A troublesome verse for the Calvinist

[Clare73]

Again curt as usual.

Try to make an intelligible argument that can be disputed instead of playing guessing games where you throw out naked scripture and coimments. And then when someone answers you cry foul because they are arguing against points you did not make or to which you cannot defend - when in fact you made no intelligible point.

What makes you think that I am saying that Mark 16:16 contradicts John 3:3-8? Spit it out! I will not play your guessing games. Remember when you quoted John 3:3-8 you did not go into detail on the point you were trying to make.

You have posted thousands of times on this forum in favor of Calvinism

That you see my Scriptural posts as Calvinistic is a testimony to the writings of Calvin as Scriptural.

 

[BibleBeliever1611]

Who made that rule?

Person named Common Sense.

The testimony of multiple Scriptures is proof of error, for truth can be testifed to by only one statement.
Who made that rule?

Common sense again. There was a video where someone claimed that there's over 70 Bible verses which teach that the earth is flat. But of course that's just a deception to make you think the Bible teaches dumb and non-scientific stuff like that. If you claim that there's some huge number of verses that teach your doctrine, people are going to be deceived and be convinced that at least one of them must be valid. Similarly, the atheists have claimed that there are hundreds of verses which supposedly contradict each other, so we should throw the whole Bible to the trash and accept that Christianity is not true.

It would be very easy to discuss only one verse. Easy, fast and simple. But if you are too scared to do that; too scared that your one verse will turn out to teach some other doctrine, or possibly have another interpretation, you don't want to discuss only one verse. Instead, you will use the clever tactic of pulling out some huge number of verses. Nobody has time to go through them all.

 

[Clare73]

Person named Common Sense.

Common sense again.

Now all you have to do is Biblically show where Scripture presents that as its standard.

If you claim that there's some huge number of verses that teach your doctrine, people are going to be deceived and be convinced that at least one of them must be valid. Similarly, the atheists have claimed that there are hundreds of verses which supposedly contradict each other, so we should throw the whole Bible to the trash and accept that Christianity is not true.

Mark, are you seeing this?

That is too rich and priceless to address.

It deserves to be left standing as testimony to what it is.

 

[John Mullally]

That you see my Scriptural posts as Calvinistic is a testimony to the writings of Calvin as Scriptural.

Curt as usual. You commonly quote scripture without commentary on the scripture - so sometimes who knows how you are using the scripture to support you point(s), as it is not obvious.

Quoting scripture does not necessarily make what one says scriptural. Satan uses (or more accurately misuses) scripture.

Matthew 4:5 Then the devil took him to the holy city and had him stand on the highest point of the temple. 6 “If you are the Son of God,” he said, “throw yourself down. For it is written:​

​

“‘He will command his angels concerning you,​

and they will lift you up in their hands,​

so that you will not strike your foot against a stone.​

 

[5thKingdom]

"Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons:" - Acts 10:34

What this verse is saying is that God doesn't care what kind of person you are. As the proverb goes: red, yellow, black or white, we're all prcious in his sight. However, Calvinism doesn't fit well with this verse. If God chooses one person to be saved and another person to be lost, then it looks like God indeed is a respecter of persons. From a Calvinist point of view Peter would be completely wrong in this verse.

The Bible PROMISES that (before regeneration) there is not ONE single man who will "seek God"
This has ALWAYS been an essential element of the Gospel of Grace.

Rom 3:10-12
As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:
There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.
They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.

.

 

[John Mullally]

The Bible PROMISES that (before regeneration) there is not ONE single man who will "seek God".

While it’s true that fallen man does not seek after God, God seeks after us, positioning Himself “not far from each one of us,” all for the purpose that mankind “would seek God, if perhaps they might grope for Him and find Him.” (Acts 17:26-28 NKJV) The apostle Paul taught this in a sermon to evangelize lost, unbelievers. So, clearly, he thought that lost people could seek and find God, based solely on the principle of God positioning Himself near, so that He may be sought and found, and Paul didn’t mention anything to them about first needing a secret regeneration to change their will, nor did he say that God only desired the salvation of a secret society of “the elect” among them. Also remember the Holy Spirit purses man and He convicts the world of Sin, Righteousness, and Judgement (John 16:8).

This has ALWAYS been an essential element of the Gospel of Grace.

Calvinists are engaging in extra-biblical, logical deduction. Their goal is to portray mankind as being as evil as satan, and then ask, “How could such a person ever freely receive Christ? They can’t. Hence, the only thing left is Irresistible Grace,” even though Paul never arrives at that conclusion. Instead, Paul’s conclusion from mankind’s depravity is that since we are morally imperfect, we cannot be saved by our performance under the Law, and so the solution, then, is to place our trust in a perfect Savior who can. For those who do confess their sins to God and place their trust in Him, God credits righteousness, since they are relying on Him to save them. Our only hope, therefore, is to believe.

This is courtesy of excellent information from a website answering Calvinism verse-by-verse and subject-by-subject Romans 3:11

 

[Clare73]

Curt as usual. You commonly quote scripture without commentary on the scripture - so sometimes who knows how you are using the scripture to support you point(s), as it is not obvious.
Quoting scripture does not necessarily make what one says scriptural. Satan uses (or more accurately misuses) scripture.

Matthew 4:5 Then the devil took him to the holy city and had him stand on the highest point of the temple. 6 “If you are the Son of God,” he said, “throw yourself down. For it is written:​

“‘He will command his angels concerning you,​

and they will lift you up in their hands,​

so that you will not strike your foot against a stone.​

Well, that settles it!
Satan disqualifies the Bible.

 

[John Mullally]

Well, that settles it!
Satan disqualifies the Bible.

Oh sarcasm. You would have to use faulty logic or twist what I said in Post 204 to derive that. Are those your standard reasoning methods?

 

[BibleBeliever1611]

It deserves to be left standing as testimony to what it is.

Testominy to what? Are you saying you believe the earth is flat?

 

[Clare73]

Testominy to what? Are you saying you believe the earth is flat?

Are you?

 

[John Mullally]

Testominy to what? Are you saying you believe the earth is flat?

Are you?

How about answering BibleBeliever1611 as to what "It deserves to be left standing as testimony to what it is." is referring to in Post 203.

Relax, I am asking for trransparency. I am not asking for "the whole council of God" or an "establishment of God's standard" - which you like to say.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Whenever you have to bombard with over 10 Bible verses, it's a clear sign you don't know what you're talking about. You know you don't have any clear verse to prove your view, so you have to pull out so many verses or some wall of text to make it look like you're right.

Maybe quote just one verse and then we talk.

Who made that rule?
You're kidding, right?
An abundance of evidence is really no evidence at all?
In addition to divine foreknowledge, do you also not understand what absurdity is?
Methinks because the evidence overcomes your objections, and you have no way to unseat it, you create a pathetic absurdity to try to invalidate it.

Translate: The testimony of multiple Scriptures is proof of error, for truth can be testifed to by only one statement.
Who made that rule?

Where did you learn that Biblical testimony to a doctrine must be limited to one statement?

Pick one about which you have a question, and we'll look at other Scriptures which corroborate or explain it.

I wonder how many who agree with his/her take on Scriptures also agree with his/her absurd claim, "Whenever you have to bombard with over 10 Bible verses, it's a clear sign you don't know what you're talking about.." I'm thinking he's/she's fishing alone, there, in his/her own little mud puddle.
(Reminds me of a statement I once made to James White, that I wouldn't doubt he wished that some Calvinists/Reformed would not try to defend him with the kind of 'logic' they use (to which he grunted and grimaced, saying something like, "Isn't THAT the truth!").)

"Clare73 said:
Who made that rule?"
Person named Common Sense.

Compare your truncated version of what Clare said to what she actually said, quoted above. You ignore her whole point, as though you actually answered her question.

"Clare73 said:
The testimony of multiple Scriptures is proof of error, for truth can be testifed to by only one statement.
Who made that rule?"
Common sense again. There was a video where someone claimed that there's over 70 Bible verses which teach that the earth is flat. But of course that's just a deception to make you think the Bible teaches dumb and non-scientific stuff like that. If you claim that there's some huge number of verses that teach your doctrine, people are going to be deceived and be convinced that at least one of them must be valid. Similarly, the atheists have claimed that there are hundreds of verses which supposedly contradict each other, so we should throw the whole Bible to the trash and accept that Christianity is not true.

Compare your quote of what @clare said, to what she actually said. Whether you meant to or not, you left out, "translate", changing her translation of what you said to make it sound like she claims that the testimony of multiple Scriptures is proof of error. That is not what she was saying. That is also against the site rules to do. Go look it up.

It would be very easy to discuss only one verse. Easy, fast and simple. But if you are too scared to do that; too scared that your one verse will turn out to teach some other doctrine, or possibly have another interpretation, you don't want to discuss only one verse. Instead, you will use the clever tactic of pulling out some huge number of verses. Nobody has time to go through them all.

I see your "Easy, fast and simple" method of eisegesis has become such a habit that you insist others indulge in it with you —though, I don't doubt, only when it suits you!

 

[John Mullally]

Or you don't understand what God's foreknowledge is.

In the NT, God's foreknowledge is of is own actions, not of the actions of men.
And God knows his own actions of the future, because he has decreed since before the foundations of the world what they would be.
(Ac 15:38, 2:23; 4:28, Is 48:3, Ro 8:29, 11:2, 2 Pe 3:17, Is 37:26, 45:21).

And your denial of the plain Biblical text which states that God chose the recepients of Peter's letter for salvation shows your own twisting of the verse, as Peter condemns in 2 Pe 3:16. . .and attributes to ignorance of the Scriptures.

Here you blatantly twist the meaning of several passages that contain the word translated into English as "foreknowledge", presumably to fit your Calvinist presuppositions. Foreknowledge is not an action. Those passages were translated into English by scholars who knew a lot more about the original text than you do. If the meaning of the original text translated to "foreknowledge" was active like "decree", those scripture passages would have been translated accordingly.

This is the meaning of "foreknowledge" in Websters online dictionary:

: to have previous knowledge of​

: know beforehand especially by paranormal means or by revelation​

 

[Clare73]

Or you don't understand what God's foreknowledge is.

In the NT, God's foreknowledge is of is own actions, not of the actions of men.
And God knows his own actions of the future, because he has decreed since before the foundations of the world what they would be.
(Ac 15:38, 2:23; 4:28, Is 48:3, Ro 8:29, 11:2, Is 37:26, 45:21).

Here you blatantly twist the meaning of passages that contain the word "foreknowledge", presumably to fit your Calvinist presuppositions.

Trolling all the way back to the first page of the thread. . .

Those passages were translated into English by scholars who knew a lot more about the source language than you do. If the meaning of the source text was acctive like "decree" or something synonymous to it, those words would have been translated accordingly.

Then you get to Biblically demonstrate my error.

 

[John Mullally]

Trolling all the way back to the first page of the thread. . .

I was led to that by Mark's comments in Post 212 where he said "I wonder how many who agree with his/her take on Scriptures also agree with his/her absurd claim". You liked Post 212.

I cannot take arguments seriously when one thinks translators are free to alter the definitions of the Greek words prognosis or proginosko to something more suitable to their theology, or simply to change the Greek words themselves to something more suitable to their theology.

The NT is written in Greek, not English.
The meaning of words in the NT is determined by their usage; e.g.,
the word "spiritual," which means non-material, is not its usage in the NT, where it means of the domain of the Holy Spirit.

Prognosis is used only of divine foreknowledge (Ac 2:23; 1 Pe 1:2), while
proginosko is likewise used not only of divine foreknowledge in Ac 15:18, Ro 8:29, 11:2, 1 Pe 1:20,
but also of human foreknowledge in Ac 26:5, 2Pe 3:17.

Whether foreknowledge has divine or human roots, its not inaccurate to use the same word "foreknowledge" per the definition of that word. Foreknowledge is not an action and by asserting that it is (in Post 19) to fit you Calvinist presuppositions, you are twisting the word of God.

 

[Clare73]

I was led to that by Mark's comments in Post 212 where he said "I wonder how many who agree with his/her take on Scriptures also agree with his/her absurd claim". You liked Post 212.


Whether foreknowledge has divine or human roots, its not inaccurate to use the same word "foreknowledge" per the definition of that word. Foreknowledge is not an action and by asserting that it is (in Post 19) to fit you Calvinist presuppositions, you are twisting the word of God.

That explains a lot. . . you don't understand what is stated.

Seems I can't take the above posting seriously either.

 

[John Mullally]

That explains a lot. . . you don't understand what is stated.

Seems I can't take the above posting seriously either.

I understand that translators have to balance producing translations that are easily understandable against capturing every nuance that can be gleened from the original text. Nothing in Post 215 supports how you twisted scripture in Post 19. Foreknowledge, by its definition, does not imply causation.

 

[Mark Quayle]

I was led to that by Mark's comments in Post 212 where he said "I wonder how many who agree with his/her take on Scriptures also agree with his/her absurd claim". You liked Post 212.

Now I'm curious ...do you agree with @BibleBeliever1611 's absurd claim?
BibleBeliever1611 said:
"Whenever you have to bombard with over 10 Bible verses, it's a clear sign you don't know what you're talking about."

Whether foreknowledge has divine or human roots, its not inaccurate to use the same word "foreknowledge" per the definition of that word. Foreknowledge is not an action and by asserting that it is (in Post 19) to fit you Calvinist presuppositions, you are twisting the word of God.

When God says, "I never knew you", what do you think he means by that? —that he simply never knew, according to the Webster's meaning you quoted for "foreknow"? Look up "know" as relates to God knowing and "foreknow"/"foreknew"/"foreknowledge" in a Bible Lexicon. No doubt you will find someone to agree with you, but you will also find some troubling evidence that it means a whole lot more than what appears on the English Arminian's 'plain reading'.

Whose definition is THE definition? Webster's? I haven't looked it up in Webster's, but I wouldn't be surprised to find it, too, includes uses/meaning that you did not quote.

 

[Mark Quayle]

I understand that translators have to balance producing translations that are easily understandable against capturing every nuance that can be gleened from the original text. Nothing in Post 215 supports how you twisted scripture in Post 19. Foreknowledge, by its definition, does not imply causation.

Foreknow; Foreknowledge Meaning - Bible Definition and References

Discover the meaning of Foreknow; Foreknowledge in the Bible. Study the definition of Foreknow; Foreknowledge with multiple Bible Dictionaries and Encyclopedias and find scripture references in the Old and New Testaments.

www.biblestudytools.com

 

[John Mullally]

Now I'm curious ...do you agree with @BibleBeliever1611 's absurd claim?
BibleBeliever1611 said:
"Whenever you have to bombard with over 10 Bible verses, it's a clear sign you don't know what you're talking about."

I don't think that BibleBeliever1611 understood what Clare was saying.

I think it was a knee-jerk reaction. Clare frequently answers with a wall of scripture references, with only a cursory explanation. Which is something I don't think many people like as it is difficult to respond to directly without getting into a "guessing game", and that generally does not go well. And if you ask for clarification - you can expect to hear something like "What do you think it means" - which generally does not go well either.

When God says, "I never knew you", what do you think he means by that? —that he simply never knew, according to the Webster's meaning you quoted for "foreknow"? Look up "know" as relates to God knowing and "foreknow"/"foreknew"/"foreknowledge" in a Bible Lexicon. No doubt you will find someone to agree with you, but you will also find some troubling evidence that it means a whole lot more than what appears on the English Arminian's 'plain reading'.

Whose definition is THE definition? Webster's? I haven't looked it up in Webster's, but I wouldn't be surprised to find it, too, includes uses/meaning that you did not quote.

Bible Lexicons are for gleaning a detailed understanding of words in the original text (like greek or aramaic). Generally, trying to gain better understanding from the orginal text using a lexicon is slow and painstaking - and your finding will probably still be disputable.

I suppose one can use a free online Bible Dictionary - here is a link to its definition of foreknowledge: Kings Bible Dictionary - Foreknowledge .