Posted on 04/13/2002 1:33:01 PM PDT by fortheDeclaration
Your response: Rev 2:7 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the tree of life, which is in the midst of the paradise of God. Rev 3:6 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches Rev 3:13 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches Rev 3:22 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches Winston IF means IF
Unfortunately for your construct argument, the four-fold repetition of the verses from Revelation uses a formulation which presumes that those addressed will hear. Indeed, the formulation is not conditional, it is hortatory and emphatic, thus, emphasizing the willful nature of hearing.
For example, the NET version: "The one who has an ear had better hear what the Spirit says to the churches."
The Living New Testament has: "Anyone who is willing to hear should listen to the Spirit and understand what the Spirit is saying to the churches."
If I said to you, "You had better stop delaying and go to the store before the storm gets worse," would you be able to find "if" in that formulation? Of course not.
Here is another example (as though we needed any more) where an inferior document (the Calvinist construct) is controlling your interpretation of the superior document (Scripture). Your construct demands it, but the Scriptures do not teach it.
Jesus: "Listen! I am standing at the door and knocking! If anyone hears my voice and opens the door I will come into his home and share a meal with him, and he with me." The only condition there is the will of the believer to listen to His Master's voice and open his heart to the Savior of Men. It is an invitation to all and only those who have blinded their minds with a manmade construct which denies the universal power of God would try to contend otherwise.
thank you dr.
Read Ezek 28:14
Thou art the annointed Cherub that covereth, and I have set thee so, thou wast upon the holy mountain of God, thou hast walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire. Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the the day that was created, till iniquity was found in thee, by the multitude of thy merchandise thou has sinned, therefore I will cast thee as profane out of the mountain of God, and I will destroy thee O covering cherub, from the midst of the stones of fire (Eze.28:14-16See also Isa.14
the word in 8:29 that means "foreordain" is the one that's translated "predestined."
Your rendering has it read "those he foreordained, he foreordained." FTD is absolutely correct. It is redundant. In this context it is "foreknowledge." That's why EVERY translation that attempts to TRANSLATE (rather than paraphrase) uses the word "foreknow."
Now, I realize that fits nicely into a construct, but it doesn't reflect real life -- and it doesn't reflect the Bible either.
Perhaps you missed what I said about the functional equivalence of your elevating your construct over Scripture as they do their Smith books:
"Yet the Calvinists routinely -- indeed almost exclusively -- use their construct to 'guide' (read, control or force) the interpretation of Scripture. Bizarre exegesis of Calvin is employed because it protects the construct from inconsistency. This displays that, while they vociferously deny it, they have elevated the construct above Scripture.At least the Mormons are honest about the fact that they use the Smith books to control interpretation of the Bible (to their great detriment, I must add)." (Emphasis added.)
Of course, after I wrote this you demonstrated the elevation of the construct over Scripture for the umpteenth time in #1494 as demonstrated in my #1523.
Moreover, it should give you pause that a Mormon might be "encouraged" in his elevation of the inferior (the Smith books) over the superior (the Scripture) by seeing you Calvinists do the same.
Well, of course God can think of things without their becoming reality, like how God knows of a reality where sinners would freely repent who don't in this reality.
But, that is evasive and you know it. What did God have a vision of, something He observed or something He created?
Nice try, guys. You are the ones filling these threads week after week with your fruitless "doctrines" and shouting at the top of your lungs about them and damning everyone who can't find hide nor hair of them in the Bible.
Now, all of a sudden, you want me to abandon the chase of your nonsense and "witness to the lost". Well, I'll tell you what. You -- all of you Calvinists -- stop posting article after article about your dogmas of double predestination (and other assorted manmade foolishness) and I will join you in witnessing the Gospel to the lost.
I think what really stings you is that you see that you are time and time again -- and RnMomof7 just got caught at it -- using your construct to force an interpretation of Scripture -- just as the Mormons use their Smith books to distort the Scriptures. Hurts doesn't it? Well, it should.
I'm not interested in what others have done. We are talking about you. You sound like my 3 year old. "But they did it!" Your justification is "textbook."
Next, you totally ignore the poetic language being used and the hyperbole....unless you think the psalmist was formed "in the lowest parts of the earth."
Finally, you are advocating the "preexistence of spirits." Do you believe in PREEXISTENT spirits that then "infuse" bodies like the Mormons believe or don't you?
figurative for the womb. I bet David even wrote the psalm from a cave!
None of it existed at the time he saw it. He chose for it to become reality and he then set it in motion. AND he maintains it and has the power to answer PRAYER....that changes things.
Unless you don't believe that prayer changes things.
Interesting reasoning, but we don't get to such metaphysical reasoning because Paul defines his term in the next succeeding sentences:
"And although you were dead in your transgressions and sins, in which you formerly lived according to this world's present path, according to the ruler of the kingdom of the air, the ruler of the spirit that is now energizing the sons of disobedience, among whom all of us also formerly lived out our lives in the cravings of our flesh, indulging the desires of the flesh and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath even as the rest."
So, we know that the status of being "dead" which he describes:
1. Involves "living" (or "walking");
2. Involved a concurrence with the guiding spirit of the "sons of disobedience" who were being "energized" at the time of the writing in the same way;
3. Involved living out lives while indulging desires of both the flesh (i.e. body) and mind.
Now, armed that definition, it seems Adam Clarke isn't far from the mark. The predominate characteristic of that form of 'death' is not the complete inactivity of physical death, but an active ('energized'), though powerless for good, life which is, to quote Strong's lexicon, "destitute of a life that recognises and is devoted to God, because given up to trespasses and sins, inactive as respects doing right destitute of force or power, inactive, inoperative".
Doesn't that make a simple equation to physical death pretty difficult to sustain?
No winston, no matter how many times you say this all only mean all without exception if you yank the verse out of context. But you are famous for this!
Let us examine the verse yet one more time for our "doped up" PINO's:
How interesting!
Now, like the Mormons, do you or don't you believe in the preexistence of souls that then infuse bodies? You sorta forgot that question in your response, steve.
So is he a believer before He opens the door then Winston...I believe it speaks to the ability to find the door and hear the voice..that IF is a big word huh?
NKJ
Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and dine with him, and he with Me. NKJV Copyright 1982 Thomas Nelson
NASB
'Behold, I stand at the door and knock; if anyone hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and will dine with him, and he with Me. NASB copyright 1995 Lockman Foundation
RSV
Behold, I stand at the door and knock; if any one hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and eat with him, and he with me. RSV copyright info
Websters
Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: If any man shall hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.
Youngs
lo, I have stood at the door, and I knock; if any one may hear my voice, and may open the door, I will come in unto him, and will sup with him, and he with me.
Darby's
Behold, I stand at the door and am knocking; if any one hear my voice and open the door, I will come in unto him and sup with him, and he with me.
ASV
Behold, I stand at the door and knock: if any man hear my voice and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.
HNV
Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, then I will come in to him, and will dine with him, and he with me.
==========================================================
Well, that is certainly a moderate response -- by Calvinist standards. I will ignore the "Jesuit masters" comment and the "mind candy" comment -- both of which defy rational explanation. Let me concentrate on your effort to find a "context" which would restrict the invitiation of Revelation 3:20 to an invitation to a doctrinal investigation of churches simply because it is part of a message addressed to a church.
Suppose (and we know it is not true because Calvinisim would not be invented for 2500 years) but suppose that someone was teaching that only some -- a select few -- could receive the invitation of Christ or that some elaborate performance of 'sound doctrine' was required as a pre-condition of salvation. Is there anything about Jesus' clear statement of His invitation to ALL which would be inappropriate to rebut those fallacious contentions? Of course not.
We see countless instances where Paul, just for one example, writes to churches with individual advice. Nothing in the address of the message to a church restricts the nature of the information being conveyed thereto. So much for your so-called "context".
Of all of the arguments which you have raised against Scripture in defense of the construct, none is more despicable that this bald attempt to deny one of the more beautiful and powerful invitations to ALL to accept Christ into their lives.
And then you have the gall to complain that I do not present the Good News of the Gospel to ALL. Amazing.
Mother?
Mar 3:35 For whosoever shall do the will of God, the same is my brother, and my sister, and mother.
Luk 8:21 And he answered and said unto them, My mother and my brethren are these which hear the word of God, and do it.
In Jeremiah ch 7, and ch 44, the "Queen of Heaven" is mentioned. - She is, of course, Semiramis, the mother of the 'god' Tammuz, and universally who is meant by the term "Mother of God".
If you are interested I'll send you a set of the tapes (3) in which I present an exposition of Psa 139 and set this text in context.
FReepmail me your address and I'll send them gratis.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.