your election of God.
So, eschatology…WHO is the subject of 2 Thes 2:11? Of Matthew 24? Of Revelation?
The Jews are STILL LOOKING for a Christ. That Christ that they will believe is the Anti-Christ.
This is about the Jews believing the lie.
When Jesus asks:
Matthew 22:42
Saying, What think ye of Christ? whose son is he? They say unto him, The son of David.
Were they wrong?
No!
Matthew 1:1
The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David…
This “anti-Christ” must be a Jew, because he is the one who is going to come on the scene in JERUSALEM in a TEMPLE, and proclaim that he is God (so did Jesus, some 2000 years ago, but no one believed him, and why is that?)
So, let’s go back prior to 2 Thes 2:11. Get yourself familiar with the wordings of deceipt, etc., and you will see that Satan is the one who brings those things.
But I believe that the following explains why it is said that God will SEND THEM this delusion.
Deu 29:4/Romans 11:8
Yet the Lord hath not given you an heart to perceive, and eyes to see, and ears to hear, unto this day.
and
John 9:39-41
39 And Jesus said, For judgment I am come into this world, that they which see not might see; and that they which see might be made blind.
40 And some of the Pharisees which were with him heard these words, and said unto him, Are we blind also?
41 Jesus said unto them, If ye were blind, ye should have no sin: but now ye say, We see; therefore your sin remaineth.
Oh, and one last thing…Paul is the Apostle to the Gentiles, right? In the book of Galatians, who does Paul say is the Apostles to the Jews?
James, Peter, and John, right?
Who wrote the book of Revelation? Paul? NOOOOOO.
This concludes my part 2, in which it is all in God’s plan to SAVE ISRAEL (Romans 11), (WE ARE NOT ISRAEL), and if you know the latter part of Revelation 7, then read Revelation 14…they are LIKE verses. That’s BEFORE Armegeddon.
For the Jews UNDER THE LAW, and those who reject Jesus, they are meant for WRATH (Romans 1-4).
Ed Chapman
Ed Chapman: “I’ll be your Huckleberry …”
Ah, you’re crack me up. My husband would get a kick out of this too. He uses that line from time to time. 🙂
Heather,
LOL. Ya, a number of years ago, I watched Tombstone, and, I think it was Val Kilmer as Doc Holiday that said that.
Ed
I just wanted to point out that the ESV, quoted in this article, is essentially a Calvinist Bible. Here are my efforts to prove it: https://anticalvinistrant.blogspot.com/2020/09/a-random-verse-that-destroys-calvinism.html
(From my post:) I think this can be seen clearly in 2 Peter 3:9. The ESV ends it this way: “… not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance.” Of the commonly-used “word-for-word” translations, the ESV is the only one that says “reach” instead of “come to.” Why is this? It may seem like a little distinction, but I don’t think it is. I think it’s an attempt to make the Bible more Calvinist. And here’s why:
Let’s say I lived in Kansas, and I posted a note on my blog saying “I hope everyone comes to Kansas.” I would be expressing a desire that I want anyone and everyone to visit me in Kansas, no matter where they are or who they are or where they are going. It’s an open invitation to anyone who wants to respond. no matter where they are headed.
But if I posted a note saying “I hope everyone reaches Kansas,” it would clearly imply that I am talking only to and about those who are already headed to Kansas. You can only “reach” something if you are already headed towards it, if it’s the end goal you are striving for. I clearly would not be telling people headed to Alaska or Canada or California that “I hope you reach Kansas.” That would be an irreconcilable contradiction. My statement would be totally unrelated to and irrelevant for them. If they are headed in a different direction, to a different destination, they will never reach Kansas no matter how long they travelled. So obviously I am not talking to them. I am simply saying that I hope those who are purposely headed to Kansas reach their destination.
This little change totally makes the verse more Calvinistic.
2 Peter 3:9, when interpreted accurately, is about God giving an “open invitation” to all people, saying that He wants anyone and everyone – no matter where they are in life or where they are headed or how they are living – to come to repentance and be saved, which would rightly imply that it’s possible for anyone and everyone to be saved if they choose to repent.
But the subtle change the ESV gives it (and only the ESV) now makes it a statement only to those who are already headed toward repentance, which, according to Calvinism, are the “elect,” those God predestined for repentance/salvation. It’s essentially saying “God doesn’t want any of His elected people to perish, but He wants everyone who’s predestined for repentance (the elect) to reach repentance.”
Big difference! Big, big difference!
(And interestingly enough, in none of the other verses where this Greek word is used do the ESV translators change it to “reach.” Only in this verse. But this Greek word doesn’t mean “reach.” It means “come, contain, go, have place, receive.” But it’s never used as “reach” – as in “to arrive at a particular destination that you are striving for” – except in the ESV’s 2 Peter 3:9, where it changes the verse from being an open invitation to all people to come to the point of repentance, no matter where they currently are … to God seemingly expressing His desire that people who are headed for repentance “reach” repentance, which, in Calvinism, would only be the elect.)
Very well thought out!!
And with a wonderful explanation!!!
You go Heather!
They come to the verb in Greek and say, “it cant mean ‘come to’ since we ‘know’ God does not really want everyone, so let’s make it vague.” They import their doctrine into a verse that would normally point away from their doctrine.
Of course all the hundreds and hundreds of verses that say “The LORD” wants something —-that does not actually then happen— must also be interpreted to mean that He only wanted it in his “( fill in here ) will” not His “real” will.
And once again they set up the “priestly interpretators” class who will tell us what the Bible “really means”.
Thank you, fromoverhere.
Yeah, Calvinists tell us what God supposedly meant to say, even though it contradicts what He actually said. And then they shame us for not being humble enough to accept it or for hurting/stealing God’s glory. But when a theology relies so much on hidden layers and “two kinds of…” and manipulation and doublespeak, it should raise major red flags in alert believers.
The problem is that too many believers are overly trusting of popular theologians and of preachers who say “I have a high view of the Bible and I am just teaching right from Scripture.” But the more these Calvinist preachers feel the need to make that claim, the more we should wonder why. Why do they need to try so hard to convince us Calvinism is biblical? If it was so clear and obvious, they wouldn’t need to say it so much.
My through the Bible reading today has me in Ex 15. I’m not cherry-picking a few verses here and there. I see this every day!
“There the Lord issued a ruling and instruction for them and put them to the test. 26 He said, ‘If you listen carefully to the Lord your God and do what is right in his eyes, if you pay attention to his commands and keep all his decrees, I will not bring on you any of the diseases I brought on the Egyptians, for I am the Lord, who heals you.'”
How many hundreds of passages do we need to see like this to accept that God is not planning every dust particle, sin, rape, action of mankind?
Just keep reading….
A little further down in Ex 16 (today’s reading) …
“4 Then the Lord said to Moses, ‘I will rain down bread from heaven for you. The people are to go out each day and gather enough for that day. In this way I will test them and see whether they will follow my instructions. 5 On the sixth day they are to prepare what they bring in, and that is to be twice as much as they gather on the other days.'”
Whaaaa?
Why would a determinist reformed deity allow himself to EVER say “I will test them”?
C’mon man! If he pre-programmed this all from before time what is all this “testing” and “if you… I will” about?
FOH
C’mon man! If he pre-programmed this all from before time what is all this “testing” and “if you… I will” about?
br.d
Calvin’s god must follow Calvin’s pattern – and treat what he knows to be TRUE *AS-IF* it is FALSE
Its all a part of being created in Calvin’s super divine image! :-]
FOH
And once again they set up the “priestly interpretators” class who will tell us what the Bible “really means”.
br.d
Cuz they are the only ones on planet earth super-endowed with Calvin’s DIVINE MAGICAL DECODER ring – whereby as soon as the super-endowed eyes lite upon the text – they AUTO-MAGICALLY see that which is HIDDEN to all of the meer-mortals.
But it gets even more miraculous!
When one of the super-endowed ones reads [A] in the text and another super-endowed one reads [NOT-A] in the text.
That looks like a contradiction to the non-endowed mind.
But the super-endowed ones recognize it as the divine mysteries of god! ;-D
Thank you, Br.d. 🙂
Love the way you think, sister. I will visit your blog.
Thank you, Norm. I hope it’s helpful. (FYI: I am VERY long-winded. I can’t help it.)
Heather: Doesn’t the ESV’s substitution of “reach” for “come to” undercut the Calvinists’ fallacy of irresistible grace? There is no need to reach for salvation if one is predestined to it. “Come to” maintains God’s invitation to all for salvation, but “reach” communicates one’s individual effort to have it. As one has observed years ago on another blog: “If hermeneutical gymnastics were an Olympic sport, Calvinists would win the gold medal.”
I suspect they would argue “reach” is passive, like sitting on a train and being carried to reach a destination.
norm
the Calvinists’ fallacy of irresistible grace
br.d
Hello norm
As a side note – its interesting to note something concerning Calvinism’s appeal to “IRRESISTIBLE”
Since in Calvinism – per the doctrine of decrees – WHATSOEVER comes to pass is decreed at the foundation of the world to come to pass infallibly – it follows – this would have to include every human impulse that comes to pass.
So per the doctrine of decrees
1) The Calvinist’s brain cannot have an impulse that was not AUTHORED by Calvin’s god
2) Every impulse is FIXED by decree and come to pass infallibly
Now since it is logically impossible for a fallible human to resist something that will come to pass infallibly – it follows – EVERY HUMAN IMPULSE occurs within the human brain as IRRESISTIBLE
So when the Calvinist is appealing to “Irresistible Grace” – he is attempting to OBFUSCATE and aspect of his doctrine.
In Calvinism – ALL human functionality without exception – is AUTHORED at by an external mind – and is made IRRESISTIBLE.
So in Calvinism – we not only is grace IRRESISTIBLE
In Calvinism every sin comes to pass IRRESISTIBLY – and every evil comes to pass IRRESISTIBLY
So what we can see from this is – in Calvinism – Calvin’s god blames humans for the very sins and evils – which he AUTHORS and makes come to pass IRRESISTIBLY within them.
Which is why Piper maintains that God ordained the bombing of the Murrah building in OKC, the collapse of the Interstate 35W bridge in Minneapolis, and even the molestation of children. This is why I say that, Calvinism leads to a logical fatalism and not theological faith.
norm
This is why I say that, Calvinism leads to a logical fatalism and not theological faith.
br.d
Yes – I agree – in the sense that everything is FATED to come to pass in Calvinism.
However – technically fatalism is based on the premise of necessity – where determinism is based on the premise of certainty. So technically speaking – Calvinism is not “fatalism” per-say.
I currently see fatalism and determinism as two apples off the same tree.
They are similar in many respects – while at the same time they each have subtle uniqueness
Norm, I would say that “reach” would undercut their theology if they meant it as people were actively reaching for something on their own. But I agree with Pastor Loz that “reach”, in Calvinism, is passive, like sitting on a train that will reach its destination with you aboard. Especially since in Calvinism, people don’t actually DO anything on their own, not even think.
Calvinists undercut their theology all the time by the way they live and speak (Br.d. does a great job of exposing this in his comments). In fact, there’s no need to do a lot of what they preach (pray, evangelize, try to read your Bible, strive to obey, etc.) if everything’s already been predestined anyway, even our thoughts and desires. They hold Calvinist beliefs but often live/talk like those who believe in free-will. That’s how they slip into churches so easily, and it’s what makes them so hard to pin down when trying to figure out what they really believe. They even go so far as to say that people “freely choose” what they want to do, when what they really mean is that God builds certain desires into the nature He gives us and we “freely choose” to obey those desires, even though that’s all we could do because we had no ability to choose anything else. It’s crazy how far they go to disguise their real beliefs.
(It would be fun to answer a Calvinist pastor who asks you to serve at church or tithe or go on a mission trip with “Well, let’s just wait and see what God predestined me to do. I can’t decide that because it’s all up to God. And whatever happens must be His Will and for His glory, whether I do those things or not, and I can’t do anything to change it.” And watch how unCalvinistic their answers could be. Calvinism’s hypocrisy and word gymnastics would almost be funny if it didn’t have such serious, damaging effects on God’s character, the gospel, and people’s faith.)
Please pardon the expression, but your “points” are well-taken regarding reach. Still, “come to” maintains the invitation of God and not the passivity of riding a train. But, of course, the Cals would say the passivity is irresistible b/c it was pre-ordained. BTW: Is there a verse to support irresistibility?
Norm: “Still, “come to” maintains the invitation of God and not the passivity of riding a train.”
I agree. “Come to” is about people coming to God, being invited by God to repent, no matter where they are or where they are headed. And Calvinists can’t have that. So that’s why I think it was changed to “reach,” which is only really for those already headed to repentance/salvation (the elect, in Calvinism).
And even if Calvinists interpreted “reach” to mean an invitation from God and something the person actively does, they still would have to say that it doesn’t mean everyone can respond to/accept the invitation, just the “elect” ones. And the elected ones can only do it because the Holy Spirit regenerates them and causes them to repent and have faith. But He will never do this for the non-elect, So the invitation is not for everyone, just the elect, regardless of whether “reach” is active or passive. (And I would have to wonder then if “invitation” would be the right word if, in Calvinism, the elect are forced to accept it and the non-elect are prevented from accepting it. And “invitation” implies we can choose how to respond to it. Maybe “irresistible mandate” would be better?)
“irresistible mandate” that’s funny!
What a tangled web they weave. So sad that their theology drives their exegesis and not the other way ‘round.
I rather exult in CS Lewis on election, who said, “The chosen were chosen for the sake of the unchosen.”
Heather: I would like to send you a link to the best sermon on election I ever heard, but I found no “contact” button at your blog.
The S101 can send you my email address is that is possible.
Yes I can provide someone with your email address – if they are comfortable with me doing that.
br.d
Norm: “I rather exult in CS Lewis…”
He’s a favorite of mine! Not even just his writing but him himself. I’ve read 7 biographies on him since lockdown started. I love his story, his journey to the Lord.
Fine with me. Although, I posted a link to the sermon video late last night. Your call. Thanks.
I’ll wait for Heather to let me know what she is comfortable with also
To be clear, I would not ask anyone for his/her email address vis this blog. But, I have no qualms about you sharing mine as noted.
yes I understood that was what you meant norm
And thank you for being so considerate.
Thank you, Norm and Br.d.
Norm, I saw the link you posted earlier, but did not watch it yet. If you can, could you just repost here the person’s name and title of the sermon and maybe what website it’s on (I don’t see it here anymore), so I can google it myself? I almost never click on links people send me. But I may or may not watch it because I don’t usually like watching videos online. I much prefer reading things to watching them. I haven’t even really watched any of Leighton’s videos or Kevin’s from Beyond the Fundamentals. I just learn better and can focus better with reading. Thank you 🙂
And you’re right, Norm, there is no contact button on my blogs. I used to have one, but I would get maybe one real email in several months but lots of spam. And so to protect my time and sanity (especially after seeing the kinds of comments Calvinists can make), I took off my contact button. I’d really rather just put my writing out there like a book, letting people read it or not read it or agree or disagree without me having to know about it. Sot 101 is probably the only place someone can “contact” me or respond to me, because I don’t do social media or anything like that, except commenting on a few blogs I like.
HEATHER:
The 30-minute sermon on Election is by Dr. Eric Hankins, pastor of FBC Fairhope, AL. He previously has posted to this blog. Hankins was the primary author of “A Statement of the Traditional Southern Baptist Understanding of God’s Plan of Salvation.” His sermonic explanation has demystified the doctrine of election for me. It removes the tension between sovereignty and responsibility. It is “must see” TV. I very highly recommend it.
https://subsplash.com/fbcfhsermons/sermons/mi/+4dqh8yj
BTW: I applaud your very lengthy article that reveals and details the scores of Bible verses that the Calvinists have nuanced to favor their agenda. You have done excellent work, which can serve as a helpful tool for others. It is a “must read.”
Thank you, Norm. I bookmarked it. (Also, fyi, I never clicked the “notify me of new comments” button on Sot 101, so I never know when someone has replied to me or asked a question unless I get online and check the comment section myself. I do this to protect my time, or I might be tempted to reply to every comment someone makes. So don’t be offended if I don’t reply to questions you ask me. It’s probably because I didn’t know they were there.)
Here is a question for all of us, including me: How has this discussion equipped us for the Master’s ministry? Maybe our knowledge (which puffs up) has increased in one way or another. But unless this knowledge leads to feet-on-the-ground ministry, then our conversation is empty, vain. Is it not time that we agree to disagree and get back to the vineyard? In short, brethren, give or a rest.
Good points, Norm. I guess it depends on what we think God called us to do, the specific ministry He gave each of us.
And since our overarching ministry is to spread the gospel, I think it’s incredibly important that we know what the gospel is and that we do all we can to protect its truth, to not let it be corrupted. If we fail to do this – if we let the gospel be corrupted – then all our efforts to do our good Christian things/tasks/programs are basically empty, devoid of the true gospel. May as well just be a social club then.
Far too many churches have drifted into error, especially when it comes to “wokeness,” but now we are losing many good, fundamental, conservative churches to corrupted (Calvinist) doctrine. And many – if not most – Christians have fallen asleep on the job. Most fail to be Bereans and to heed the red flags and to recognize/push back against doctrinal error.
I think there are enough of us Christians who are resting and “agreeing to disagree” – when we should be pushing back against lies, fighting for truth, and standing in the way of corruption. And this is why our churches are in such a mess and why common Christians can’t recognize the red flags of doctrinal error anymore. We have turned off our critical thinking/listening skills and sat back and allowed the pastors/theologians to tell us what to think, focusing more on high attendance numbers and on church programs and on just getting along than on making sure we interpret/represent Scripture correctly.
But if we don’t push back when it comes to the basic gospel truths of God’s character and what Jesus accomplished on the cross and who can be saved and how we are saved, then when do we push back? What essential Bible truths are worth fighting for?
There are so few out there doing the job that Leighton/Sot 101 commenters are doing that the church can’t afford to lose them too, to have them rest and turn their attention to less gospel-oriented things. There are very few people as it is who are knowledgeable enough and willing enough to stand against the tsunami of Calvinist indoctrination.
I wonder what condition the church would be in if, in the very early years of the church, the disciples and Paul had decided to tolerate the various heresies that crept in, to go “Let’s not fight about it, guys. Chill. It’s all good. Let’s just focus on helping our neighbors and doing our outreach programs. Let’s not get all caught up in who’s right about if Jesus was really God or not, if He died for all people or just the Jews, if He rose from the dead or not, etc.”
There is a place, an important place, for those doing the unglamourous job of standing up for biblical doctrine, of fighting Calvinism. There are plenty of Christians focused on the outreach programs at church (probably too many, considering the lukewarm, “please the seeker” nature of churches nowadays), but there are so few fighting Calvinism, so few who are able to do this. And with so many Calvinists stealthily spreading Calvinism in the church, we need each and every person who’s willing to stand against Calvinism and guard the gospel’s truth. With so many popular theologians being Calvinists and spreading Calvinism and teaching Calvinism in the seminaries, fighting Calvinism has to be, unfortunately, a grassroots effort, taken up by individual, commonplace Christians all over the world, in whatever sphere they can do it (online, in the church, by writing a book, etc.). Each tiny grassroot effort is necessary when facing a Goliath like Calvinism.
But your point is well taken. We need to be careful to balance out the verbal with actual actions. And I guess what that means for each person will be between them and God. But even just commenting here and helping people see the lies of Calvinism and the truth of what the gospel says is a form of active ministry, an outreach. And it’s an outreach that can reach around the world, whereas a local church’s local outreach program can only reach the local neighborhood.
My point is, there is an important place in the church for both, but if we lose all those who are willing to stand for the gospel’s truth of who God is, what Jesus did, who can be saved and how we are saved, then we may as well just call ourselves a social club. And I think Satan would love nothing more than to see the Church reduced to this.
HEATHER:
The 30-minute sermon on Election is by Dr. Eric Hankins, pastor of FBC Fairhope, AL. He previously has posted to this blog. Hankins was the primary author of “A Statement of the Traditional Southern Baptist Understanding of God’s Plan of Salvation.” His sermonic explanation has demystified the doctrine of election for me. It removes the tension between sovereignty and responsibility. It is “must see” TV; I very highly recommend it.
https://subsplash.com/fbcfhsermons/sermons/mi/+4dqh8yj
BTW: I applaud your very lengthy article that reveals and details the scores of Bible verses that the Calvinists have nuanced to favor their agenda. You have done excellent work, which can serve as a helpful tool for others. It is a “must read.”
Norm,
You had said:
“How has this discussion equipped us for the Master’s ministry?”
” But unless this knowledge leads to feet-on-the-ground ministry”, and end with “give it a rest”.
My response:
The word “ministry” means to serve.
We discussed the other day what LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF is all about. Remember the guy that asked “who is my neighbor?”? And how Jesus responded? The Good Samaritan SERVED, or MINISTERED to that beat up robbed man.
I’m a flagger for various utility companies, contruction companies, excavation companies, etc. One foreman that I have, everytime he see’s me, kids around, telling me to “Ed, DO SOMETHING”.
The point of Abraham’s faith being tested, mentioned in James Chapter 2, indicates that Abraham LIVED what he believed. He DID SOMETHING. That is known as FAITH WITHOUT WORKS IS DEAD. In Abraham’s case, his faith was justified by what he DID.
But let’s not confuse that works with what GOOD WORKS is, as the Catholics do, and/or confuse James 2 with Romans 4 (works of the law).
But still, we must DO SOMETHING. And that DO SOMETHING is SERVING, aka ministering to others, not by word, but by deed, aka The Good Samaritan.
If that is the “ministry” you are discussing, then yes, I would agree. But if it’s PREACHING to others…uh, I disagree.
Ephesians 4:11
And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;
Ephesians 2:10
For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.
Matthew 5:16
Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven.
1 Peter 3:15
But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:
Now, for those of us who really are Christians, OUR OWN HEARTS REFUSE to shut up about God (Jesus). We voluntarily talk about God to anyone who will listen. BUT WE DON’T, OR AREN’T SUPPOSED TO GET ALL PREACHY, as if we were the judge, condemning, aka Christians at abortion clinics, etc.
If everyone is a sinner, and any sin can get an unbeliever into hell, and Christians are hounding abortion clinics only…why do we not also go to places in which people covet things, too? Why not hang out at an adulterers front yard? Or, why do we not hang out at Walmart screaming at the thieves to REPENT, REPENT.
That’s not how we are to do things. Yet, we do.
We can hang out with these “sinners”. We just can’t hang out with those who call themselves BRETHREN who do those sins themselves.
Ministry. Preaching, or serving?
Ed Chapman
Shawn
God allows us to make choices
br.d
Shawn – if you embrace Calvinism’s doctrine of decrees – then the function of “Choice” does not exist per the STANDARD definition for the term does not exist for you.
If you look up any number of dictionaries for the term “Choice” you will see a consistency in all of them – in which the function of “Choice” has a NECESSARY CONDITION – of more than one option available from which to select – in order to constitute a “Choice”.
Per the doctrine of decrees – Calvin’s god at the foundation of the world – in the process of making decisions about whatsoever shall come to pass at any instance in time within every creature – has multiple options from which to select.
For example – he may decree you to walk forward at TIME-T.
But he also has the option of decreeing you to walk backwards at TIME-T
Since he has multiple options available from which to select – this meets the NECESSARY CONDITION for the function of “Choice”
However multiple options are EXCLUDED as soon as he makes his selection.
And his selection can only be limited to one option.
Firstly
He cannot decree you to walk forward at TIME-T – and NOT walk forward at TIME-T
That constitute a self-falsifying decree – which is logically impossible.
Secondly:
He cannot leave it OPEN to you to determine.
Because that would falsify the doctrine of decrees which stipulates WHATSOEVER comes to pass at any instance in time – is solely and exclusively determined at the foundation of the world.
He must make a selection.
He is therefore limited to selecting and thus decreeing ONE SINGLE option.
Either you will walk forward at TIME-T – or you will NOT walk forward at TIME-T
In the process of “selecting” that ONE OPTION – he has automatically “rejected” all alternatives.
Thus – no alternative from that which has been infallibly decreed is possible.
As it is understood in philosophy – Determinism logically excludes the Principle of Alternative Possibles.
Thus at TIME-T – only ONE SINGLE RENDERED-CERTAIN option is granted existed.
The NON-Existence of all alternatives is also RENDERED-CERTAIN.
And that which has no existence is not available to the creature.
Peter Van Inwagen sums this up with:
-quote
Determinism may now be defined: it is the thesis that there is at any instant exactly one physically possible future.
Consequently:
For per the doctrine of decrees – for every human event and every human impulse – there is ever only ONE SINGLE RENDERED-CERTAIN option.
You are granted
– NO CHOICE about what that option will be
– NO CHOICE about your role in that option
– NO ability to refrain.
No Option(s) + No ability to refrain = NO CHOICE
What the Calvinist actually has – in lieu of the function of “Choice” is IMPULSES
Every impulse is FIXED at the foundation of the world
You have NO SAY in the matter of any impulse that is established at the foundation of the world – to infallibly come to pass in your brain or body.
So when a Calvinist says he has “Choice” – what he really has are “IMPULSES” caused by antecedent factors outside of his control.
Additionally – over 90% of the impulses infallibly decreed to come to pass in his brain – occur at the sub-conscious level. So he is not even aware of them And he couldn’t control them if he was aware of them – because the come to pass infallibly and irresistibly within his brain.
When are we chosen “in Christ”?
Is it “before the foundation of the world”? Not according to Paul in Romans 16:7.
“Greet Andronicus and Junia, my countrymen and my fellow prisoners, who are of note among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me.”
A straightforward reading of this verse leads to the conclusion that Paul is referring to the fact that other believers (Andronicus and Junia) had believed the gospel before he did, hence were “in Christ” BEFORE him.
If someone asserts that this choosing in Christ was before the foundation of the world, they need to explain what Romans 16:7 means.
Hello Dan and welcome
Dan,
I’m non-Calvinist, and my “opinion” does NOT match the blog owners “opinion”, however, I will say the following:
The bible defines who is what. For example, Jacob is Israel, and Israle is BIBLICALLY DEFINED AS:
Struggles/Wrestles with God.
Likewise, the bible defines sin: 1 John 3:4 “…sin is the transgression of the law”…not MISS THE MARK as the DICTIONARY definition.
Likewise, the bible defines THE LAW. Romans 3:20 THE LAW IS THE KNOWLEDGE OF SIN.
In other words, picking your nose is not a sin.
And lastly, Hebrews 11:1 defines faith. faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
Seems that Calvinists, and others have redefined faith.
That is my preface.
Now, to ELECT.
Isaiah 45:4
For Jacob my servant’s sake, and Israel mine elect, I have even called thee by thy name: I have surnamed thee, though thou hast not known me.
Again, my “opinion” is completely different from the blog owner, but one verse tells me who the elect are, and at the point of that verse, NO JEW/GENTILE was even saved at all.
In addition, THE CHURCH did not replace ISRAEL. They want to reference Romans 9-11 in order to try to convince me of that replacement, but that ain’t working for me.
So, Isaiah 45:4 settles it for me. Someone needs to PERSUADE me otherwise, as to why they believe that the church is the elect, or why any Gentile is the elect.
The “MY PEOPLE” thing, ya, that’s a different conversation to have, because there is PROOF about that. Election/elect…speculation.
For me, someone’s gotta prove it beyond a reasonalbe doubt.
Ed Chapman
Yes Dan, agreed. The corporate category “in Christ” was chosen before the foundation of the world, when Christ was chosen as the original elect One. We step into the category at the point in time we believe.
Pastor Loz,
I think that’s the BEST, and precise explaination that I’ve heard. Category. I used to be long winded in explaining a football team, whereas the team was created, with no players yet.
Ed Chapman
Pastor Loz,
Sorry, but I didn’t finish my last before I sent. We still do disagree on the word “elect”, but agree on the “in Christ”, which I specifically define as nothing more that one word:
Christian.
What is it about us that is “in Christ”?
Our spirit is in his body (we being many are one body of Christ). And his spirit (holy spirit) is in each of us.
As far as “elect”, I stand by the Isaiah reference. But as far as “in Christ”…the football team, or category.
But the most important about Ephesians 1:4, “Christians were chosen to be a certain thing”…holy and blameless. Not that we were chosen at all, and not that we were chosen in Christ at the foundation of the earth. But that the “category” of being holy and blameless was chosen at the foundation of the earth.
I needed to clarify that.
Ed Chapman
( Note: I am using this media to get through, as i am not on facebook and deleted my twitter account…. again. And haven’t engaged on this page for a long time.
I do not know if i am ‘blocked’ by Soteriology 101 youtube or if youtube for some reason deletes all my comments under Soteriology 101 videos. My comment was deleted when i ran a test by commenting with just “test”, therefore, i am guessing it is not a character # rule.
Anyway, my comments under “When Calvinism Fails”.
Would appreciate some feed back if the blog monitor here can help. Thanks you much for any help.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?
v=pSaIz9Od8l4
Dr. Bob Utley ( old testament scholar) faithful to call out to his neighbor about the good news.
Rev22:17(Rev19:10)2Peter3
—————
!Woe! to those who tell their neighbor they are determined to reject the truth or determined to not reject the truth, no matter what perspective of speech they use to where they themselves act to shut the door of The Ark in a neighbors face.
2peter3: (&*9)
https://biblehub.com/text/2_peter/3-9.htm
The clear teaching of God, in accordance with the Holy Spirit, does not contradict Himself! Isaiah 52&53/Romans10/Deut 30
Rev 22:20-21 as we watch&wait, patiently, that another friend- neighbor , even an enemy may come until God closes the door on The Ark unto salvation in history.
As John the Baptist was the one crying out in the wilderness before the 1st coming, be encouraged Rev 22:17, His One (John 17) promised bride will cry out in the wilderness as chosen to do before JesusChrist 2nd coming! 2Cor2:14-17
Ephensians 6:10- holding fast and standing firm to The End of the chapter.
Love covers over a multitude of sins, and per the revealed design of God relationship always involves at least 2. John 3:12-21(Number 21:4-9) Genesis 1-3
Holy Kiss Leighton Romans16& Bob Utley, and for all who love their neighbor as themselves proclaim the good news over sin&death, faithfully❣️ To the Glory of God 1Corinthians 15/ Rev 1:&*17&18
And… the Dr. Bob Utley youtube video didn’t transfer here right so copying link again :
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=pSaIz9Od8l4
If it goofs up again, you can find on youtube by typing into youtube -Romans 9:1-29 free bible commentary with pastor teacher Dr. Bob Utley
Welcome Tammy! You’re not blocked on Sot101. Sometimes posts of new folk get a little delayed for approval, especially if they have links to other sites in them. God is certainly wanting all to come to repentance and has planned to make that opportunity available to everyone. We should be boldly and compassionately co-laboring with God to invite and persuade the lost to trust Jesus!
Reply under br.d reply. Thanks Brian.
Hello Tammy and welcome
Per your reference – I took a few minutes to listen to a Youtube presentation by Dr. Utley – specifically on Calvinism.
He makes fair arguments.
But you must understand – Calvinists have had to deal with those arguments for many centuries and they have found ways to tap-dance around them.
I mention that to you – so that you will be prepared in advance and not be disheartened by that fact.
Blessings!
br.d
Thanks br.d.
I am familiar, and am not discouraged, but encouraging the proclaiming of the good news and contending for the faith, in the face of those preaching systems of philosophy/theology over the Logic of God, specifically Calvinism as if its (false)interpretation on things determined holds to the doctrine for salvation. { Let the reader understand that someone does not enter further into a strong delusion as God knows when someone refuses what He has determined: delusion is related to those who refuse to love the truth and so be saved. Romans1/2Thess2}
I was using the opportunity to share an OT scholar covering the issue of Romans 9-11( he has more proceeding videos on Romans 9-11 online after Romans 9:1-29) that can to be found on youtube. That video is very old as Dr. Bob Utley has been using the airwaves for many years, under the radar, if you will. So, i was sharing someone who is among those who has been& is calling out and works to be a sharpener, I am confident in& among the Rev 22:17, as someone who interprets considering the greater/bigger perspectives revealed to us in the scriptures. { Always 💞repeating to test all things, and gathering2together, only keep what is good.}
Also, I saw Brian’s comments, as related to my question. Thanks Brian.
My question specifically was about Youtube Soteriology 101 comments. Only some of my comments go through under a youtube video, even if I take off the links.
🎶 toDay Hebrew4 us, too.
Who is promised toDay for another? 1Cor15
i am all about calling out to a friend , in the wilderness, neighbor ( Acts17) and someone who may want to be God’s enemy no longer, among unbelievers&believers not yet saved-(Rev 1,2&3 ) as He walks among the lampstands. ( Romans5-not read with the lens of Calvinism that veils the Good News , for those encouraged by our great and blessed hope Romans8💝Holy Kiss Romans16)
Thank you Tammy
I believe Dr. Flowers has been asked if there is someone monitoring and perhaps editing/deleting posts on his Youtube channel. And I believe his response has been that there is none to his knowledge.
However I have had instances in which the system software behind the Youtube blog where it didn’t take my post and I had to re-post it. And I’ve noticed that system might not show a post someone has made until they refresh their browser. Just idiosyncrasies of that interface I guess.
Thanks again
br.d
When read in perspective “believers” who claim to believe, but really yet do not believe : John 5:24-25 ( though they are in the local assemblies for the promised bribe who is victorious Rev 2&3/Rev 22:17 { Rev 19:10} )
Just to clarify💝🎶👣
Oooh , ooops , bride not bribe.
It was a typo when i typed out bribe, when singing of the promised bride . ( just incase someone wasn’t sure to automatically correct that when reading me! Sooo sorry.)
I think I win the prize for typos’ ;-D
We must praise God for all typos, following this piece of wisdom from Calvinist Edwin Palmer:
“All things happen because God ordained them. The fall of the devil…the fall of Adam, every evil thought, word, and deed in history… Foreordination means God’s sovereign plan, whereby He decides all that is to happen…God is in back of everything. He decides and causes all things to happen…He has foreordained everything ‘after the counsel of his will’…the moving of a finger…THE MISTAKE OF A TYPIST – even sin…Although sin and unbelief are contrary to what God commands God has…ordained them, caused them to certainly come to pass. Edwin Palmer, The Five Points of Calvinism, 24-25
Always remember, in line with Roland’s line of argument – the more “illogical” appears, the greater chance it is of being super-hyper-spiritually Scriptural!
Thank you Pastor Loz!
Excellent point!
When it comes to Calvinist statements – the critical thinker soon discovers that what the Calvinist HIDES within his statements – is 100 times more critical than what the Calvinist reveals in his statements.
In this case – “ordain” is used as a replacement word for “Decree”
Whenever a Calvinist wants to obfuscate Calvin’s god’ as the *AUTHOR* of evil – the Calvinist will use the word “ordain” rather than the word “Decree” for obvious reasons.
In order for Calvin’s god to “Decree” any [X] – he must first “Conceive” of what that [X] will be.
And the process of “Conceiving” – is by definition – the process of “AUTHORING”
Decree = Conceive = Author
Thus
– Calvin’s god “Decrees” every specific sin and evil
– Calvin’s god “Conceives” every specific sin and evil
– Calvin’s god “Authors” every specific sin and evil.
And now we can easily understand why the Calvinist uses “Ordain” as a replacement word for “Decree”.
This is a really good article…I feel like I’ve read and listened to many really good things since I discovered soteriology101.com My sincere thanks for that! The trouble is, I then read through the comments and rebuttals or watch Dr. Flowers allowing Dr. White to refute him and I feel like coming down off the fence is nigh on impossible! I can see how both exegete their position from various passages. What’s a mere non doctorate holding mortal to do? I absolutely do not want Calvinism to be true but that is irrelevant. I was bought up Welsh Presbyterian… I have to say though, I didn’t realise exactly the extent of the beliefs that Calvinists hold… they’re terrifying! And the way it changes the other passages in the bible…for example, this morning my daily bible snippit was about God being kind and forgiving and having great love for those who call.on Him. Well that, under calvinism, really means he’s good to those he forcefully made to choose him. So much of the bible becomes a very different story under calvinism. But like I said, not wanting it to be true is not the issue, truth is the issue. I know I should be balancing my reading/viewing with calvinist teachers but I just know that if I start to do that I’ll see how viable their arguments are and feel even more anxious. Both sides seem viable. How on earth do you determine, no pun intended, whether God really loves and calls all or if only a few were elected? If Calvinism is true I have no chance of any assurance of my salvation. I could have effervescent grace and be told on the last day “go away, I never knew you”. Even under provisionism that could be true because honestly when I see how complicated doctrine and in particular soteriology is, how on earth can I ever know I’ve exegeted it all correctly? It seems to me that to be OK I either need to not think at all or have several theology qualifications. Idiots like me who are neither surface dwellers nor great academics seem destined to flounder in the waters of theological debate. 😳 Is there any hope of discerning truth, finding peace and holding onto it without the opposing argument or a confusing passage blowing out all out of the water? How do I teach my kids the right way when I feel like I’m the blind leading the blind? I’ll be held accountable for what they learn or don’t learn and I don’t think confusion will be an acceptable defense.
Hello Sian – welcome – and thank you for your sincere post.
The place of considering the possibility that Calvinism could be true – is very similar to a place that I was in many years ago.
–
But I allowed myself to learn more about how the foundational core of Calvinism is EXHAUSTIVE DIVINE DETERMINISM (EDD) – as enunciated within its doctrines of decrees.
–
Then I learned that Determinism comes in 2 primary forms
1) Atheistic Determinism
2) Theistic Determinism (aka Calvinism)
–
Then I learned that because Determinism is such a radical belief system – it forces the believer (Both Atheist and Theist) into a state of DOUBLE-MINDEDNESS. The Determinist is forced to treat his belief system *AS-IF* it is FALSE in order to retain a sense of human normalcy.
–
Dr. William Lane Craig explains
-quote
Nobody can live *AS-IF* all that he thinks and does is determined by causes outside of himself.
Even determinists recognize that they have to act *AS-IF* they have option(S) to weigh, and can decide on what course of action to take….. (Determinism is unlivable)”
–
Sean Carroll (Theoretical physicist) Atheist Determinist
-quote
Every person in the world, no matter how anti-free-will they are, talks about people *AS-IF* they make decisions.
–
“Stephen Hawking
-quote
I believe Determinism is true. But I’ve come to realize I have to live *AS-IF* Determinism is false. (Q&A Oxford, Lady Mitchel Hall)
–
John Calvin
-quote
“Hence as to future time, because the issue of all things is hidden from us, each ought to so to apply himself to his office, *AS-IF* nothing were determined about any part.”(Concerning the eternal predestination of God)”
–
CONCLUSION
Because this is the case with the Calvinist – you cannot take what the Calvinist says at FACE VALUE
Because within his belief system – many things are FALSE – and he speaks *AS-IF* they are true.
And many things within his belief system are TRUE – and he speaks *AS-IF* they are FALSE
–
You have to allow yourself time – to learn how to understand – the degree to which Calvinist statements are DOUBLE-SPEAK statemented.
–
Once you learn to recognize – when a Calvinist is speaking DOUBLE-SPEAK – you will not have any problems then.
You will be extremely glad you did not allow yourself to get lured into his belief system
–
Blessings!
br.d
Thanks BR. D… I really appreciate your reply and the clear laying out of determinism. It does seem as if you’d have to not only live your life but read your Bible as if a core doctrine you believe were false. I understand that something seeming wrong from a philosophical viewpoint doesn’t make it wrong from a theological one… but honestly, if Calvin was bang on about all this then reading the bible, relating to God, evangelising… Really virtually EVERYTHING…takes on a different meaning. You’d have to read so much into the bible stories and God’s own narrative and explain away statements and “yeah but” the usual rendering of texts that it’s almost like a whole new take on it all. It all seems to hinge on a few texts… Which seems odd because usually when a few texts seem to fly in the face of the rest of the bible we’re told to take them in context and wait until we understand them… not build doctrine that seems to negate much of the rest of the narrative. But hey ho…that’s just my take. I guess if Augustine was the enlightened one then I’m just determined not to get it. I still don’t understand why Calvinists fight for what they believe though. If they’re right, then a. no amount of determining will change the mind of the unelect and b. isn’t it wrong to try to change what God has determined for His glory? If my stupidity is because I’m unelect and destined for hell then under Calvinism it is a good and pleasing destiny for me in order to show God’s glory and justice. One final thing, I live in the UK and as such am used to the idea of having sovereign rule. Our lovely Queen when she was alive could have risen up and lorded it over the nation. She had the right, if the film Jonnie English is to be believed, to seize any land as her own… even where my house is! Yet she chose not to and to serve, whilst still fulfilling what it meant for her to be addressed as ” your majesty.” Even as a Princess she worked as a mechanic for the army. Was she any less sovereign because she chose to serve rather than subdue? I’d say a resounding no… she was far more respected than many other sovereigns and retained full sovereignty over us as a nation. I know it’s an imperfect analogy as she was human and imperfect but… Well I just don’t think sovereign means puppet master. 🤔
br.d
Thanks Sian
That was a great post!
–
Your first point – about how things within Calvinism has their own peculiar meaning – is insightful!
Calvinists have – what would be typically called an “INSIDER” language.
–
For example – Calvinist will quite frequently appeal to people doing things of their own -quote “Free Will”.
And the Calvinist enunciates the phrase “Free Will” in such a way as to give the NON-Calvinist the impression – what he the Calvinist means is what the NON-Calvinist understands.
–
But the Calvinist knows that he has an INSIDER meaning for “Free Will” which is quite different from the normal understanding. And the Calvinist is taking advantage of the fact that his meaning is not what the NON-Calvinist assumes. The reason the Calvinist does this – is because he knows if people were to understand what he means by “Free Will” they would reject the Calvinist’s belief system. So this is a way of communicating to people – which will maximize their perception of Calvinism – and minimize the possibly of them rejecting it.
–
The problem with this – of course – is for a follower of Christ – it represents a form of dishonesty.
So in order to maximize Calvinism’s IMAGE – Calvinist language manifests two primary forms of dishonesty
–
1) Lies of omission.
A lie of omission – is a statement designed to mislead – by virtue of omitting critical facts – which when not omitted would not mislead. And a great deal of Calvinist statements – function as lies of omission. The “T” within Calvinism’s TULIP for example – functions as a lie of omission. It is designed to obfuscate aspects of the doctrine the Calvinist knows people will reject – while making the doctrine *APPEAR* to be something other than what it really is.
–
2) Equivocations
The equivocation occurs when words and phrases – and whole sentences – are crafted with INSIDER meanings which the recipient has no awareness of. The Calvinist knows the recipient is being mislead – and the Calvinist is actually banking on it.
–
Consequently – it takes a person – like Dr. Flowers for example – who learns about what Calvinist doctrine stipulates – and learns how to immediatly recognize when the Calvinists is speaking DOUBLE-SPEAK.
–
One has to ask the question – is it really God’s plan that truths within scripture – and the gospel itself has to be conveyed to people using deceptive language strategies.
Sian, I know I’m late to the game here (because I’m not online often to read the comments), but I wanted to reply to something you said: “You’d have to read so much into the bible stories and God’s own narrative and explain away statements and “yeah but” the usual rendering of texts that it’s almost like a whole new take on it all. It all seems to hinge on a few texts… Which seems odd because usually when a few texts seem to fly in the face of the rest of the bible we’re told to take them in context and wait until we understand them… not build doctrine that seems to negate much of the rest of the narrative.”
This is very, very insightful … and I think it’s one of the main confirmations that Calvinism is totally wrong. They do not take God’s Word at face value. They do not read it as it is written – in the plain, easily-understood, commonsense way. They add multiple layers (“Yeah but”), change word meanings, and take verses out of context in order to change easily-understood verses into Calvinist ones, giving them some sort of “hidden, deeper meaning” that’s NOT in the Bible plainly and clearly. They ignore what’s plainly said, favoring the Calvinist version that’s NOT plainly in the Bible. This alone should be a key indication that it’s wrong.
And when there is a serious contradiction they cannot resolve, Calvinists simply resort to “Well, you don’t have to understand it, you just have to accept it.” That’s not a wise, godly response to the serious damaging contradictions Calvinism creates. They cannot be swept under the rug and ignored. Those kinds of responses are cult-like attempts to manipulate people into shutting up and falling into line. Another serious indication that something’s very wrong with Calvinism.
You are getting red flags about Calvinism for a very good reason – because you know it doesn’t fit with the plain reading of Scripture and that it damages God’s character and Word and the gospel. And the more you study, the more you’ll see how wrong Calvinism is. (That’s what happened to me, which I wrote about at Anti Calvinist Rant, a blogspot dot com. Look it up if you want.)
Also, you said in a later comment: “Twould be nice to think there’s a plan in all this but I certainly don’t see it… apart from the benefit of putting this dilemma to rest.”
I think God’s plan is that we little people will learn the truth about the dangers of Calvinism and tell others about it, planting seeds along the way. I think since the seminaries and churches are over-run with Calvinists, the pushback and alarm-sounding will have to come from the common people here and there, one by one, you and me and Br.d. etc.. Each one can reach one. A grassroots campaign. So, yes, I think there is a purpose in the theological struggle you’ve been in – you’ll have a story to tell and truths to share about what the gospel really says and who God really is. Someone else who’s struggling with doubts about Calvinism might be helped by hearing you speak out against it.
Fyi, I understand your emotional struggles over this. When we left our church where the pastor was stealthily entrenching the church in Calvinism without openly admitting it (we sat under his preaching for 6 years and I could feel my soul dying), I had to spend some time in detox, getting away from the heavy theological things and just learning to enjoy the simple beautiful truths of Scripture again, getting to know God again as He really is. I would listen to praise music, read the Bible as it was written (without reading into it), take walks in nature and enjoy His creation, etc. And I really suggest the book “Our God is Awesome” by Tony Evans. It’s a great theology book on the true nature of God and the truth of the Scripture. It really helped me refocus on God’s truth, in the face of Calvinism’s lies and the damage it caused in my soul and heart. It takes time to detox from Calvinism’s poison and to learn to enjoy God again. So be patient and gracious with yourself. I’m sure God understands and will help bring you peace and understanding as you go. Blessings! And happy holidays.
Hey BR.D, thanks so much for your response… I’m sorry I haven’t thanked you sooner… it was much appreciated.
I think the double meanings seem to extend beyond the fundamentals of Calvinistic doctrines to so many other passages as well. If the character of God is as they would have us believe, then many passages previously taken to display God’s kindness, love, patience, desire to be our Father etc lose much of their inclusivity and become somewhat disingenuous. That said, I do struggle with the idea that my Christian experience sometimes would seem to affirm that God’s promises are not for all. I often feel so different to other believers and the way they experience God. They read the Bible and it encourages them… I do it and feel judged… they pray and feel peace… I pray and feel anxiety… Etc, etc. If predestination is unto salvation and I’m not elect then my wanting to have their experience is about as likely to achieve a positive result as if I wanted to will myself to be a supermodel. It’s a bit of a depressing conclusion to come to from reading the bible. 😕
Hi Sian
You have a good deal of sincerity and thoughtfulness and honesty with which you approach these things.
And I can’t help but ascribe the worries you experience – to what is typically called “undue influence”
I never had to face the worries you are experiencing because I never took Calvinism’s “Influence” seriously – because I had a concrete and solid understanding of how deviant Calvinism is.
–
Years ago – I had a Christian friend in the company in which I worked
In a building of 500 people – he was the only person there that I knew as a Christian
But his pastor was dishonestly teaching Calvinism to his congregation.
That pastor apparently didn’t’ want to let his congregation know he was teaching Calvinism – for fear he would lose people.
–
My friend happened to be doing a favor for one of the sisters in the congregation and he made a statement that she took the wrong way – and she brought the mater to the pastor for judgment.
The pastor went to my friend – and he told the pastor that sister had no grounds for taking what he said the way she did.
At that point however my friend was disagreeing with the pastor
So the pastor – having the greater authority – and thinking his authority was being challenged – declared my friend was not “elect” and the church was to treat him that way.
–
My friend was seriously shaken.
He idolized that pastor
And now that dishonest pastor was causing him to question God’s intentions for his eternal life
–
Do you see the damage that pastor did?
He was not working for the body of Christ
He was working for the body of Calvinism.
And he was just as dishonest as many Calvinist pastors have shown themselves to be
–
Sian – I think you need to go to the Lord and ask him to cleans your mind from Calvinism’s “undue influence” .
Calvinism is a doctrine of “Good-Evil” – operating in dishonesty – trying to hide its “Evil” part.
Calvinism is a form of mental ensnarement.
–
But the Lord is greater!
And he can deliver us from all evil
I would ask you to seek the Lord for deliverance from Calvinism’s “undue influence”
The scripture teaches us – a requirement for deliverance is admission
We need to admit we allowed ourselves to come under “undue influence” and ask the Lord to deliver us from it.
–
In love
br.d
Thanks BR.D… Its certainly a hard thing to cut ties with doctrines you were bought up with. Tbh I didn’t realise the extent of those doctrines… I just internalised the heavyness and an image of God that is very oppressive. I remember the turmoil I had trying to weigh up the gifts vs cessationism….the latter being what I was brought up to believe. The gifts won out because the bible just didn’t seem to teach that bthe gifts had ended. But this one is bigger… I’m so scared of getting it wrong with God, I have to be really certain that my inepritation of what the Bible means regarding election etc is correct. I guess though, if Calvinism is true it doesn’t really matter. If I believe it or not it was all determined and I have no choice in my choices. But if it’s not true… then my whole relationship with God could be very different. You’re right… it’s time to take it to God, in the hope He’s not the terrifying person I’ve internalised, and ask Him to do what needs done… for better or worse. 😳
br.d
Yes! I think you are starting to see through it actually!
And yes – you are correct – in Calvinism – per the doctrine of decrees – for every human event and every impulse that comes to pass within the human brain – there is granted only *ONE SINGLE PREDESTINED RENDERED-CERTAIN* option. Therefore for every impulse that comes to pass within the human brain – there is granted only *ONE SINGLE PREDESTINED RENDERED-CERTAIN” impulse.
–
Man is given NO CHOICE in the matter of any impulse that has been decreed to infallibly come to pass within his brain.
–
He isn’t even aware of what impulses have been decreed to come to pass within his brain
He only becomes aware of them after they come to pass.
–
Since that is the case – he is certainly not granted a CHOICE in the matter of what impulses are decreed to come to pass within his brain. And if he has no control over the impulses in his brain – then he certainly is not going to have the mental control necessary to make a CHOICE about anything – even if he were granted multiple options from which to choose (which per the doctrine of decrees he is not)
–
Calvinists do not like what their own doctrine stipulates
In order to evade what their doctrine stipulates – they do a lot of TAP-DANCING.
–
That TAP-DANCING is what makes Calvinism a DOUBLE-MINDED belief system
And it is what makes Calvinist language a DOUBLE-SPEAK language
–
So ask yourself a few questions:
Did the God of scripture design a belief system that forces believers to be DOUBLE-MINDED?
Would he design a belief system which believers have to evade in order to find palatable?
Would he design a belief system that has to be communicated using DOUBLE-SPEAK?
–
My answer to those questions are all “NO”
And knowing that – fills me with the joy of the Lord
He is wonderful!
He love you and he loves me!
He died for you and he died for me!
He sets the captives free! :-]
Thanks for all your encouragement BR. D Yes, it would seem odd for God to choose such a double minded system… but I guess only odd if you’re not a Calvinist. And I really don’t mean that in a mean way towards Calvinists. I think many don’t think it through to its logical end. And for those that have, God must look very different to them. This morning, after the school run, I took your words to heart and started to pray…within no time it struck me that if Calvinism is true then I cannot trust God to answer my prayer. If I’m not elect he won’t give me the ability to see truth and even if he does give some help, if it’s flowing from effervescent grace then it may just be a trick to lull me into a false sense of security. 😳 One thing I’ve learnt for sure is that if anyone counters the soteriological debate surrounding calvinism by saying it doesn’t really matter I will respond very resoundingly with “Oh yes it does!” It makes all the difference… on one hand a God who is sovereign, just, loving and patient but interestingly only chooses to personify love in the verse, “God is love” and on the other a sovereign, just, capricously loving God who is determined to determine everything to satiate his desire for glory and justice… with a bit of love thrown in for the fortunate few. Strange how if that God is real the Bible doesn’t say” God is Justice.” How can people not see how important this is… how fundamental it is that we know God and what He is like? That we understand if God chose to display His sovereignty by absolute control or in the way the best of Fathers chooses to have authority over his kids. I know it can be dangerous to anthropomorphise God but he was obviously willing to take that risk when He described Himself as a Father or even less dignified, like a mother hen. OK, that second example isn’t anthropomorphism… I have no idea what the word is for attributing the characteristics of a chicken onto someone. 😂 The bottom line is, this matters and I’m very grateful to people like Dr. Flowers who go into it deeply and biblically in order to help people disentangle the truth from the error.
br.d
Wonderful!
I loved when the Lord brought it to your mind that “if Calvinism is true then I cannot trust God to answer my prayer”
–
BINGO!
–
And the more one contemplates that aspect of the doctrine – the more one understands how devastatingly that aspect of the doctrine permeates everything! Because – if Calvinism is true – then the only thing the Calvinist can trust about his god – is that his god will do whatever his pleasure is.
–
Consider Calvinist-X sitting down to take a TRUE / FALSE exam
He reads the first question at TIME-T
Now the doctrine stipulates that Calvin’s god at the foundation of the world – must determine what perception will come to pass within Calvinist-X’s brain.
–
If Calvin’s god decrees the perception will be that the answer is TRUE – then the ALTERNATIVE perception is not granted existence within Calvinist-X’s brain – because it would be an ALTERNATIVE of that which is decreed.
–
The same would be true – in the reverse.
In either case – only *ONE SINGLE PREDESTINED RENDERED-CERTAIN* perception is granted to Calvinist-X’s brain concerning the answer to that question.
–
What we see then – is Calvinist-X’s brain is not granted the function of choosing TRUE from FALSE – because that choice would constitute a LIBERTARIAN choice – which in Calvinism is not granted to the human brain.
–
So if Calvinism is true – then the Calvinist has no way of discerning TRUE from FALSE on any matter.
–
No Calvinist can live that way – and retain any sense of human normalcy
So tin order to retain a sense of human normalcy – the Calvinist is forced to live *AS-IF* his doctrine is FALSE.
Now the Calvinist is conditioned to believe his doctrine is what the Bible teaches.
Since he is forced to treat his doctrine *AS-IF* it is FALSE – it follows – he is forced to treat what the Bible teaches as FALSE.
–
Where in scripture does it tell the believer to treat what the Bible teaches is FALSE?
–
So what the Lord showed you is wonderful!
And I loved the rest of your analogy!
–
And you know it made me wonder – before the Apostle Paul was the Apostle Paul the author of so much of the New Testament – he was Saul of Tarsus the persecutor of Christ.
–
As Saul of Tarsus – he was an educated man with a very keen mind.
But as Saul of Tarsus – that keen mind was being used to his own detriment
But Jesus changed that!
He delivered Saul of Tarsus from that which held him captive
And that gave Saul of Tarsus the ability to be the Apostle Paul
–
I have a suspicion the Lord has a similar plan for you Sian!
And I’m filled with joy over the thought of it.
I think the Lord is doing wonderful things in your heart and life!
And perhaps he is preparing you for something!
Thanks for your wisdom and insight BR. D… and for your encouragement. Twould be nice to think there’s a plan in all this but I certainly don’t see it… apart from the benefit of putting this dilemma to rest. I’m just muddling through hoping I understand the truth and find peace in it all. I wish I’d been able to do the theology degree I was meant to do a gazzilion years ago. Unfortunately I was ill and not able to do the course. It’s so helpful having deeper insights/conversations and more academic input than general life affords. I got told I was thinking too deeply in a bible study once… but I can’t just turn the volume down on the way I look at stuff. I love the long, indepth videos leighton does… Like meat for the mind and soul. Anyway, thank you so much for your helpful comments BR. D. Kindest regards from across the pond… ☺
br.d
Thank you Sian!
And I can understand someone telling you that you are thinking “too deeply” about scripture – because there is a pattern which religious traditions follow. The tradition is never to be questioned. Select Bible verses can be co-opted which APPEAR to affirm the tradition. And of course anyone who thinks deeply about those things is going to ask probing questions the tradition doesn’t want anyone to ask.
–
May the Lord continue to grow your sincerity and thoughtfulness
May he continue to shine his flash-light of truth in your path Sian!
And I will be happy to hear your future testimony of the further steps the Lord took you through – in the process of delivering your mind from the DUALISTIC system of “Good-Evil” which has found its home in Calvinism.
–
Blessings!
Yours – br.d
Thanks BR. D…in their defense I don’t think the person was at all Calvinistic… I think I just annoy people when I won’t just let a theological issue lie. 😂 It’s frustrating for me cos I want and need to wrangle the issue to at least some kind of conclusion but I get that it’s frustrating for others who don’t have that itch to scratch and want to move on. I’m also aware, and as such don’t always share my fullest feelings on a topic, that my doubts and fears could trigger someone else to question things too and I’d hate to cause another Christian to struggle with their own faith.
I will certainly let you know if I finally put this one to bed.
Many thanks for being so patient, Siân
Thanks again Sian
Very Christ-like sentiments!
My best to you – until we chat again!
br.d :-]
I’m so sorry but I have another question…if it helps, I annoy myself too 🙄! I’m listening to one of Leighton’s videos on predestination and there’s one angle, which is a very fundamental one that I still can’t get. I’m either being nitpicky or obtuse! He says that we are predestined not for salvation but for things such as being adopted, for future glory, etc. Are those things not merely synonymous with salvation, ie another way of saying you were predestined to be saved? So for example if I said my daughter has been chosen to go to a party, that would mean the same thing as saying my daughter has been chosen to have fun, eat cake, get a party bag, have a sugar high, etc. So isn’t saying we are predestined to be adopted and to receive all the other gifts God has for us the same as saying we were predestined to be saved? Does that make sense? 🤔 Please know this is a genuine question and I’m not trying to be argumentative…. I actually want someone to say I’m wrong…. wow, that doesn’t happen very often… 😂
Sian,
Ah-ha! You have an EXCELLENT question here. I will be interested on how this answer plays out!
Ed Chapman
br.d
Hi Sian
–
We need to be very careful not to read our own understanding of something into the text of scripture – in the process read concepts into the text of scripture – which the author of scripture never had.
–
Years ago – people held it as unquestionable truth – that the earth was the center of the universe and the sun therefore orbits around the earth. Those people also held scripture as unquestionable truth
Consequently – verses within scripture were interpreted to affirm a universe in which the sun orbits around the earth.
And as far as those people were concerned – there was no other possible way of interpreting the text.
–
That a critical failure point – when it comes to the Calvinist reading of scripture.
The Calvinist has a CANON of his own which he holds to before he even opens the book of scripture.
–
The Calvinist’s CANON is the concept of EXHAUSTIVE DIVINE DETERMINISM (EDD)
So the Calvinist makes the same mistake that believer of a “geocentric” universe makes.
When the Calvinist reads the CANON of scripture – it must conform to the Calvinist’s CANON of EDD.
–
So when Paul tells people who are already believers – that they are predestined for the adoption of the body – the Calvinist has to make sure that what Paul is saying lines up with EDD – because EDD is CANON for the Calvinist.
–
We should be able to understand then – how Calvinists AUTOMATICALLY interpret verses like that one.
–
If instead of following the Calvinist practice of forcing scripture to conform to EDD – we simply take what scripture states and *DO NOT ASSUME OR ADD* concepts into what scripture states – then we do no have a concept within scripture – where *UNBELIEVERS* are predestined before the foundation of the world – because there is no author in scripture who makes any such statement.
–
There is not one statement within scripture which states predestination to salvation.
And there is not one statement within scripture where people who are “unbelievers” or “not yet believers” are predestined for anything.
–
There is as O.T. Jewish concept of election – which has to do with election to service.
And there is a N.T. Jewish concept of predestination – which is specific only to people who are already believers.
–
So the authors of scripture never had a concept of predestination for people who are “not” believers and/or pepole who are “not yet” believers.
–
So the Calvinist practice of making scripture conform to EDD – forces him to *ADD* concepts into the text which are simply not there.
–
Does that makes sense to you?
Sian, you asked: “He says that we are predestined not for salvation but for things such as being adopted, for future glory, etc. Are those things not merely synonymous with salvation, ie another way of saying you were predestined to be saved?”
No, those things are not the same as predestined for salvation. Predestination in the Bible is about what God’s promised to those who believe, after they believe. But Calvinists have turned it into who believes and how. It’s like this: God created two buses: one to heaven and one to hell. The end destination of each bus has been planned, but not who gets on which bus. God left it up to us which bus we get on, but once we get on one, we’ll be taken to where He already decided it would go. Hope that makes sense. Whoever believes is promised to receive certain blessings, rewards, etc. But it’s up to us if we believe or not.
Here is something I wrote on my blog about that (from my post “Predestined for salvation? Or for something else?”):
… Okay, now, in order to truly understand predestination, we need to look at verses where we actually do find “predestination.” And we MUST use the KJV.
Ephesians 1:5, 11-12 (KJV): “Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself … In him also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will: that we should be to the praise of his glory, who first trusted in Christ.”
Does Eph. 1:5 say that certain sinners are predestined to salvation/eternal life?
No. It says we are predestined to be adopted as children. And to know what “adoption of children” means (the NIV words it “adoption as sons”) go to Romans 8:23 (NIV): “… we wait eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies.”
“Predestined for adoption” is not about certain sinners being predestined for salvation/eternal life. It’s about the promise that God will redeem the bodies of all believers, that all believers will eventually acquire the full benefits of being a child of God.
(Also of note is that the concordance says “adoption” is NOT about being brought into God’s family by spiritual birth, but about God promising to “adopt” anyone who believes into His family. Anyone who believes in Jesus, who accepts Jesus as Lord and Savior – and this offer is open to all – will become one of His children: “Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God.” (John 1:12) And all His children are predestined to be brought into His family and to experience the dignity/full benefits of being His child, being fully realized at the redemption of their bodies. This is God’s promise, that if you put your faith in Jesus, you will be part of His eternal family!)
And notice also that the second “predestination” (in Eph. 1:11-12, but you have to use the KJV) specifies that the “inheritance” believers get is what was predestined, NOT that certain people are predestined for salvation.
Basically, Ephesians predestination is saying that we who are “in Him” (as a result of choosing to believe in Him) are predestined to have our bodies redeemed, to get an inheritance, and to bring God glory. All of this is promised by God to anyone who chooses to put their faith in Jesus. And anyone can.
Even Ephesians 1:13-14 (NIV) confirms this when it says that “And you also were included in Christ when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation. Having believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit, who is a deposit guaranteeing our inheritance until the redemption of those who are God’s possession – to the praise of his glory.”
Notice that those believers were not included in Christ until after they believed. And after they believed, they were given the Holy Spirit as a promise that they will be redeemed. And they are guaranteed an inheritance. This contradicts Calvinism on at least three points:
First, it confirms that predestination is not about certain sinners being preselected for heaven, but it’s about believers being predestined for redemption/an inheritance. Second, it contradicts Calvinism’s idea that the elect are “in Christ” (essentially “saved”) from the beginning of time, because Scripture shows they were not in Christ until after they believed. And third, it contradicts Calvinism’s view that the elect have to get the Holy Spirit first, that He causes them to believe in Jesus, because it shows that they didn’t get the Holy Spirit until after they believed, as a result of believing.
“Predestination” is not about individual people being pre-chosen for salvation, but it’s about the destiny of anyone who chooses to believe in Jesus. And that’s a big difference!
And the only other place where “predestination” is in the Bible is Romans 8:29-30 (KJV): “For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son … Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called; and whom he called, them he also justified; and whom he justified, them he also glorified.”
Does this say certain sinners are predestined to be saved? No! It says that believers (those whom He foreknows) are predestined to be conformed to Jesus’s image. This goes right along with what I’ve been saying. God has not predestined who believes, but He has predetermined the destination of the path of a true believer. But it’s our decision to get on that path or not, to accept or reject Jesus.
… God has done it all, put all the pieces in place. He’s predestined the means of salvation, the path of salvation, the sacrifice for our sins, the fact that He will have an eternal family with Him in heaven, the destination of those who believe (where the path of a true believer takes them), etc. But our role – our one responsibility – is to decide between accepting it or rejecting it. Following Him in His plans or rebelling against Him.
It’s like someone having planned everything out for a vacation and having paid for it all. And they are asking you to come with them. And all you have to do is say “yes” or “no.” You can go with them on the preplanned, prepaid vacation, or you can refuse to go. The choice is yours. And you will have to face the consequence of your choice. If you say “yes,” you will acquire all the things the Lord has planned for those who believe – forgiveness, salvation, eternal life with Him, etc.. But if you say “no,” you will miss out on the vacation, eternity with the Lord. Saying “no” or even simply refusing to make a decision means naturally missing out on the vacation.
This is how salvation works. This is how to mesh a biblical view of predestination with mankind’s free-will and responsibility to make a decision.
And it is very different from the Calvinist view that God alone predestines who goes to heaven and who goes to hell, and that there’s nothing you can do about it.
(I hope this helps, Sian.)
Hey Ed, yes it’s certainly a question that really bothers me so hoping I can find a way to enlighten myself.
Hi BR. D…thanks for your excellent reply and yes, it does make perfect sense. The difficulty I guess is that unless you’ve never read or had the bible explained to you, not bringing suppositions to a text can be pretty difficult. On the other hand, not having anything explained to you can lead to confusion and error… take the Ethiopean Eunach for example. That said, I often find that others readings of the bible seem to not encompass my ability to find things in it that scare the living daylights out of me. I even managed to feel told off by God reading the ” Be still and know that I am God.” verse 😂 Actually, in fairness, it was when I read the bible notes that said the original language translates as “stop it!” Anyway sorry, I’m digressing somewhat. So, if I go to some of the passages in question where it says people have been predestined or elected for adoption, or chosen before/from the foundation of the world or the one where it says “many are called but few are chosen” and I try and put aside both opposing ways of exegeting those texts… I’d probably do what I always do and take the simple interpretation… ie God may call but not choose, God chose people for blessings before He even created everything and its His right to do so because He’s God. Which means that even though I seemingly have immense value in that He created me in His image and put me over all creation, because of His plans I’m potentially looking at eternity in a lake of fire. 😱 Honestly I don’t get how people read the bible and find the comfort in it that so often eludes me. But then I guess if I’m not elect then that comfort isn’t for me. I don’t know why some Calvinists boldly assert their beliefs so avidly… do they not realise that in doing so they’re not, under their system, making any difference to God’s will and determinations… all they’re doing is rubbing those predestined to hells noses in it!!! I guess they would argue that that is irrelevant and that all that matters is God’s glory. 😔 What on earth do I teach my kids?
br.d
Hi Sian,
I have the same response myself to “Be still and know that I am God” :-]
It is a sobering statement for me – especially during times of trial and tribulation.
–
Many years ago – the Catholic church hid the “manuscripts” (i.e. Greek copies of the N.T.) away from the general public.
The claim was that the “little” people wouldn’t know how to interpret them.
But the truth was – the roman church was imposing itself as the divine authority – making itself the bridge between man and God. A priest could stand up in front of a congregation and make up all sorts of things and claim it was God’s word and the people wouldn’t know the difference because they were not allowed access to scripture
–
The printing press and the Greek scholar changed all of that!
Soon there were copies of the N.T. springing up.
The church burned every copy they could find – but people were reading them under blankets with candles
The church then turned to burning people – and mothers who taught their children the Lords prayer were burned alive.
But the church eventually realized – that was a losing battle
–
So if the church can’t control people by keeping the scriptures from them – the next strategy is for a priest to stand over their shoulders and tell them what every verse means.
–
Now John Calvin derives his reading of scripture from a Catholic bishop named Augustine – who mixed NeoPlatonism (the doctrines of Plotinus) into Christian doctrine.
–
N.T. Write calls John Calvin a Catholic with a small “c”
So Calvinism through strategic infiltration – has accomplished what the Catholic church could not accomplish.
It has set itself up as a priest standing over the reader’s shoulder telling the reader what every verse means.
–
Calvinist publications designed for that purpose – are ubiquitous within Christian book distributions.
And the vast majority of those publications never let the reader know what they are reading is Calvinism.
So we have a certain degree of dishonesty as a strategic and concerted practice.
Calvinist pastors who dishonestly take over non-Calvinist churches see themselves as doing the work of god.
–
Consequently – Calvinistic conceptions of election and predestination have strategically infected a large percentage of the Bible reading population. Today – may people cannot read the word “elect” within scripture – and not automatically assume a Calvinized conception of it.
–
Fortunately for myself – I recognized that aspect of Calvinism many years ago
And I learned to be very aware of Calvinistic influences.
I once purchased a theology book by Loraine Boettner
The first chapter was easy enough to read
But he started producing praise and adoration for John Calvin which I at first found troubling.
By the second chapter – that praise and adoration had turned obsessive
And his worship and adoration of man made me sick to my stomach
I don’t typically throw theology books into the trash – but that one needed to be burned as God commanded the people of Israel to burn down the “high places” and as God commanded John the Apostle not to fall down before the angel.
–
So when I read scripture – my mind is not under the influences of Calvinistic concepts.
I can read the text – and my mind does not automatically import NeoPlatonic Determinism into it.
–
At this point I also have a very keen understanding of how every Calvinist has to deny his doctrine in order to embrace it. So I understand the double-mindedness Calvinism produces – and have no interest in falling into that state of mind.
–
My prayer for you Sian – is that as you reach out to the Lord for the cleansing of your mind – he will do so.
And your mind will not be influenced by the invisible Calvinist priest who stands over your shoulder influencing your mind’s reading of the text – like the serpent standing over Eve’s shoulder – telling her what God really said.
–
I have confidence the Lord will bring you through this Sian!
You have a sincere heart – and a desire for honesty planted in you by the Lord.
I believe the Lord will use that desire for honesty – as a primary means to set you free from Calvinism.
br.d
br.d
Sian – if you have not seen it – look for a Q&A with N.T. Write on Youtube
–
N.T. Write does not read an English translation of the N.T.
He reads the N.T. in its original language.
He understands the degree to which English translations are tainted by theological bias
–
This brings up another topic within this discussion.
The Jewish scribes have for many centuries a very precise practice in the handling of O.T. scripture.
As you can imagine – a paper scroll is not going to last forever.
It will eventually deteriorate.
So someone has to transcribe from a master copy to new paper.
The Hebrew process for doing this is meticulous.
They have a method of multi-layered validation – with which they validate every letter within the text.
If one letter is wrong or missing – the whole piece is burned.
–
The N.T. however – over the years – has had a scribe here or there who took it upon himself to alter the text because he disagreed with something the text said.
–
Scholars today examine every N.T. manuscript
And there are libraries of manuscripts which are locked away because they contain alterations.
–
Those altered manuscripts shine a flashlight on dishonest incentives which people have in the handling of scripture
–
If a scribe sees no problem erasing what the author of scripture writes and replacing it with his own words – how much more should we understand – there are translations of the Bible which similarly tainted.
–
I remember reading about a certain church which had a doctrine supposedly derived from the original KJV
But the publisher of that KJV in a later publication let the reader know there were certain verses which were not interpreted correctly – and one such verse was that very verse which this church was using to support its doctrine.
When the church received the updated KJV they rejected it – even though the correct was accurate.
Their own doctrine was more important to them than what scripture actually says.
–
N.T. Write understands the reality and history of bias within theology.
If you haven’t seen that video – give it a watch.
Yours
br.d
N.T. Write – youtube
TITLE = “N. T. Wright on Predestination and Election”
br.d & Everyone Else
On Social Media, someone recently said that the belief that “Elect” in the Bible means Saved is a Calvinist Mistake, they also
Elaborated saying
“The elect are the holy saints who will inherit the kingdom.
If it says inherit or rule with Jesus or sons then it’s about those who will rule with Jesus during the millennium. They are the elect.
Calvinists think this refers to salvation in general but it really only refers to the best of the saved people who are not judged and rise in the first resurrection.”
The elect will judge the non elect when they rise in the second resurrection. And they will reign over them until the end of the millennial age.” What do we think
br.d
Hi Jeff
.
There have always been a variety of *FRINGE* doctrines floating around with small groups of people who adopt them.
Some people will take little bits and pieces from various theologies – and sow them together as a patch-work belief system.
.
The one you mention here sounds like perhaps it borrows elements from the Jehovah’s Witnesses doctrine – and also perhaps it borrows elements from Calvinism.
.
Someone has taken those various elements and pieced them together to make a patch-work system for themselves.
.
I would refer to you to research that was completed by Kevin Thompson
Kevin has a Youtube channel which is called “Beyond the Fundamentals” .
.
Kevin has video dedicated to every occurrence in which “Election” is mentioned within scripture
One of his videos is titled “Election word occurrence analysis within scripture”
.
Kevin steps through each occurrence where the term “Elect” or “Election” are stated within scripture
.
This allows you to read each of these instances and make up your own mind about what the author of scripture means by the terms “Elect” or “Election” within each verse.
.
I would suggest you go to youtube and look up “Beyond The Fundamentals”
And look in Kevin’s list of video presentations – for those which are dedicated to Election.
.
I think you will find them informative.
Blessings!
br.d