• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Mark Corbett

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Jun 1, 2017
911
758
60
Severn, NC
Visit site
✟200,406.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
And the letters to the churches are reporting advise they were given.
It's not hard to figure out that the letters are not to you.
When paul says women should not speak in church, we don't take him seriously.

I take all of the Bible seriously.
 
Upvote 0

SkyWriting

The Librarian
Site Supporter
Jan 10, 2010
37,281
8,501
Milwaukee
✟411,038.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
I take all of the Bible seriously.

So specifically:
You keep your women quiet until they get home to ask questions?
Are you serious?
You consider shellfish an abomination?
"These also shall be unclean unto you among the creeping things that creep upon the earth; the weasel, and the mouse, and the tortoise after his kind, and the ferret, and the chameleon, and the lizard, and the snail, and the mole."
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Mark Corbett

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Jun 1, 2017
911
758
60
Severn, NC
Visit site
✟200,406.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
So specifically:
You keep your women quiet until they get home to ask questions?
Are you serious?

Honestly, if you don't take the Bible seriously, why are you here on a Christian forum discussion intended for Christians? I'm not saying you're not a Christian, I'm saying I don't get your motive. Do you just want to stir up trouble?
 
Upvote 0

jimmyjimmy

Pardoned Rebel
Site Supporter
Jan 2, 2015
11,556
5,727
USA
✟257,503.00
Country
United States
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married

Foreknow = know beforehand. God knew Hs elect. That's easy to understand. To say that He chose those who chose Him makes no sense, first of all, and is not true to the text, secondly.
 
Upvote 0

SkyWriting

The Librarian
Site Supporter
Jan 10, 2010
37,281
8,501
Milwaukee
✟411,038.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Honestly, if you don't take the Bible seriously, why are you here on a Christian forum discussion intended for Christians? I'm not saying you're not a Christian, I'm saying I don't get your motive. Do you just want to stir up trouble?

Very good. Excellent questions! Yes, my goal is to stir up ones thinking.
It may take years. It did for me.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Mark Corbett

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Jun 1, 2017
911
758
60
Severn, NC
Visit site
✟200,406.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Foreknow = know beforehand. God knew Hs elect. That's easy to understand. To say that He chose those who chose Him makes no sense, first of all, and is not true to the text, secondly.

I agree that God knows His elect.

But why do you say it makes no sense for God to choose those whom He knew ahead of time would choose to have faith in Him? You may not agree with that, but it does make sense.

As far as it being true to the text, I think it is. It is true to all the text, the whole Bible. That's why I think it is most likely the correct interpretation. It fits with God's goodness and His desire to see all people saved. It fits with the huge emphasis that we are saved by faith and that those who have faith are the ones that are saved. It it true to the text. At least as far as I can understand it. But I'm truly open to explanations and evidence that show otherwise.
 
Upvote 0

DeaconDean

γέγονα χαλκὸς, κύμβαλον ἀλαλάζον
Jul 19, 2005
22,188
2,677
62
Gastonia N.C. (Piedmont of N.C.)
✟107,834.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Foreknow = know beforehand. God knew Hs elect. That's easy to understand. To say that He chose those who chose Him makes no sense, first of all, and is not true to the text, secondly.

I wonder how people get around the Greek word "eis"?

God Bless

Till all are one.
 
Upvote 0

Ron Gurley

What U See is What U Get!
Sep 22, 2015
4,000
1,031
Baton Rouge, LA
Visit site
✟95,415.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
2 Timothy 2:15
Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth.

God FOREKNOWS all....omnisicent.
God irrevocabally PRE-DESTINES nothing...He has given man/angels spiritual "free will".

The Calvin T.U.L.I.P. is a complete heresy.
 
Upvote 0

DeaconDean

γέγονα χαλκὸς, κύμβαλον ἀλαλάζον
Jul 19, 2005
22,188
2,677
62
Gastonia N.C. (Piedmont of N.C.)
✟107,834.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican

Oh brother!

How many times on this forum has this been said.



God Bless

Till all are one.
 
Reactions: jimmyjimmy
Upvote 0

jimmyjimmy

Pardoned Rebel
Site Supporter
Jan 2, 2015
11,556
5,727
USA
✟257,503.00
Country
United States
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married

It a silly concept, and not true to the texts. God's choice means nothing if He is responding to the choice of man.

"Those" He foreknew. The text states that He knew *people*, not actions.
 
Upvote 0

DeaconDean

γέγονα χαλκὸς, κύμβαλον ἀλαλάζον
Jul 19, 2005
22,188
2,677
62
Gastonia N.C. (Piedmont of N.C.)
✟107,834.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Lets also refer to Rudolf Bultmann’s work in this area:

In the NT, proginwskein is referred to God. His foreknowledge, however, is an election or foreordination of His people (Rom. 8:29; 11:2) or Christ (1 Pet. 1:20) (> ginwskw, 698, 706). In Pastor Hermae, mandata, 4, 3, 4 it simply means God's foreknowledge (cf. prognwstv in 2 Cl. 9:9). On the basis of prophecy the word proginwskein can be used of believers in 2 Pet. 3:17, also as Pastor Hermae, similitudines, 7,5 > eklegw. Another possible meaning in Greek is that of knowing earlier, i.e., than the time speaking (cf. Demosthenes of Athens, 29, 58; Aristotle, Rhetorica, II, 21, p. 1394b, 11; Josephus, Bella Judiacum, 6,8). This is found in Acts 26:5, where the meaning is strengthened by the addition of anwqen. In Justin God's proginwskein is Hid foreknowledge (Apol. I, 28, 2 etc.) and the proegnwsmenoi are believers (Apol. I, 45, 1 etc.). The polemic against determinism, however, shows that the OT view has been abandoned (Dial., 140, 4). As One who simply knows beforehand, God is called prognwstv in Apol., I, 44, 11 etc. as is also Christ in Dial., 35, 7; 82, 1. There is also reference to prophetic foreknowledge in Apol., I, 43, 1; 49, 6 etc. Tatian, of Syria, in Oratio ad Graecos, 19, 3, speaks of Apollo in the same terms, so that what we have here is the Greek understanding."

Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, Edited by: Gerhard Kittel, Translated by: Geoffery W. Bromiley, Vol. V, prognwskein, p. 457, Rudolph Bultmann commenting.

Keeping this in mind, according to The New Analytical Greek Lexicon by Wesley J. Perschbacker, editor, proginwskw is in the future tense. And it can be translated as meaning to know beforehand, to be previously acquainted with; (Acts 26:5; 2 Pet. 3:17) to determine on beforehand, to foreordain; (1 Pet. 1:20) in the NT, from the Hebrew, to know, to appoint as the subjects of future privileges, (Rom. 8:29; 11:2).

In each usage of the word proginwskw in the NT, in only two instances is the word used in reference to acts done by individuals.

In Acts 2:23, we read:

Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain. -Acts 2:23 (KJV)

Furthermore, in 1 Pet. 1:20, we read:

Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you, -1 Pet. 1:20 (KJV)

And although there are two different words used in these verses, the meaning of each one is identical. In Acts 2:23, Peter is testifying of how the mob had delivered Jesus into the hands of the Romans to be crucified. And in 1 Pet. 1:20, Peter is relating how the Savior was manifested to provide the atonement. The reference in Acts 2:23 is of particular notice because it draws the foundation of its truth from the beginning of the Bible.

God Bless

Till all are one.
 
Upvote 0

DeaconDean

γέγονα χαλκὸς, κύμβαλον ἀλαλάζον
Jul 19, 2005
22,188
2,677
62
Gastonia N.C. (Piedmont of N.C.)
✟107,834.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
re: "proginwskein"

Is that German beer in a big mug?

Let me spell it out for you since you think this is a joking matter.

Pi
Rho
Omicron
Gamma
Iota
Nu
Omega
Sigma
Kapa
Omega

Strongs Number 4267

God Bless

Till all are one.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Mark Corbett

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Jun 1, 2017
911
758
60
Severn, NC
Visit site
✟200,406.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
The Calvin T.U.L.I.P. is a complete heresy.

Ron, in a way you and I agree, but in another way we don't.

I believe that Calvinism is a wrong interpretation of the Bible. We agree about that.

But I would not use the word "heresy", much less "complete heresy". Why?

If one defines "heresy" simply as an error in interpretation or any wrong belief, then Calvinism would, in my opinion, include "heresy". But words have connotations in addition to their basic meaning. The word "heresy" at the very least carries a connotation that someone who believes it is a "heretic" and should be excluded from Christian fellowship until they repent.

I certainly do not feel that way about Calvinists, as I share in the OP. I view them as brothers in Christ. Many of them are being used by God in wonderful ways to advance His Kingdom purposes, shine His light, and share His love.

If our all our theology and interpretations have to be correct to have unity in Christ and work together and be used by Him we're all sunk.

Those of us who participate actively in discussion forums sometimes tend to not have enough grace. I wrote about this in another post, which you and others here may find helpful:

Grace and Truth

 
Upvote 0

Mark Corbett

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Jun 1, 2017
911
758
60
Severn, NC
Visit site
✟200,406.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
God's choice means nothing if He is responding to the choice of man.

Actually it means a lot.
God's choice means . . .
our sins are forgiven,
we are adopted into His family,
we receive the Holy Spirit,
our hearts are made new and transformed,
we begin a process which will end with us being just like Jesus in terms of our character,
eternal life is promised,
and we will experience His glory forever!

God's choice means all the above and much more. This is true whether His choice is based on foreknowledge of who would have faith (conditional election) or if his choice is not based on such knowledge (unconditional election).

I believe that conditional election is much more likely to be true.
 
Upvote 0

DeaconDean

γέγονα χαλκὸς, κύμβαλον ἀλαλάζον
Jul 19, 2005
22,188
2,677
62
Gastonia N.C. (Piedmont of N.C.)
✟107,834.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican

There is one reason why "conditional election" cannot be true.

If, and that's a big if, if God's election is based on anything other than His divine choice alone, it makes Him a respecter of persons.

If God's election is "conditional" as you say, based upon lets say for instance, "foreseen faith," then you will do something in the future, i.e.: have faith, that causes God to choose you over an individual who will not have faith.

It would be like God sitting on His throne in heaven, looking down the corridor of time, seeing that man "x" will have faith, accept and believe, elects based on that "foreknowledge", while at the same time, seeing that man "y" will not have faith, nor accept and believe, therefor does not elect.

Sorry, I just cannot accept that.

Why Arminian Conditional Election Makes God a Respecter of Persons

God Bless

Till all are one.
 
Last edited:
Reactions: jimmyjimmy
Upvote 0

jimmyjimmy

Pardoned Rebel
Site Supporter
Jan 2, 2015
11,556
5,727
USA
✟257,503.00
Country
United States
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married

I mean, to say that He is choosing, when He is simply following the choice of men, is to redefine what choice is. God isn't choosing, in your scenario. You've taken the power of choice away from Him and given it to men.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Mark Corbett

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Jun 1, 2017
911
758
60
Severn, NC
Visit site
✟200,406.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
There is one reason why "conditional election" cannot be true.

If, and that's a big if, if God's election is based on anything other than His divine choice alone, it makes Him a respecter of persons.

DeaconDean, I carefully read your comment and I also read the article which you gave a link to. I think I understand your concern that if God predestines some people for salvation based on foreknowledge of their faith in Christ this would seem to make God a “respecter of persons”. The Bible says God is not a “respecter of persons” (as Acts 10:34 and other passages teach). Therefore, you conclude, conditional election cannot be true.

While I think I understand your argument, and that of the article you gave a link to, I am not persuaded by it for several reasons.

First, when the Bible speaks of God not being partial (or a “respecter of persons”) it is speaking of God not giving people special treatment because of things like wealth, education, or their position in society. In fact, the article you linked to explicitly acknowledges this:

And, most importantly, in each of these instances it means neither we nor God give special treatment to a person because of his position, merit, wealth, influence, social standing, authority or popularity.

The Bible does not say that God never treats people differently for any reason connected with the people. In fact, there are many examples where God treats people differently based on something about them. Here are a few examples:

NIV James 4:6 But he gives us more grace. That is why Scripture says: "God opposes the proud but shows favor to the humble."

God treats people who are proud differently than He treats people who are humble. The Bible says so.

NIV James 4:2 You desire but do not have, so you kill. You covet but you cannot get what you want, so you quarrel and fight. You do not have because you do not ask God.

Based on the above verse, at least sometimes people who ask God for things get things that other people do not get because they did not ask.

In fact, throughout the Bible there are MANY examples of God treating people differently in response to something the person does or doesn’t do.

So God is “not a respecter of persons” in that He does not give preferential treatment to the rich and famous. This does not say anything at all about why he chose to predestine some people to become “conformed to the image of His Son” (Romans 8:29), but not others.

I want to explore this a little further in another comment, Lord willing.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0