we are ALL PREDESTINED

[renniks]

Yes, I would agree with you here in regards to breath and depth of past theologians dissertations. The puritans are also a difficult bunch to read. They are almost like reading Shakespearian plays in their original form. I took a class on Shakespeare in college and I needed a dictionary just to read the plays, and I pretty much knew what the plays were about. That was an.... interesting class!

Oh and another fantastic book is : the pursuit of God by AW Tozer.
I went to a church for 10 years that had a lot of calvinist thinking. If that didn't change my mind I doubt anybody on a message board will.

 

[The Righterzpen]

Try reading N T Wright's book, "Paul and the faithfulness of God". Deep stuff that will change the way you see Paul's writings. I got three quarters of the way through and put it down for a couple years and now I'm going back to it.

Do you read a lot of NT Wright books? If you do; I have a better understanding now of where your non traditional protestant theological definitions are coming from.

Wright's view on Paul twists justification by faith and invariably twists the concept of atonement; bringing into question whether or not Christ's atonement was penal substitution. Which explains why you don't see atonement as specific to individuals; those individuals being "the elect".

Wright's theology becomes another form of Judization because he too is claiming the Jewish background of Paul took precedence over how the Holy Spirit actually penned the Scripture. I've had this type of discussion with many people who claim the Scripture needs to be interpreted through the cultural lens of 1st century Judaism. The Scripture doesn't say that though; it tells us to interpret it by comparing it to itself.

 

[The Righterzpen]

Oh and another fantastic book is : the pursuit of God by AW Tozer.
I went to a church for 10 years that had a lot of calvinist thinking. If that didn't change my mind I doubt anybody on a message board will.

So you're saying you came from a church background that was "calvinistic" to begin with and reading Wright and Tozer changed your mind?

 

[renniks]

Do you read a lot of NT Wright books? If you do; I have a better understanding now of where your non traditional protestant theological definitions are coming from.

Wright's view on Paul twists justification by faith and invariably twists the concept of atonement; bringing into question whether or not Christ's atonement was penal substitution. Which explains why you don't see atonement as specific to individuals; those individuals being "the elect".

Wright's theology becomes another form of Judization because he too is claiming the Jewish background of Paul took precedence over how the Holy Spirit actually penned the Scripture. I've had this type of discussion with many people who claim the Scripture needs to be interpreted through the cultural lens of 1st century Judaism. The Scripture doesn't say that though; it tells us to interpret it by comparing it to itself.

I have read a few but this is the most enlightning one. Paul's unique position as a former Pharisee helped give him the insight needed to understand what Jesus' death and Resurrection meant.
But I have believed that about the scope of the atonement for my whole life, at least as soon as I was old enough to understand it... Being raised Wesleyan probably had something to do with that.

 

[renniks]

So you're saying you came from a church background that was "calvinistic" to begin with and reading Wright and Tozer changed your mind?

No, kind of the other way around. I was Wesylan before I went to a Calvinist church, but it wasn't explicitly Calvinist. It was more subtly taught... Once I understood what was being taught, I started to question it which did not go over that well. I'm not going to that church now.

 

[The Righterzpen]

No, kind of the other way around. I was Wesylan before I went to a Calvinist church, but it wasn't explicitly Calvinist. It was more subtly taught... Once I understood what was being taught, I started to question it which did not go over that well. I'm not going to that church now.

But you're reading books?

 

[renniks]

But you're reading books?

I have always read books. Sometimes I even read books by people I disagree with.
I still attend a church if that's what you're asking.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Exodus 7:13 is rendered in King James the way it is because of the verb tense. Consecutive imperfect 3rd person masculine singular; when you have a Consecutive in the imperfect, it implies force. And since it's 3rd person and not 1st person, the force is coming from a source outside of Pharaoh.

If I said Jame’s muscle was tightened the word appears to be in the imperfect 3rd person tense but that doesn’t mean that someone else tightened his muscle. The word “He” or “The Lord” referring to God is not present in exodus 7:13 so there is no indication that someone else hardened his heart. What you are saying is that God is responsible for Pharaoh’s sin and disobedience.

 

[The Righterzpen]

If I said Jame’s muscle was tightened the word appears to be in the imperfect 3rd person tense but that doesn’t mean that someone else tightened his muscle. The word “He” or “The Lord” referring to God is not present in exodus 7:13 so there is no indication that someone else hardened his heart. What you are saying is that God is responsible for Pharaoh’s sin and disobedience.

Well, even if Exodus 7:13 was mistranslated; you still have 19 other instances in Exodus that say God hardened Pharaoh's heart.

 

[nolidad]

I don't believe Jesus actually went into the pharisee's house. I know you do, so I guess we just part company on that opinion in regards to this text.

Luke 14 King James Version (KJV)
14 And it came to pass, as he went into the house of one of the chief Pharisees to eat bread on the sabbath day, that they watched him.

YOu can believe what you wish- I will believe what Luke 14:1 says. This ends this discussion. It has ceased being profitable for anything.

 

[The Righterzpen]

I don't know for sure if King James is wrong ...Because I would like to think....Because I like that version, and has shown me more than the others that its correct...so holding up that view..even I may be wrong....I liked the way the other fellow in the post...addressed something...and hopefully I got Him right..which is in my own words that
Going outside the will of God continually will harden ones heart....but better said was earlier yesterday that God allows one to do what they want....maybe it's better to look at stories that said God hardened the heart...

I understand why the King James translated that verse the way that they did and I don't think it's wrong. No translation is perfect; but I agree with you that King James is the best (and certainly the most recognized) of English translation. The reason I believe this, is because of what Greek text that King James was translated from.

I don't know if you know any history behind the King James translation; but it's rather interesting. Here is a documentary about Bible translations and where they came from. Some of this I didn't know and some of it; I knew from research of other subjects.

 

[The Righterzpen]

Luke 14 King James Version (KJV)
14 And it came to pass, as he went into the house of one of the chief Pharisees to eat bread on the sabbath day, that they watched him.

YOu can believe what you wish- I will believe what Luke 14:1 says. This ends this discussion. It has ceased being profitable for anything.

OK. I explained to you (in rather extensive detail) why I don't believe He actually went into the house.

But - if you wish to end here. That's fine.

 

[The Righterzpen]

I have always read books. Sometimes I even read books by people I disagree with.
I still attend a church if that's what you're asking.

Did you end up going back to the Wesleyan church?

And just out of curiosity; you said you'd gone to a calvinist church and had a bad experience there. Did you know much about the theology before you attended, or not?

The reason I'm asking is because I remember in one of the posts, you'd made a comment to the effect of everyone being elect but you - or something of that nature? And it sounded like you felt hurt by the concept / people speaking of election? Did that start with this bad church experience? If it did; that would make some sense to me of your strong personal dislike of the doctrine.

 

[renniks]

Did you end up going back to the Wesleyan church?

And just out of curiosity; you said you'd gone to a calvinist church and had a bad experience there. Did you know much about the theology before you attended, or not?

The reason I'm asking is because I remember in one of the posts, you'd made a comment to the effect of everyone being elect but you - or something of that nature? And it sounded like you felt hurt by the concept / people speaking of election? Did that start with this bad church experience? If it did; that would make some sense to me of your strong personal dislike of the doctrine.

No, the church I currently attend is church of God. Very Evangelistic focus, and giving back to the community.
I don't think I ever really knew there was arminians and Calvinists before going to that church. Once I understood that I had theological differences I started studying what each side believed, and not surprisingly, found I was pretty inline with arminians, although I don't believe in total sanctification, which supposedly Wesley did. I don't recall saying anything about every one being elected but me. I might have said something along the lines of " how arrogant would it be to believe I was elected, but my neighbor wasn't?"
It wasn't the greatest church experience, but there were other reasons we moved on. Both my wife and I had our reasons for believing it was God's will for us to go elsewhere. And I still love the people of that church. I've been fortunate to have Christian friends of many types.

 

[corinth77777]

I don't know for sure if King James is wrong ...Because I would like to think....Because I like that version, and has shown me more than the others that its correct...so holding up that view..even I may be wrong....I liked the way the other fellow in the post...addressed something...and hopefully I got Him right..which is in my own words that
Going outside the will of God continually will harden ones heart....but better said was earlier yesterday that God allows one to do what they want....maybe it's better to look at stories that said God hardened the heart...

It's funny how destined is coupled ......because God allows...and because He gives free will

 

[corinth77777]

Yes, one must remain in Christ. We are recipients of eternal life as long as we are in him. Calvinist confuse this also, by claiming it's not possible to Fall away.

I started a post one day of what does it mean to be In Christ......and passage that comes to me as of now is the communion....what does it mean to eat his flesh and drink his blood or you shall not have no part with me?
If any man be in Christ He is a new creation .

It may be too possible that Christ is all one needs for their eternal destiny....
Maybe that's what it means to barely escape the flames of fire....idk
Because there are those who may have boldness to stand...yet some when He comes may not have boldness at all...what shall happen?
I have a feeling that somewhere....maybe in the greek....there are terms like Both "eternal life and life eternal in the bible.....
As there are holy ghost and holy spirit , kingdom of God and kingdom of heavens,
JESUS Christ and Christ Jesus....the and Thou.... in and of.......Jacob and Israel
Abram and abraham....etc

Why, because even though one of the 2 means eternal life...the quality of life in this life.....that may be likely a facet of the Life eternal......or vise versa...I have to figure out where I can find scrip like that since I do not know Greek.

Since eternal life scripturally means to know the only true God and Jesus whom He has sent....[dont quote me]
And to know someone is part of the close relationship ....of doing what the other wants. Yes to share in ones life would mean to remain Into/in Them....[i like that]

 

[corinth77777]

I started a post one day of what does it mean to be In Christ......and passage that comes to me as of now is the communion....what does it mean to eat his flesh and drink his blood or you shall not have no part with me?
If any man be in Christ He is a new creation .

It may be too possible that Christ is all one needs for their eternal destiny....
Maybe that's what it means to barely escape the flames of fire....idk
Because there are those who may have boldness to stand...yet some when He comes may not have boldness at all...what shall happen?
I have a feeling that somewhere....maybe in the greek....there are terms like Both "eternal life and life eternal in the bible.....
As there are holy ghost and holy spirit , kingdom of God and kingdom of heavens,
JESUS Christ and Christ Jesus....the and Thou.... in and of.......Jacob and Israel
Abram and abraham....etc

Why, because even though one of the 2 means eternal life...the quality of life in this life.....that may be likely a facet of the Life eternal......or vise versa...I have to figure out where I can find scrip like that since I do not know Greek.

Since eternal life scripturally means to know the only true God and Jesus whom He has sent....[dont quote me]
And to know someone is part of the close relationship ....of doing what the other wants. Yes to share in ones life would mean to remain Into/in Them....[i like that]

But here also is a question....that's a little awkward to my previous Baptist box...when it comes to justification...
But before I asked.....I better note; we know the scripture says if you are in the light you should also walk....And there is a passage that tells them that he wants them to know what it is they have Eternal life....for he says somewhere I write these things so that you may know you have....eternal life...
So here is the question.....what saves you now....in this course of life.....and what saves you after physical death...or alive at his coming?....is it eternal life or life eternal...
Another words...is it Christ in you.....or you in Christ......?

 

[corinth77777]

Another question....scrip says If I be lifted up I'll draw all men to myself.
And as I'm thinking about it now..and this being a little tricky because of how its written in diff places about who raised Christ from the dead. Anyway what can that mean..
For some reason I think of it as we are the body of Christ...maybe I see it as the literal body of Christ....and the people members that make up one body lift Him up by making His name great through obedience to the truth.
Who now draws? The father or the son?
Reminds me of a basketball game the way people cheer a team on...and the team members get pumped up.....so we got to get right ...our team the body. ..Just some thoughts...maybe there is one that can make this clearer for me.
His name is made great in all the earth when we Cloth ourself with Christ. So let's. Cheer him on Saints....in this case men are on the cheer team too.....haha

 

[corinth77777]

I understand why the King James translated that verse the way that they did and I don't think it's wrong. No translation is perfect; but I agree with you that King James is the best (and certainly the most recognized) of English translation. The reason I believe this, is because of what Greek text that King James was translated from.

I don't know if you know any history behind the King James translation; but it's rather interesting. Here is a documentary about Bible translations and where they came from. Some of this I didn't know and some of it; I knew from research of other subjects.

Are you a scholar?

 

[BNR32FAN]

Well, even if Exodus 7:13 was mistranslated; you still have 19 other instances in Exodus that say God hardened Pharaoh's heart.

No there’s not. There’s passages where God says I will harden his heart and only 2 passages that actually say that God hardened his heart. Where do you get 19 passages from?