The Advent of Heresy: Calvin Investigated

Ron Gurley · Jul 4, 2017

Is anyone going to attempt to rebut my T.U.L.I.P. posts??

mark kennedy · Jul 4, 2017

Karl.C said:
At the current moment, it doesn't look like happening. No contenders have come forward... So, for the moment, it looks like we are in wait mode

If you want a formal debate I'm ready, I'll post a proposal without hesitation. Do you want to actually debate this formally or not?

Ron Gurley · Jul 4, 2017

See my post #30 for a formal debate format.
What is wrong with that one?? Did you all miss it?
Is anyone going to attempt to rebut my T.U.L.I.P. posts??

Marvin Knox · Jul 5, 2017

Ron Gurley said:
Is anyone going to attempt to rebut my T.U.L.I.P. posts??

If you would learn to use your "reply" button and engage others directly rather than just post in a scatter gun manner - you would be more likely to get responses to your posts.

Karl.C · Jul 10, 2017

Ron Gurley said:
Is anyone going to attempt to rebut my T.U.L.I.P. posts??

I won't participate in nit picking but I will make a comment on "Total Depravity".

"Total Depravity" is such a severe notion that every time I encounter a discussion of TULIP, participating pastors tend to redefine it! Even sanitize it!

Imu of Calvin, he certainly didn't subscribe to the modernists views. In case you need to refresh your memory of what Calvin's opinion was on the subject, here is a link to Calvin's institutes, iv, ii...
Institutes of the Christian Religion - Christian Classics Ethereal Library

But lest the thing itself of which we speak be unknown or doubtful, it will be proper to define original sin...Original sin, then, may be defined a hereditary corruption and depravity of our nature, extending to all the parts of the soul, which first makes us obnoxious to the wrath of God, and then produces in us works which in Scripture are termed works of the flesh.

Elsewhere, the English translation of Calvin, has Calvin describe the consequences of original sin as a depravation (as in taking away restraint). Modern commentators I've encountered prefer the word "privation", which is held to be closer to Calvin's intent (ie: God withdrawing his guiding hand).

Calvin says "Original sin exposes us to the wrath of God. It also produces in us the works of the flesh..." I find Calvin's logic here circular and contrary to scripture.

For instance: From Genesis 3:12, we can identify Adam's sin/s as consisting of attempting to make God responsibile for the current events & Adam not taking responsibility for his own actions. From Genesis 3:17 we can deduce that his major error was "hearkened unto the voice of thy wife" (Eve was beguiled, but Adam was tempted), but his most grievest sin was not listening to God's instruction...

Have a read of the Hebrew (via the lexicons) for Genesis 2:16-17. God didn't "command" Adam but made him responsible for administering the garden (cp vs15). Young in his translation renders "And Jehovah God layeth a charge on the man, saying, 'Of every tree of the garden eating thou dost eat. and of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou dost not eat of it, for in the day of thine eating of it - dying thou dost die.'

So now we have another sin, Adam reneged on his God imposed obligation by not preventing Eve from eating of the tree of knowledge.

Possible further transgressions of Adam are proposed by some wits: 1. Adam watched Eve eat of the tree to see if she would die (he doubted God), 2. Eve ate from the tree without Adam knowing, then offered the fruit to him. Adam noticed she hadn't died, ate the fruit and in so doing effectively called God a liar!

From this brief account of Genesis 2 & 3, it should be self evident that Adam was "Totally Depraved" before he ate the fruit. Was "moral depravation" in mankind's genes from their creation? Given Genesis 1:27 & 31 the answer should be no.

One last bit of scripture which highlights the defect in TULIP... "Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, after his image (compare Genesis 1:27); and called his name Seth: And the days of Adam after he had begotten Seth were eight hundred years: and he begat sons and daughters..." (Genesis 5:3-4). Seth is the only child of Adam that is said to be in his image and likeness, and it is through the line of Seth that we have Jesus...

Ron Gurley · Jul 11, 2017

RE: "TOTAL DEPRAVITY" doctrine. Post #45

This is similar to the RCC false doctrine of "original sin".

The gist of Genesis chapters 1 + 2 + 3:

1. A&E were created perfectly good and created in the spiritual image of the TRI-UNE GOD.
2. God gave A&E ONE rule: "Don't eat!"
3. God walked in Eden and A&E KNEW of Him and His perfection.
4. God allowed satan to trick Eve into disobeying. Adam disobeyed with his eyes wide open...saw EVE do it!
5. A&E DISOBEYED for the FIRST time ever!
6. God DISCIPLINED those He loved, like a Father.
7. God prevented access to the "Tree of Life" lest they become "like" God...cast from Eden
8. The details of the DISCIPLINE are in Genesis 3!
9. There is no “Fall of Man”! FROM where? TO where?

FALSEHOODS:
1. There is an inherited "sin DNA" from A&E.
2. There is "original sin", tainting a newborn for which ritual water baptism is required.
3. Man has no "free will" CHOICE. He is PRE-DESTINED to sin and only the "elect" (eklectos) are saved.
4. Man has no innate "sin nature".
5. Work hard for heaven. Try not to sin.
6. The saved do not sin after salvation.
7. etc.... that grow out of the false doctrine of:
T = TOTAL DEPRAVITY

benelchi · Jul 11, 2017

Karl.C said:
Have a read of the Hebrew (via the lexicons) for Genesis 2:16-17. God didn't "command" Adam but made him responsible for administering the garden (cp vs15). Young in his translation renders "And Jehovah God layeth a charge on the man, saying, 'Of every tree of the garden eating thou dost eat. and of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou dost not eat of it, for in the day of thine eating of it - dying thou dost die.'

I read the Hebrew text, the very first word of vs. 16 is וַיְצַו֙ (and he commanded)

Marvin Knox · Jul 11, 2017

Ron Gurley said:
Is anyone going to attempt to rebut my T.U.L.I.P. posts??

I'm your huckleberry.That's just my game.

Ron Gurley said:
RE: "TOTAL DEPRAVITY" doctrine. Post #45
This is similar to the RCC false doctrine of "original sin"....................There is no “Fall of Man”!

Original sin is one of the few doctrines RCC got right.

God told Adam that the day they ate of the tree he would die. He did and as a consequence of that death all men for whom Adam is the representative head must be born again if they are to fellowship with God on a spiritual level.

God prevented A&E from eating of the tree of life so that they would not live forever in their spiritually dead state.

Only after being born again will men have access to the tree of life again.

Jesus chided Nicodemus for his lack of understanding of these basic principles even though he was one of the foremost teachers in all of Israel.

How much more than Nicodemus should we who are inhabited by the Holy Spirit understand these basic concepts. The so called fall of man from fellowship with God and the remedy for that fall are basic teachings of the scriptures.

That was true for the O.T. Nicodemus studied and it is true for the completed canon of scripture which we study.

Ron Gurley said:
God prevented access to the "Tree of Life" lest they become "like" God...cast from Eden

That is incorrect. God did not prevent them from eating of the tree in order to keep them from becoming like God. That had already happened when they learned of good and evil. He prevented them from eating of the tree of life to keep them from living forever in their fallen state.

Ron Gurley said:
FALSEHOODS:
There is an inherited "sin DNA" from A&E.

No one calls it "DNA" in theology. They call it the sin nature.

Ron Gurley said:
FALSEHOODS:
There is "original sin", tainting a newborn for which ritual water baptism is required.

No one here discussing whether Calvinism is heresy believes in baptismal regeneration. Certainly no Calvinist does.

Ron Gurley said:
FALSEHOODS:
Man has no "free will" CHOICE.

Calvinism teaches the direct opposite of the doctrine that man has no free will. It is stated very clearly in the Westminster Confession of Faith (the foremost statement of Reformed theology) that predestination does not negate the ability of men to make choices - for which they will be held responsible.

Ron Gurley said:
FALSEHOODS:
He is PRE-DESTINED to sin

Far from being a falsehood - the truth is that everything which happens in God's creation is predestined to happen. It cannot be otherwise as attested to by the nature of God and His relationship to creation as well as direct teachings from scripture.

Ron Gurley said:
FALSEHOODS:
......only the "elect" (eklectos) are saved.

That is not a falsehood. The scripture could not be more clear that only believers will be saved. God calls believers His elect.

Ron Gurley said:
FALSEHOODS:
Man has no innate "sin nature".

Of course he does. Are you putting yourself forward as one teaching the church and don't know these things Nicodemus (er ahh "Ron"

).

Ron Gurley said:
FALSEHOODS: Work hard for heaven...............The saved do not sin after salvation.

No Calvinist believes such things. That is the purview of anti-Calvinists.

Calvinism teaches that we are saved by grace through faith and that not of ourselves it is the gift of God lest any man should boast.

Calvinism teaches the necessity for the advocacy of Jesus as our high priest - precisely because we do sin after salvation.

Ron Gurley said:
FALSEHOODS:Try not to sin.

Far from being a falsehood - every Christian is encouraged to try not to sin in the Calvinist teaching.

Ron Gurley said:
.... etc.... that grow out of the false doctrine of: TOTAL DEPRAVITY

Most of the things you mentioned do not grow out of Calvinist teaching but out of your own warped vision of what Calvinists teach.

It's one thing not to believe the Calvinist doctrines of grace. It's quite another to misrepresent what Calvinist mean by them.

To misrepresent their teaching only to shoot down that misrepresentation is not only kicking a straw man. It is being dishonest as well.

Karl.C · Jul 11, 2017

Ron Gurley said:
RE: "TOTAL DEPRAVITY" doctrine. Post #45

This is similar to the RCC false doctrine of "original sin".

Actually not!

The RCC (as I came to know it) teaches that original sin "stained" the soul (stains can be removed with washing eg: baptism), and a "stain" does not obliterate the essentially of a thing = the virtues remain largely intact.

The RCC also teaches that original sin "suppresses" mankind's natural inclination to do good (true belief in Jesus evidences the removal of that inhibition).

In short: in respect of "Total Depravity", the RCC teaching is the complete opposite of what Calvin taught and what his offspring, in all their variations, teach.

Karl.C · Jul 11, 2017

benelchi said:
I read the Hebrew text, the very first word of vs. 16 is וַיְצַו֙ (and he commanded)

Note Gesenius's detailing of the word. The word has the primary connotation of "to constitute, to appoint - anyone over anything". It also has the meaning to "to charge, to command".
Genesis Chapter 1 (KJV)

Young gives the literal meaning, whilst the KJV gives a polemic meaning which presupposes a vengeful God. Most other translations just follow tradition.

If it wasn't for Genesis 2:15 it wouldn't really matter. Did God command Adam to go to the garden & tend it? Or was it an act of benevolence?

We really need to be consistent in our exegesis of scripture, and therefore translation. Genesis 1:26-28 tells us that "God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them". Why? The text makes plain: To have dominion over God's earthy creation.

Stage 1: Genesis 2:15 & 16.

Karl.C · Jul 11, 2017

Forgive my nitpicking. Just being a huckleberry... and I do note from your post you shouldn't be in full disagreement with what I relate below...

Marvin Knox said:
God told Adam that the day they ate of the tree he would die.

According to the Hebrew, he did no such thing!

Literally, God said "of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou dost not eat of it, for in the day of thine eating of it - dying thou dost die'. Which is totally consistent with the text of Genesis 3:22-24 & Revelation 22:1-3. Death prevails over mankind when we don't have access to the tree of life.

An interesting thought on Young's literal rendering: In my reading of "dying thou dost die", I take it that Adam was already bound to death, but his having access to the tree of life, kept death at bay.

Marvin Knox said:
God told Adam that the day they ate of the tree he would die. He did and as a consequence of that death all men for whom Adam is the representative head must be born again if they are to fellowship with God on a spiritual level.

God prevented A&E from eating of the tree of life so that they would not live forever in their spiritually dead state.

Only after being born again will men have access to the tree of life again.

Being "born again" has no effect on your eventual death, death is a certainty until the return of Christ.

According to scripture, what being "born again" does, is give you reassurance in your hope of a resurrection.

According to the Revelation of John, if you pass muster in the 2nd resurrection, or are lucky enough to be chosen in the 1st resurrection, you get access to the tree of life...

Karl.C · Jul 11, 2017

Marvin Knox said:
Calvinism teaches the direct opposite of the doctrine that man has no free will.

In which case your "Calvinism" isn't Calvinism according to the teaching of Calvin.

Calvin wrote extensively on the subject denying the free will of mankind. According to Calvin, mankind has no choice (predestination) and is 100% reliant on the grace of God.

Read him for yourself...
A Treatise of the Eternal Predestination of God by John Calvin

Marvin Knox · Jul 11, 2017

Karl.C said:
In which case your "Calvinism" isn't Calvinism according to the teaching of Calvin.
Calvin wrote extensively on the subject denying the free will of mankind. According to Calvin, mankind has no choice (predestination) and is 100% reliant on the grace of God.
Read him for yourself...
A Treatise of the Eternal Predestination of God by John Calvin

You have me at a disadvantage in that I do not have the time to read completely through the extensive thoughts of Calvin to find the exact portion you are referring to.

However I will ask you to point me to the place you refer to and I will look at it in particular.

In the mean time - while I fully agree that Calvin taught that man is 100% reliant on the grace of God for salvation - I (and I believe Calvin as well) believe that man has a will and that he makes the choice to accept or reject the gospel.

He will, of course, reject the demands of the gospel without the irresistible grace of God in opening his eyes to the truth. But that does not mean that he has no will at all. It is just depraved as we say.

Again - show me the section where he says that men have no will at all if that's what you're saying.

If we are here to debate exactly how free that will is and how much in bondage it is to the will of Satan - I doubt that we would have much disagreement on that subject.

I use the term "free will" in the general sense since that is the way those in opposition mean it. I.e. men have a will with which to make decisions and they are not coerced by God one way or the other.

Given a nature by the grace of God which will decide to believe = yes. Coerced no.

Naturally inclined to disbelieve = yes. Coerced to disbelieve no.

Karl.C said:
Literally, God said "of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou dost not eat of it, for in the day of thine eating of it - dying thou dost die'. Which is totally consistent with the text of Genesis 3:22-24 & Revelation 22:1-3. Death prevails over mankind when we don't have access to the tree of life.
An interesting thought on Young's literal rendering: In my reading of "dying thou dost die", I take it that Adam was already bound to death, but his having access to the tree of life, kept death at bay.

I am aware of the Hebrew saying "dying thou dost die".

I believe it is saying (to paraphrase beyond paraphrasing - in a commentary sort of way) - "You will die spiritually in the day you eat of it and because of that spiritual death you will begin to die physically because I will will withhold the tree of life from you."

Karl.C said:
Being "born again" has no effect on your eventual death, death is a certainty until the return of Christ.
According to scripture, what being "born again" does, is give you reassurance in your hope of a resurrection.
According to the Revelation of John, if you pass muster in the 2nd resurrection, or are lucky enough to be chosen in the 1st resurrection, you get access to the tree of life...

Of course being born again won't keep one from dying (setting aside the rapture for now). I expect to die physically even though I am born again.

What I do expect is to have my new body not die. I will be given that gift of eternal life because I have been born again.

I hope that clears that up.

Karl.C said:
in respect of "Total Depravity", the RCC teaching is the complete opposite of what Calvin taught and what his offspring, in all their variations, teach.

I'm not sure I would call it the complete opposite. But it is different from the Calvinist idea.

But the complete opposite would be more along the lines of the Pelagian teaching, would it not?

Karl.C · Jul 12, 2017

Marvin Knox said:
You have me at a disadvantage in that I do not have the time to read completely through the extensive thoughts of Calvin to find the exact portion you are referring to.

However I will ask you to point me to the place you refer to and I will look at it in particular.

It is almost a case of pick a paragraph.

Within the realm of the teaching of "free-will", Calvin at one point states: "the ancient Church is, with much hatred, cast in my teeth". Which should give you a hint about his attitude to the permissible teaching of "free-will".

Admittedly, Calvin's text is a tedious read. Despite its title, it has little direct content regarding predestination. Basically it is one extensive tirade against "free-will".

Marvin Knox said:
In the mean time - while I fully agree that Calvin taught that man is 100% reliant on the grace of God for salvation - I (and I believe Calvin as well) believe that man has a will and that he makes the choice to accept or reject the gospel.

According to Calvin, without the direct intervention of God's grace, man has no choice = to sin is his natural inclination!

Left to themselves, by default, mankind will reject the Gospel.

Don't take my word for it! Read Calvin!!!

In the 17th century, the aristocracy & privileged classes (from which Calvin sprung) would have viewed the peasantry as being morally destitute & beyond redemption. In their self-deception (introspection of their exceptionalism) they didn't realise they were the cause of the desolation. I find this "exceptionalistic" mentality when I read Calvin, which is why I mention it.

Marvin Knox said:
He will, of course, reject the demands of the gospel without the irresistible grace of God in opening his eyes to the truth. But that does not mean that he has no will at all. It is just depraved as we say.

Marvin Knox said:
Again - show me the section where he says that men have no will at all if that's what you're saying.

Heh! I thought you are a Calvinist! If so you should know what Calvin wrote!!!

The Institutes, chapter 2 is headed "MAN NOW DEPRIVED OF FREEDOM OF WILL, AND MISERABLY ENSLAVED"
Institutes of the Christian Religion - Christian Classics Ethereal Library

That should get you a clue!

Marvin Knox said:
If we are here to debate exactly how free that will is and how much in bondage it is to the will of Satan - I doubt that we would have much disagreement on that subject.

I prefer to discuss things. Debate is just point scoring. From the topic of this thread "Calvin investigated" it should be obvious to you that the discussion isn't about our opinions, but what Calvin taught in his writings.

Marvin Knox said:
I use the term "free will" in the general sense since that is the way those in opposition mean it. I.e. men have a will with which to make decisions and they are not coerced by God one way or the other.

Which is counter Calvin. Therefore not Calvinism = the following of Calvin's teaching.

Marvin Knox said:
Given a nature by the grace of God which will decide to believe = yes. Coerced no.

Which is almost in agreement with RCC teaching. At John 6:65 Jesus says "no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father" (ESV). From the context of Jesus' statement it is obvious Jesus isn't talking about God's intervention, but spiritual discernment (which just might take prayer but not necessarily especial grace).

Marvin Knox said:
Naturally inclined to disbelieve = yes. Coerced to disbelieve no.

That's an amusement. Given Calvin held every aspect of our humanity became debauched in the fall, there is no need for coercion in disbelief.

Marvin Knox said:
I am aware of the Hebrew saying "dying thou dost die".

It's an oldie...

Marvin Knox said:
I believe it is saying (to paraphrase beyond paraphrasing - in a commentary sort of way) - "You will die spiritually in the day you eat of it and because of that spiritual death you will begin to die physically because I will will withhold the tree of life from you."

The fault in that idea is self evident in the continuous line from Adam to Noah & his son Shem (Genesis 5:3-4,6-32), then Shem until the hand over to Abraham (Jewish tradition has it that Shem was "the king of righteousness" = Melchizedek). Mankind never lost its spirituality.

Marvin Knox said:
Of course being born again won't keep one from dying (setting aside the rapture for now). I expect to die physically even though I am born again.

What I do expect is to have my new body not die. I will be given that gift of eternal life because I have been born again.

I hope that clears that up.

Isn't that what I said, & the aspiration of all Christians?

Marvin Knox said:
I'm not sure I would call it the complete opposite. But it is different from the Calvinist idea.

The RCC holds an opinion which is the opposite of Calvin's diatribes. I can't speak for the Presbyterians...

Marvin Knox said:
But the complete opposite would be more along the lines of the Pelagian teaching, would it not?

That's true!
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Pelagius and Pelagianism

Ron Gurley · Jul 12, 2017

RESPONSE TO POST#51...
Q1: Being "born again" has no effect on your eventual death, death is a certainty until the return of Christ.

Q2: According to scripture, what being "born again" does, is give you reassurance in your hope of a resurrection.

Q3: According to the Revelation of John, if you pass muster in the 2nd resurrection, or are lucky enough to be chosen in the 1st resurrection, you get access to the tree of life...

General ANSWER: all 3 theories are WAY off point...and...none are supported by "Scriptura Suprema

A1/A2 "Being SPIRITUALLY "born again" from above" is the heart of true Christ-Follower's salvation! John 3 as explained in Ephesians 2. It involves SPIRITUAL CHANGE. It has nothing to do with the "death" of the Body/Soul combo.

Jesus' TRUE MAN's Body/Soul combo bled to death on the Cross (FOR YOU!). He committed His SPIRIT back to heaven from whence it came.

Luke 23:46...Jesus' final saying of 7 on the Cross
And Jesus, crying out with a loud voice, said,
“Father, into Your hands I commit My SPIRIT.”
Having said this, He "breathed His last".(Body/Soul combo bled to "death")

John 3 (NASB)...extracts
3 “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is "born again" (from above) he cannot see the "kingdom of God".(heaven)” ...
7 Do not be amazed that I said to you, ‘You must be "born again".’(from above)...
8 The wind blows where it wishes and you hear the sound of it, but do not know where it comes from and where it is going; (WIND is symbolic of SPIRIT!)
so is everyone who is "born of the SPIRIT".”

is born...Greek 1080...gennaō...
B.in a Jewish sense, of one who brings others over to his way of life, to convert someone
C.of God making Christ His son
D.of God making men His sons through faith in Christ's work

again...Greek 509...anōthen...I.from above, from a higher place
A.of things which come from heaven or God

1 Peter 1:3, 23
Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to His great mercy has caused us to be "born again" (FROM ABOVE)
to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead,...
for you have been "born again" (FROM ABOVE)
not of seed which is perishable but imperishable,
that is, through the living and enduring "word of God".

A3: RE:"1st resurrection" + "2nd death".

Revelation 20:5-6 (NASB)...
The Millenium: Jesus rules on an ACTUAL throne in Jerusalem after the Second Coming for 1000 years.
The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were completed.
This is the "first resurrection".
Blessed and holy is the one who has a part in the "first resurrection";
over these the "second death" has no power, but they will be priests of God and of Christ and will reign with Him for athousand years.(BELIEVERS ONLY!)

RE: "second death"...(for UN-BELIEVERS ONLY!)

Revelation 20:14
Then (CONCEPTS of) "death" and "Hades" were thrown into the "lake of fire".
(with the unholy 3 + sentenced unsaved unbelievers)
This is the "second death", the "lake of fire".

Revelation 21:8
But for the cowardly and unbelieving and abominable and murderers and immoral persons and sorcerers and idolaters and all liars, their part will be in the "lake that burns with fire and brimstone", which is the "second death."”

UN-BELIEVERS must be sentenced at the Great White Throne....

Revelation 20: 11-15 ...Great White Throne SENTENCING!
15 And if anyone’s name was not found written in the (Lamb's) "book of life", he was thrown into the
"lake of fire".

Karl.C · Jul 12, 2017

Ron Gurley said:
General ANSWER: all 3 theories are WAY off point...and...none are supported by "Scriptura Suprema

As usual for you, you are confusing issues. The three points were about physical death, which being "born again" won't prevent. The 3 points you raised are 100% supportable from scripture alone.

Ron Gurley said:
A1/A2 "Being SPIRITUALLY "born again" from above" is the heart of true Christ-Follower's salvation! John 3 as explained in Ephesians 2. It involves SPIRITUAL CHANGE. It has nothing to do with the "death" of the Body/Soul combo.

Nobody said it did!

Ron Gurley said:
Jesus' TRUE MAN's Body/Soul combo bled to death on the Cross (FOR YOU!). He committed His SPIRIT back to heaven from whence it came.

Are you arguing that Jesus was a man like any other man, and ceased earthly existence like any other man, with his spirit returning to God from which it came?

Ron Gurley said:
Luke 23:46...Jesus' final saying of 7 on the Cross And Jesus, crying out with a loud voice, said, “Father, into Your hands I commit My SPIRIT.”
Having said this, He "breathed His last".(Body/Soul combo bled to "death")

Stephen when stoned to death said something similar (Acts 7:59).

Ron Gurley said:
John 3 (NASB)...extracts
3 “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is "born again" (from above) he cannot see the "kingdom of God".(heaven)” ...
7 Do not be amazed that I said to you, ‘You must be "born again".’(from above)...
8 The wind blows where it wishes and you hear the sound of it, but do not know where it comes from and where it is going; (WIND is symbolic of SPIRIT!)
so is everyone who is "born of the SPIRIT".

Nobody knows "where your coming from and where you are going" but we have suspicion JB or JD is involved in your inspiration.

Ron Gurley said:
A3: RE:"1st resurrection" + "2nd death".

Revelation 20:5-6 (NASB)...
Revelation 20:14
Revelation 21:8

So? I said death prevails until the return of Christ! Are you proposing annihilation of the unrighteous?

Ron Gurley said:
UN-BELIEVERS must be sentenced at the Great White Throne....

As will certain believers. Note John 8:31-37 "Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him. And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free. They answered him, We be Abraham's seed...Jesus answered them,..I know that ye are Abraham's seed; but ye seek to kill me, because my word hath no place in you". Jew or Gentile, the same principle applies...

Ron Gurley · Jul 12, 2017

..."As will certain believers....(SENTENCED at the Great White Throne)

OP: ...Calvin Investigated...

Karl.C...Why do you persist in being off point and asking irrelevent questions and espousing your unsupported theology?

Christ-followers will NOT be judged as to their SPIRITUAL POSITION in the Body of Christ. Only their "WORKS" will be JUDGED.

2 Corinthians 5: 1-15 (NIV) + 1 Corinthians 3:10-15 (NIV)
10 For we (BELIEVERS) must all appear before the "judgment ("bema" = awards platform) seat of Christ", that each one may receive what is due him for the things done (WORKS) while in the BODY, whether good or bad....

1 Corinthians 3:10-15 (NIV)...Judgment of the BELIEVER'S WORKS
1 For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ.(salvation)
12 If any man BUILDS on this foundation using gold, silver, costly stones, wood, hay or straw,
13 his WORK will be shown for what it is, because the Day will bring it (WORKS) to light.
It will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test the quality of each man's WORK.
14 If what he has BUILT survives, he will receive his REWARD.(CROWNS)
15 If it (WORK) is burned up, he will suffer LOSS;
he himself will be SAVED, but only as one escaping through the flames.(miraculous delivery)

Romans 14:1-23...BELIEVERS:....Do not judge one another
For to this end Christ died and lived again, so that he might be Lord of both the dead and the living.
Why do you pass judgment on your brother or sister?
Or you, why do you despise your brother or sister?
For we will all stand before the judgment seat of God.
For it is written,
“As I live, says the Lord, every knee shall bow to me,
and every tongue shall give praise to God.”
So then, each of us will be accountable to God....
for whatever does not proceed from faith is sin.

benelchi · Jul 12, 2017

Karl.C said:
Note Gesenius's detailing of the word. The word has the primary connotation of "to constitute, to appoint - anyone over anything". It also has the meaning to "to charge, to command".
Genesis Chapter 1 (KJV)

Young gives the literal meaning, whilst the KJV gives a polemic meaning which presupposes a vengeful God. Most other translations just follow tradition.

If it wasn't for Genesis 2:15 it wouldn't really matter. Did God command Adam to go to the garden & tend it? Or was it an act of benevolence?

We really need to be consistent in our exegesis of scripture, and therefore translation. Genesis 1:26-28 tells us that "God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them". Why? The text makes plain: To have dominion over God's earthy creation.

Stage 1: Genesis 2:15 & 16.

I think there is something you are misunderstanding in Gesenius. Can you provide a reference?

Note: the root צוה is the primary verb used to communicate the idea of "command" and the noun from this verb מצוה is the primary word used for "commandment."

Both are used in the following verse:

So why have you not kept the LORD's oath and the command that I gave you?"
(1 Ki. 2:43 HCSB)

‎ וְאֶת־הַמִּצְוָ֖ה אֲשֶׁר־צִוִּ֥יתִי עָלֶֽיךָ (1 Ki. 2:43 BHS)
lit. and the command (הַמִּצְוָ֖ה) which I commanded (צִוִּ֥יתִי) on you.

sdowney717 · Jul 12, 2017

You want to learn about mankind's depravity, how the imagination of man is evil from His youth read Genesis.

Genesis 8
20 Then Noah built an altar to the Lord, and took of every clean animal and of every clean bird, and offered burnt offerings on the altar. 21 And the Lord smelled a soothing aroma. Then the Lord said in His heart, “I will never again curse the ground for man’s sake, although the imagination of man’s heart is evil from his youth; nor will I again destroy every living thing as I have done.

God says man is full of evil imaginations, man is no better today than right after the flood. There is nothing good in man until he is born of God. Prior to being born of God, all mankind follows after and desires to do Satan's bidding. Is Satan totally depraved? or is there some good in Satan. Well if Satan is totally evil so then is all mankind who have Satan as their father.

The only reason believers may have peace living here in this world is due to God's protection like He protected Job. God binds Satan and does not allow evil to run completely free with no restraints.

sdowney717 · Jul 12, 2017

Unregenerate people are evil, in fact disobedient because they disobey God..They are the sons of disobedience upon whom is coming the wrath of God.
Genesis 6
5 Then the Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.

Ephesians 5:6
Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of these things the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience.

Even plain empty words are evil when it comes to talking about spiritual truth. Christ said man will give account to God for every idle word they speak. Those who speak and teach error are in serious trouble and they don't even realize it.

The Advent of Heresy: Calvin Investigated

What U See is What U Get!

Natura non facit saltum

What U See is What U Get!

Senior Veteran

Active Member

What U See is What U Get!

INACTIVE

Senior Veteran

Active Member

Active Member

Active Member

Active Member

Senior Veteran

Active Member

What U See is What U Get!

Active Member

What U See is What U Get!

INACTIVE

Newbie

Newbie

Similar threads