Shades of Calvinism vs. the Gospel

Bible Highlighter · Jun 24, 2020

helmut said:
I did not say that a person that "cannot claim the assurance 'you will be saved' from Rm 10:9" will definitely not be saved. We always have to take into account what Jesus says in Lk 12:47-48. So a person spiritually rather ignorant may need so little to be saved that our theology predicts he will not be saved ... Abraham believed in the God who justifies the not righteous ones - it seems that this was all that was required from him (and believing in the promises he got from God), Rm 4:6.

God is a living God, he does not fit into a simple theological system.

I agree.

You said:
No. He was saved when he went home, but this was written in the book of life before the foundation of the world. Had he not come to his senses and went home, his name would not be written there.

No. That is not what the Parable says. The father said his son was “dead” and he is “alive AGAIN.” This was said two times in the parable (See: Luke 15:24, and Luke 15:32).

Meaning... the prodigal son was alive spiritually before he went prodigal, and then he died spiritually when he was in his sins and prodigal, and then.... he became Alive AGAIN spiritually when he came back home.

It's the same with our life.
All babies are saved if they die.
They have spiritual life.
But when we grew up into sin, we died spiritually.
Then, when we accepted Christ as our Savior (our Everlasting Father, because Jesus will resurrected us bodily after the likeness of his body)... we are made Alive AGAIN.

This proves that unrepentant (unconfessed) sin can separate a believer from God. This is why Jesus warned us about how sin can destroy our souls like in Matthew 5:28-30, Matthew 6:15, Matthew 12:37, etc.

So what happened with the prodigal son in regards to the book of life?

Well, his name was in the book of life before he went prodigal. His name was BLOTTED OUT when he went prodigal. When he came back home to his father, and sought forgiveness with him, then his name was re-added (or restored) to the book of life.

You should stress other words in Rec 13:6:

Revelation 13:8 KJV
“And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.”

BTW, I once read from C.S. Lewis that the lamb has been slain from the foundation of the world (re-translation into English from German), and I wondered how he got that idea. In German, the word-order is different, you have to choose between "the (from the foundation of the world) slain lamb", and "the slain lamb from the foundation of the world", in the latter case it is clear that the foundation dos not refer to the lamb. (in the former case, I added brackets as a compensation for information contained in adjectival inflection). I know of no German Bible that translates the way Lewis understood the verse, only years later I stumbled over the English text. Well, I do not think Lewis was correct, but since the word-order in Greek is (in this instance) the same than in English, we cannot entirely rule out his reading.

Rev 13:8 does not stress about "not written ... from ...". The book aims at believers in times of hardship and affliction, it assures the reader they are saved, written into the book of life from the foundation of the world. The verse mentions people that not belong to the group whose names are written from the foundation of the world. There is a difference between saying "it is not the case that their names are written from the foundation" ans saying "it is the case that their names are not written from the foundation". In our way of thinking this looks like a play of words (because we live in time), but I think this is a real difference.

This sounds like a hunt to find a Bible that just happens to align with what you want to be true. I believe the King James Bible is the Word of God for today and it is perfect and without error. I understand the original languages are also the Word of God, too. I understand that they do offer a deeper meaning at times, but I also believe God keeps up with the times in preserving His Word for us today. For God is not the God of the dead, but of the living. God's words do not exist only in dead languages of some long gone past. But believe as you wish. I just read and believe my Bible plainly.

Here are...

30 Reasons why I believe the KJV is the Divine and Pure Word of God for Today.

You said:
I don't think in the way you reject. The wording you use forces an alternative which does not offer a cofrect answer, neither "deprivation is not total" nor "God zaps" is what I can find in the Bible. Or, in a sort of sense, I find both of them. As I have said, it is like choosing between "Jesus is God" and "Jesus in man" in a sense that one answer excludes the other.

We see God open the heart of Lydia in Acts of the Apostles 16:14.
I see this as God illuminating us to see His Word better so as to accept Him, but the choice is up to us to accept Him or not. I believe God gives more illumination to those who are truly genuine and pure of heart in seeking Him and in doing His will.

You said:
Can you give the context? Luther's concern was assure people that were afflicted by thoughts like "my sins are too great to be forgiven". I suppose it was this context he used that hyperbole.

"Be a sinner, and let your sins be strong, but let your trust in Christ be stronger, and rejoice in Christ who is the victor over sin, death, and the world. We will commit sins while we are here, for this life is not a place where justice resides... No sin can separate us from Him, even if we were to kill or commit adultery thousands of times each day" ['Let Your Sins Be Strong, from 'The Wittenberg Project;' 'The Wartburg Segment', translated by Erika Flores, from Dr. Martin Luther's Saemmtliche Schriften, Letter No. 99, 1 Aug. 1521. - Cf. Also Denifle’s Luther et Lutheranisme, Etude Faite d’apres les sources. Translation by J. Paquier (Paris, A. Picard, 1912-13), VOl. II, pg. 404].

Nowhere did Luther retract these words and say, “Hey look guys, I am not telling you to truly sin a thousand times a day and think you are saved...” He meant what he said. You cannot make hyperbole out of something like that without a retraction or without clarifying what he truly meant. We have to read his words at face value. For what of the person who did not take his words as hyperbole?

See, that's the problem.

The Bible tells it is one way:
Eph 2:8 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9 not by works, so that no one can boast. 10 For we are God’s handiwork, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.

It is entirely God. You are a creation of God, not only your physical constitution, but also your spiritual life (which started when you received Christ) is a creation from God. No-one can boast to have any contribution to that.

The error of Calvinism is to draw the "logical" conclusion: Therefore, God is responsible for the decision to accept or reject Christ - no, not God is responsible, we are. It is basically the same error as drawing the conclusion: I I am responsible or the decision to accept/reject Jesus, there is not total deprivation. Both have in common that thy take our way of thinking (because we live in time) to set an alternative that does not exist (according to my understanding of Scripture).

The fact that you admit that we need to make a decision and then say it is all God is a contradiction. We have to make the decision to choose Christ of our own free will. This does not mean we can boast in Works Alone Salvationism via by the Law of Moses (Which was his argument because some believers were being deceived by Jews into thinking they had to first be circumcised in order to be initially saved). That is what Paul was talking about.

You said:
Maybe. But I suspect that you see a sort of domino-effect in accepting total Depravity, that does not exist in my way of thinking. It is influenced by a flavor quantum theory (quantum logic), and it started with thinking about trinity: There are statements you cannot combine, the answer to one invalidates the answer to the other. Subatomic particles cannot described in "ordinary" logic, and the same applies to trinity, and (as I am convinced) the question of free will and God's predestination. There are things to high to be grasped by mortals like us.

While I believe there are things we look through a glass darkly and we will not know in this life, I don't believe this to be the case on this topic. If Total Depravity is demolished, then that means that man has some part in responsibility to accept God in this life.

“For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:” (Romans 1:20).

Let's read it again:

“And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.” (2 Thessalonians 2:10).

You said before it is all God.
Yet here we read how that those who perish do so because THEY RECEIVED NOT THE LOVE OF THE TRUTH THAT THEY MIGHT BE SAVED. That's what the Bible says. You either believe it or you don't. The choice is yours.

helmut · Jun 25, 2020

Bible Highlighter said:
No. That is not what the Parable says. The father said his son was “dead” and he is “alive AGAIN.” This was said two times in the parable (See: Luke 15:24, and Luke 15:32).

I did not say anything contrary to that. The Son was alive, got dead, came back, and when hwe returned and came to lifer again, his name was written into the book of life before the foundation of the world.

The only problem is: If I want to be concise, I have to use language of temporal logic, and since In do not use this logic the sentence seems to be contradictory.

Bible Highlighter said:
This proves that unrepentant (unconfessed) sin can separate a believer from God.

Not exact: There is a difference between a babe and a person that repented. No babe is bormn with the Holy Spirit in it.

The question whether a believer can sin and go lost is another matter. According to 1.Jn 2:19 those who go astray from the sound doctrine were never true believers (but you can see this only in hindsight!).

Bible Highlighter said:
Well, his name was in the book of life before he went prodigal. His name was BLOTTED OUT when he went prodigal. When he came back home to his father, and sought forgiveness with him, then his name was re-added (or restored) to the book of life.

So you say his name was not written into the book before the foundation of the world, but rather at the time when he repented. And this contradicts the Bible. You got into a trap because you submit to a temporal logic.

Bible Highlighter said:
I believe the King James Bible is the Word of God for today and it is perfect and without error.

I can't resist reckon it as an error that the KJV, following the Erasmus test and its followers (summarized as textus receptus, uses the wording of the Latin Vulgate in pasages of Revelation where Erasmus had no Greek manuscript (the only MS of Rev he had when he edited the Greek NT was mutilated), and therefore gives "book of life" instead of "wood [tree] of life" as every Greek maniscript has it. Some Latin scribe wrote LIBRO instead of ARBRO, and this error came through Vulgate and Erasmus etc. into the KJV.

Another instance is 1:Jn 5,6-8, which reads in Luther's 1545 edition as

Denn drey sind die da zeugen auff Erden / Der Geist vnd das Wasser /vnd das Blut / 8vnd die drey sind beysamen

You see at first glance that this is quite shorter than the KJV, and you easily will find an English version that conforms tho the Luther translation. And not just to Luther, of course, but to virtually every Greek manuscript. Erasmus, leaving out an expression like "virtually", was confronted with a Greek manuscript found (and written in about that time!) in Ireland, and had to fulfill the promise that he would add the Comma Iohanneum (CJ) into his text if there were a single Greek manuscript. Today, after an exhaustive search, about a dozen Greek MS are known, the earliest from the 12th century, and there are some earlier manuscripts with the CJ added later.

You will find no verse in the Bible that tells you should prefer KJV over Luther's translation, or even a verse that guarantees that there will be an error-free translation. We know that most translations (including KJV) are close enough to the original that the Spirit can use it to lead people into the truth, but what you say about the KJV to be inerrant is heresy.

BTW: The only English translation not to be trusted I know of is the NWT of "Jehova's Witness".

Bible Highlighter said:
I understand the original languages are also the Word of God, too.

The original manuscripts are the original Word of God, every copy or translation is the word of God in a somewhat lesser degree. But God preserved His word, so generally we can trust our copies and translations. As to copies, this has been proved beyond any reasonable doubt by textual criticism.

But if there is any difference, the original (in practice: the text that is recognized as original by all experts) takes precedence over any variation.

Bible Highlighter said:
God's words do not exist only in dead languages of some long gone past.

Don't you see that the language of the KJV is a language of the past (17th-century-English)? Just take tzhe word "judgement", which in many instances means "justice, just order", but the ordinary reader of today understands it as "condemnation" or so, of course. Your own words speak against the KJV.

Bible Highlighter said:
I see this as God illuminating us to see His Word better so as to accept Him, but the choice is up to us to accept Him or not.

Replace "but" by "and", and I agree (I hope you see the difference in meaning!).

Bible Highlighter said:

"Be a sinner, and let your sins be strong, but let your trust in Christ be stronger, and rejoice in Christ who is the victor over sin, death, and the world. We will commit sins while we are here, for this life is not a place where justice resides... No sin can separate us from Him, even if we were to kill or commit adultery thousands of times each day" ['Let Your Sins Be Strong, from 'The Wittenberg Project;' 'The Wartburg Segment', translated by Erika Flores, from Dr. Martin Luther's Saemmtliche Schriften, Letter No. 99, 1 Aug. 1521. - Cf. Also Denifle’s Luther et Lutheranisme, Etude Faite d’apres les sources. Translation by J. Paquier (Paris, A. Picard, 1912-13), VOl. II, pg. 404].

Click to expand...

Letter No. 99, 1 Aug. 1521. - Whom did Luther write this letter, and what was the situation he spoke into? What you cite is not a sermon or pamphlet or anything aimed to be known to everyone, it is from a letter published only after Luther's death. A pastoral guidance for a particulary person (or group?), and without knowing the circumstances I will not judge.

Bible Highlighter said:
The fact that you admit that we need to make a decision and then say it is all God is a contradiction.

It is a contradiction to the temporal logic I write against for at least three postings here. But it is no contradiction to the Bible, and there is no inherent contradiction if you accept the fact that we live in time and God does not (according to your temporal logic, this is a contzradiction to God beeing the kliving One, but I don't say that).

Bible Highlighter said:
While I believe there are things we look through a glass darkly and we will not know in this life, I don't believe this to be the case on this topic.

Well, the Bible teaches total depravity, and even a sort of "predestination" (though I would not call it so, because the "pre"destination before the foundation of the world is a reation to the repentence of men), and it teaches what you call free will.

Like the Calvinist, you use tricks to avoid the contradiction, but only end up in a contradiction to Bible at some point. I use the "trick" of accepting everything the Bible tells and adjust the logic to that (with a sort of philosophical help from considerations on time and eternity). In a way, I teach a sort of agnosticism: "What the Bible does not teach, should not be taught as doctrine".

Bible Highlighter said:
You said before it is all God.

This is only one side of the coin, I also said it is our decision.

You are arguing like "You said Jesus is truly God, therefore he cannot be a man, only by appearance". This is quite good logic, but a logic that is inappropriate - this we know because we see in the Bible that Jesus is true God and true man. And just as I square to ordinary logic in the paradox of the "nature" of Christ, I also go square to ordinary logic in the paradox of God causing everything and our responsibility to decide between good and evil, salvation and damnation.

Bible Highlighter · Jun 25, 2020

helmut said:
I did not say anything contrary to that. The Son was alive, got dead,

His name was written in the book of life before the foundation of the world because there was no reason for Him not have life as an upcoming baby on the result of Christ's sacrifice. When the prodigal son went prodigal, that is when his name was blotted out of the book of life. It was on the account of his sin.

Not exact: There is a difference between a babe and a person that repented. No babe is bormn with the Holy Spirit in it.

Speaking of John the Baptist:

“For he shall be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall drink neither wine nor strong drink; and he shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother's womb.” (Luke 1:15).

You said:
The question whether a believer can sin and go lost is another matter. According to 1.Jn 2:19 those who go astray from the sound doctrine were never true believers (but you can see this only in hindsight!).

1 John 2:19 is not a universal truth for all believers.
It is referring to the gnostic believers who thought sin was an illusion or non-existent for them. They were not truly of the brethren and this instance, if they were of the brethren, they would have continued with them. It does not negate the truth that a believer can fall away due to sin and or false teachings.

Here are several lists of verses that makes it absolutely clear that believers can fall away from the faith:

Here is a General List of Verses on How Believers Can Fall Away:

1 Samuel 16:14
1 Samuel 31:4
Ezekiel 18:24
Hebrews 3:12-14
Hebrews 4:11
Hebrews 6:4-9
Hebrews 10:26-30
Hebrews 12:15
1 Timothy 1:18-20
1 Timothy 4:1-7
Galatians 3:1-5
2 Peter 2:20-22
2 Peter 3:17
Matthew 13:18-23
1 Corinthians 10:12
2 Thessalonians 2:3

Now, do not misunderstand me, believers cannot lose their salvation (like they would a pair of car keys), but they can forfeit their salvation (i.e. they can willingly throw it away by rebelling against God). In fact,

Here is a list of believers who have forfeited their salvation:

Saul (1 Samuel 16:14) (1 Samuel 31:4)
Demas (2 Timothy 4:10)
The Prodigal Son (Luke 15:11-32)
Judas Iscariot (Psalm 41:9) (Luke 6:16) (Acts 1:25)
Hymenaeus and Philetus (2 Timothy 2:17-18)
Unnamed Christians destroyed by false teaching (2 Timothy 2:17-18)
Many Unnamed Disciples (John 6:66)
Some Younger Christian Widows (1 Timothy 5:14-15)
Some Christians Eager For Money (1 Timothy 6:8-10)
Ananias and Sapphira (Acts of the Apostles 5:1-11)

And here is a list of potential fallen believers:

The Servant Who is Not Looking For Him (Luke 12:45-46)
Recent Convert Who is a Potential Spiritual Leader (1 Timothy 3:6)
The Unforgiving in Heart (Matthew 6:14-15)
Luke Warm Unrepentant Believer (Revelation 3:14-22)
Fruitless Christians (John 15:1-10) (Matthew 25:14-30)
Widows That Live in Pleasure (1 Timothy 5:5-6)
Believers Whose Seed Fell Upon the Rocks (Luke 8:13)
Believers Whose Seed Was Choked by Thorns (Matthew 13:22)
Gentile Believer Who Did Not Have on a Wedding Garment (Matthew 22:1-14) (Revelation 19:7-8)
The Potential Fellow Believer Who Erred From the Truth & Was Converted Back (James 5:19-20)

Paul is against Eternal Security. For Paul says,

We can fall from grace (Galatians 5:4).
We can be moved away from the hope (Colossians 1:23).
We can be a castaway (1 Corinthians 9:27).
We can be cut off just like the Jews if we do not continue in God’s goodness (Romans 11:20-22).
We can sow to the flesh and reap corruption instead of sowing to the Spirit which reaps everlasting life. (Galatians 6:8).
We can deny God by a lack of good works (Titus 1:16).
We can shipwreck our faith (1 Timothy 1:19).
We can deny the faith and be worse than an infidel if we do not provide for our own household (1 Timothy 5:8).
We can err from the faith and pierce ourselves thru with many sorrows if we love and covet after money (1 Timothy 6:10).
Hymenaeus and Philetus have overthrown the faith of some (2 Timothy 2:18).

You said:
So you say his name was not written into the book before the foundation of the world, but rather at the time when he repented. And this contradicts the Bible. You got into a trap because you submit to a temporal logic.

I didn't write God's Word. It talks about how names can be blotted out of the book of life here:

“He that overcometh, the same shall be clothed in white raiment; and I will not blot out his name out of the book of life, but I will confess his name before my Father, and before his angels.” (Revelation 3:5).

You said:
I can't resist reckon it as an error that the KJV, following the Erasmus test and its followers (summarized as textus receptus, uses the wording

If what you say is true, then God's Word has failed.

6 “The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
7 Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.” (Psalms 12:6-7).

So if it is not the KJV being the pure words of the Lord, then which Bible today is the pure Word of God for this generation today?
Note: This generation does not speak or write biblical Hebrew, and biblical Greek. They can only make guesses on what these languages say based on the works of recent scholars who did not really grow up during biblical times to know the nuances of these languages.

James says God has chosen the poor of this world to be rich in faith.
This rules out the fat cat scholars and their seminary teachings.
The poor guy on the street just reads and believes his Bible plainly and simply.
He does not question what his Bible says.

You said:
Another instance is 1:Jn 5,6-8, which reads in Luther's 1545 edition as

Denn drey sind die da zeugen auff Erden / Der Geist vnd das Wasser /vnd das Blut / 8vnd die drey sind beysamen

You see at first glance that this is quite shorter than the KJV, and you easily will find an English version that conforms tho the Luther translation. And not just to Luther, of course, but to virtually every Greek manuscript. Erasmus, leaving out an expression like "virtually", was confronted with a Greek manuscript found (and written in about that time!) in Ireland, and had to fulfill the promise that he would add the Comma Iohanneum (CJ) into his text if there were a single Greek manuscript.

Again, how do you know these things are true?
You were not truly there to know.
Man hates God's Word, and I believe men have written things so as to try to discredit God's Word as being holy and divine.
I believe 1 John 5:7 is in my Bible by divine placement.
Without 1 John 5:7 in my Bible it does not make any sense.
Not only would I not know of the Trinity if i was stranded on an island with an NIV, but the text does not read correctly without it. Just as the water, spirit, and the blood agree in one as a witness in the Earth, the same truth of the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost bear witness or record up in Heaven and they are one. Verse 6 ends with talking about the Spirit of truth. Verse 8 starts off with the word “And”; This shows a deliberate removal. Even reading it in Modern Translations does not sound natural, as well. It's an attack by the enemy and it is obvious for those who want to see it. The enemy does not want people to believe in the Trinity (i.e. to worship God in truth).

You said:
You will find no verse in the Bible that tells you should prefer KJV over Luther's translation, or even a verse that guarantees that there will be an error-free translation. KJV to be inerrant is heresy.

Who gets to determine what is in God's Word as being true words vs. false words? You? Some scholar in the past?

“For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.” (1 Thessalonians 2:13).

You are saying there are errors in my Bible (the Word of God). But I did not receive the Word of God as the words of men, but as in truth the Word of God, which works also in you that believes. We believe God's Word by faith and not by sight. If one word was not true in God's Word, then what makes us trust the rest of it? It's either all true, or all false. We cannot cherry pick and decide what parts of the Bible to believe in, and other parts to not believe in as being the Word of God. It's either truly the HOLY BIBLE or it is a holey bible. So from my perspective, it is heresy to not believe God's Word. For without faith, it is impossible to please Him (Hebrews 11:6). Faith comes by hearing, and hearing the Word of God (Romans 10:17).

“Yea, hath God said, ...?” (Genesis 3:1).

BTW: The only English translation not to be trusted I know of is the NWT of "Jehova's Witness".

Most Modern Translations are in error in teaching doctrine. They change commands, change doctrine, water down doctrine, add the devil's name in them where they do not belong, and some of them make Jesus appear to sin, etc. The NIV used gender neutral pronouns to be more acceptable to everyone. I mention in this in the CF thread link on the KJV I gave to you before.

The really gross Bibles that are obvious in error are the Queen James Bible, and the Word on the Street Translation. But Modern Translations all take from Westcott and Hort's corrupted Greek New Testament translation (i.e. later repackaged as basically the same thing by Nestle's and Aland's NT Greek text).

The original manuscripts are the original Word of God, every copy or translation is the word of God in a somewhat lesser degree. But God preserved His word, so generally we can trust our copies and translations. As to copies, this has been proved beyond any reasonable doubt by textual criticism.

The name “Textual criticism” itself is flawed. We should never criticize the text of the Bible. Yet, that is what you must do in textual criticism. It all started with Westcott and Hort who were into the occult.

Also, if we do not have God's perfect Word for today, then who is the arbiter of truth? Who truly gets to decide what should be and what should not be in the Bible? If such is the case, a man would be spending an entire lifetime trying to figure out what is and what is not God's Word leaving it up to his own fallible mind and opinions. In other words, we should be more concerned in obeying God instead of questioning what He says. Either God preserved His Word perfectly today or He didn't.

You said:
Don't you see that the language of the KJV is a language of the past (17th-century-English)? Just take tzhe word "judgement", which in many instances means "justice, just order", but the ordinary reader of today understands it as "condemnation" or so, of course. Your own words speak against the KJV.

All I have to do is break out an old dictionary and compare Scripture with Scripture to understand my KJV at times. Other times it reads naturally and needs no definition of certain words. But God wants us to study His Word. 2 Timothy 2:15 says study to shew (show) yourself approved unto God. Yet, in Modern Translations, 2 Timothy 2:15 says something else. Satan does not want God's people to take seriously in studying His Word as if it was a command from God's Word. It's obvious that such a removal of such a command is by the enemy.

You said:
Replace "but" by "and", and I agree (I hope you see the difference in meaning!).

Do you believe people can refuse God based on their own free will?
Do you believe people can accept God based on their own free will?

You said:
Letter No. 99, 1 Aug. 1521. - Whom did Luther write this letter, and what was the situation he spoke into? What you cite is not a sermon or pamphlet or anything aimed to be known to everyone, it is from a letter published only after Luther's death. A pastoral guidance for a particulary person (or group?), and without knowing the circumstances I will not judge.

I do hold out the small possibility that Luther may not have written such a text. That would be better, but most Luther followers hold to these words as if they are his and they don't have a problem with them (Writing them off as extreme metaphor when it does not clearly read as extreme metaphor).

You said:
It is a contradiction to the temporal logic I write against for at least three postings here. But it is no contradiction to the Bible, and there is no inherent contradiction if you accept the fact that we live in time and God does not (according to your temporal logic, this is a contzradiction to God beeing the kliving One, but I don't say that).

God does live in time. If He didn't then He could not have rested (stopped from His work) on the 7th day because He would be working in some other point in time. If God does not live in time, then He could not offer one sacrifice for sins forever.

“But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God; ” (Hebrews 10:12).

If God did not live in our time God (and He existed in all points in time) He would be reliving the same event above over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over again. But the Bible says that this man (Jesus) offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, and He is not continually reliving this event because He does not live in our timeline.

Well, the Bible teaches total depravity,

Total Depravity is suggesting that man cannot choose God because He is so wicked and depraved. But man is without excuse that there is a God in Romans 1:20. 2 Thessalonians 2:10 makes it clear that the wicked perish because they receive not the love of the truth that they MIGHT be saved. So I see it as a Partial Depravity, and not as a Total Depravity. Men can harden themselves to God, but God does not make men to be entirely hardened to God from their youth. Yes, the stain of the sin of Adam is on them. They may be inclined to do wrong as a result as such, but just because genuine believers are born again does not mean believers cannot do no wrong. The same is true with unbelievers. They are still capable of acts of great kindness. This is because the Gentiles can sometime obey the Law by nature without having a written Law (Romans 2:14). They are made in God's image. They are aware of God's existence, and they are without excuse (Romans 1:20). Meaning, they have a responsibility to accept God.

Many love to quote John 6:44, but they do not read the context of John 6:45 that says that those in whom He draws are those who learn of the Father. Meaning if we seek God, and learn of His ways, He will then draw us.

“And ye shall seek me, and find me, when ye shall search for me with all your heart.” (Jeremiah 29:13).

If Total Depravity was true, then God would not have tried to reason with Cain in Genesis 4:7 (Note: Cain was said to be of the wicked one). If Total Depravity was true then God would not be able to set before the Israelites “life and death” as two different choices.

“I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live:” (Deuteronomy 30:19).

You said:
and even a sort of "predestination" (though I would not call it so, because the "pre"destination before the foundation of the world is a reation to the repentence of men), and it teaches what you call free will.

Calvinists see this as being chosen to regeneration before we can even have faith in God. They believe without this regeneration, no man can even choose God.

You said:
Like the Calvinist, you use tricks to avoid the contradiction, but only end up in a contradiction to Bible at some point. I use the "trick" of accepting everything the Bible tells and adjust the logic to that (with a sort of philosophical help from considerations on time and eternity). In a way, I teach a sort of agnosticism: "What the Bible does not teach, should not be taught as doctrine".

We all have preconceived ideas or beliefs we believe are true. You defend your ideas based on your view of Scripture. I strive to look to what the Word of God says alone, but God also gave me a brain, and a heart, too. If I ignore either one or both while reading Scripture, then misunderstandings in God's Word comes. God is good, and God is love, and we have to understand that in light of His drawing and our sin. If God forced us to do anything in some way, then that takes away the responsibility we have in choosing God. It's that simple.

You said:
This is only one side of the coin, I also said it is our decision.

Then we shouldn't be in disagreement.

You said:
You are arguing like "You said Jesus is truly God, therefore he cannot be a man, only by appearance". This is quite good logic, but a logic that is inappropriate - this we know because we see in the Bible that Jesus is true God and true man. And just as I square to ordinary logic in the paradox of the "nature" of Christ, I also go square to ordinary logic in the paradox of God causing everything and our responsibility to decide between good and evil, salvation and damnation.

I have no problems reconciling Jesus being both God and man anymore than I do with Synergism.

helmut · Jun 26, 2020

Bible Highlighter said:
His name was written in the book of life before the foundation of the world because there was no reason for Him not have life as an upcoming baby on the result of Christ's sacrifice. When the prodigal son went prodigal, that is when his name was blotted out of the book of life. It was on the account of his sin.

This makes Rev 13:8 rather meaningless.

Bible Highlighter said:
“For he shall be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall drink neither wine nor strong drink; and he shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother's womb.” (Luke 1:15).

Oh, I didn't think of this exception whem I wrote "every babe". And Jesus is another exception. But these exceptions (I know of no third) do not obliterate the difference between a newborn child and a person bormn again as child of God.

Bible Highlighter said:
1 John 2:19 is not a universal truth for all believers.
... It does not negate the truth that a believer can fall away due to sin and or false teachings.

The assurance given in 1.Jn 3:20 does not sound that John thought in that way.

Bible Highlighter said:
Here is a General List of Verses on How Believers Can Fall Away:

I did not say that believers cannot fall away, I pointed out that this is rather a matter of terminology.

Bible Highlighter said:
If what you say is true, then God's Word has failed.

No, I said that God has preserved His word. But you say that he preserved it in the KJV.

One consequence is, that Bibles that do not conform to the KJV are in error. How can you dare to say that all the Bibles before the KJV were not the true word of God? How do you dare to say that your language is so blessed that a translation into it is the correct Bible, and most translations into other languages are not the true word of God?

Bible Highlighter said:
So if it is not the KJV being the pure words of the Lord, then which Bible today is the pure Word of God for this generation today?

There are many reliable translations. It would be an error to think only one is correct and all others are therefore faulty. Some differences (style, dialect, sociolect etc.) are rather a matter of taste.

Since languages are different, it is in most cases impossible to transport all shades of meaning in a translation, something will be lost, and some information has to be added. There is, e.g., no progressive form in Greek, if you see something like "he was doing" in an English translation, the meaning of the verb-form is slightly different from the meaning of the Greek verb form. Same with meaning of words: there is no English word which combines the meaning of "wind" and "spirit" as the Greek word pneuma does, so you always have to decide what term you choose in your translation when the Greek reads pneuma.

Of course you can find differences that are a matter of quality. A translation may be too literal and therefore misleading, a translation may be to wordy and thus put into the text too much information not contained in the original, or it may be to loose and changes the meaning of the original more than necessary. But even with a translation that has deficits, the Spriti of God can blow in it and awake people reading and studying it earnestly.

But I am not versed enough about English translation to give you a list of good translations.

Bible Highlighter said:
Note: This generation does not speak or write biblical Hebrew, and biblical Greek.

In the time of the reformation, the spiritual leaders promoted learning the original, languages. They can still be learned today. Every (local) church should have at least one who knows biblical Greek.

Bible Highlighter said:
James says God has chosen the poor of this world to be rich in faith.

If you look at the context you will see that "poor" is quite literal. Poor are the ones that have no clean cloth, the riches are the ones with golden ring and jewelry (Jm 2:1-6; cf. the exploitation and violence from the rich ones in Jm 5:4).

Bible Highlighter said:
Again, how do you know these things are true?

They are no secret. Erasmus himself said in the preface of his Greek NT edition that he translated from Latin into Greek where he had no Greek text. There are many sources, secular and Christian ones. where you can read about this, or about the CJ, and while I have met persons that didn't know about that, I never heard of anyone who said this were fakes.

Bible Highlighter said:
Not only would I not know of the Trinity if i was stranded on an island with an NIV

I just checked a file I once created against Jehova's witnesses, containing some verses that show where statements in the trinity doctrine can be found in the Bible. The only point that could be hard to read from the NIV without further help would be "the Spirit is YHWH", but it is also difficult to see that point (the parallel between 2.Cor 3:16 and Ex 34:34, and hence the Lord of 2.Cor 23:17 being the LORD to whom Mose went into the tent of the covenant), because the analogy is blurred in English (and German as well), because of differences between the languages.

If you honestly cannot detect Trinity in the NIV, your biblical knowledge must be rather poor. Take the clear example of Ph 2:11, Jesus receiving the most high name, i.er. YHWH (and if here is any doubt, the parallel in Is 45:23 confirms this exegesis).

Bible Highlighter said:
Verse 8 starts off with the word “And”;

It does not start with "and" in the NIV, it does not start with "and" in the Greek text - where on earth did you get this "and"?

Bible Highlighter said:
Who gets to determine what is in God's Word as being true words vs. false words? You? Some scholar in the past?

According to you, it were the scholars in the past, that decided where they followed the Greek text known to them, and where to follow the Vulgate. Or for the OT: Where to follow the Hebrew, where to follow the Greek (LXX) and where to follow the Latin (Vulgate).

I don't claim anything, I base my statements on experts (more to that: below).

Bible Highlighter said:
“For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.” (1 Thessalonians 2:13).

Well, you rersist to receive the word of God as Paul wrote it, you want the KJV, even if it deviates from the original. Don' claim such a verse for you, it speaks against you!

Bible Highlighter said:
You are saying there are errors in my Bible (the Word of God).

You doing the same, because you say there are errors in the Bible of other people, especially the NIV, but by implication also the German versions I use (Die Gute Nachricht, Neue Genfer Übersetzung, Elberfelder Bibel), and many other versions. Also in the Luther 1956/64 revision I grew up with. How on earth you dare to tell me that the Bible I received is in error, with no argument than "It is not like my Bible"?

I did not receive the Word of God as the words of men, but as in truth the Word of God, which works also in you that believes. And I never condemned any Bible just because it was different, but I ever honestly looked what version might be correct. You do not seek the truth, but insist that you are right, without any argument.

Bible Highlighter said:
It's either all true, or all false.

With your rhetoric you blur the matter. When there are two Bibles, you have to decide whether the differences are insignificant or whether one version is correct and the other contains an error in that verse. And you may found out that one version is correct in one verse, and the other is correct in another.

Bible Highlighter said:
We cannot cherry pick and decide what parts of the Bible to believe in,

Of course not, I believe the whole Bible. We must likewise not cherry-pick translation, just choosing the reading which suits me best, but we have to look into the evidence and find out where it points to. And if the evidence is not clear-cut for a layman like me, we should listen to experts.

Bible Highlighter said:
Most Modern Translations are in error in teaching doctrine.

An intance to see what you mean would be helpful. If there is a difference to the KJV, the KJV may be wrong, to state the other version is in error one should no the reasons for the change perceived.

Bible Highlighter said:
The NIV used gender neutral pronouns to be more acceptable to everyone.

I doubt that this was the motive, you are close to giving false testimony against the translators of the NIV.

In Greek, sometimes a masculine form also encloses the females. Phoebe is called a deacon (Rm 16,1), the Greek word is formal masculine (because it was so often used for females in the old church, some dictionary cite a female word, identical tho the masculine one beside the gender). There was a feminine form ("deaconess"), but is was never used for female deacons, but rather for wives of male deacons.

There is also the tendency to interest a text in favor of males. The KJV resisted the most blatant one: AFAIK, it is the only traditional translation that has the correct name Junia in Rm 16:7, and not the name "Junias" invented in the middle ages to declare that apostle as a man.

Are you sure that the KJV was free from a tendency that had to be corrected, not to be acceptable in our times, but to remove a change that was introduced to be acceptable in former centuries?

Bible Highlighter said:
But Modern Translations all take from Westcott and Hort's corrupted Greek New Testament translation (i.e. later repackaged as basically the same thing by Nestle's and Aland's NT Greek text).

No. you are telling an error. There are many differences between W/H and N/A, one influential theory of Westcott and Hort is explicitey rejected in the preface of the Nestle/Aland 26th edition, which is in my bookshelve.

Bible Highlighter said:
The name “Textual criticism” itself is flawed. We should never criticize the text of the Bible.

The word "criticism" comes from the original meaning of the word "critic": judgement. Textual criticism is the judgement which of the different "readings" found in biblical manuscripts or translation is the correct one. You do textual criticism, when you decide the text of the KJV is correctm, though this is no sound method.

Bible Highlighter said:
It all started with Westcott and Hort who were into the occult.

Nope. It started with a German pietist (Bengel) in the 18th century. The most prominent Geman textual critic, (von) Tischendorf, was a believer. And though Westcott and Hort seem to be the most prominent textual critics in the English-speking world, there were also believing textual critics like Tregelles.

The first German Translation that used text based on textual criticism was the Elberfelder Bibel, translated by John Nelson Darby (and German co-workers, of course). I suppose the analogous translation by English "Plymouth brethren" (I don't know the name, do you?) was also the first text-critical based translation into English. What you say about the origins of textual criticism is blatantly false and definitely an example of false testimony. Who told you such?

Bible Highlighter said:
Also, if we do not have God's perfect Word for today, then who is the arbiter of truth?

According to what you say, the committee that produced the KJV is that arbiter.

At every time,. there has been corruption of manuscripts, several times some "arbiter" tried to wipe out errors, according to their knowledge they did their best. With the invention of printing, it became possible to remove more errors than the errors newly introduced, and some editors o the textus receptus (an instance I know of is Robert Etienne, aka Stephanus) did some "textual criticism", though with rather limited resources 8and limited success). With Bengel, serious textual criticism started, with Tischendorf, many old manuscript were discovered in libraries (often obscure places in the orient, because most Greek manuscripts were, naturally, at places were there have been Greek-speaking Christians).

What you are telling me means I should trust "Arbiters" that only knew one Hebrew text, had a rather limited knowledge of LXX variants, used (or is that wrong) only a printed version of the Vulgate and knew only some dozens Greek manuscripts (if we add the manuscript considered by editors of the textus receptus, the sum may well be over 100). But I should distrust "arbiters" that know of Qumran and other old Hebrew texts, about the (rather limited) variants within the masoretic text, about the Samarital Pentateuch (passed down independently from the MT since at least 100 B.C.), the variants in the LXX, the Vulgate manuscripts, and literally thousands of Greek manuscripts. And the only reason I should distrust them is, that you know about two textual critics that were heretical. No textual critic from the 19th century has any measurable influence on modern textual criticism, they did their work, and that was corrected where necessary. Neither Nestle-Aland (the most recent edition relies in part of research done with the help of computers) nor any other work of modern textual criticism (like the text the English SBL Bible or the German Revision of the Elberfelder Bibel) relies on Westcott/Hort. So I don't need to examine whether your accusation against them is correct or as false as the other parts of your story - it simply does not matter (and I am not inclined into learning some heresy).

Edit: not enough space, I need to post a sequel.

helmut · Jun 26, 2020

Bible Highlighter said:
Do you believe people can refuse God based on their own free will?
Do you believe people can accept God based on their own free will?

I have already said that this theme is to high for us. The only true answer can be a sort of paradox.

Let me cite a German philosopher: A man has the freedom to to what he wants, but he ha not the freedom do decide what his wishes are. This let me think: What precisely should be termed "free will"?

Bible Highlighter said:
I do hold out the small possibility that Luther may not have written such a text.

This probability is next to zero. Luther sometimes rashed with statements that turned out to be well, not optimal. When the 1525 peasant revolt started and Luther heard of cruelties done by the revolutionaries, he wrote a pamphlet that called the nobility to subdue the revolt with any means, even cruel ones. Soon after the end of the revolt he complaint the cruelty the revolt was crashed down.

The text is from a letter, I don't know when the letter was written, I don't know to whom it was sent, and I no nothing about the situation of that person. So all I could say about these sentences would be speculation.

Bible Highlighter said:
That would be better, but most Luther followers hold to these words as if they are his and they don't have a problem with them

please link a webpage that cites these words and approves them. Or stop talking about Lutherans that "don't have a problem with them".

Bible Highlighter said:
God does live in time. If He didn't then He could not have rested (stopped from His work) on the 7th day

Of course he could. On rthe 7th days God created rest. He did not rest because He was exhausted or the like.

Bible Highlighter said:
If God did not live in our time God (and He existed in all points in time) He would be reliving the same event above over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over again.

Why should he? All I said was the time of God is not our time. And to speculate about things not revealed to us, even describing eternity as the repetition of the same over and over again, is not what the Bible condones.

You always start with your temporal logic, and then find out that if you combines it with what I say the result is illogical. I agree, but it is because you do not get free from thinking in temporal terms. And because I also cannot be totally free from them, it is easier for me to say what isb not than waht is.

Bible Highlighter said:
Total Depravity is suggesting that man cannot choose God because He is so wicked and depraved.

As I said, this is one side of the coin: Everything good a man does stems from God. man in itslf is so depraved he can do nothing good. There is no-one doing good, Rm 3:10ff.

I alrrady mentioned the other side, that man is responsible for what he does, he cannot blame God for Him being spiritually dead, he is called to do the right and to accept God's grace. If you think showing me one side let me deny the other, you still have not understood wht I said.

Do you believe that no-one is doing good, that everything godd done by men ist the work of God, as the Bible tells us?

I strive to look to what the Word of God says alone, but God also gave me a brain, and a heart, too. And therefore I can't accept what you say. You always bring arguments that just repeat 8what I have said before in other words. Like the Jehova's Witnesses that over an over again prove to me that Jesus is not the Father, thinking that would crush my trinitarian belief that Jesus is God. They don't understand that I don't accept an alternative there, because the bible teaches both sides.

Search

Search

Shades of Calvinism vs. the Gospel

Bible Highlighter

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.

More options

helmut

Member

More options

Bible Highlighter

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.

More options

helmut

Member

More options

helmut

Member

More options

Similar threads