The Issue of Calvinism.
- Thread starter justbyfaith
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
I would like to know the point of posting this.
And also, notice that the only difference between my view of the text and yours is that I go to the whole of Scripture to understand what the verse is saying, while you insist on trying to stand those passages alone and from only them and yourself glean what they mean.
Each verse that you go to to interpret Romans 10:9-13, you need to go to the whole of scripture to understand what they are saying, before you can understand them correctly to be able to use them to interpret correctly what Romans 10:9-13 really says.
I would say that it is easier to take each scripture at face value, understanding that the apostles used great plainness of speech, 2 Corinthians 3:12 (kjv).
I would say that it is easier to take each scripture at face value, understanding that the apostles used great plainness of speech, 2 Corinthians 3:12 (kjv).
Here is the problem with that, brother. If we use this logic on Luke 14:26, we get a belief that is not even relatively Christian. This is why we must go to the Whole of Scripture; One verse can [and often is] manipulated; we need to see what the whole of the Bible teaches.
The Greek on that verse bears out that "hate" there means "to love less"...which is also what we would come up with when comparing scripture with scripture.
I am not saying that immediate and topical context don't matter; only that they aren't necessary to be able to come to the proper interpretation.
And when Jesus uses hyperbole, exaggerating to make a point, something in us recoils and makes us think twice about taking it literally. We know that the Lord is not telling us to literally cut off our hand or pluck out our eyes in certain scriptures; but that in all reality He is telling us to deal with sin radically.
In Luke 14:26, we do not even need to compare it with other scripture to get the proper interpretation; all we need is to see what it says in the original language. And of course the interpretation that we get by that is borne out when we compare scripture with scripture, so that we do not need the original language to know the truth of that scripture. But neither do we need to compare scripture with scripture to find the meaning of the verse. One or the other will bear out the truth of this.
SovereignGrace
Certified Flunky
Beat me to it by like 2 seconds. But yes, here is the problem with interpreting each verse separately; it is never ever consistent.
SovereignGrace
Certified Flunky
In 1 John 3:13 it says if the world hates[miseo] you. It does not mean the world loves you less, but hates you, detests you.
I suppose that applies to how Calvinists interpret the word "world' as meaning two entirely opposite things in different scriptures. For it means "the elect" in John 3:16; but in John 17:14 it means "the non-elect"; by Calvinistic reasoning.
SovereignGrace
Certified Flunky
Preacher4Truth
Well-Known Member
This is where we need Scriptures to interpret of the Scriptures. Look around the verse, find the context. See what the rest of Scriptures say. If nothing this further proves that single verses cannot stand alone without also going to the rest of the Scriptures to ensure a proper interpretation.
SovereignGrace
Certified Flunky
Many places the word world means the lost.
The world cannot hate you, but it hates Me because I testify of it, that its deeds are evil.[John 7:7]
If you were of the world, the world would love its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, because of this the world hates you.[John 15:19]
I have given them Your word; and the world has hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.[John 17:14]
Here are three vss that clearly shows the world does not mean everybody whoever lived, but the lost.
If we are to take each verse on it's own, what in the world do we do with 1 Corinthians 2:13
So you are saying that the rest of scriptutre changes Romans 10:9-13 so that it actually reads/should read:
#1:
Rom 10:9, That if thou shalt be saved, thou shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, and confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus,
Rom 10:10, For with the heart man is righteous unto believing and salvation is unto with the mouth confession.
Rom 10:11, For the scripture saith, Whosoever shall not be ashamed believeth on him .
Rom 10:12, For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that have called upon him.
Rom 10:13, For whosoever shall be saved shall call upon the name of the Lord.
instead of:
#2
Rom 10:9, That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
Rom 10:10, For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
Rom 10:11, For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.
Rom 10:12, For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him.
Rom 10:13, For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.
You haven't made the case for changing the scriptures this way. If you can show biblically why the way it is rendered is not valid but that it is more valid the way that you interpret it (in #1) then I am all ears.
#1:
Rom 10:9, That if thou shalt be saved, thou shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, and confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus,
Rom 10:10, For with the heart man is righteous unto believing and salvation is unto with the mouth confession.
Rom 10:11, For the scripture saith, Whosoever shall not be ashamed believeth on him .
Rom 10:12, For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that have called upon him.
Rom 10:13, For whosoever shall be saved shall call upon the name of the Lord.
instead of:
#2
Rom 10:9, That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
Rom 10:10, For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
Rom 10:11, For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.
Rom 10:12, For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him.
Rom 10:13, For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.
You haven't made the case for changing the scriptures this way. If you can show biblically why the way it is rendered is not valid but that it is more valid the way that you interpret it (in #1) then I am all ears.
Last edited:
SovereignGrace
Certified Flunky
It changes nothing my friend. Romans 10:8-17, John 3:16, Acts of the Apostles 2:21, 2 Peter 3:9, 1 John 2:2, Revelation 22:17, we agree and believe all of these.
Whosoever calls upon the Lord shall be saved. We just see it that God must first work grace into the heart via regeneration before ppl will call upon Him.
What you are saying by that is that whosoever is saved will call upon the name of the Lord. It is the opposite order than what is presented in scripture.
Preacher4Truth
Well-Known Member
Here's a request: Please consider that God's word was written for a purpose, in every text. There is a context to every verse, a reason, a background, author intent, cultural impacts. Find the context, don't leave the context and you will see then how consistent it is, and see the Gospel clearly day by day.
Remember, it is not simple as in "simpletonism."
Some Scripture are hard to understand; 2 Peter 3:16. Some say the Gospel is so simple, yet many have it wrong, glorifying self, not God.
Ask again, is it really "simple," or is it complex and deep with a seemingly simple surface? If so "simple" why do so many have it wrong? This why we are to study, and rightly handle the word; 2 Timothy 2:15. The book of Romans? One of the most difficult and deep expositions of the Gospel message. You will never exhaust it. Much is misunderstood. Chapter 2 is misused to teach works salvation, missing the entire point and the true Gospel.
Respect the word. Learn. Listen. Stop disrespecting it and God by avoiding correction, by taking it out of context, as if it's to be implemented via some sort of divination, creating an errant gospel.
Remember, it is not simple as in "simpletonism."
Some Scripture are hard to understand; 2 Peter 3:16. Some say the Gospel is so simple, yet many have it wrong, glorifying self, not God.
Ask again, is it really "simple," or is it complex and deep with a seemingly simple surface? If so "simple" why do so many have it wrong? This why we are to study, and rightly handle the word; 2 Timothy 2:15. The book of Romans? One of the most difficult and deep expositions of the Gospel message. You will never exhaust it. Much is misunderstood. Chapter 2 is misused to teach works salvation, missing the entire point and the true Gospel.
Respect the word. Learn. Listen. Stop disrespecting it and God by avoiding correction, by taking it out of context, as if it's to be implemented via some sort of divination, creating an errant gospel.
Last edited:
Similar threads
