Calvinism is a Cult

[Mjh29]

The English translation is preserved by the sovereignty of the Lord.

Yes, it is. But the sometimes the words in the English are not as specific as the ones in the Greek. You are implying that the English language itself is faultless and that is just not true. Even though the Word of God is indeed kept infallible throughout all ages, sometimes the English language can be a bit misleading unless we use the Greek to see what the translators were trying to say, and not what the text appears to say.

You make it sound almost like, just because we have the English translation that it somehow makes the Greek invalid. Was the Greek translation not kept preserved by the sovereignty of God as well? And, if it was, why should we not believe that the English translation is trying to make the same point as the Greek, which claims that ἑλκύσω means to literally drag off, lead, impel?

Or is the Greek now invalid as the Word of God?

 

[Preacher4Truth]

Yes, it is. But the sometimes the words in the English are not as specific as the ones in the Greek. You are implying that the English language itself is faultless and that is just not true. Even though the Word of God is indeed kept infallible throughout all ages, sometimes the English language can be a bit misleading unless we use the Greek to see what the translators were trying to say, and not what the text appears to say.

You make it sound almost like, just because we have the English translation that it somehow makes the Greek invalid. Was the Greek translation not kept preserved by the sovereignty of God as well? And, if it was, why should we not believe that the English translation is trying to make the same point as the Greek, which claims that ἑλκύσω means to literally drag off, lead, impel?

Or is the Greek now invalid as the Word of God?

Yes. We must, in order to grow, move from knowing what the text says to knowing what it means.

 

[justbyfaith]

Yes, it is. But the sometimes the words in the English are not as specific as the ones in the Greek. You are implying that the English language itself is faultless and that is just not true. Even though the Word of God is indeed kept infallible throughout all ages, sometimes the English language can be a bit misleading unless we use the Greek to see what the translators were trying to say, and not what the text appears to say.

You make it sound almost like, just because we have the English translation that it somehow makes the Greek invalid. Was the Greek translation not kept preserved by the sovereignty of God as well? And, if it was, why should we not believe that the English translation is trying to make the same point as the Greek, which claims that ἑλκύσω means to literally drag off, lead, impel?

Or is the Greek now invalid as the Word of God?

I don't believe that we have to go to the Greek in order to get the true message, is what I'm saying.

The English translation is perfectly adequate to give me God's unadulterated message.

If I spoke and read Greek as my native language, then of course I might enjoy looking into those manuscripts.

However, I do feel that I can get the whole truth from reading the English; and that by comparing scripture with scripture we can get out any of the kinks that might come from mistranslation. The Bible is an integrated message system that preserves itself even when people try to tamper with it. If one verse gets tampered with, another verse will correct the problem; and if that verse would be called into question, other verses will substantiate its message if it is the message that the Holy Spirit intended.

 

[Anthony D'Arienzo]

And how do they come to know? By the free will action of repentance by faith through grace in the Lord Jesus Christ.

As Romans 8 says those who love God will be predestined by God all the way to salvation.

It does not say those that are predestined will love God.[/QUOTE
You have it backwards. When you ignore the scripture that is what happens. No one can read Romans 8 with understanding and say what you are saying.

 

[Anthony D'Arienzo]

Meaning we have no free will.

Correct. That is not found in the bible. We do have self will,which is bound by our sin nature.
Free will is a false philosophical idea.

 

[Mjh29]

I don't believe that we have to go to the Greek in order to get the true message, is what I'm saying.

The English translation is perfectly adequate to give me God's unadulterated message.

I agree. The problem, however is not in the text, it is in the reader. You are reading a word, and your definition is misled at best. The word is not saying what you are trying to make it say, and ignoring the Greek because it disproves you and saying "oh, I don't need that old Greek" is refusing to look at every available avenue given us to discern the truth. This is actually ignoring truth, which is not a very good thing to be doing at all, my friend.

The English Bible is not the problem. Your definition of the words given is the problem.

If I spoke and read Greek as my native language, then of course I might enjoy looking into those manuscripts.

Though I can't speak for Him, I highly doubt the brother @SovereignGrace is a native of ancient Greece, and yet both he and I are still able to glean spiritual truth from the Greek texts. Again, do you not believe that the Greek texts are equal in substance and perfection with the English language, or are they just the older model that is no longer applicable?

However, I do feel that I can get the whole truth from reading the English; and that by comparing scripture with scripture we can get out any of the kinks that might come from mistranslation. The Bible is an integrated message system that preserves itself even when people try to tamper with it. If one verse gets tampered with, another verse will correct the problem; and if that verse would be called into question, other verses will substantiate its message if it is the message that the Holy Spirit intended.

I agree. However, if I may ask;

If this is true, and you really believe this, then what ever happened when, all those posts ago, I went through and showed you verse by verse how the Scriptures you pulled out of context did not say what you were trying to make them say? Where was this "comparing Scripture with Scripture" when you simply denied what I showed you in Scripture? In those posts, I almost quite literally used Scripture alone, often from the exact same chapter you were quoting from, to show you the context of your passage, and show you it was not talking about what you were trying to make it say? Where was this "when one verse gets tampered with, another verse will correct the problem" when your only response was to simply tell me that "Those verses... If [insert unrelated topic out of left field] is true, then [insert appeal to emotions rather than Scripture]

For example, when you quoted only John 1:12, and made is say something that is directly contradicted in the next verse, John 1:13 ; is this not the exact 'one verse fixing if another verse if it is tampered with' you spoke of?

I am not saying any of this to be "mean" or anything of the sort, I am genuinely confused and concerned for your Spiritual welfare with so many contradictions, brother. Trust me, I am not a very smart person in any stretch of the word; I have trouble sometime even learning basic principles from the Bible; but if I can see these contradictions, how much more can God?

 

[SovereignGrace]

I agree. The problem, however is not in the text, it is in the reader. You are reading a word, and your definition is misled at best. The word is not saying what you are trying to make it say, and ignoring the Greek because it disproves you and saying "oh, I don't need that old Greek" is refusing to look at every available avenue given us to discern the truth. This is actually ignoring truth, which is not a very good thing to be doing at all, my friend.

The English Bible is not the problem. Your definition of the words given is the problem.



Though I can't speak for Him, I highly doubt the brother @SovereignGrace is a native of ancient Greece, and yet both he and I are still able to glean spiritual truth from the Greek texts. Again, do you not believe that the Greek texts are equal in substance and perfection with the English language, or are they just the older model that is no longer applicable?



I agree. However, if I may ask;

If this is true, and you really believe this, then what ever happened when, all those posts ago, I went through and showed you verse by verse how the Scriptures you pulled out of context did not say what you were trying to make them say? Where was this "comparing Scripture with Scripture" when you simply denied what I showed you in Scripture? In those posts, I almost quite literally used Scripture alone, often from the exact same chapter you were quoting from, to show you the context of your passage, and show you it was not talking about what you were trying to make it say? Where was this "when one verse gets tampered with, another verse will correct the problem" when your only response was to simply tell me that "Those verses... If [insert unrelated topic out of left field] is true, then [insert appeal to emotions rather than Scripture]

For example, when you quoted only John 1:12, and made is say something that is directly contradicted in the next verse, John 1:13 ; is this not the exact 'one verse fixing if another verse if it is tampered with' you spoke of?

I am not saying any of this to be "mean" or anything of the sort, I am genuinely confused and concerned for your Spiritual welfare with so many contradictions, brother. Trust me, I am not a very smart person in any stretch of the word; I have trouble sometime even learning basic principles from the Bible; but if I can see these contradictions, how much more can God?

Look up Andrew Sluder. He’s a rabid KJVO in the IFB movement. He said once that if a church preaches from the Greek and not the KJV, run from that church.

Peter Ruckman foolishly claimed the KJV corrected the Greek. @justbyfaith holds these stances it seems. Notice, I said seems. I gave him the Greek meaning for draw and he accepts the KJV over it. Sad. Really, really, REALLY sad.

 

[farouk]

Ok first in bold . Reformed theology is a denomination belief so you did address it to denominational beliefs. The only way to debate or discuss is by contrast . It’s simple it’s debate and discussion 101 . Somthing you can pick up on in high school debate clubs . Contrasting is used to help define the difference between multiple points of view is the basics .
Now to the second in bold what it has to do with the subject is that you used a man’s eschatology as a pejorative. I just contrasted one belief system with the other to demonstrate that your insult was meaningless.
Also did you forget the question I asked ? Your making a habit of this .
Blessings
Bill

While I think that some insights of Reformed theology are interesting and maybe even valid sometimes, what disturbs me is that often appeal is not to Scripture but to schemes of logic.

 

[Preacher4Truth]

While I think that some insights of Reformed theology are interesting and maybe even valid sometimes, what disturbs me is that often appeal is not to Scripture but to schemes of logic.

For example...?

 

[SovereignGrace]

While I think that some insights of Reformed theology are interesting and maybe even valid sometimes, what disturbs me is that often appeal is not to Scripture but to schemes of logic.

”For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.”[John 3:16]

The boastful shall not stand before Your eyes; You hate all who do iniquity.[Psalms 5:5]

Now, if world means everybody whoever lived, explain this apparent contradiction, as one verse says He loves everybody w/o exception and the other says He hates those do iniquity.

 

[farouk]

For example...?

I do believe the 5 points are Scriptural.

So I would quote Scripture - there is lots.

Some will argue logic at length but seemingly not get around to quoting Scripture.

 

[SovereignGrace]

For example...?

We go through leaps and bounds to explain what verses mean and get accused of philosophy.

 

[farouk]

”For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.”[John 3:16]

The boastful shall not stand before Your eyes; You hate all who do iniquity.[Psalms 5:5]

Now, if world means everybody whoever lived, explain this apparent contradiction, as one verse says He loves everybody w/o exception and the other says He hates those do iniquity.

The message is qualified by 'whosoever believeth'; God is both most loving in sending the Saviour but also holy; in the Cross we see how God maintains His holiness and saves the believing sinner.

 

[Preacher4Truth]

I do believe the 5 points are Scriptural.

So I would quote Scripture - there is lots.

Some will argue logic at length but seemingly not get around to quoting Scripture.

OK, you've made the claim twice. For example??

 

[SovereignGrace]

The message is qualified by 'whosoever believeth'; God is both most loving in sending the Saviour but also holy; in the Cross we see how God maintains His holiness and saves the believing sinner.

But if world means everybody whoever lived and yet He hates the wicked, who are part of everybody whoever lived, then there is a conundrum in those two verses.

 

[farouk]

OK, you've made the claim twice. For example??

Like, "I believe that total depravity leads to unconditional election which leads to limited atonement/particular redemption, which leads to irresistible grace, which leads to the perseverance of the saint."

Maybe true. But we need a lot of Scripture if people are going to be convinced in their hearts.

 

[farouk]

But if world means everybody whoever lived and yet He hates the wicked, who are part of everybody whoever lived, then there is a conundrum in those two verses.

It's always good to stick with the statements of Scripture, rather than concentrate from a logical perspective on any supposed anomalies that men may read into Scripture.

 

[Preacher4Truth]

We go through leaps and bounds to explain what verses mean and get accused of philosophy.

Yep. Thing is we show exactly the error we're dealing with, quote the documented error, refute it, then get told we don't. Then we're hit with false assertions with no evidence for it.

So...we're to believe them because "they said it," even though it's completely false and undocumented. They never offer any real evidence when asked (not speaking of farouk here yet) but instead just go on an emotional rant.

We show the evidence and deal with that in honest integrity, and they avoid what we clearly prove and show.

 

[SovereignGrace]

Like, "I believe that total depravity leads to unconditional election which leads to limited atonement/particular redemption, which leads to irresistible grace, which leads to the perseverance of the saint."

Maybe true. But we need a lot of Scripture if people are going to be convinced in their hearts.

They need more than just scripture but the illumination of the Holy Spirit to go with the scriptures.

 

[SovereignGrace]

It's always good to stick with the statements of Scripture, rather than concentrate from a logical perspective on any supposed anomalies that men may read into Scripture.

But you haven’t addressed my post. Explain how God can love everybody w/o exception and hate the wicked. Address this please. Thank you my friend.