Please explain this.

[bbyrd009]

You know anything can be proven by scripture.
Have you ever wondered why?

zing

 

[GodsGrace]

zing

zing?
Well, have you ever wondered why?
Or do you already know?

 

[bbyrd009]

Consider my Bible text for this reasoning

Consider my Bible text i assume you mean KJV here still, right? Still on that? "My Bible text" means "kjv" here yes? On that assumption, how do you justify that, elevating the kjv over any other translation, if i may ask? ty

 

[bbyrd009]

zing?
Well, have you ever wondered why?
Or do you already know?

me, know? ha, no, i dont know, why?

 

[atpollard]

No owner's manual...but the layout of their doctrine is quite simple:
T)otal depravity
U)nconditional Election
L)imited Atonement
I)rresistible Grace
P)erseverance of the Saints.

You talking about Calvinism or the doctrines that I currently hold?
If the latter, then yes, I have an owner's manual...the Holy Bible.

The Holy Bible teaches TULIP (just for the record, since you two are acting as if Reformed soteriology comes from the Book of Mormon).

[John 6:44] "No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day.

"No one can come to Me" = Total Depravity (also known as Total Inability)

• "Man is completely touched/affected by sin in all that he is (in nature he is completely fallen), but is not as bad as he could be (in action, i.e., not all murder, etc.). Furthermore, this total depravity means that the unregenerate will not, of their own free will, choose to receive Christ because they are enslaved to sin (Rom. 6:14-20), cannot receive spiritual things (1 Cor. 2:14), and can do no good (Rom. 3:10-12). They have free will to choose but they will freely choose to do what is contrary to God."

"unless the Father" = Unconditional Election

• "The sovereign act of God where, from before the foundation of the world, he chose those whom he would save (Eph. 1:4; 2 Thess. 2:13). This election to save is not conditioned upon any foreseen faith (Rom. 9:16) or any foreseen good works of any individual (Rom. 9:11; 2 Tim. 1:9). This election is based completely on God's sovereign choice according to the kind intention of his will (Eph. 1:11). God chose the elect because he decided to bestow his love upon them (John 3:16; Eph. 2:4), based solely on his sovereign grace (Gal. 1:15), and for his glory (Isaiah 43:7)."

"who sent Me draws [G1670] him" = Irresistible Grace

• "When God moves to save a person, the sinner cannot successfully resist God's gracious will upon him and he will be regenerated. The term, unfortunately, suggests a mechanical and coercive force upon an unwilling subject. But, Irresistible Grace does not mean that a person cannot resist God’s grace throughout his life. Instead, Irresistible Grace is the gracious act of God where, at the time of salvation, God regenerates a person which then means that the person will willingly, of his own free will receive and trust in Christ. It means that the person cannot successfully resist the act of God’s regeneration. It is not a violation of their will since the person is changed and because of it, the person willingly trusts in Christ."

"and I will raise him up on the last day." = Perseverance of the Saints

• "Perseverance of the Saints, also sometimes known as eternal security, is the teaching that all who are truly regenerated will, by God’s grace, be kept in the faith. They will never stop being Christian. They will never stop persevering. They will persevere until the time that they die. Christians persevere because of the grace of God, not because of their own ability to do good or remain faithful. True Christians are, therefore, secure in Christ. They cannot fall away. They cannot lose their salvation."

... Four of the five points of "TULIP" can be found in a single verse!
(and that is not the only verse where scripture supports reformed soteriology).

I am not seeking to convince you, just to get you to stop talking like we Calvinists just made all this stuff up on our own and scripture says nothing at all like what we claim.

 

[GodsGrace]

me, know? ha, no, i dont know, why?

The answer is easy.
IF the writers of the N.T. had any inkling we'd mess up what they thought, they would have been VERY CAREFUL in what they stated....
But they just had NO CLUE that some of these modern belief systems would EVER be accepted by the Christianity they knew.

This is why I like OLD THEOLOGY.
And not stuff that was made up recently in the past 500 years and even in the past 200 years, and even in the past 50 years.

This new stuff is like new revelation.
There cannot be new revelation...Jesus was the last revelation to man from God.

 

[atpollard]

I get it now, I guess that would be a great example for a younger crowd yeah

Here is a verse with a word that EVERYONE knows the meaning of, right?

"Let no man seek his own, but every man another’s wealth." (1 Cor. 10:24)

That was not by Joel Osteen, it is the KJV. :)

 

[bbyrd009]

Let's just say that I know someone Who I cannot see, and Who knows what I think in my heart, and Who is able to manipulate my environment to show me that, and to give pertinant and meaningful responses.

"someone Who" is the part that i would be cross-examining to determine the definition of

This Being obviously cares for my well-being, and has done much to bring wellness to my life.

ah well the Who is gone now, where did He go, the someone, in the way "we" would all hear that, may i ask. See there was a aa a an image there just a second ago, mighta been an old white guy in a white robe with a big white beardsitting on a throne maybe, maybe a more or less ball of white, you know, intense white light that you could only peep at for a second through your fingers, but i think in our lexicon that is usualy just like surrounding "Him" yeh? So ya the tense has changed here

So here's a question. Do you believe I exist? If you do . . . what would it take to convince you that I don't? And even if convinced, would you be right?

Much love!

do you exist? sorry? yes i accept that you exist, and it would take to convince me that you dont appearing at your ip address literally and realizing that marks is really a bot, or by other might be considered more nefarious means, phishing your ip out of you and tracking the bot down or something, anyway, this is your reply to what would it take to cause you to reconsider whether you really know "Him" or not? I'm not seeing the connection wadr

 

[GodsGrace]

Here is a verse with a word that EVERYONE knows the meaning of, right?

"Let no man seek his own, but every man another’s wealth." (1 Cor. 10:24)

That was not by Joel Osteen, it is the KJV. :)

So forget about MY wealth?
I should go make my neighbor wealthy?
Or I should STEAL his wealth?

(I love the KJ and I dislike the KJ)
Of course I looked it up in the NASB or I really would have a problem with that.

 

[marks]

Hmmmm.
Interesting.
Calvinists use scripture to prove their theology.
People use scripture to show that after Justification comes Sanctification.
People use scripture to show that this is not true and they believe in OSAS.
Scripture is used to prove hell exists.
Scripture is used to prove it DOES NOT exist.
It's used to prove Jesus is God.
It's used to prove Jesus is NOT God.

Should I continue?

P.S. I'll ask my question again:
Why do YOU think this is so?

Again, Scripture is mis-used routinely, but that does not mean that the Bible does not have a particular meaning.

Why do I think that is so? Pride.

Much love!

 

[GodsGrace]

Again, Scripture is mis-used routinely, but that does not mean that the Bible does not have a particular meaning.

Why do I think that is so? Pride.

Much love!

No! I'm serious.
Why do you think the bible could be used to prove anything?
See my post 1467 for the answer.
Think about it....

 

[bbyrd009]

Hi GodsGrace,

I don't think that is true. Scripture only proves the certain thing that it says. People misuse Scripture routinely to bend it to their own use.

much love!

ah, guess you werent here for the "you cannot state a single Absolute Truth from Scripture" deal...so there it is, do your best, try to prove any truth that you like from Scripture to me. Long shory stort you are going to fail, in almost exactly half of the opinions, right?

 

[marks]

IF the writers of the N.T. had any inkling we'd mess up what they thought, they would have been VERY CAREFUL in what they stated....
But they just had NO CLUE that some of these modern belief systems would EVER be accepted by the Christianity they knew.

But God did know. He knew exactly how I'd read and understand His Book, and when He wrote it, I believe He had me in mind. A person letter from God to me!

And I think He was extremely careful.

Much love!

 

[bbyrd009]

Again, Scripture is mis-used routinely, but that does not mean that the Bible does not have a particular meaning.

Why do I think that is so? Pride.

Much demonstrate

ha well that is funny but now you get an opp to demonstrate it ok
lets test that and see :)

 

[marks]

No! I'm serious.
Why do you think the bible could be used to prove anything?
See my post 1467 for the answer.
Think about it....

Um . . . I have thought about it.

Many people may think they are "proving" something with Scripture. But that does not mean they are.

I guess your idea is that it's just sloppy, but I don't see Scripture that way.

Much love!

 

[GodsGrace]

But God did know. He knew exactly how I'd read and understand His Book, and when He wrote it, I believe He had me in mind. A person letter from God to me!

And I think He was extremely careful.

Much love!

Are you a new christian?
This is how I used to think.
Many a year ago.

So what you're saying is that ONLY YOU understand the bible because God had you in mind?

How come we don't all understand it the same?

 

[GodsGrace]

Um . . . I have thought about it.

Many people may think they are "proving" something with Scripture. But that does not mean they are.

I guess you're idea is that it's just sloppy, but I don't see Scripture that way.

Much love!

OK M.
We don't really need to discuss this.
To me it's important, but not to everyone.

 

[bbyrd009]

i have to witness for marks there, dont think there are any mistakes at all
the supposed differences in eyewitness testimony, the unexpalinable root changes, syntax changes in spots, all have meaning.

how many women were under the cross? 2? 3?

The answer is easy.
IF the writers of the N.T. had any inkling we'd mess up what they thought, they would have been VERY CAREFUL in what they stated....
But they just had NO CLUE that some of these modern belief systems would EVER be accepted by the Christianity they knew.

This is why I like OLD THEOLOGY.
And not stuff that was made up recently in the past 500 years and even in the past 200 years, and even in the past 50 years.

This new stuff is like new revelation.
There cannot be new revelation...Jesus was the last revelation to man from God.

I know that the wolves will rush in as soon as I leave, not sparing the flock

 

[GodsGrace]

Um . . . I have thought about it.

Many people may think they are "proving" something with Scripture. But that does not mean they are.

I guess you're idea is that it's just sloppy, but I don't see Scripture that way.

Much love!

I DIDN'T SAY IT WAS SLOPPY.

You don't have to of course...
but if you read my post again,,,you'd see that you totally missed the point.

 

[Lady Crosstalk]

It means that some babies that are born are going straight to hell
because God foreknew that they were not going to accept Him.

That is what the Calvinists teach. Calvin got it from Augustine--in fact, so close was Calvin's theology to Augustine's that theologians initially referred to Calvinism as "Calvinistic Augustinianism". The RCC went to infant baptism under Augustine (the early church only baptized believers) as a sop to all the parents who worried about the eternal life of their infants who had died. Somewhere along the way, for the RCC, "Limbo" emerged as an answer for what happens to infants who die. Augustine, though he was called a "Doctor of the Church" has fallen somewhat out of favor in the RCC. The Eastern Orthodox have never believed in the necessity of baptism as a means to remove "Original Sin" and other Protestants don't believe in infant baptism either. Babies and young children are incapable of understanding what sin is because they have no comprehension of God's law, nor do they even understand the concept of right and wrong. On this issue, I prefer to rely on the words of Jesus who said that the "angels" of babies and young children were ever before the throne of God. Also, since babies and young children cannot sin, what could they possibly be condemned to hell for? Romans 9:11 confirms that without conscious awareness of sin, an infant does not sin.

You have your theology very confused.
It causes theological problems.

Welcome to the wonderful world of arguing with Calvinists! There's an old joke that applies: It seems that there was a fellow who died and went to heaven. There, St. Peter admits him and offers to take the man on a tour of heaven. They walk past various groups. St. Peter points to one group and says, "There are the Pentecostals over there." He points to another group and says, "And over there, are the Baptists." As they walk along, St. Peter continues to name such groups. Finally, they come to a group who is enclosed in a tent-like structure and St. Peter whispers to the man, "Could I ask you to take off your shoes and whisper here?" The man, thinking it must be a group who are extra-holy, whispers back, "Okay--but who are they?" St. Peter says, "Oh, those are the Calvinists who believe they are the only ones here--and out of kindness, we allow them to think that." ;)

You think too many things of me that are not right.
You should stop thinking.

LOL

What is heretical about the NASB?

There is NOTHING at all heretical about the NASB--I have no idea where he gets that. I have a Greek Cypriot friend who reads the NT in the original Koine Greek and she says that the NASB reads the MOST like the language in which the NT was written. The phrasing tends to be a bit awkward because it is a word-for-word translation and that is why I like the NLT (New Living Translation) for teaching new Christians. It is what is called a "dynamic translation"--one which flows the way we would speak. It is not a paraphrase, such as The Message (which I would stay away from as it alters the meaning of the text substantially). In the years I have been using the NLT, I have never found any passage which has been changed substantially from ANY other translation (including the KJV except for the 1John 5:7-9). Here is an exhaustive study of the controversy by an eminent professor of Greek New Testament from Dallas Theological Seminary (arguably, one of the most conservative seminaries of biblical scholarship in the world). He comes down decidedly against the KJV and tells why. It is pretty dry reading :The Textual Problem in 1 John 5:7-8 | Bible.org

The reason I told you to read the N.T. in a different version is to SHOW YOU that your ideas would NOT change. The bible doesn't save us... Jesus does.

Amen!

My only rule is to be IN CHRIST.

It appears to be the only rule that the New Testament has for gaining eternal life--John 3:16.

1. I can tell you for a fact that kids have enough problems understanding the bible without handing them one that needs to be translated into modern English first.

Indeed. If JBF believes that Elizabethan English is the only way to salvation, I would ask him why we don't force everyone to learn Koine Greek? William Tyndale went to the stake for daring to translate the Scriptures into what was then, contemporary English. It is to tread on his blood when KJV zealots insist that the Holy Spirit only speaks through the KJV. Think about it, He spoke in MANY languages at Pentecost--and now we are presumptuous enough to demand that He only speak with Elizabethan English when speaking to English-speakers? What is even more laughable is that they are so zealous that they have even translated the KJV into other languages! That must be amusing to watch someone in another land try to read THAT mess!