Augustine, Calvin, Arminius, Molin...?

5thKingdom · Dec 2, 2020

GoldenKingGaze said:
I think the idea only Calvinists are wheat is preposterous.

Of course you think that. But the FACT is, there are two (2)
different "gospels" preached in the churches. There is the
false gospel of synergism and the True Gospel of monergism.

Only ONE of these can be the Gospel of the Bible.
The OTHER must be a false gospel. Since the synergistic
"gospel" requires MEN to initiate their salvation, we can know
that it is heresy... and real Saints do not follow heresy.

As I said, we fellowship with the same fruits, all of us sought by the same God and some common preachings and layings on of hands.

Not so. While the "wheat and tares" do "fellowship" together,
because Jesus said the "tares" LOOK LIKE real Saints ("wheat"),
we do NOT show the same "fruit"... to suggest that is ridiculous.
The "fruit" of preaching the True Gospel of monergism is NOT
the same as the "fruit" of preaching the heresy of synergism.
These are two DIFFERENT "fruits", there is no doubt about that,
since these are two DIFFERENT "gospels".

We testify to the same phenomena.

Again you could not be more wrong.
People preaching monergism preach a DIFFERENT GOSPEL
than those preaching synergism. We preach different "phenomena"
since we preach different "gospels". It is terribly naive to pretend
otherwise... especially when YOU disagree with monergism and
follow synergism instead. You "fruit" shows who you are.

The early church fathers were saints of the the latter days, who knew who the Messiah was, and the meaning of the blood sacrifices and who had the anointing that teaches, from the laying on of hands of Peter, James, John, Paul, Andrew and Philip.

That proves nothing... and it's incorrect since the "early church
fathers" were NOT saints of the "latter days", which is proven
by history (reality)... since they lived almost 2000 years ago.

Moreover, the Bible PROMISES (both in the OT and NT) that
the Last Saints "shall understand" things no previous saint
understood, including the early church fathers [Dan 12:8-10]
Jesus PROMISED the Last Saints "shall see ALL these things"
never known by earlier saints, including all the "church fathers"
[Mat 24:15 and 24:33]. So your theory is destroyed by these
two SCRIPTURES teaching the opposite of what you claim.

There is only ONE TRUE GOSPEL revealed in the Bible.
Any other "gospel" is a false gospel... or heresy.
There is no way around this fact.

Jim

5thKingdom · Dec 2, 2020

Clare73 said:
That would be fruit of the Spirit, right--love, joy, peace, long-suffering (patience), kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control.

The fruits of the Spirit reproduce character, while Christian works are building (1Co 3:10-15), not fruits.

Look, you can pretend whatever you want.
But preaching the True Gospel of the Bible is the "fruit" of Saints
(saved "wheat"), while preaching a FALSE "gospel" is the "fruit"
of either "babes in Christ" (needing much correction) or unsaved
"tares" in the church, sown by Satan.

Let me say this again, so there can be no confusion:
The "fruit" of the Spirit is to preach the True Gospel.
The "fruit" of the unsaved is to preach a false "gospel"
You cannot have it both ways.

BTW... just to show how naive you comment is:
There are MANY Jews, Moslems, Buddhists, Hindus, Atheists,
Agnostics, Humanists, Pagans, etc... that show the "fruit" of
(and I quote you) "... love, joy, peace, long-suffering (patience),
kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control.

And yet we KNOW ABSOLUTELY they are unsaved because they
reject Jesus and the Gospel of the Bible.

The fruits of the Spirit reproduce character, while Christian works are building (1Co 3:10-15), not fruits.

We were not discussing "Christian works"... that's you DEFLECTING
to a different subject. I would be glad to discuss that subject
but we cannot CONFLATE it with the "fruit" of the Spirit
TEACHING the Saints the True Gospel from heresy.

Jim

FreeGrace2 · Dec 2, 2020

5thKingdom said:
Right, it is "faulty understanding" to repeat what Scripture says about God electing people based ONLY on His own Good Pleasure, or God CREATING some people to be "vessels of mercy" (saved) and others to be "vessels of destruction" (unsaved).

Rom 9:22 does NOT say that God "created" vessels of destruction.

The Greek word is 'katartizo', and is translated as "mended" in the gospels describing what the fishermen disciples were doing to the fishing nets.

Matt 4:21 - And going on from thence, he saw other two brethren, James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother, in a ship--rather, "in the ship," their fishing boat.
with Zebedee their father, mending their nets: and he called them.

From biblehub.com -
complete (1), equip (1), fully trained (1), made complete (2), mending (2), perfect (1), prepared (4), restore (1).

5thKingdom · Dec 3, 2020

FreeGrace2 said:
Rom 9:22 does NOT say that God "created" vessels of destruction.
The Greek word is 'katartizo', and is translated as "mended" in the gospels describing what the fishermen disciples were doing to the fishing nets.

We are talking about a word in verse 9:21.
It says God MAKES (that is the same as CREATES) some
people to be "vessels of honor" (saved) and others to be
"vessels of dishonor" (unsaved)

You respond by talking about a word in verse 9:22...
talking about the word "fitted"... your response does not
even address the WORDS in question. Pure deflection.

The two verses are very clear, no matter how much
you want to pretend otherwise:

God makes (creates) some to be "vessels of honor" (saved)
and others to be "vessels of dishonor" (unsaved)

(1) This reality is REPEATED in the next verse (just to be sure
that those with "ears to hear" understand the significance
to this Bible Truth.

(2) God makes (creates) some as "vessels of mercy" (saved)
and others to be "vessels of WRATH" (unsaved)... or do you
actually believe "vessels of WRATH" are part of "His sheep"?

Jim

BTW... I notice you focused on the word "fitted" INSTEAD
of #1 and #2 above. If you want to be taken seriously then
you must not DEFLECT to different words, but address the words
in question. Otherwise you are not being serious.

.

Andrewn · Dec 4, 2020

5thKingdom said:
We are talking about a word in verse 9:21. It says God MAKES (that is the same as CREATES) some people to be "vessels of honor" (saved) and others to be "vessels of dishonor" (unsaved)

Commentators agree that Rom 9:21 discusses the picture in Jer 18:1-18.

Jeremiah saw a potter making pots of clay. Some lumps of clay turned out into beautiful pots the way the potter had intended. Others became flawed so the potter remade them into another kind of pots.

Yahweh explained to Jeremiah that world kingdoms are like this clay and it depends on a nation's response to God's calling as to what becomes of that kingdom. As for God, He can relent, change His plan if a certain kingdom becomes faithful or unfaithful.

Do you agree so far?

In Rom 9, the Apostle Paul says that Israel had been chosen for adoption (v. 4) and through it came the Messiah. But, he explains, not all those who are descended from Israel are Israel. And now, His mercy is extended to the gentiles as well.

Rom 9:23 And what if He did so to make known the riches of His glory on vessels of mercy, which He prepared beforehand for glory? 24 Even us He called—not only from the Jewish people, but also from the Gentiles—

As is explained in Galatians, both Jews and Gentiles could become sons of Isaac, spiritual sons of Abraham.

Rom 9:21 Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one object for special use and another for ordinary use?

Of course, God has the right to show mercy to the Gentiles who repent and become faithful, as well as on the Jews who do the same.

Conclusion: In Rom 9, the Apostle Paul uses a word picture from the OT that is well-known to the Jewish Christians in Rome to show them how God's plan of salvation came to include some Gentiles and to exclude some Jews. The entire chapter, as well as Jeremiah 18, describes nations and kingdoms to whom God's mercy has been extended in the latter days. As far as individuals are concerned, here is what Paul says:

2Ti 2:20 Now in a great house there are not only vessels of gold and silver, but also of wood and clay—some for honor and some for common use. 21 Therefore, if anyone cleanses himself from these, he will be a vessel for honor—sanctified, useful to the Master, prepared for every good work.

5thKingdom · Dec 4, 2020

Andrewn said:
Commentators agree that Rom 9:21 discusses the picture in Jer 18:1-18.

Jeremiah saw a potter making pots of clay. Some lumps of clay turned out into beautiful pots the way the potter had intended. Others became flawed so the potter remade them into another kind of pots.

Yahweh explained to Jeremiah that world kingdoms are like this clay and it depends on a nation's response to God's calling as to what becomes of that kingdom. As for God, He can relent, change His plan if a certain kingdom becomes faithful or unfaithful.

Do you agree so far?

Not at all.

First, when you say "commentators" you mean SOME.
Let's at least start this discussion with some honesty.
There are MANY "commentators" that disagree...
and that is assuming MEN have some authority
or insight on the Truth of Romans 9.

Secondly, God did not explain to Jeremiah about world kingdoms....
Instead God ONLY compared the lumps of clay to national Israel.
Again, you are adding your "interpretation" or presupposition to the
Text. Remember, God was not saving Gentiles (with few exceptions)
during the OT. How could He POSSIBLY be talking about all of the
world kingdoms that were NEVER MEANT to be saved?
You theory is immediately destroyed by that fact.

In any case, the picture given to Jeremiah was about the JEWISH
nation turning from God... Jesus gave a very similar picture in
Mat 22:1-7 as the Jewish "Kingdom of Heaven" was rejecting
God and He DESTROYED it, and replaced it with the Christian
"Kingdom of Heaven" [v8-17]

In Rom 9, the Apostle Paul says that Israel had been chosen for adoption (v. 4) and through it came the Messiah. But, he explains, not all those who are descended from Israel are Israel. And now, His mercy is extended to the gentiles as well.

I agree that Romans 9 BEGINS talking about the nation of Israel...
as God did "choose" them to bring forth the Messiah Jesus Christ.
And I agree that it then transfers [v6] to talking about individuals
instead of the nation of Israel.

Here is the CONTEXT of Romans 9... it is simply a continuation
of Romans 8, which is talking about the salvation of INDIVIDUALS.
Romans 9 BEGINS with Paul lamenting about the NATION and then
quickly RETURNS to the context of Romans 8 (about individuals).
Individuals of both Jew and Gentile... remember, there were no
chapter breaks in the original Text, Romans 9 is simply the
continuation of Romans 8.

Rom 9:23 And what if He did so to make known the riches of His glory on vessels of mercy, which He prepared beforehand for glory? 24 Even us He called—not only from the Jewish people, but also from the Gentiles—

No... you have ADDED the part about Jews vs Gentiles.
As I said (as anyone can see) the CONTEXT of Romans 8 is on
individuals and Romans 9 CONTINUES with the same context.

BEFORE getting to Romans 9:23 we see several examples of
the CONTEXT being to the salvation of INDIVIDUALS (not nations)

This is shown in Rom 9:11 and Rom 9:13 and Rom 9:1-13
and Rom 9:17-18 and Rom 9:19-20... all of which are continuing
with the CONTEXT of Romans 8, which talks about INDIVIDUALS.

To use YOUR WORDS.... (many) "commentators" agree on this.

As is explained in Galatians, both Jews and Gentiles could become sons of Isaac, spiritual sons of Abraham.

You are correct... and thank you for making my point for me.

Rom 9:21 Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one object for special use and another for ordinary use?

No... again you are ADDING your presupposition to the Text.
It does not talk about "ordinary use" at all... you ADDED that.

Rom 9:21
Hath not the potter [God] power over the clay,
of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, [saved]
and another [vessel] unto dishonour?[unsaved]

First, it is clear we are continuing with the CONTEXT of Romans 8,
which is about INDIVIDUALS and not nations.

Second, there is not anything in the Text (or history/reality)
to support the notion that "vessels of Honor" represents NATIONS
or that vessels of "dishonor" represents NATIONS. As you correctly
said, God is talking about saving INDIVIDUAL Jews and Gentiles...
throughout the entire WORLD (not individual nations of the world).
Your own argument contradicts itself at this point... which is WHY
many commentators disagree with your presupposition.

Conclusion: In Rom 9....

But we are not ready for a "conclusion" yet...
let's look at the NEXT verse to see what we can learn about
the CONTEXT of the preceding verses:

Rom 9:22-24
What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath [unsaved] fitted to destruction: [individuals, not nations] And that he might make known the riches of his glory
on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,
[again, individuals, not nations] Even us, whom he hath called,
not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?

Clearly "whom He hath called" brings us BACK to the CONTEXT
of Romans 8, where God explains what INDIVIDUALS are
"elected" or "chosen" to be saved. While the entire chapter
of Romans 8 establishes this CONTEXT, I will provide one
passage to illustrate the point.

Rom 8:28-31
And we know that all things work together for good to them that
love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose.
For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed
to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many
brethren. Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called:
and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified,
them he also glorified. What shall we then say to these things?
If God be for us [individual "called"], who can be against us?

NOW we are ready for a "conclusion":
In Romans 9 God initially talks about Israel BECAUSE, until Christ,
God was ONLY saving the Jews - so His examples MUST be from
the Jewish nation. However, God quickly establishes the CONTEXT
of Romans 9 is a CONTINUATION of Romans 8, talking about the
salvation of individuals.

Otherwise, you must argue that the "vessels of WRATH" and the
"vessels of MERCY" relate to NATIONS instead of individuals and
"vessels of HONOR" and "vessels of DISHONOR" represent the
NATIONS instead of individuals.

And that argument does not even pass the "giggle test"...
even though many "commentators" teach that nonsense.

Jim

You wrote:

2Ti 2:20 Now in a great house there are not only vessels of gold
and silver, but also of wood and clay—some for honor and some for
common use.

Now, I wonder WHY you would (intentionally?) misquote a verse?

(KJV)
But in a great house there are not only vessels of gold and of silver, but also of wood and of earth; and some to honour, and some to dishonour.

(LITV)
But in a great house not only are there vessels of gold and silver,
but also of wood and of earth, and some to honor and some to dishonor.

(YLT)
And in a great house there are not only vessels of gold and of silver, but also of wood and of earth, and some to honour, and some to dishonour:

(KJV+) ButG1161 inG1722 a greatG3173 houseG3614 there areG2076 notG3756 onlyG3440 vesselsG4632 of goldG5552 andG2532 of silver,G693 butG235 alsoG2532 of woodG3585 andG2532 of earth;G3749 andG2532 someG3739 G3303 toG1519 honour,G5092 andG1161 someG3739 toG1519 dishonour.G819

The word translated "dishonor" (Strong's G819) is used
in the Bible exactly seven (7) times (shown below) and
it's NEVER (no, not even once) translated "common"..
as you have suggested. So I wonder WHY you
have (intentionally?) misquoted the Bible"

Rom_1:26 For this causeG1223 G5124 GodG2316 gave them upG3860 G846 untoG1519 vile G819 affections:G3806 forG1063 evenG5037 (G3739) theirG848 womenG2338 did changeG3337 theG3588 naturalG5446 useG5540 intoG1519 thatG3588 which is againstG3844 nature:G5449

Rom_9:21 (G2228) HathG2192 notG3756 theG3588 potterG2763 powerG1849 over theG3588 clay,G4081 ofG1537 theG3588 sameG846 lumpG5445 to makeG4160 oneG3739 G3303 vesselG4632 untoG1519 honour,G5092 andG1161 anotherG3739 untoG1519 dishonour?G819

1Co_11:14 Doth(G2228) not evenG3761 natureG5449 itselfG846 teachG1321 you,G5209 that,G3754 ifG1437 a manG435 have long hair,(G2863) it isG2076 a shameG819 unto him?G846

1Co_15:43 It is sownG4687 inG1722 dishonour;G819 it is raisedG1453 inG1722 glory:G1391 it is sownG4687 inG1722 weakness;G769 it is raisedG1453 inG1722 power:G1411

2Co_6:8 ByG1223 honourG1391 andG2532 dishonour,G819 byG1223 evil reportG1426 andG2532 good report:G2162 asG5613 deceivers,G4108 andG2532 yet true;G227

2Co_11:21 I speakG3004 as concerningG2596 reproach,G819 asG5613 thoughG3754 weG2249 had been weak.G770 HowbeitG1161 whereinsoeverG1722 G3739 G302 anyG5100 is bold, (IG5111 speakG3004 foolishly,)G1722 G877 I am bold also.G2504 G5111

2Ti_2:20 ButG1161 inG1722 a greatG3173 houseG3614 there areG2076 notG3756 onlyG3440 vesselsG4632 of goldG5552 andG2532 of silver,G693 butG235 alsoG2532 of woodG3585 andG2532 of earth;G3749 andG2532 someG3739 G3303 toG1519 honour,G5092 andG1161 someG3739 toG1519 dishonour.G819

Now... you COULD be quoting from a bad translation, instead
of intentionally misquoting Scripture. If that is the case, please
tell me WHICH translation you use, because (as we can see above)
G819 represents "dishonor" and "reproach" and "vile" and "shame",
but it NEVER represents "common"... as you suggested.

Jim

5thKingdom · Dec 4, 2020

Andrewn said:
Conclusion: In Rom 9.... The entire chapter, as well as Jeremiah 18, describes nations and kingdoms to whom God's mercy has been extended in the latter days.

Of course the QUICK way to show your "interpretation" is not
Biblical, and therefore incorrect, is to show the history (reality)
that God NEVER saved NATIONS and the Jewish "Kingdom"
is the ONLY "Kingdom" God ever chose to favor some, but
not all, within the Kingdom.

How many GENTILE nations existed when Jeremiah or Paul wrote?
And NONE of those NATIONS were ever saved.

But I hope you reply to the PREVIOUS post... especially showing
why you used "common" instead of "dishonor", when the BIBLE
NEVER used what you pretended.

Jim

The word translated "dishonor" (Strong's G819) is used
in the Bible exactly seven (7) times (shown below) and
it's NEVER (no, not even once) translated "common"..
as you have suggested. So I wonder WHY you
have (intentionally?) misquoted the Bible"

Rom_1:26 For this causeG1223 G5124 GodG2316 gave them upG3860 G846 untoG1519 vile G819 affections:G3806 forG1063 evenG5037 (G3739) theirG848 womenG2338 did changeG3337 theG3588 naturalG5446 useG5540 intoG1519 thatG3588 which is againstG3844 nature:G5449

Rom_9:21 (G2228) HathG2192 notG3756 theG3588 potterG2763 powerG1849 over theG3588 clay,G4081 ofG1537 theG3588 sameG846 lumpG5445 to makeG4160 oneG3739 G3303 vesselG4632 untoG1519 honour,G5092 andG1161 anotherG3739 untoG1519 dishonour?G819

1Co_11:14 Doth(G2228) not evenG3761 natureG5449 itselfG846 teachG1321 you,G5209 that,G3754 ifG1437 a manG435 have long hair,(G2863) it isG2076 a shameG819 unto him?G846

1Co_15:43 It is sownG4687 inG1722 dishonour;G819 it is raisedG1453 inG1722 glory:G1391 it is sownG4687 inG1722 weakness;G769 it is raisedG1453 inG1722 power:G1411

2Co_6:8 ByG1223 honourG1391 andG2532 dishonour,G819 byG1223 evil reportG1426 andG2532 good report:G2162 asG5613 deceivers,G4108 andG2532 yet true;G227

2Co_11:21 I speakG3004 as concerningG2596 reproach,G819 asG5613 thoughG3754 weG2249 had been weak.G770 HowbeitG1161 whereinsoeverG1722 G3739 G302 anyG5100 is bold, (IG5111 speakG3004 foolishly,)G1722 G877 I am bold also.G2504 G5111

2Ti_2:20 ButG1161 inG1722 a greatG3173 houseG3614 there areG2076 notG3756 onlyG3440 vesselsG4632 of goldG5552 andG2532 of silver,G693 butG235 alsoG2532 of woodG3585 andG2532 of earth;G3749 andG2532 someG3739 G3303 toG1519 honour,G5092 andG1161 someG3739 toG1519 dishonour.G819

Now... you COULD be quoting from a bad translation, instead
of intentionally misquoting Scripture. If that is the case, please
tell me WHICH translation you use, because (as we can see above)
G819 represents "dishonor" and "reproach" and "vile" and "shame",
but it NEVER represents "common"... as you suggested.

Jim

wandering misfit · Dec 4, 2020

GoldenKingGaze said:
What is the spread of teaching on predestiny? Where do church fellows rest?

There was Augustine, why would you hold to his teachings?

I hold to Augustine's teachings cause he understood the threat of Pelagianism from the point of view from God, not man. All glory to God to the infinite.

Andrewn · Dec 5, 2020

5thKingdom said:
Secondly, God did not explain to Jeremiah about world kingdoms.... Instead God ONLY compared the lumps of clay to national Israel.

Jer 18:7 At one moment I may speak about a nation or about a kingdom, to uproot, to pull down or to destroy it. 8 But if that nation turns from their evil, because of what I have spoken against it, I will relent concerning the calamity that I planned to do to it. 9 Or at another time I may speak about a nation or about a kingdom, to build up or to plant it. 10 But if it does evil in My sight, not listening to My voice, then I will relent of the good that I had said I would do to it.”

This is talking about different nations of which Israel is only one example.

5thKingdom said:
Now... you COULD be quoting from a bad translation, instead of intentionally misquoting Scripture. If that is the case, please tell me WHICH translation you use, because (as we can see above) G819 represents "dishonor" and "reproach" and "vile" and "shame", but it NEVER represents "common"... as you suggested.

I quoted from the Tree of Life Version, which is produced by Messianic Jews, and I think it's a fantastic translation. The NIV also has "common use." The NRSV and the Lutheran Evangelical Heritage Version have "ordinary use."

I don't see a huge difference in meaning between "dishonor" and "common use." The interpretation I presented doesn't depend on the word selected. OTOH, you make the unnecessary jump from "honor" to "salvation" and from "dishonor" to "damnation."

5thKingdom said:
NOW we are ready for a "conclusion": In Romans 9 God initially talks about Israel BECAUSE, until Christ, God was ONLY saving the Jews -

God wasn't saving anyone before Christ. All salvation came with His blood who opened the gates of heaven.

5thKingdom · Dec 5, 2020

Andrewn said:
Jer 18:7 At one moment I may speak about a nation or about a kingdom, to uproot, to pull down or to destroy it. 8 But if that nation turns from their evil, because of what I have spoken against it, I will relent concerning the calamity that I planned to do to it. 9 Or at another time I may speak about a nation or about a kingdom, to build up or to plant it. 10 But if it does evil in My sight, not listening to My voice, then I will relent of the good that I had said I would do to it.”

This is talking about different nations of which Israel is only one example.

That is your "interpretation" and I respect that.
But let's TEST your interpretation with Scripture and
against history (reality)

(1) What does Scripture say?
What is the CONTEXT of the passage?
Is the context the nation of Israel that God "chose" and
that God "spoke to"... or Gentile nations God NEVER MEANT
to save?

Jer 18:6-7
O house of Israel, cannot I do with you as this potter?
saith the LORD. Behold, as the clay is in the potter's hand,
so are ye in mine hand, O house of Israel. At what instant
I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom,
to pluck up, and to pull down, and to destroy it;

Again, what is the CONTEXT of the passage?
Is the context the nation of Israel that God "chose" and
that God "spoke to"... or Gentile nations God NEVER MEANT
to save?

Jer 18:11
Now therefore go to, speak to the men of Judah, and to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, saying, Thus saith the LORD; Behold,
I frame evil against you, and devise a device against you: return
ye now every one from his evil way, and make your ways and
your doings good.

Again, what is the CONTEXT of the passage?
Is the context the nation that God calls "MY PEOPLE"?
What nation does the Bible say is a "perpetual hissing" (Israel)
What nation did God "scatter" because of their unfaithfulness
(Israel... remember, God did not even TALK to Gentile nations)
What nation did God show His Back, and not His Face, because
of their unfaithfulness (Israel... God never showed His Face to
any of the Gentile nations).

Jer 18:15
Because my people hath forgotten me, they have burned
incense to vanity, and they have caused them to stumble in
their ways from the ancient paths, to walk in paths, in a way
not cast up; To make their land desolate, and a perpetual hissing; every one that passeth thereby shall be astonished, and wag his head.
Jer 18:17 I will scatter them as with an east wind before the enemy; I will shew them the back, and not the face, in the day
of their calamity.

There are OTHER things I could point out to you showing the
CONTEXT of the passage is ONLY ISRAEL because none of the
Gentile nations were part of God's salvation plan and these
verses could NOT be applied to them. Therefore, Scripture
shows your "interpretation" to be incorrect. Now, let's
look at HISTORY (reality)

(2) What does HISTORY (reality) show?
We could take your "interpretation" seriously if you can show
a couple of GENTILE NATIONS that the verses above could
possibly apply to. But, of course, you cannot because God
NEVER showed His Face to Gentile nations until AFTER the
Lord Jesus Christ arose.

So we see that both Scripture and History (reality) contradicts
your "interpretation" of these verses. Therefore we can know
absolutely that your "interpretation" is NOT Biblical and, therefore,
not correct.

I quoted from the Tree of Life translation, which is produced by Messianic Jews, and I think it's a fantastic translation. I don't see a huge difference in meaning between "dishonor" and "common use."

Fair enough, I will respect your "opinion"
But, let's TEST your "opinion" against SCRIPTURE.
The word translated "dishonor" is only used seven (7) times in
the Bible. Let's see if "common use" could possibly be used in
those other verses... or whether "dishonor" is a better word.

Rom 1:26
For this cause God gave them up unto vile G819 affections:
for even their women did change the natural use
into that which is against nature:

(1) Clearly the word "common use" could not substitute
for the word "vile" in this verse... however "dishonor" could.
So this is the FIRST test proving your "opinion" to be incorrect.

Rom 9:21-23
Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to
make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour [G819]?
What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: And that he might make known the riches of his glory
on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,

(2) While you could argue that "common use" could be used
instead of "dishonor" in verse 21... that does not harmonize
with the CONTEXT of the passage which is (a) talking about
the salvation or damnation of PEOPLE (vessels) and (b) is
comparing "vessels of honor" and "vessels of mercy" that
are "prepared unto glory" (the saved) with "vessels of dishonor"
and "vessels of WRATH" which are "fitted to destruction"
(the unsaved)

So the CONTEXT of the passage does ("people prepared
unto glory") and ("people fitted to destruction") not allow
substitution of the words "common use". Even though it
could be argued that "common use" fits verse 21... it does
NOT fit within the entire passage comparing saved and unsaved
"vessels" (PEOPLE). So, clearly, this is the SECOND test proving
your "opinion" is not Biblical and, therefore, just wrong.

1Co 11:14
Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man
have long hair, it is a shame (G819) unto him?

(3) This is an easy one. Obviously "dishonor" could substitute
for the word "shame"... however, it is equally obvious, the words
"common use" DO NOT substitute for "shame". This is then the
THIRD test proving your "opinion" to be un-Biblical and wrong.

1Co 15:43
It is sown in dishonour (G819); it is raised in glory:
it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power:

(4) This is another easy one. Obviously the word "dishonor"
fits - and is USED in good translations. Equally obvious, the
words "common use" cannot be used to substitute for
the word "dishonor"... as "it is sown in common use"
makes no sense whatsoever and is not within the
CONTEXT of the verse. This is the FOURTH test
showing your "opinion" is incorrect.

2Co 6:8
By honour and dishonour (G819), by evil report and good report:
as deceivers, and yet true;

(5) Another easy show. Obviously the word "dishonor" fits
the CONTEXT as it is contrasting the word "honor"... equally
obvious the words "common use" just do NOT FIT at all.
This is the FIFTH test showing your "opinion" wrong.

2Co 11:21
I speak as concerning reproach (G819), as though we
had been weak. Howbeit whereinsoever any is bold,
(I speak foolishly,) I am bold also.

(6) Another easy show. Clearly the word "reproach" has
the same MEANING as the word "dishonor". Equally clear,
the words "common use" do not fit at all. This is the SIXTH
test showing that your opinion does NOT harmonize with
(related) Scripture... which is the measure of Truth.

2Ti 2:20
But in a great house there are not only vessels of gold and of silver, but also of wood and of earth; and some to honour, and some to dishonour (G819).

(7) Of course the PROBLEM with trying to use "common use"
in this verse is that it is SUPPOSED to contrast with the word
"honor". First, the CONTEXT is talking about PEOPLE (vessels)
and secondly, there is no doubt the word "dishonor" is a much
better fit as it does CONTRAST with the previous word "honor".

This is the SEVENTH (7th) "test" showing your suggestion
that "common use" can be used in translating Strong's G819.
Clearly in EACH of the seven times G819 is used in Scripture
it is properly used as "dishonor" or "vile" or "shame".
So your "opinion" has been shown (SEVEN TIMES)
to be an un-Biblical and incorrect opinion.

Now... I went through all this (verse by verse) to show you
(and anyone else reading this post) that it is NONSENSICAL
for you to pretend "common use" is a good translation for
G819. Now, you said you think your translation is a good one,
and you can think whatever you want... but IN THIS CASE,
there can be no (Biblical) argument that "dishonor" is the
correct translation and "common use" is very wrong,
in EACH of the SEVEN (7) times G819 is used
in Scripture.

The interpretation I presented doesn't depend on the word selected. OTOH, you make the unnecessary jump from "honor" to "salvation" and from "dishonor" to "damnation."

Are you serious?

There is NO JUMP from "vessels of mercy" which have been
"prepared for glory" (the saved) and "vessels of WRATH"
that are "fitted to destruction" (the unsaved). This is so obvious
that there is NO NEED for anyone to expound on this.
I am sorry that you cannot "see" this reality

God wasn't saving anyone before Christ. All salvation came with His blood who opened the gates of heaven.

Really?
You don't think that Enoch was saved in the Pre-Flood Kingdom?
You don't think Noah was saved either? You don't think that
ANY of the Pre-Flood saints were saved? Really?

You don't think that Abraham and Issac and Jacob were saved
in the Jewish Kingdom? I suppose you don't think Noah and all
the OT prophets were saved either? You don't think that all of
the OT saints were saved? Really?

This is such an outlandish notion that I really cannot respond
in a respectful manner... but GOD has a response for you:
Please listen to what God says:

Luke 13:28
There shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth, when ye shall see Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, and all the prophets, in the
[eternal] Kingdom of God, and you yourselves thrust out.

Jim

Fervent · Dec 5, 2020

Andrewn said:
I quoted from the Tree of Life translation, which is produced by Messianic Jews, and I think it's a fantastic translation. I don't see a huge difference in meaning between "dishonor" and "common use." The interpretation I presented doesn't depend on the word selected. OTOH, you make the unnecessary jump from "honor" to "salvation" and from "dishonor" to "damnation."

To your point, the Tree of Life seems to be using a dynamic equivalence with a specific audience in mind. "Common use" according to a Jewish theology would not be a neutral term, but a direct contrast to honorable use so the translation simply shows audience sensitivity. But just a word of advice, you're not discussing the matter with people who are truly seeking the Biblical interpretation but with people commited to a theological system seeking to force-fit the Bible to that theology.

5thKingdom · Dec 6, 2020

Fervent said:
To your point, the Tree of Life seems to be using a dynamic equivalence with a specific audience in mind. "Common use" according to a Jewish theology would not be a neutral term, but a direct contrast to honorable use so the translation simply shows audience sensitivity.

First, you have broken the FIRST RULE in Bible study, that GOD
not men, gets to DEFINE the meaning of the words He uses.
That is why when we have a question about the MEANING of
a word we simply look at all the OTHER places God used that
word to understand the MEANING God intended. And THAT
is what I did in proving your preference to "common use"
COULD NOT pass such a test.

So, for you to respond that the "translation" (which is not real
translation at all) is based on an attempt to target a specific
audience (Jews of the first century) instead of the much larger
general audience (Christians for the last 2000 years) is nothing
less than ridiculous in addition to contradicting HARMONY with
all the other RELATED passages where the word is used. This
shows your "system" is not to find GOD'S MEANING but to
try to find the JEW'S meaning... again, a ridiculous exercise
that ONLY shows an attempt to support a preferred "gospel".

But just a word of advice, you're not discussing the matter with people who are truly seeking the Biblical interpretation but with people commited to a theological system seeking to force-fit the Bible to that theology.

To your point, a word of advice, your refusal to COMPARE the
places where GOD used the word, in order to find GOD'S MEANING
and to pretend that a JEWISH meaning only shows your "system"
seeks the mind of (first century) MEN instead of the mind of the
mind of (eternal) God. You are correct that your "system" cannot
compare Scripture with Scripture (as we saints are COMMANDED
to do) but must rely on the false translation of men in order to
support a false gospel or "theological system"

Otherwise you would just do what I did...
you would TRY to use the term "common use" in ALL SCRIPTURES
using that word... but you cannot do that because it would expose
that your "theory" (that Scripture was written to first century Jews
instead of 2000 years of Christians) to be ridiculous and contrary
to GOD'S MEANING as revealed by comparing Scripture with
Scripture. Again your actions to support a false "gospel" (system)
demonstrate your preference to support a false "system".

For... if you were ONLY concerned about Biblical Truth you would
NOT care about men translating words to fit first century Jew's,
but you would care about how GOD uses that word throughout
the Bible... requiring you to compare Scripture with Scripture,
which is what I DID and what YOU REFUSE to do.

(1) the CONTEXT is talking about SALVATION
in 2Tim 2:20.... AND it is CONTRASTING "honor" (the saved)
and "dishonor" (the unsaved) so your theological system requires
you to overlook that BIBLICAL reality. This is PROVEN by the fact
that you DARE not actually try to insert "common use" into that
passage, because it would be ridiculous to do so.

(2) the CONTEXT is talking about the RESURRECTION
in 1Co 15:43... AND it is CONTRASTING the condition of
(saved) men BEFORE they die and AFTER they are raised
in a glorified spiritual body. Again, your theological system
requires you overlook that BIBLICAL reality. This is again
PROVEN by the fact you DARE not actually try to insert
"common use" to those who are "indwelt" by the Spirit,
because it would be ridiculous for you to do so.

(3) the CONTEXT of Romans 9:21-23 talks about SALVATION.
Those (saved) PEOPLE God made (created) as "vessels of mercy" which God "prepared for glory" AND those (unsaved) PEOPLE
God made (created) as "vessels of WRATH" which God declares
are "fitted to destruction".

Again we see the CONTRAST between "mercy" and "wrath"
between "prepared for glory" and "fitted for destruction".
Now, you can PRETEND that this is not talking about salvation
and you can PRETEND that Scripture was written where God's
MEANING does not require comparing Scripture with Scripture...
but you are only PRETENDING in order to PROTECT a fraudulent
"system" (or "gospel") from being DESTROYED by it's inability
to HARMONIZE with ALL RELATED passages. It is really just
as simple as that.

Please do not misunderstand me. I have NO EXPECTATION
that you will be able to understand that the ONLY measure
of Biblical Truth is the ability to HARMONIZE all related verses.
Your "system" of theology does not allow you to do so.
But I have now PROVEN TWICE that your pretending is only
you pretending - because you cannot substitute "common use"
in the seven (7) verses where GOD uses the same word.

I have (again) shown in several verses (above) WHY the term
"common use" CANNOT be substituted. And I have PROVEN that
to pretend otherwise is just ridiculous. Now, let's look at the
other times that SCRIPTURE uses the same word and TRY
to insert "common use" into those verses... again, we will
see that your "system" is plainly ridiculous.

Rom 1:26
For this cause God gave them up unto common use G819 affections: for even their women did change the natural use
into that which is against nature:

1Co 11:14
Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man
have long hair, it is a common use (G819) unto him?

2Co 11:21
I speak as concerning common use (G819), as though
we had been weak. Howbeit whereinsoever any is bold,
(I speak foolishly,) I am bold also.

Again we clearly see that "dishonor" and "vile" and "shame"
were the CORRECT translation (as comparing Scripture with
Scripture to find GOD'S meaning) and pretending we can find
God's meaning by relating Scripture to Jewish custom only
shows our "system" of theology ("gospel") is based on the
feelings of MAN instead of searching for God's intentions.

---------------

One last thing:
I notice you did not respond to my response to the OTHER PART
of your post... I wonder WHY you would just skip over that
subject:

God wasn't saving anyone before Christ. All salvation came with His blood who opened the gates of heaven.

Really?
You don't think that Enoch was saved in the Pre-Flood Kingdom?
You don't think Noah was saved either? You don't think that
ANY of the Pre-Flood saints were saved? Really?

You don't think that Abraham and Issac and Jacob were saved
in the Jewish Kingdom? I suppose you don't think Moses is saved,
or that ANY of theOT prophets were saved either? You don't think
that all of the OT saints were saved? Really?

This is such an outlandish notion that I really cannot respond
in a respectful manner... but GOD has a response for you:
Please listen to what God says:

Luke 13:28
There shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth, when ye shall see Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, and all the prophets, in the
[eternal] Kingdom of God, and you yourselves thrust out.

Bottom Line:
Are Christians COMMANDED to compare Scripture with Scripture
to understand God's DEFINITION of the inspired Word of God...
or should Christians seek to understand the "audience sensitivity"
of first century Jews to understand God's DEFINITION of words?

It would require someone with a man-made "system" of theology
(a man-made "gospel") to believe the latter. And that SHOULD
go without saying. But I have PROVEN that reality in several ways.

You are free to believe whatever you want but reading a NEW and
PERVERTED translation and NOT comparing Scripture with Scripture
is never going to result in God's DEFINITION of words He inspired.
It results in heresy based on a perceived "audience sensitivity"
In other words... on the thoughts of man.

Jim

wandering misfit · Dec 6, 2020

5thKingdom said:
It is true that false churches taught God "elects" people based
on knowing what they would chose. But the Bible is very clear
that is heresy. God "chose" or "elected" those who would be
"His sheep" based ONLY on His Own Good Pleasure... and NOT
on the will or actions of men.

Unfortunately, unsaved "tares" cannot accept this Biblical
Truth because they were NEVER MEANT to "perceive" or
"understand" or "be converted" or have their "sins forgiven".
But this is clearly taught in Scripture for those with ears
to hear.

Eph 1:4-5
According as he hath chosen us in him before the
foundation of the world, that we should be holy and
without blame before him in love: Having predestinated
us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself,
according to the good pleasure of his will,

Rom 9:16
So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth,
but of God that sheweth mercy.

Joh 1:13
Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh,
nor of the will of man, but of God.

Bottom Line:
Anybody who does not understand that some men were
NEVER MEANT to be saved (have their sins forgiven) are
showing the "fruit" of being an unsaved by their heresy.

Anyone who does not ACCEPT the Biblical fact that God
CREATED some men to be "vessels of mercy" (saved)
and others to be "vessels of destruction" (unsaved) are
only showing the "fruit" of being unsaved by their heresy.

Unsaved men have taught heresy from the days of the Apostles.
To point to these heresies as a "proof" of what the Gospel says
is nonsensical. To say "the church" taught these heresies is less
than honest when "the church" declared these false doctrines to
be heretical hundreds of years ago.

It was ALWAYS a major PART of the Gospel that unsaved "tares"
would infiltrate the churches and the "leaven" of their false doctrines
would corrupt the churches. To point to these false doctrines as some
kind of "proof" of Biblical Truth only demonstrates the "fruit" of not
having an "indwelling" spirit that allows real saints to discern Truth
from heresy. To PRETEND "the church" taught a synergistic heresy
is to (intentionally) tell a half-truth (a lie) because only apostate
churches taught such heresy.

.

I really don't want to break this to you, but we have this chaos of the "true bride" cause 1500 yrs ago politics caved the active church of the time. I need to recommend, as a limb of the Christ that you review all biblical texts w/o distraction of what the split in the Eastern and Western church did or did not do. Dispensationalism is a distraction from Christology and Soteriology and doesn't allow God to be God. My suggestion, read orthodox post-melianial or premelianial writings, they are spread out over time, not like dispensationalism.

wandering misfit · Dec 6, 2020

"First, you have broken the FIRST RULE in Bible study, that GOD
not men, gets to DEFINE the meaning of the words He uses." I'll use this posters example of why there is so much hatred tord the Reformed's system of soteriology. 1. Assumption that a man has dictated a false religion. No Calvin nor Augustine did that. Man is guilty of much, God succeeds. He saved chosen individuals when no one was looking 2000 yrs ago. 2. The factions of man have retalliated against the cross after Christ's ascension. This fact should be obvious but it is not. The body of Christ was reduced to politics, as Luther, Calvin have shown and the Reformers splintered and ultimately, dispensationalism. I posit dispensationalism shouldn't be allowed to post in soteriology, it is ungodly.

Fervent · Dec 6, 2020

5thKingdom said:
First, you have broken the FIRST RULE in Bible study, that GOD
not men, gets to DEFINE the meaning of the words He uses.

Yes, but the word God used is atimian, translators have simply agreed that "honor" is an English analogue. Are we to only read the Bible in koine Greek, or make the best attempt and converting the meaning into English?

wandering misfit · Dec 6, 2020

The letters are YHWH. Don't let yourself be confused with wrong transliteration to English.

wandering misfit · Dec 6, 2020

5thKingdom said:
That is your "interpretation" and I respect that.
But let's TEST your interpretation with Scripture and
against history (reality)

I'm not quoting the rest of your post cause you didn't test your interpretation of scripture with Christians on CF. So called "teaching" may be heartfealt, but disillusioned. You'd better provide

Andrewn said:
Perhaps Arminianism was declared a heresy by Calvinists .

But Calvinism was declared a heresy by the whole Church: Greek Orthodox, Roman Catholics, and Arminian Protestants.

Augustinianism wasn't declared heresy till politics and man interceded within the church. East, West and the protagonists, and later, the Evangelicals and new found dispensationalism.

5thKingdom · Dec 6, 2020

wandering misfit said:
I really don't want to break this to you,

Don't flatter yourself.

You could not "break" any truth (Biblical or historical) to me
since I am a real saint and, as such, have the indwelling Spirit
teaching me Biblical Truths (like monergism) and heresies
(like synergism) and I have studied church history for over
50 years.... so WHAT could you possibly think you could
"break" to me? Have you even been alive 50 years?

but we have this chaos of the "true bride" cause 1500 yrs ago politics caved the active church of the time.

You are joking right?

Jesus taught the church would be infiltrated by unsaved "tares"
sown by Satan (being the "children of Satan") and the "leaven"
of their false doctrines would corrupt the church. The Apostles
taught that reality was already happening during THEIR LIVES.
Why is this "news" to you... it is PART of the Gospel of the Bible.

The apostasy of the church is PART of the True Gospel and
has NOTHING to do with politics, as JESUS said, it's the result
of unsaved "tares" in the church teaching many false doctrines
(like synergistic salvation). Is this really "news" to you? Did you
MISS all the passages about "false teachers" in the church? And
"wolves in sheep's clothing" in the church?

Did you MISS the Biblical COMMAND for real saints to:
(a) identify these unsaved "tares" by their "fruit" of heresy and
(b) rebuke them (some are "babes in Christ" needing correction)
(c) EXPEL them from the church if they refuse to repent

Please explain to me HOW you could have MISSED such an
important PART of the Gospel of the Bible? And, while you are
at it, please show me some SCRIPTURE teaching the apostasy
of the church was because of "politics"... instead of the "tares"
who are the "children of Satan", spreading false doctrines,
because that notion is just so naive it is PAINFUL for me
to see people actually believing it (even teaching it).

No, JESUS and the APOSTLES talked about the apostasy of the
church and the CAUSE of that apostasy... and they NEVER taught
it was because of "politics"... that is a man-made doctrine that
contradicts what JESUS and the APOSTLES actually taught. And
THAT is why I can provide chapter and verse supporting what I say,
but YOU cannot provide ANY Scripture to support your delusion.

I need to recommend, as a limb of the Christ that you review all biblical texts w/o distraction of what the split in the Eastern and Western church did or did not do.

While I appreciate your concern, as I already explained, I am
a real saint with an indwelling Spirit teaching me and one of the
FIRST things I learned is that you cannot even PRETEND to have
found Biblical Truth until your "theory" harmonizes with ALL RELATED
passages - since there is no contradiction in Scripture. Or, to say
it another way, the ONLY MEASURE of Biblical Truth is to find
harmony with ALL RELATED passages.

WHY you would ASSUME that I have been "distracted" by the
issues related to the "Great Schism" is beyond me. If you think
that ANYTHING I have taught does not harmonize with all related
Scripture... then you need only provide the Chapter and verse that
contradicts me. But I see you have chosen NOT to do that...
even though that is how saints have confirmed or refuted doctrine
for almost 2000 years.

Apparently you have decided that expressing your "feelings"
about the Great Schism is more authoritative then finding
harmony of Scripture. The "fruit" of real saints is to refute
and correct using SCRIPTURE and not personal "feelings"
Why is this also "news" to you?

Dispensationalism is a distraction from Christology and Soteriology and doesn't allow God to be God.

LOL

First, I do not know WHAT you mean by "dispensationalism"
so I cannot argue what your IDEAS may be. However, I can
tell you that Biblical Truth and history (reality) can NEVER be
a "distraction" from Christology or Soteriology... in fact the
EXACT OPPOSITE is true.

(1) There can be no Biblical or Historical argument that the
FIRST "Kingdom of Heaven" on earth was the Pre-Flood Kingdom
containing all the saints from Adam to Noah.

(2) There can be no Biblical or Historical argument that the
SECOND "Kingdom of Heaven" [Mat 22:2 and 21:43] was the
Jewish Kingdom AND the Gospel of the Jewish Kingdom was very
DIFFERENT than what Pre-Flood saints preached.

(3) There can be no Biblical or Historical argument that the
THIRD "Kingdom of Heaven" [Mat 13, in eight verses] was the
Christian Kingdom AND the Gospel of Christian saints was very
DIFFERENT than the Gospel of Jewish Saints and Pre-Flood saints.

So we already see that the BIBLE and HISTORY shows there
were (at least) THREE DIFFERENT "Kingdoms of Heaven" on earth
and EACH had a unique Gospel. You do not have to LIKE this reality
and you do not have to ACCEPT this Biblical and Historical reality.
But you being in DENIAL changes absolutely nothing. It is only
you pretending to yourself in denial of the Bible and history (reality).

(4) Moreover, there can be no Biblical or Historical argument that
the FOURTH "Kingdom of Heaven" [Mat 25:1-13] was the
Great Tribulation Kingdom and/or the 7-Headed Revelation Beast.
Obviously the saints living during this FOURTH Kingdom preached
a Gospel that was DIFFERENT than Christian saints and Jewish
saints and Pre-Flood saints... because the BIBLE PROMISED they
"shall understand" Biblical mysteries that were "closed up" and
"sealed" to all previous saints until the "time-of-the-end"
[Dan 12:8-10] and JESUS PROMISED these Last Saints would
"see ALL these things" related to the FULFILLMENT of the "signs"
in the Great Tribulation/Revelation Beast... including the event
called Daniel's "Abomination" and even the NAME of the person
commonly called the Antichrist. [Mat 24:15 and 24:33].

(5) Finally, there can be no Biblical dispute that the FIFTH
"Kingdom of Heaven" on earth is an ETERNAL Kingdom
(while all the others were temporal) and it contains ONLY
the saved from EACH of the previous "Kingdoms of Heaven"
(while all the others contained both saved and unsaved)
[Mat 8:11 and LUKE 13:28 AND many other verses]

Luke 13:28
There shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth, when ye shall see Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, and all the prophets,
in the Kingdom of God, and you yourselves thrust out.

BTW... aren't YOU the person who claimed God was not saving
anybody before Christ? Do you REALLY believe (contrary to the
passage above) that Enoch and Noah were not saved... or that
Abraham and Issac and Jacob and Moses and ALL the OT prophets
were not saved?

God wasn't saving anyone before Christ. All salvation came with His blood who opened the gates of heaven.

Listen, I understand that MOST people calling themselves
"Christians" are REALLY just unsaved "tares" (children of Satan)
bringing heresy into the churches... I understand this because
(a) I am a real saint and (b) this is what JESUS and all of the
APOSTLES taught while they were alive. The corruption of
the church was PART of the Gospel of the Bible.... for
those with "ears to hear".

Jim

5thKingdom · Dec 6, 2020

wandering misfit said:
I'm not quoting the rest of your post cause you didn't test your interpretation of scripture with Christians on CF.

That is so cute. You actually think Biblical Truth is determined
by the consensus of opinions of those on CF. That is hilarious.

Augustinianism wasn't declared heresy till politics and man interceded within the church. East, West and the protagonists, and later, the Evangelicals and new found dispensationalism.

Again, you are just so cute. Do you actually think that Biblical Truth
was established by Augustine or Luther or Calvin or Arminius?
The ONLY MEASURE of Biblical Truth is harmony of ALL RELATED
passages (since Scripture has no contradictions). That is really
the FIRST PRINCIPLE of Bible study... why is it "news" to you?

To pretend that Biblical Truth is established by a consensus
of opinions within a particular denomination or church is just
hilarious... much less a consensus of unknown people on CF.

Jim

5thKingdom · Dec 6, 2020

Fervent said:
Yes, but the word God used is atimian, translators have simply agreed that "honor" is an English analogue. Are we to only read the Bible in koine Greek, or make the best attempt and converting the meaning into English?

FIRST, it is GOD and not man that gets to DEFINE the meaning
of words used in Scripture.

SECOND, we are talking about a word that is used only seven (7)
times in the Bible and EACH of those times is consistent with the
meaning of "dishonor"... so GOD has shown through HIS USE
of the word what MEANING He has intended.

So... it is not a matter of "translators have simply agreed...."
It is a matter of comparing Scripture with Scripture (as we
are COMMANDED to do) in order to see what meaning that
GOD intended for the word.

Some times the translators got the MEANING as God intended
and some time the translators did not. Which is WHY the saints
are COMMANDED to compare Scripture with Scripture.

But let's just cut to the heart of this matter, shall we?
The word translated "dishonor" in Romans 9 (Strongs G819)
is used SIX (6) other times in the Bible. If you think that the
word "dishonor" is not the MEANING GOD INTENDED
then simply reveal what word YOU THINK God meant.

However, I will remind you that the word is CONTRASTED
with "honor"... so you will find (if you dare to do the work)
that "dishonor" was the correct translation in this case.

You see... it is simply not enough to opine that "dishonor"
MIGHT NOT be the correct translation, without suggesting
what WOULD BE the correct translation... but that is exactly
what YOU have done. I cannot help but wonder WHY.
If you think "dishonor" is a WRONG translation then you
SHOULD have stated what you think is the CORRECT word.
It really is as simple as that.

Jim

Augustine, Calvin, Arminius, Molin...?

Newbie

Newbie

Senior Veteran

Newbie

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Newbie

Nowhere man

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Nowhere man

Nowhere man

Well-Known Member

Nowhere man

Nowhere man

Newbie

Newbie

Newbie

Similar threads