Is Calvinism a heresy?

[bbbbbbb]

Agreed but those who accept Christ


Liked it very much until you said they will be saved, but they still have to accept Christ to be saved but the question is when and where and how. Can they be saved without knowing the Gospel?

No for the reason above-they all have to accept Christ, there is no other way.

With respect that is not what I said. I believe God predestined me to be saved, if you like predestined me into a position of knowledge to be saved. For some reason that i do not understand you seem to think that is foreknowledge. N,o he put everything there for me to choose ,knowledge, the time and place, someone with me and prior to that the conviction in my heart via His Holy Spirit. Why isnt that pre-destination?

With respect again that is a totally unjustified extrapolation of what i said and i disagree with all of it.

Okay, precisely how do you define predestination?

Please let me know your thoughts on this as well - Predestination - Wikipedia

Thank you.

 

[Aaron112]

Okay, precisely how do you define predestination?

I don't try to. Defining it leads to more confusion, more distress, more conflict, and so on.
Just ignore it, and be at peace with God and with men who follow Jesus.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Absolutely, scripture is enough and can not be added to or have anything taken away. We agree on something, but what about a revelation that opens up scripture? Not adding to or taking away but gives insight. Eg 'What's his name' describes man as being a 3 day job to make. 'No way' you say as did I but when you look at Genesis 2:5 it describes a time 'before' plants were in the earth. i.e day 3, the subsequent text is thus, in this time frame and one of the actions in that 'before' time frame is 'and the LORD God formed man from the dust of the ground'-then finished on day 6.This also then obviously opens up very provocative parallels with Jesus 3 days in the grave. Intrigued?- prob not considering you weren't for the Foundation of the world. Does that type of revelation bother you? But I am intrigued a lot by it, But its all about scripture

You have not so far as I have read in your post, yet answered my question. Here you again reference "a revelation". Please be definitive about the term. Are you talking about what you have called 'insight'? Or 'sure knowledge, God-breathed fact concerning what Scriptures do tell us'. Maybe more to the point, does your prophet Kerr, and/or Kerr's disciples, consider it God-breathed fact? You see, there is no point in continuing until we get this ironed out.

I do not get your response I have provided 13 biblical references to support what 'whats her name ' said ( In message 100). I am not asking you to comment on 'whats her name ' but on the scripture? Especially Acts 17:28. Still waiting.....

I'm not playing you here. I have not investigated what Kerr nor what you have said, as I am still waiting (and what I have read of this last post of yours so far does not lend confidence on the question) to hear from you as to whether you think Kerr is an authoritative prophet or not, even though in the first paragraph you mention 'insight', without definition as to whether that is all you mean by 'revelation'.

Come out with it, man! At least, if you wish me to look into your claims, I need to know this first.

You quote me as saying,
"Mark Quayle said:
Havent you lot got an amendment against this type of thing banning free speech? Y"

While I can imagine myself saying such a thing in jest, smiley included, can you show me where I did say it? I don't see it anywhere in my posts. If I did not say it, then it is against the site rules (as I understand them) to enter it as if I had said it. But I'll grant the possibility you meant it as a comment, and by mistake entered it as if I had said it. Please clarify, and edit that post, and be more careful. I don't like other people thinking I said something I didn't say.

Here again, you do the same thing:
"Mark Quayle said:
Romans 1 "Wherefore they are without excuse." Who is the 'they'? what were they shown? What was their punishment? Where was this punishment? I think Romans 1 and 2 supports my view btw."

Again, please edit the post, and be more careful next time. Again, I don't like people reading that I said something I did not say, even if what they claim I said was paraphrased or extrapolated from something I DID say.

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

I absolutely think it is defensible and do not want to retract it at all.

Then I guess you're splitting hairs for people who have (a) accepted Jesus but have (b) never heard the Bible. That leads to the obvious question:

• What does hearing the Bible mean to you?

As far as I understand it, the Bible reveals the narrative threads of redemptive history which all point to Jesus Christ and his ministry of reconciliation (Luke 24:27; cf. John 1:45; Acts 10:43; 13:27-29), that great mystery determined before the ages for our glory, formerly kept hidden but now revealed. In other words, if you've heard the gospel, you've heard the Bible, because the gospel is what the Bible is all about.

So, again, what does hearing the Bible mean to you?

Also: Do you genuinely believe there is a meaningful number of people who have accepted Jesus and died without having heard the Bible? In my own limited sphere of experience, people who accept Jesus invariably read the Bible, too.

God does not send anyone to hell. You send yourself there by rejecting Jesus.

It seems to me that he does, indeed, send people to hell:

Matthew 25:31-46 -- When the Son of Man comes in his glory and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne. All the nations will be assembled before him, and he will separate people one from another like a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left. ... Then he will say to those on his left, "Depart from me, you accursed, into the eternal fire that has been prepared for the devil and his angels! For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink. I was a stranger and you did not receive me as a guest, naked and you did not clothe me, sick and in prison and you did not visit me." Then they too will answer, "Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not give you whatever you needed?" Then he will answer them, "I tell you the truth, just as you did not do it for one of the least of these, you did not do it for me." And these will depart into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.

Revelation 20:11-15 -- Then I saw a large white throne and the one who was seated on it; the earth and the heaven fled from his presence, and no place was found for them. And I saw the dead, the great and the small, standing before the throne. Then books were opened—and another book was opened: the book of life. So the dead were judged by what was written in the books, according to their deeds. The sea gave up the dead that were in it, and death and hell gave up the dead that were in them, and each one was judged according to his deeds. ... If anyone's name was not found written in the book of life, that person was thrown into the lake of fire.

Romans 2:5-8 -- But because of your stubbornness and your unrepentant heart, you are storing up wrath for yourselves in the day of wrath, when God's righteous judgment is revealed! He will reward each one according to his works: eternal life to those who by perseverance in good works seek glory and honor and immortality, but wrath and anger to those who live in selfish ambition and do not obey the truth but follow unrighteousness.

There is a very loose sense in which the convict sends himself to prison, for he willfully, knowingly did what was illegal, but the real truth of the matter is that the judge sent him to prison.

I want to at some stage talk AT LENGTH about miscarried and aborted fetuses.

I don't. You'll have to beseech someone else. I wish to have a biblical and theological discussion, not one drenched in pearl-clutching emotional rhetoric. If your point loses all its force when being made in the context of adults, if it can ONLY be made by invoking babies, then that's a big red flag. You should think long and hard on the implications of that.

 

[jameslouise]

You have not so far as I have read in your post, yet answered my question. Here you again reference "a revelation". Please be definitive about the term. Are you talking about what you have called 'insight'? Or 'sure knowledge, God-breathed fact concerning what Scriptures do tell us'. Maybe more to the point, does your prophet Kerr, and/or Kerr's disciples, consider it God-breathed fact? You see, there is no point in continuing until we get this ironed out.


I'm not playing you here. I have not investigated what Kerr nor what you have said, as I am still waiting (and what I have read of this last post of yours so far does not lend confidence on the question) to hear from you as to whether you think Kerr is an authoritative prophet or not, even though in the first paragraph you mention 'insight', without definition as to whether that is all you mean by 'revelation'.

Come out with it, man! At least, if you wish me to look into your claims, I need to know this first.

You quote me as saying,
"Mark Quayle said:
Havent you lot got an amendment against this type of thing banning free speech? Y"

While I can imagine myself saying such a thing in jest, smiley included, can you show me where I did say it? I don't see it anywhere in my posts. If I did not say it, then it is against the site rules (as I understand them) to enter it as if I had said it. But I'll grant the possibility you meant it as a comment, and by mistake entered it as if I had said it. Please clarify, and edit that post, and be more careful. I don't like other people thinking I said something I didn't say.

Here again, you do the same thing:
"Mark Quayle said:
Romans 1 "Wherefore they are without excuse." Who is the 'they'? what were they shown? What was their punishment? Where was this punishment? I think Romans 1 and 2 supports my view btw."

Again, please edit the post, and be more careful next time. Again, I don't like people reading that I said something I did not say, even if what they claim I said was paraphrased or extrapolated from something I DID say.

Hey mark I get your point completely, and apologies it does look like i am quoting you, when i am just trying to reply to you ,i have not quite got my head around this forum format yet. Can i I still edit posted posts? i am happy to do so if i can. I will now just use the replay button and copy and paste quotes in italic with name attached and scripture in Italic bold

When i said Haven't you lot got an amendment against this type of thing banning free speech? is a light heated reply to you from me saying you ll walk if I use the words 'absolutely proven' and 'revelation'.
I do indeed also have a different interpretation of the meaning of 'revelation' and insight. I would describe both as 'a surprising and previously unknown fact that has been disclosed' (from a dictionary) And for me revelation being a'bigger'new idea then an insight. I believe I have been given insights by The Holy Spirit but never have I heard an audible voice
Mark Quayle says 'a sure knowledge, God-breathed fact concerning what Scriptures do tell us' i am not at all sure what God breathed means here so I cannot answer that.
To be clear on my definitions: (although I am not so sure why that is so important to you? ) Kerr claims she was given a vision of the first world with an water vapour shield (canopy), an atmosphere of thick mist and no sun or moon but all lit by The Glory of God. I received that claim and searched the scripture to see if it was true and every claim is backed up in scripture, I believe I received insight into certain phrases in Genesis 1 and 2 but also finally given an insight into the whole of Genesis 1 and 2 testifying to Jesus Christ by use of an exquisitely beautiful design with use a prolonged metaphor with multiple biblical and logically defined 'typing'. I would class this latter as a revelation as I would Kerr's vision. You can define them as you wish.
I am not here to defend Kat Kerr nor am I her disciple as you cynically word it, nor does she have disciples for that matter. You can call her whatever you like as for what I think of her then 'what is that to you?' I present to you scriptural arguments and you seem to be setting parameters before you will engage, is it too hot in the Kitchen? are you looking for an exit route? I look forward to finally seeing some of your scriptural interpretations, please teach me something new and to be as frank as you are, so far, the only interpretation I have seen I am bewildered by so lets start with that:
Mark Quayle says It doesn't say that He would have had to have done it yearly since a time called FOTW. (the foundation of the world).
Errr well yes it does...
For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us
Nor yet that he ( still Jesus Christ) should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of others (like the high priest does yearly)
For then must he (still Jesus Christ) often have suffered since the foundation of the world (FOTW) (the time these type of sacrificial practices started taking place) but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself (He would have had to have done it yearly but did it in one go)

There were no yearly sacrifices in temples at the time of Adam so The Mosaic and Abrahamic Covenant come into focus.I suggest these yearly practices had to be started with the Abrahamic Covenant but that is a longer argument for another day. So, I suggest, after the FOTW could well mean the Abrahamic Covenant as well as or instead of Genesis day 6? ( But also in another delightfully elegant way can refer to our salvation-more to come on that)

Cam you talk me through your thought processes? How do you get form A to B ?Am i missing something? Anybody else see that?

After that please give me your interpretation of Acts 17:28
For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring

 

[jameslouise]

Then I guess you're splitting hairs for people who have (a) accepted Jesus but have (b) never heard the Bible. That leads to the obvious question:

• What does hearing the Bible mean to you?

As far as I understand it, the Bible reveals the narrative threads of redemptive history which all point to Jesus Christ and his ministry of reconciliation (Luke 24:27; cf. John 1:45; Acts 10:43; 13:27-29), that great mystery determined before the ages for our glory, formerly kept hidden but now revealed. In other words, if you've heard the gospel, you've heard the Bible, because the gospel is what the Bible is all about.

So, again, what does hearing the Bible mean to you?

Also: Do you genuinely believe there is a meaningful number of people who have accepted Jesus and died without having heard the Bible? In my own limited sphere of experience, people who accept Jesus invariably read the Bible, too.




It seems to me that he does, indeed, send people to hell:

Matthew 25:31-46 -- When the Son of Man comes in his glory and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne. All the nations will be assembled before him, and he will separate people one from another like a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left. ... Then he will say to those on his left, "Depart from me, you accursed, into the eternal fire that has been prepared for the devil and his angels! For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink. I was a stranger and you did not receive me as a guest, naked and you did not clothe me, sick and in prison and you did not visit me." Then they too will answer, "Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not give you whatever you needed?" Then he will answer them, "I tell you the truth, just as you did not do it for one of the least of these, you did not do it for me." And these will depart into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.

Revelation 20:11-15 -- Then I saw a large white throne and the one who was seated on it; the earth and the heaven fled from his presence, and no place was found for them. And I saw the dead, the great and the small, standing before the throne. Then books were opened—and another book was opened: the book of life. So the dead were judged by what was written in the books, according to their deeds. The sea gave up the dead that were in it, and death and hell gave up the dead that were in them, and each one was judged according to his deeds. ... If anyone's name was not found written in the book of life, that person was thrown into the lake of fire.

Romans 2:5-8 -- But because of your stubbornness and your unrepentant heart, you are storing up wrath for yourselves in the day of wrath, when God's righteous judgment is revealed! He will reward each one according to his works: eternal life to those who by perseverance in good works seek glory and honor and immortality, but wrath and anger to those who live in selfish ambition and do not obey the truth but follow unrighteousness.

There is a very loose sense in which the convict sends himself to prison, for he willfully, knowingly did what was illegal, but the real truth of the matter is that the judge sent him to prison.




I don't. You'll have to beseech someone else. I wish to have a biblical and theological discussion, not one drenched in pearl-clutching emotional rhetoric. If your point loses all its force when being made in the context of adults, if it can ONLY be made by invoking babies, then that's a big red flag. You should think long and hard on the implications of that.

Dialecticskeptic asks So, again, what does hearing the Bible mean to you?
That needs such a wide ranging answer it would take forever,. All that you said and also i would add the inerrant 'written word of God' that tells the history of everything and The Gospel of The Lord Jesus Christ. Every page is about the Lord Jesus Christ. every page carries great power.

Dialecticskeptic says: There is a very loose sense in which the convict sends himself to prison, for he willfully, knowingly did what was illegal, but the real truth of the matter is that the judge sent him to prison.
I like that analogy a lot but would add the judge sends him there because he is following the Law, the judge Himself did not want to send him there at all, and he approached him many times before his case even came up. He approached everyone else before there case came up too.

Dialecticskeptic asks Also: Do you genuinely believe there is a meaningful number of people who have accepted Jesus and died without having heard the Bible? In my own limited sphere of experience, people who accept Jesus invariably read the Bible, too.
Yes millions if not billions.

Dialecticskeptic decalresI don't. You'll have to beseech someone else. I wish to have a biblical and theological discussion, not one drenched in pearl-clutching emotional rhetoric. If your point loses all its force when being made in the context of adults, if it can ONLY be made by invoking babies, then that's a big red flag. You should think long and hard on the implications of that.
I think God likes his 'little ones' because any one who hurts them is in trouble Matthew 18:6. i believe You too will be like a little innocent child in the presence of God. i do not mention children for 'emotional rhetoric' but have to because they are by definition the ones that are too young to hear the word or make a decision. I do not need to think long and hard and I will keep mentioning them as I believe God values them as much as he does you or I.

I am glad you want theological discussion as I do too, please start by commenting on the Hebrews passage above Hebrews 9:25-26 then give me your interpretation of Acts 17:28. Look forward to it

 

[jameslouise]

@Mark Quayle I do not seem to be able to edit previous messages but I think i can delete them, let me know the message numbers that bother you and i will do so if you wish

 

[bbbbbbb]

@Mark Quayle I do not seem to be able to edit previous messages but I think i can delete them, let me know the message numbers that bother you and i will do so if you wish

You can edit previous posts. In the lower left corner of your post you will see a prompt labelled "edit". Click on it and your post will come up and then you can edit it.

 

[jameslouise]

You can edit previous posts. In the lower left corner of your post you will see a prompt labelled "edit". Click on it and your post will come up and then you can

@Mark Quayle both done. Thanks bbbbb

 

[bbbbbbb]

@Mark Quayle both done. Thanks bbbbb

You are welcome.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Dialecticskeptic decalresI don't. You'll have to beseech someone else. I wish to have a biblical and theological discussion, not one drenched in pearl-clutching emotional rhetoric. If your point loses all its force when being made in the context of adults, if it can ONLY be made by invoking babies, then that's a big red flag. You should think long and hard on the implications of that.
I think God likes his 'little ones' because any one who hurts them is in trouble Matthew 18:6. i believe You too will be like a little innocent child in the presence of God. i do not mention children for 'emotional rhetoric' but have to because they are by definition the ones that are too young to hear the word or make a decision. I do not need to think long and hard and I will keep mentioning them as I believe God values them as much as he does you or I.

There is a sense in which the mention of children is relevant to just what is the essence of the Gospel. At its core, assumptions are made: the agony and horror of the great/infinite 'distance' between God and that 'child' —the absolute need of the 'child' for closeness/ reconciliation to God. Then the realization that God has made a way, by himself, at his own cost, not by anything the 'child' did, to bring the 'child' to himself. These assumptions and resolutions that I have stated this way, do not even have to be intellectual conceptions, or even anything we (more-or-less intellectually endowed) might be tempted to think of as mere sense, or a vague feeling. The soul's visceral impressions, I should think, are enough. And, in this, I can't imagine that, let's say for one even less 'aware' (in the common sense) than a child, to whom God has thoroughly impressed with this agony of 'distance', having been then impressed with the fact that God has made a way to be WITH him, does not gladly indulge in the fact of it, wrapping himself up in it!

Here, if my thoughts are valid, I find reason to understand how it is "not of yourself". To that redeemed soul, God has given both the facts, and the ability to 'see' them, and besides that, the gift of being thoroughly caught up in them. The only act of will of that person was the happy indulging into that new reality.

But if God does not present that core of the Gospel to that poor mind, that self remains spiritually dead, and at enmity with God (and no, I am not saying that God does not actually save such a soul, but that when he does, it is through the Gospel —by grace through faith.)

What I can't help but believe, also, is that this clinical idiot self, is no less than our own selves, though perhaps considerably less experienced and deceived.

Compared to the wisdom of just what God has done for us, our intellects are hardly more endowed us than that clinical idiot has endowed him. We are idiots, but God can touch us too. Our 'selves', when we see him as he is, are still in production. And God help us to be like children.

 

[Mark Quayle]

When i said Haven't you lot got an amendment against this type of thing banning free speech? is a light heated reply to you from me saying you ll walk if I use the words 'absolutely proven' and 'revelation'.

Yeah, I took it that way. No problem

I do indeed also have a different interpretation of the meaning of 'revelation' and insight. I would describe both as 'a surprising and previously unknown fact that has been disclosed' (from a dictionary) And for me revelation being a'bigger'new idea then an insight. I believe I have been given insights by The Holy Spirit but never have I heard an audible voice

If all you mean is 'new insight', and not authoritative, as in, 'Not in and of itself reliable (or reference) for doctrine or command', we can work with that, but I don't want to hear authority attributed to Kerr's (or anyone else's) visions or teaching, (except as mentioned in the Bible.)

Just so you know, I don't attribute that kind of authority to Luther, nor Calvin, nor the Pope, nor any Priest, Bishop or Pastor or anyone who serves in similar office, nor anybody else who ever existed, except to those included in the Biblical canon of 66 books as authors, genuine prophets of God or Apostles.

Mark Quayle says 'a sure knowledge, God-breathed fact concerning what Scriptures do tell us' i am not at all sure what God breathed means here so I cannot answer that.
To be clear on my definitions: (although I am not so sure why that is so important to you? ) Kerr claims she was given a vision of the first world with an water vapour shield (canopy), an atmosphere of thick mist and no sun or moon but all lit by The Glory of God. I received that claim and searched the scripture to see if it was true and every claim is backed up in scripture, I believe I received insight into certain phrases in Genesis 1 and 2 but also finally given an insight into the whole of Genesis 1 and 2 testifying to Jesus Christ by use of an exquisitely beautiful design with use a prolonged metaphor with multiple biblical and logically defined 'typing'. I would class this latter as a revelation as I would Kerr's vision. You can define them as you wish.

I've had visions too. One in particular is so visceral (concerning the nature of sin and its effect upon the universe) even now more than 30 years later (I think), that I can't even describe it without having to separate myself from the experience of it. But I can't draw doctrine from it, though, to my heart and mind, 'it was from God'. It was not "new revelation", nor even do I consider it true in the same sense as Scripture; it was for me to better understand something, I think. But it does drive me, and adds definition to some of my thoughts/ doctrines. I cannot build on it; I can't say, even to myself, "Well, the vision showed that.... so, therefore, this...."

If that is how you see her vision, then ok, we can move on. The vision is not basis for anything in argument or doctrine. You cannot 'appeal to' the vision.

I am not here to defend Kat Kerr nor am I her disciple as you cynically word it, nor does she have disciples for that matter. You can call her whatever you like as for what I think of her then 'what is that to you?' I present to you scriptural arguments and you seem to be setting parameters before you will engage, is it too hot in the Kitchen? are you looking for an exit route? I look forward to finally seeing some of your scriptural interpretations, please teach me something new and to be as frank as you are, so far, the only interpretation I have seen I am bewildered by so lets start with that:

I didn't mean that you were her disciple, but that perhaps she had some. I was fishing for a definition for modern day 'prophet' as you think of it.

You may find me not the sort to shrink from argument. I stop arguing when I see that I have been drawn into someone else's 'weeds' and the argument is not progressing, or when it has not progressed for too long, or when I lose interest, or even when I feel ignorant of a subject to the degree that there isn't much point in continuing, or sometimes beginning. But if I have a question, such as has happened many times in evolution and cosmology boards, I will ask it as well as I can, and even criticize people who know reams more than I, if something appears simply foolish or logically self-contradictory. I'm not scared of them. Nor do I 'quayle' (—see what I did there?) before anyone's bullying and arrogance.

Mark Quayle says It doesn't say that He would have had to have done it yearly since a time called FOTW. (the foundation of the world).
Errr well yes it does...
For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us
Nor yet that he ( still Jesus Christ) should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of others (like the high priest does yearly)
For then must he (still Jesus Christ) often have suffered since the foundation of the world (FOTW) (the time these type of sacrificial practices started taking place) but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself (He would have had to have done it yearly but did it in one go)

You seem to have the ability to slough one word from its original spot to make it apply to another. It says THE PRIEST did it yearly. Doesn't even say the priest HAD TO, nor that even if it was commanded the priest do so, that there was more than a human reason for the command. It can't logically be transposed to say that Christ would have had to do it "yearly" —only "repeatedly". And there is the difference, and the focus of the logic.

There were no yearly sacrifices in temples at the time of Adam so The Mosaic and Abrahamic Covenant come into focus.I suggest these yearly practices had to be started with the Abrahamic Covenant but that is a longer argument for another day. So, I suggest, after the FOTW could well mean the Abrahamic Covenant as well as or instead of Genesis day 6? ( But also in another delightfully elegant way can refer to our salvation-more to come on that)

The fact that the Gospel has always been the one Gospel, the fact that during the time of Adam etc there was no yearly practice, should demonstrate that the "yearly" principle is not the point concerning what Christ would have had to do.

Cam you talk me through your thought processes? How do you get form A to B ?Am i missing something? Anybody else see that?

I don't know what you are referring to here. What is A and what is B?

After that please give me your interpretation of Acts 17:28
For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring

I don't know if I would call it interpretation, so much as 'use' of it, doctrinally. While I give the statement my confidence as true, I do realize that not only is it not the end of knowledge on the matter, but that it was a quote of Paul quoting someone else (the ancient Greek philosopher, Epimenides (a very brilliant guy, by the way)). It is IN scripture, but is not of itself an authoritative statement. Yet I acknowledge I sometimes use it as if it is. Maybe I instinctively understand that Paul used it as more than simply instructional. I don't know.

This kind of reminds me of the Acts 16:31 story. When they told the Philippian jailer, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved.", they were not talking to us unless in some spiritualized sense. What they said there was spoken to him, and not only that, apparently in answer to his mortal fear, not spiritual fear. Yet, like the huge majority of Christians, I still take it and sometimes use it authoritatively for reference to what "one must do and they shall be saved." So, to some degree, is my use of the statement Paul quotes on Mars Hill. Yet, again, I don't claim the person Paul quoted was inspired by God to say what he said, nor that Paul repeating it lent plenary verbal inspiration to the sentence.

Hermeneutics 101 teachers will divide any passage into "meaning" and "application". I'm a weird one on that, not totally accepting that norm as right. It is only a way to organize a person's view of a passage or to help them organize in their mind what is going on with it. Yet some exegetes seem to depend on that norm in their method as near gospel, a command not to be ignored. I agree it is certainly useful, and something to keep in mind to avoid straying into error, or at least to avoid trusting extravagances. You may find me wandering from meaning into "use" during exegesis, because (for one thing) I find it compelling in my study when there are other passages, specially in different books of the Bible, that to me sound the same in spite of their differences, and the relationship between the two (or more) passages always overlaps their application. Most principles of Hermeneutics are simply common sense, and most anyone would agree to them. Many of them are also there to mention things that one might not have thought of, to pursue in learning the meaning of a passage. But particular to our case, I do admit that there is a lot to say for referring to someone who "knows more than I do" about some particular branch of thinking about a word or passage or method. I'm no Greek master. I'm no historical authority. But there is success in the counsel of many advisers (from Prov 15:22). Many. Not just one. I am always suspicious of just one, even if it is me.

Anyhow, the short version, since I ran so long on the above, I do honestly believe that in him we live and move and have our being, although, I can get pretty insistent about what "in him" does NOT mean. He is our sustenance, and in some way even our substance, but he is not comprised of us. I have to remark too, as to 'use' and application, this has HUGE implications into the nature of Heaven.

As to the "we are his offspring" (also a quote from another philosopher, Aratus), I'm not sure what to make of it. In some way it is true, but I'm not sure what Aratus meant, nor what Paul meant, nor what those on Mars Hill took him to be saying. I end up settling on a simple vague notion of 'we are not of ourselves', but logically (causally) descended of him, and that the statement is relevant to the Genesis mention of man being made in the image of God.

 

[jameslouise]

There is a sense in which the mention of children is relevant to just what is the essence of the Gospel. At its core, assumptions are made: the agony and horror of the great/infinite 'distance' between God and that 'child' —the absolute need of the 'child' for closeness/ reconciliation to God. Then the realization that God has made a way, by himself, at his own cost, not by anything the 'child' did, to bring the 'child' to himself. These assumptions and resolutions that I have stated this way, do not even have to be intellectual conceptions, or even anything we (more-or-less intellectually endowed) might be tempted to think of as mere sense, or a vague feeling. The soul's visceral impressions, I should think, are enough. And, in this, I can't imagine that, let's say for one even less 'aware' (in the common sense) than a child, to whom God has thoroughly impressed with this agony of 'distance', having been then impressed with the fact that God has made a way to be WITH him, does not gladly indulge in the fact of it, wrapping himself up in it!

Here, if my thoughts are valid, I find reason to understand how it is "not of yourself". To that redeemed soul, God has given both the facts, and the ability to 'see' them, and besides that, the gift of being thoroughly caught up in them. The only act of will of that person was the happy indulging into that new reality.

But if God does not present that core of the Gospel to that poor mind, that self remains spiritually dead, and at enmity with God (and no, I am not saying that God does not actually save such a soul, but that when he does, it is through the Gospel —by grace through faith.)

What I can't help but believe, also, is that this clinical idiot self, is no less than our own selves, though perhaps considerably less experienced and deceived.

Compared to the wisdom of just what God has done for us, our intellects are hardly more endowed us than that clinical idiot has endowed him. We are idiots, but God can touch us too. Our 'selves', when we see him as he is, are still in production. And God help us to be like children.

Well, I thank you for this, now we are cooking with gas!
Mark Quayle said But if God does not present that core of the Gospel to that poor mind, that self remains spiritually dead, and at enmity with God (and no, I am not saying that God does not actually save such a soul, but that when he does, it is through the Gospel —by grace through faith.)
I love that and will use it and is essentially what I am saying by the way especially 'core of the Gospel'.
Diametrically too- I also find your writing style eloquent, flowery, intellectual but a bit 'about the bush' and a polar opposite to mine which interests me as I am about to lock horns with you. Bit of iron sharpening, both ways I hope and pray.

 

[jameslouise]

I've had visions too. One in particular is so visceral (concerning the nature of sin and its effect upon the universe) even now more than 30 years later (I think), that I can't even describe it without having to separate myself from the experience of it.

I would really like to hear more on that as have an hypothesis that 'the whole of creation groaning' includes light and the speed of light too, and radiometric dating is dependent on a static speed of light. So a variable speed of light would invalidate most dating methods.

 

[jameslouise]

You seem to have the ability to slough one word from its original spot to make it apply to another. It says THE PRIEST did it yearly. Doesn't even say the priest HAD TO, nor that even if it was commanded the priest do so, that there was more than a human reason for the command. It can't logically be transposed to say that Christ would have had to do it "yearly" —only "repeatedly". And there is the difference, and the focus of the logic

Your emphasis on 'Had to' seems wrong to me as the text says 'must' which has the exact same meaning as 'had to' in this context. It was Jesus who 'must' or 'had to' if he was to be like priest.
'Often' or 'yearly'- I do not mind which one and I take your point, but the text goes on to describe, and preceding text also describes, this as being in a temple with various comparisons of this temple to Christ and descriptions of this temple too. Thus establishing that Jesus would only have 'had to' do this when this was the practice and in a holy place with blood of others. This was not the practice at the time of Adam so this particular use 'Foundation of the world' (FOTW) cannot be applying to Genesis 6 days.
I am going to take the liberty of paraphrasing this text:
Jesus would have had to suffer often since a time called the Foundation of the World if he had not done it once and for all with his sacrifice on the cross. this time being when sacrificial practices as described were taking place and this cannot be Genesis day 6,-Which bit do you disagree with?
Interestingly, with the use of 'had to' I subscribe to the view once Abraham agreed to sacrifice his son so God 'had to ' do the same.
The same, I suggest, applies to all uses of 'after/since' the FOTW but not before btw.

 

[jameslouise]

Anyhow, the short version, since I ran so long on the above, I do honestly believe that in him we live and move and have our being, although, I can get pretty insistent about what "in him" does NOT mean. He is our sustenance, and in some way even our substance, but he is not comprised of us. I have to remark too, as to 'use' and application, this has HUGE implications into the nature of Heaven

You are so right about the huge implications of this verse but with respect you seem to avoid its direct and plain meaning and beat about the bush a lot here and are not really bringing in any pertinent scripture but at least you concede you do not understand the 'use' of offspring which i deeply appreciate and impresses me.
The more I now about the Bible the more literal I take it-Chuck Missler
The Bible tells me so, so it is true and Paul confirms it, I suggest, it is plain and simple text, I suggest. your preconceptions stop you seeing it-you can tell me what it does not mean? Really, you sure? maybe your preconceptions need a little tweak? It will not change any major doctrines but enhance them, I believe.
I have no idea how you differentiate and categories these truths, that is up to you, But the text could not be clearer.
So to press you, which parts of my interpretation do you disagree with? Be precise please as in which word or phrase?
For in him we live,we all the people Paul is talking to. or all mankind, are living and existing in him (God)
and move, the same people group are moving around
and have our being; the same people group are a living being. a living entity, a person in this location.
as certain also of your own poets have said, the time frame is set and it is before Jesus' arrival on earth and theirs?
For we are also his offspring. this is all because we are his (still God) offspring. ( a very strong hint about how/when man's spirit is made/ created / wrought as this word or equivalent is not used in Genesis 1)
Please note messages 100 contains 13 other verses that are consistent with this.

 

[Mark Quayle]

@jameslouise please try to rewrite your post #154. Go to what Mark Quayle said (the post you are responding to); at the bottom of his post, on the right, click on 'Reply'. You will be taken to the bottom of the page, and in the field you are to write in, wait til Mark's post reappears. Go below the bottom of what he posted, to write your reply.

Your post doesn't transfer to the bottom when I try to respond, because it is written within the body of a quote.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Your emphasis on 'Had to' seems wrong to me as the text says 'must' which has the exact same meaning as 'had to' in this context. It was Jesus who 'must' or 'had to' if he was to be like priest.
'Often' or 'yearly'- I do not mind which one and I take your point, but the text goes on to describe, and preceding text also describes, this as being in a temple with various comparisons of this temple to Christ and descriptions of this temple too. Thus establishing that Jesus would only have 'had to' do this when this was the practice and in a holy place with blood of others. This was not the practice at the time of Adam so this particular use 'Foundation of the world' (FOTW) cannot be applying to Genesis 6 days.
I am going to take the liberty of paraphrasing this text:
Jesus would have had to suffer often since a time called the Foundation of the World if he had not done it once and for all with his sacrifice on the cross. this time being when sacrificial practices as described were taking place and this cannot be Genesis day 6,-Which bit do you disagree with?
Interestingly, with the use of 'had to' I subscribe to the view once Abraham agreed to sacrifice his son so God 'had to ' do the same.
The same, I suggest, applies to all uses of 'after/since' the FOTW but not before btw.

As to the logic of the text, i.e. what it is saying, what the writer of Hebrews is reasoning, I agree. As to your use of it into speculations concerning a generic use for all FOTW texts, I don't even know what you are saying.

By the way, you still haven't answered my question: Is Kerr a [true] prophet? I'm not going to do battle with you until you give me some firm answer concerning your trust in new, extra-Biblical, information as though it is 'from God' in some authoritative way.

I want to take you seriously, or at least to know just where you're coming from.

 

[jameslouise]

You seem to have the ability to slough one word from its original spot to make it apply to another. It says THE PRIEST did it yearly.

Something has just dawned on me because you made me focus on the words 'yearly' and 'often'. So that has made my day and thank you. Good sharpening. Remember I said that all mentions of foundation of the world (katabole kosmos) can simultaneously be referring to man's salvation too-a deliberate double meaning ('katabole kosmos' meaning a breaking down and new harmonious arrangement instead) meaning our new born again remade spirit. Well i think the use of often is to this end. Whereas Jesus would have had to have suffered every year from the Abrahamic Covenant under those laws but once saved He would have to suffer (every 5 mins!) every time we sinned for the new covenant with indwellings etc. The yearly in effect being a subset of often. What a brilliant bit of scripture.

 

[jameslouise]

I would really like to hear more on that as have an hypothesis that 'the whole of creation groaning' includes light and the speed of light too, and radiometric dating is dependent on a static speed of light. So a variable speed of light would invalidate most dating methods