Why do Calvinists....

GrinningDwarf · Apr 17, 2007

KEK said:
Thank you. That provides an answer to question #2, but not to question #1.

There ya go again...pulling one phrase completely out of context with the rest of what he said. Are you a lawyer?!

KEK · Apr 17, 2007

GrinningDwarf said:
There ya go again...pulling one phrase completely out of context with the rest of what he said. Are you a lawyer?!

I apologize if I have offended anyone. I have not purposely tried to offend anyone. I have tried to keep my posts positive. If I have failed to do so, please forgive me.

bradfordl · Apr 17, 2007

I apologize if I have offended anyone. I have not purposely tried to offend anyone. I have tried to keep my posts positive. If I have failed to do so, please forgive me.

You haven't offended me at all. I would prefer honest questions or propositions, but using quotes out of context and edited to misrepresent their meaning is dishonest. Remaining pleasant or "positive" while doing so doesn't change that. Your apology is accepted and you are forgiven.

Now, do you have a question or point you'd like to make?

KEK · Apr 17, 2007

bradfordl said:
You haven't offended me at all. I would prefer honest questions or propositions, but using quotes out of context and edited to misrepresent their meaning is dishonest. Remaining pleasant or "positive" while doing so doesn't change that. Your apology is accepted and you are forgiven.

Now, do you have a question or point you'd like to make?

I sincerely thought my questions were honest, I'm sorry if you didn't think they were. I didn't mean to take a whack at a hornets nest

GrinningDwarf · Apr 18, 2007

KEK said:
I apologize if I have offended anyone. I have not purposely tried to offend anyone. I have tried to keep my posts positive. If I have failed to do so, please forgive me.

I'm not really offended...just amazed that you would half-quote people three times and apparently think you have a winning case...

1. Quoting John 11:51, but ignoring the very next verse, 52, which proves against your point;

2. quoting Calvin, but ending at the semi-colon and not including Calvin's entire train of thought, which proves against your point;

3. and isolating bradfordl's first phrase while ignoring the bulk of his post which, again, proves against your point.

This technique is not exactly approved of in honest debate.

Nothing personal.

bradfordl · Apr 18, 2007

I sincerely thought my questions were honest, I'm sorry if you didn't think they were. I didn't mean to take a whack at a hornets nest

I sure hope the hornets nest reference isn't meant to imply that you've stepped on some theological sore toe and recieved unwarranted strong reaction. That would be more misrepresentation of the facts. You employed quotes to support your argument that you edited in such a way that changed the meaning from the author's original intent. You didn't "whack a hornets nest", you were dishonest and got caught. We as Christians are not to lie, and I think that would be exceptionally important in discussing scripture.

Another Christian characteristic would be to confess and repent of sin, not attempt to repaint it as something less ugly. You intentionally misquoted Calvin, please don't try to pretend that you "sincerely thought you questions were honest."

You have apologized, although I think not for the real offense, and have been forgiven. So again I ask, do you have a legitimate question?

SDG

Brad

Boxmaker · Apr 18, 2007

Chapter 6

Sproul uses this verse from Romans 8:

NIV said:
Romans 8:29-30
29For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. 30And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified.

He attempts to make the argument that because God foreknew people the verse must mean all. He changes the passage to this:

"Some of those He foreknew, He also predestined. Some of those He predestined, He also called. Some of those He called, these He also justified. Some of those He justified, He also glorified."

He offers that as proof that all must be the correct meaning without examining the passage using all. He should have included his use of all in the passage as follows:

"All of those He foreknew, He also predestined. All of those He predestined, He also called. All of those He called, these He also justified. All of those He justified, He also glorified."

Now this would seem to make more since until you look at how Sproul got at the point in the first place. He states that for God to have chosen Jacob He first had to have some idea in His mind of who Jacob would be. I agree. And that presents the problem.

In order for God to predestine everybody He had to have some idea of who everybody would be. Using that, then the, "All of those He foreknew" would have to mean every person is ever was, is or will be. It forces the broadest meaning of All. That would mean that the rest of the verse would have to use the same meaning of the word all which would mean that every person who ever was, is or will be would be saved. We know this is not the case. Therefore, the meaning of all in this passage cannot mean the broadest, all inclusive sense of the word. It would have to mean all of a particular group. All of a particular group is only some of mankind. It would seem that Sprouls use of some actually fits a view of only certain people being saved much better that the use of all. This present a problem with who God foreknew.

I think this is a clear example of why we should not add to nor remove from the Gospel our own words. In either case, adding all or some to the passage serves only to confuse things.

As to his conclusion that this passage can only mean that predestination is the only possible correct interpretation, I disagree. I hold to the view that God’s foreknowledge is perfect and He can see our lives laid out before Him without the need to predetermine anything. God is not subject to our concept of time. We are constrained by it. God can move through time the same way we can walk up and down a street.

GrinningDwarf · Apr 18, 2007

Boxmaker said:
Chapter 6

Sproul uses this verse from Romans 8:
[/color]

He attempts to make the argument that because God foreknew people the verse must mean all. He changes the passage to this:

"Some of those He foreknew, He also predestined. Some of those He predestined, He also called. Some of those He called, these He also justified. Some of those He justified, He also glorified."

He offers that as proof that all must be the correct meaning without examining the passage using all. He should have included his use of all in the passage as follows:

"All of those He foreknew, He also predestined. All of those He predestined, He also called. All of those He called, these He also justified. All of those He justified, He also glorified."

Now this would seem to make more since until you look at how Sproul got at the point in the first place. He states that for God to have chosen Jacob He first had to have some idea in His mind of who Jacob would be. I agree. And that presents the problem.

In order for God to predestine everybody He had to have some idea of who everybody would be. Using that, then the, "All of those He foreknew" would have to mean every person is ever was, is or will be. It forces the broadest meaning of All. That would mean that the rest of the verse would have to use the same meaning of the word all which would mean that every person who ever was, is or will be would be saved. We know this is not the case. Therefore, the meaning of all in this passage cannot mean the broadest, all inclusive sense of the word. It would have to mean all of a particular group. All of a particular group is only some of mankind. It would seem that Sprouls use of some actually fits a view of only certain people being saved much better that the use of all. This present a problem with who God foreknew.

I think this is a clear example of why we should not add to nor remove from the Gospel our own words. In either case, adding all or some to the passage serves only to confuse things.

As to his conclusion that this passage can only mean that predestination is the only possible correct interpretation, I disagree. I hold to the view that Gods foreknowledge is perfect and He can see our lives laid out before Him without the need to predetermine anything. God is not subject to our concept of time. We are constrained by it. God can move through time the same way we can walk up and down a street.

I don't think you're following Sproul's thought at all here, and you're accusing him of 'adding words'. He is taking the verse

30And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified.

and, since this is one of the most heavily contended verses in Romans, if not all of Scripture, he is attempting to arrive at Paul's meaning here. There are basically two options, using 'some', or using 'all'. Do you see any other options? Could Paul mean 'none'? Not likely. He then examines the verses with each usage. This is not 'adding words'. It's called 'trying to figure out just what Paul meant'.

Keep wrestling, bro!

Boxmaker · Apr 19, 2007

GrinningDwarf said:
I don't think you're following Sproul's thought at all here, and you're accusing him of 'adding words'. He is taking the verse

and, since this is one of the most heavily contended verses in Romans, if not all of Scripture, he is attempting to arrive at Paul's meaning here. There are basically two options, using 'some', or using 'all'. Do you see any other options? Could Paul mean 'none'? Not likely. He then examines the verses with each usage. This is not 'adding words'. It's called 'trying to figure out just what Paul meant'.

Keep wrestling, bro!

I am pointing out that, by his own reasoning, his conclusion is wrong. He concludes that it must be all infering each and every. In fact, he concludes that it is all of a group and that is some of mankind so some fits better. His reasoning is just bad.

Besides, if you look at the verse it explains itself quite clearly. God is refering to those. It is the same group of "those" in the entire verse. It still raises an interesting debate about who he foreknew: some or all?

KEK · Apr 19, 2007

bradfordl said:
You intentionally misquoted Calvin, please don't try to pretend that you "sincerely thought you questions were honest."

SDG

Brad

Hold on there!

I did not misquote Calvin. The words I posted were Calvin's, not mine. You would have been correct to say that I simply didn't post the entire commentary. Thats not the same thing as misquoting someone.

bradfordl · Apr 19, 2007

Hold on there!

I did not misquote Calvin. The words I posted were Calvin's, not mine. You would have been correct to say that I simply didn't post the entire commentary. Thats not the same thing as misquoting someone.

You know what I meant. You really must be a lawyer. What you did was wrong, you know it, and your protestations over a technicality expose the insincerety of your apology. I see no evidence of repentance of your dishonesty.

Do you have a legitimate question?

bradfordl · Apr 19, 2007

Well, we're now past the 550 mark of posts to this thread. That means I lose the pool on Box's eventual acceptance of God's complete and thorough sovereignty over all things. You win some, you lose some....

KEK · Apr 19, 2007

bradfordl said:
You know what I meant.

Yes, I'm afraid I do know what you meant. You meant to intentionally post a lie about me, and now you want to go on believing that doing such a thing is alright.
Once again, I didn't misquote anyone. However you lied and said I did. Seems to me your the one that needs to repent. I'm not the one who lied. You did!

bradfordl · Apr 19, 2007

Yes, I'm afraid I do know what you meant. You meant to intentionally post a lie about me, and now you want to go on believing that doing such a thing is alright.
Once again, I didn't misquote anyone. However you lied and said I did. Seems to me your the one that needs to repent. I'm not the one who lied. You did!

Misquote:
Omission of important context: The context can be important for determining the overall argument the quoted person wanted to make, for seeing whether the quoted statement was restricted or even negated in this context, or for recognizing hints that it was meant as irony.
Omission of important parts of the quote.

So, according to webster, your omission of important parts of the quote is misquoting. Keep quibbling, it speaks volumes about your integrity.

KEK · Apr 19, 2007

bradfordl said:
So, according to webster, your omission of important parts of the quote is misquoting. Keep quibbling, it speaks volumes about your integrity.

I don't know where you got that definition, since you didn't name the source, but I didn't find that definition in any source I looked at.
Nevertheless, for the sake of this argument, lets go with the definition which you provided and see how that by using the definition you have given us, everyone of us is guilty of misquoting, including you.
Have you ever quoted a verse of Scripture, without posting the entire chapter? Sure you have. Therefore since you omitted the other verses in that chapter, you have misquoted Scripture. Or have you ever quoted a part of someones speech without quoting the entire speech? Sure you have. Do people have to post the entire Shakespeare play, in order to not be guilty of misquoting him. Under your definition, where ever you got it from, that would be the case. Under your working definition, all of us are guilty of misquoting, including you. Using your definition, you better repent.

GrinningDwarf · Apr 19, 2007

KEK said:
Have you ever quoted a verse of Scripture, without posting the entire chapter? Sure you have. Therefore since you omitted the other verses in that chapter, you have misquoted Scripture. Or have you ever quoted a part of someones speech without quoting the entire speech? Sure you have. Do people have to post the entire Shakespeare play, in order to not be guilty of misquoting him. Under your definition, where ever you got it from, that would be the case. Under your working definition, all of us are guilty of misquoting, including you. Using your definition, you better repent.

The difference here, bud, is that you used part of a quote and then tried to make Scripture, Calvin, and bradfordl say the opposite of what was intended by the person you quoted. Big difference there, bud. That is 'misquoting' by any standard.

nill · Apr 19, 2007

There's no way you're not intelligent enough to comprehend this, KEK. You're dishonest.

Check it out. This is what you are doing:

KEK said:
Exactly, and I'm . . . using the same pick-and choose tatic, which ignores not only what else John wrote, but moreover what else Scripture says outside of John's writtings.

KEK said:
. . . I have offended . . . I have . . . purposely tried to.

Oh, just throw away a few "nots" here and there, and you get a whole different picture! Looks here, like you're flat-out admitting that you use pick-and-choose tactics! Oh, AND that you're here purposefully just to troll and offend people! Congratulations, hypocrite!

But seriously, that's not what you said, and what you claim Calvin said is not what he said. You're dishonest about that part. You omitted the important part of the quote.

Seriously, there's no way you are not comprehending this.

GrinningDwarf · Apr 19, 2007

Neal said:
There's no way you're not intelligent enough to comprehend this, KEK. You're dishonest.

Check it out. This is what you are doing:

Oh, just throw away a few "nots" here and there, and you get a whole different picture! Looks here, like you're flat-out admitting that you use pick-and-choose tactics! Oh, AND that you're here purposefully just to troll and offend people! Congratulations, hypocrite!

But seriously, that's not what you said, and what you claim Calvin said is not what he said. You're dishonest about that part. You omitted the important part of the quote.

Seriously, there's no way you are not comprehending this.

Priceless!!!! I wish I could give ya some reps!!

bradfordl · Apr 20, 2007

I don't know where you got that definition, since you didn't name the source

Right here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misquote

Here's another link that may be of interest to you:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integrity

Boxmaker · Apr 20, 2007

[SIZE=+1]The heretic[/SIZE]
[SIZE=+1]I was walking across a bridge one day, and I saw a man standing on the edge, about to jump off. So I ran over and said, "Stop! Don't do it!" "Why shouldn't I?" he said. I said, "Well, there's so much to live for!" He said, "Like what?" I said, "Well, are you religious or atheist?" He said, "Religious." I said, "Me too! Are your Christian or Buddhist?" He said, "Christian." I said, "Me too! Are you Catholic or Protestant?" He said, "Protestant." I said, Me too! Are your Episcopalian or Baptist? He said, "Baptist!" I said, "Wow! Me too! Are your Baptist Church of God or Baptist Church of the Lord? He said, Baptist Church of God!" I said, "Me too! Are your Original Baptist Church of God or are you Reformed Baptist Church of God?" He said, "Reformed Baptist Church of God!" I said, "Me too! Are you Reformed Baptist Church of God, Reformation of 1879, or Reformed Baptist Church of God, Reformation of 1915?" He said, "Reformed Baptist Church of God, Reformation of 1915!" I said, "Die, heretic scum!" and pushed him off.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=+1]
[/SIZE]

Why do Calvinists....

Just a humble servant

Active Member

Veteran

Active Member

Just a humble servant

Veteran

Senior Member

Just a humble servant

Senior Member

Active Member

Veteran

Veteran

Active Member

Veteran

Active Member

Just a humble servant

Senior Veteran

Just a humble servant

Veteran

Senior Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency