A troublesome verse for the Calvinist

[Mark Quayle]

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

AAaaaaahahaha! You make it sound like you didn't check it first to be sure it passes muster.

— Or

"I suppose one can use a free online Bible Dictionary - here is a link to one them with its definition of foreknowledge: Foreknowledge | Holman Bible Dictionary | Bible Directory "

 

[Mark Quayle]

I don't think that what 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.

Well, good. At least you don't then seem to agree with @BibleBeliever1611 's absurd claim.

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.

So, unless it helps you in your support of what you already believe, you eschew to use... —er, that is, I mean, you prefer a quicker, more definite and positive route.

Yes, I am aware that my standard there will be used to measure me. And yes, I know I am a hypocrite.

 

[Clare73]

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.

Assertion without Biblical demonstration is without Biblical merit.
Foreknowledge, by definition, does not exclude causation when it comes to God.

Your view of God is too human, said Luther to Erasmus.

 

[Clare73]

Those verses are just shooting Calvinists to the foot. One of those verses say that the saved people are elect according to the foreknowledge of God, not according to God's choosing like Calvinists teach.

Oh, dear. . .

And in that case, foreknowledge, Biblically understood, means they were chosen according God's foreknowledge (of their election) of his decree (long ago), from before the foundations of the world, to choose them.

 

[John Mullally]

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

The fact that the same greek word is translated in different ways throughout the NT probably has something to do with the surrounding text (i.e. the context). In our conversations, we use the same word to express different things - and that proves to be difficult for non-native speakers. This kind of Bible Dictionary identifies that a greek word is translated differently by the Bible Translators and then it goes into reasons why passages of scripture should have been translated. These kind publications tend to be biased. For example, look up various commentaries on a particular verse online and observe the variance. I still like to look at scripture commentaries, just to see if I am missing something - but I recognize spin.

Remember the translators translated to English. I reference the dictionary to keep other people honest.

 

[Clare73]

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.

Methinks the lady doth protest too much. . .

Which simply means you cannot Biblically refute her explanation, all you can do is object without any Bibllical demonstration of error.

That's good work if you can get it. . .but out here you get to put your money where your mouth is.

 

[John Mullally]

Assertion without Biblical demonstration is without Biblical merit.

If Biblical demonstration means supporting your argument from scripture, I do that.

Your view of God is too human, said Luther to Erasmus.

Another one of your unintelligible phrases. Try being understandable for a change.

Oh, dear. . .

And in that case, foreknowledge, Biblically understood, means they were chosen according God's foreknowledge (of their election) of his decree (long ago), from before the foundations of the world, to choose them.

The use of terms in English translations of the NT are to be understood from their English definitions. God's foreknowledge only means that God fore knew. You mentioned "Biblically understood" - well you don't speak for God!

 

[Clare73]

If Biblical demonstration means supporting your argument from scripture, I do that.

But you don't support your assertion of my error with a Biblical demonstration.

Another one of your unintelligible phrases. Try being understandable for a change.

The use of terms in English translations of the NT are to be understood from their English definitions.

So just forget the Greek. . .'nuff said.

God's foreknowledge only means that God fore knew.

Agreed. . .

You mentioned "Biblically understood" - well you don't speak for God!

But Scripture does.

 

[Mark Quayle]

The fact that the same greek word is translated in different ways throughout the NT probably has something to do with the surrounding text (i.e. the context). In our conversations, we use the same word to express different things - and that proves to be difficult for non-native speakers. This kind of Bible Dictionary identifies that a greek word is translated differently by the Bible Translators and then it goes into reasons why passages of scripture should have been translated. These kind publications tend to be biased. For example, look up various commentaries on a particular verse online and observe the variance. I still like to look at scripture commentaries, just to see if I am missing something - but I recognize spin.

Remember the translators translated to English. I reference the dictionary to keep other people honest.

Well, good. I don't suppose you recognize spin when YOU, or your sources, do it...

 

[Mark Quayle]

Those verses are just shooting Calvinists to the foot. One of those verses say that the saved people are elect according to the foreknowledge of God, not according to God's choosing like Calvinists teach.

This is rich. Let's see: elect = choose; so are you saying, "Calvinists teach that those God chose are chosen by God (Huh??), unlike the verse says, that God chose them for salvation according to what he looked ahead and saw they would do." (HUH???) ? I hope you can recognize the incoherence there.

Oh, dear. . .

And in that case, foreknowledge, Biblically understood, means they were chosen according God's foreknowledge (of their election) of his decree (long ago), from before the foundations of the world, to choose them.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Jesus taught that we are to be United, of one mind.

I guess God is playing nasty games with us by pitting us against each other.

Yeah, sure, this really looks like love...
LOL

Do you not believe that salvation is by grace through faith? And that, not of ourselves? So what is the problem? We believe the same thing, no?

 

[Mark Quayle]

If Biblical demonstration means supporting your argument from scripture, I do that.

Another one of your unintelligible phrases. Try being understandable for a change.

The use of terms in English translations of the NT are to be understood from their English definitions. God's foreknowledge only means that God fore knew. You mentioned "Biblically understood" - well you don't speak for God!

But you don't support your assertion of my error with a Biblical demonstration.



So just forget the Greek. . .'nuff said.



Agreed. . .



But Scripture does.

John, I can't help but think when I hear you so sure of yourself saying things like the "use of terms in English translations of the NT are to be understood from their English definitions." that you will be required to live by whatever rule you make up. The Bible wasn't written in English. The translators by and large do their best, but the Greek is relevant. Further, when, contextually, even the English demonstrates that God's "know" and "foreknow" are NOT the same thing as "God, like us, has learned and only thus does he know" and "God is able to look ahead to see what will happen", you will be answerable for ignoring the very principle you posit. And may God have mercy on us both.

 

[Mark Quayle]

SMH Where's the emoticon like I've got on my phone ...no, not the facepalm, the one with the palms of the hands raised up to the sides, shoulders shrugging...

 

[John Mullally]

John, I can't help but think when I hear you so sure of yourself saying things like the "use of terms in English translations of the NT are to be understood from their English definitions." that you will be required to live by whatever rule you make up.

If you are going to use Bible translations when studying the Bible, then you should stick to an English dictionary understanding of the words - I don't like the KJV mainly because it is so old that word meanings have changed.

If someone using a Greek Lexicon provides an alternate understanding of a passage or passages than is formed in the vast majority of translations, I will probably not listen because there is a lot of bias.

Further, when, contextually, even the English demonstrates that God's "know" and "foreknow" are NOT the same thing as "God, like us, has learned and only thus does he know" and "God is able to look ahead to see what will happen", you will be answerable for ignoring the very principle you posit. And may God have mercy on us both.

I don't recognize the example. I avoid being needlessly wordy and use of the passive voice - as I see in your examples.

Well, good. I don't suppose you recognize spin when YOU, or your sources, do it...

On internet sites, I look for and recognize slant. Be wise as serpents and innocent as doves.

I am relatively fair minded. Unlike most on these forums debating Soteriology, I contrast Calvinist and non-Calvinist views. I don't pretend to not understand what the other side is saying. In doing so, I make it easy for Calvinists to explain how I am misrepresenting them.

 

[John Mullally]

Do you not believe that salvation is by grace through faith? And that, not of ourselves? So what is the problem? We believe the same thing, no?

Jesus paid the ransom for all mankind (1 Timothy 2:6 and 1 John 2:2) - that explains God's grace which is not of ourselves, and Peter promises that if we repent and are baptized we will receive remission of sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:38-39) - taking Peter at his word demonstrates receiving by faith. Romans 10:17 says that faith comes by hearing the word of God. Acts 2:38-39 dovetails nicely with Christ's word in Mark 16:16 given about 5 weeks prior.

Acts 2:36 “Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly that God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ.” 37 Now when they heard this, they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “Men and brethren, what shall we do?” 38 Then Peter said to them, “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 For the promise is to you and to your children, and to all who are afar off, as many as the Lord our God will call.” 40 And with many other words he testified and exhorted them, saying, “Be saved from this perverse generation.” 41 Then those who gladly received his word were baptized; and that day about three thousand souls were added to them​

 

[Mark Quayle]

Jesus paid the ransom for all mankind (1 Timothy 2:6 and 1 John 2:2) - that explains God's grace which is not of ourselves, and Peter promises that if we repent and are baptized we will receive remission of sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:38-39) - taking Peter at his word demonstrates receiving by faith. Romans 10:17 says that faith comes by hearing the word of God. Acts 2:38-39 dovetails nicely with Christ's word in Mark 16:16 given about 5 weeks prior.

Acts 2:36 “Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly that God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ.” 37 Now when they heard this, they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “Men and brethren, what shall we do?” 38 Then Peter said to them, “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 For the promise is to you and to your children, and to all who are afar off, as many as the Lord our God will call.” 40 And with many other words he testified and exhorted them, saying, “Be saved from this perverse generation.” 41 Then those who gladly received his word were baptized; and that day about three thousand souls were added to them​

All that, I believe. Are you just adding to what I said, or disagreeing with something, or what?

 

[John Mullally]

All that, I believe. Are you just adding to what I said, or disagreeing with something, or what?

Do you expect anyone on this forum to say they don't believe in Ephesians 2:8?

My experience is that Calvinists and non-Calvinists understand this verse far differently - and we should recognize our differences.

Wow, for the record you agree with what I said.

 

[John Mullally]

Methinks the lady doth protest too much. . .

Which simply means you cannot Biblically refute her explanation, all you can do is object without any Bibllical demonstration of error.

I earier said she misunderstood you - which should be obvious. I don't know BibleBeliever1611 and I don't speak for her like Mark Quayle occasionally speaks for you.

What does "Biblically refute her explanation" and "object without any Biblical demonstration of error" exactly mean? I have asked you to be understandable many times. You have posted thousands of times on this forum, perhaps this is a game for you.

That's good work if you can get it. . .but out here you get to put your money where your mouth is. . .also known as "put up or shut up."

Its another difficult post from Clare73 that includes accusatory hard to decipher wierd turn of phrases. But this time she added foolish trash talk. Not exactly standard fare on a Theological forum.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Do you expect anyone on this forum to say they don't believe in Ephesians 2:8?

My experience is that Calvinists and non-Calvinists understand this verse differently - so how does asking this question get anywhere in coming to an understanding?

Wow, for the record you agree with what I said.

Yes, because even though some of the things you said, to you mean something beyond what you said, to me they don't, and as worded, I agree with it. Particularly the parts that directly quote, or repeat, what Scripture says. Calvinism, as I know it, nor Reformed Theology, contradicts any of it, unless I missed something of what you said, (not Scripture quoted, nor repeated) that was false.

What you meant by what you said is another matter. Just as a for-instance, you said, "Jesus paid the ransom for all mankind (1 Timothy 2:6 and 1 John 2:2) - that explains God's grace which is not of ourselves..." I have little doubt you meant something along the lines that that completely explains God's grace which is not of ourselves, and that there is nothing else to add, concerning God's grace to us, that is not of ourselves. But you didn't say so.

As for the other part you might misunderstand me to say, and maybe accuse me of inconsistency: The being that has taken up permanent residence in the Lake of Fire hardly resembles the person we thought we knew here on Earth. Jesus did not pay the penalty for every soul, only to have it paid again by that soul, upon their resurrection unto death. That soul is not mankind made in the image of God —at least, not as far as I can tell.

You probably don't remember me saying things to the effect that God's creation is: 1) a particular people (i.e. the Elect, the Dwelling Place of God), and 2) what it took for them to become the Dwelling Place of God (i.e. the rest of what we refer to by 'creation', to include the universe, and this whole long story).

Why did I answer as I did, instead of confronting what you meant? To show @GodsGrace101 that we do have a semblance of unity, those of us that are brothers and sisters in Christ.

 

[Clare73]

I earier said she misunderstood you - which should be obvious. I don't know BibleBeliever1611 and I don't speak for her like Mark Quayle occasionally speaks for you.

What does "Biblically refute her explanation" and "object without any Biblical demonstration of error" exactly mean? I have asked you to be understandable many times. You have posted thousands of times on this forum, perhaps this is a game for you.

Methinks the lady doth protest too much. . .