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.
To say what you say is much more speculative: no text that says Christ was anointed before the world existed.
Van said:Holdon, Christ had to be anointed to be the Christ. 2 plus 2 is four. It is like saying the Anointed One had to be anointed to be known has the Anointed One. Christ had to be the Christ to be known as the Christ. The Messiah had to be the Messiah in order to be known as the Messiah. 2 plus 2 is four.
Well, I don't see "consecrated (anointed) spiritually" in Phil. 2:6-11.Van said:So the preincarnate Son of God, the Word was consecrated (anointed) spiritually to be the Christ before He, the Word, came into the world.
Van said:What does scripture say? Acts 4:23-28 indicates their actions were dictated by God.
And so can their guilt for these acts carried out under the guiding influence of God be added to the wrath they face if they did not obtain mercy?
What does scripture say. We will be judged based on what we know, and so to the extent they were ignorant (Acts 3:17-18) they will not be punished.
What is Paul's answer to the question given in Romans 9:19? Is it not "Do not judge God" for He will sort out how to give these folks perfect justice after He uses them or endures them to bring the gospel to the lost.
holdon said:No. Emphatically no, that's not what it says. God foreknew Christ before the foundation of the world. That's what the text says.
Your inference that God (!) had planned sin to enter this world cannot be based on this text.
The "foreknown" of v.20 refers back to the last noun in v.19: Christ.
This is how NET bible has it:
1:19 but by precious blood like that of an unblemished and spotless lamb, namely Christ.
1:20 He was foreknown36 before the foundation of the world but37 was manifested in these last times38 for your sake.
This is what Robertson commented on it:
Who was foreknown indeed (proegnwsmenou men). Perfect passive participle (in genitive singular agreeing with Cristou) of proginwskw, old verb, to know beforehand (Romans 8:29; 2 Peter 3:17). See prognwsin qeou in verse 1 Peter 1:2. Before the foundation of the world (pro katabolhß kosmou). This precise curious phrase occurs in John 17:24 in the Saviour's mouth of his preincarnate state with the Father as here and in Ephesians 1:4. We have apo katabolhß kosmou in Matthew 25:34 (kosmou omitted in Matthew 13:35); Luke 11:50; Hebrews 4:3; Hebrews 9:26; Revelation 13:8; Revelation 17:8. Katabolh (from kataballw) was originally laying the foundation of a house (Hebrews 6:1). The preincarnate Messiah appears in the counsels of God also in 1 Corinthians 2:7; Colossians 1:26; Ephesians 1:9; Ephesians 3:9-11; Romans 16:25; 1 Timothy 1:9.
Van said:Holdon, The only reason to be chosen in Him is that He was chosen.
We are chosen in Him.
If He was not chosen, we would not be in Him.
There is no reason I can think of why we would be chosen in Him except for the purpose of being redeemed by our Redeemer. Otherwise the verse would just say we were chosen, and that is not what it says or means.
Holdon said:Well, I don't see "consecrated (anointed) spiritually" in Phil. 2:6-11.
You have invented a new term I think: "anointed spiritually". Is that an imaginary anointing as opposed to a real one?
And no, I don't see that "Christ was chosen as the Lamb of God before the foundation of the world". How could I? It's not there, nor anywhere. Sorry.
I hope I have demonstrated that I am unwilling, and will be unwilling, to agree with a caricature of Scripture as presented by you. You have wilfully ignored my warnings, continue to throw verses of Scripture together and then pull out of that mess sentences that do not reflect the truth of Scripture.Van said:Holdon, you have demonstrated that you are unwilling to agree with the obvious.
Therefore God plan of redemption in Christ, which included Christ's death of the cross, existed before the foundation of the world. And we would not need a Redeemer if the fall had not be envisioned.
Van said:But if I ask others to judge for themselves, then I am not committing the act of their interpretation.
I believe we can discern what the author intended to say to a sufficient degree that study if profitable, and I believe group study in the community of believers aids in coming as close as possible to the author's intended message.
But rather than admit he distorted my position, he asks that it be made a monument. OK.
Why can't you present what I said instead of a distortion. Here is what I said:But in the post to which I have been referring, you were not asking for others to judge for themselves--you absolutized your own interpretation by claiming it was the "plain meaning" of Scripture. Why don't you just take back what you said and move on?
Note my reliance upon the independently discerned plain meaning, not my home brew.I am presenting the truth of scripture.
Folks, read the passages. In Acts 4:27-28, it says folks were gathered together against God's holy servant Jesus, whom God did anoint. This demonstrates that Jesus was chosen to be the Christ, the Anointed One. Now the gathered folks (like Pilate) were gathered "to do whatever Your [God's] hand and Your purpose predestined to occur." So the predestined purpose of the Christ was to be crucified as the Lamb of God. Note this verse does not say when God chose His Christ to be the Lamb, but it does indicate the Christ was chosen for that purpose.
Folks read the passage and judge for yourselves. Holdon is denying the plain meaning of scripture because it does not conform to his manmade doctrine.
This again just represents your mistaken presuppostions, and definitional argument, twaddle for short. Lack of perfection in communication does not demonstrate lack of sufficiency. When I reach an understanding of what Paul said, I could be one hundred percent on target. You assertion that my understanding is necessary misaligned is without merit. If many people come to the same understanding independently, it is strong evidence that the meaning is discernable. I watched the superbowl, and concluded the referees unduly influenced the outcome. In discussions the next day, the only people who disagreed were steeler fans. But the group that agreed with me included steeler fans and non-steeler fans. Point to consider. Maybe your one size fits all mantra should be revised. Maybe we can study the Word of God and discern its plain meaning. Not perfectly, but sufficently for God's purpose.This is fine, but you are still left with an interpretation which imposes your (or your community's) presuppositions upon the text. In effect, you "fill in the gaps" of what Paul said with what you think Paul said and this becomes "authorial intent."
Van said:RT is also divided about whether God arranged the fall. God arranged the fall. Christ was known before the foundation of the World, and God's predestined plan was for Christ to be slain as the propitiation of the whole world. The plan was for Christ as the lamb of God, to pay the price to ransom us all from the bondage of sin, the just for the unjust. When the Word was anointed as the Christ, He was consecrated for the purpose of being our Redeemer, thus we were chosen in Him before the foundation of the world.
Van said:the Fall is a good thing .
Van said:This again just represents your mistaken presuppostions, and definitional argument, twaddle for short.
Lack of perfection in communication does not demonstrate lack of sufficiency.
When I reach an understanding of what Paul said, I could be one hundred percent on target.
You assertion that my understanding is necessary misaligned is without merit.
If many people come to the same understanding independently, it is strong evidence that the meaning is discernable.
I watched the superbowl, and concluded the referees unduly influenced the outcome. In discussions the next day, the only people who disagreed were steeler fans. But the group that agreed with me included steeler fans and non-steeler fans. Point to consider.
Maybe your one size fits all mantra should be revised.
Maybe we can study the Word of God and discern its plain meaning. Not perfectly, but sufficently for God's purpose.
The Ol nobody can know anything mantra is a fallacy. Whoever asserts it is true cannot know that it is true, because they can know nothing.
Van said:The fall was a good thing from God's perspective, not mankinds, for many are called but few are chosen.
Yet another distortion. No one but DD ASSUMED that my home brew was the plain meaning. I was confident others would arrive at the same place. DD appears to be operating under the delusion that he alone understands the limits of knowledge, he is humble and others are ignorant. Twaddle.This is why our interpretation of Scripture must be humble and we must not assume that our interpretation is the "plain meaning" of Scripture when we know that our interpretations are subject to personal prejudices, presuppositions, etc.
Yet more distortion, more self-serving mischaracterization, more twaddle. Of course we do. Say I am given a problem, what does 2 plus 2 equal? I come up with four. Now a small girl in China is given the same problem and she comes up with four. Did I influence her decision? Nope. Now say I read a passage and after study conclude the best understanding is XYZ. If a person in China reads the same passage and comes up with the same understanding, what we have is an indication of the plain meaning of the text. Yes we must share common understandings of words and sentence structure, but the ideas are independent of the building blocks used to construct the communication. So independence refers to a lack of my influence on her conclusion, and has nothing whasoever to do with our common understanding of the building blocks of communication. To blur the distinction is twaddle, proving A and asserting B has been demonstrated.No one comes to the "same understanding" independently. Shake off your blind, modernistic, and individualistic conception of "knowledge." We are all interconnected epistemically and existentially.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?