Posted on 12/29/2002 9:23:52 PM PST by PFKEY
Hope no one minds the vanity too much.
I was thinking last night about this idea and was trying to make it jive somewhat with the notion of predeterminationalism if that is the correct word.
Also was curious regarding what the various Christian denominations taught on this subject.
It was?
I remember something about Paul kicking against the pricks.
How does a spiritually dead man do that?
Ofcourse, what you say doesn't have to actually make sense, it is only necessary to say something to keep fooling the deceived and gulliable.
Now, why would God have to deal with one spiritually dead man any differently then another? Because the Fall-Curse effects different Men, differently. Different people tend towards different Sins, etc; but those whom God has elected to Save, He will save (using whatever means He deems fitting to their particular case).
It does?
Now, what does the type of sin that a man is involved in have to do with the Omnipotent regenerating power of God?
Why would he have to use greater 'force' against some when all are in the same will-less state. A "will-less" state? Tsk, tsk... now you're not even discussing Calvinism, you're just babbling to yourself.
Oh, no, I am discussing the view that Calvinists love to have it both ways.
On the one hand they will jump and down and scream that man is a corpse when it is suggested that God could deal with man's will.
Now, we have God dealing with man's will.
Could Paul resist God? Sure, if God had elected to leave Paul a Reprobate, and not send Grace upon his eyes in an irresistible fashion.
Now,what double-talk!
How can a unregenerate man resist what is not given to him?
Now we will hear about the Universal call to all men (but only the Elect can really respond, so it is not really a Universal call at all (God is just kidding)
All God had to do was simply regenerate Paul, He did not have to knock him down and blind him! Typical Calvinistic double-talk. Yes, and God could have created and formed the World in six hours, or six seconds, too.
Yes, but Creation's will was not a factor.
Paul had a will and that is why God had to deal with him in that way.
But, God does as He pleases. Yet again, you demonstrate that your argument is against Him, not little ole' Johnny Calvin.
No, my argument is against idiots who pretend to talk sense when they speak nonsense.
Try actually reading what the Scripture says instead of twisting it to meet the demands of your heretical system (2Pet.3:16) Okey-doke. Here is some more Scripture for you: Romans 8:8 -- So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God. So, why is it again that you preach the anti-Biblical belief that Unregenerate Men choose the God-pleasing choice to Repent unto Jesus, when Romans 8:8 explicitly states that Unregenerate Men NEVER do that which is God-pleasing? Thrill me with your wisdom.
Because that verse is dealing with the carnal man who is a believer out of fellowship, not a natural man who is a unbeliever.
Chapter 8 in Romans is dealing with believers not unbelievers!
Paul defines carnal in 1Cor.3:1.
The 'natural' man is described in 1Cor.2:14 as unable not to understand doctrinal matters.
You do not even know the difference between a'carnal'man and a'natural'man? (Heb.5:12!)
First, I said that the begetting occured at the Incarnation not the Resurrection.
A fact backed by Vines comments on Hebrews.
Second, I never stated that they were seperate beings, only that we knew the Son as the Son after the begetting,(in time-this day) not from eternity.
Just more Calvinistic 'heresy' hunting.
Sounds a bit like you dec
Yes,if you ignore the essentials, which is typical with you.
It was?
Since I was not rejecting the Trinity (as Armstrong does) you will have to find your heresy somewhere else.
Could God have stopped 9/11 IF HE chose?
Could God stop you from sinning if He chose?
As typical of you, you ignore what the article said.
God will harden you when you reject the truth and that is what the Pharoah did and that is why God hardened him. (2Thess.2:11)
Pharoah also hardened himself,(Ex.8:15) so there was volition involved the very thing you hate, since you do not believe you have to take responsiblity for anything in you life, it is all God's fault!
So?
The point is that Vines agrees that begetting in Psa 2:7 is dealing with the Incarnation.
Now, what his opinion after that is is irrevelant! He is just contradicting himself!
He doesn't like it, but there it is, the word 'beget' means Christ being born.
Does he give a reason why, even though that is what the word means it is not referring to Christ's Sonship?
That is Vine's own views contradicting what he just admitted.
Note that the above is part of my post to ftD. Note, it is the word used in the 'birth of Christ'. That is what the word means. True, but that is not the only thing it means Now, what Vine's opinion is is irrevelant. TRANSLATION: "Don't confuse me with the facts."
No, don't confuse me with man's opinions on what the facts are.
He admitted the word referred to the birth of Christ and it referred back to Psa.2:7 that is the essential point.
His denial that it doesn't mean what it says is irrevelant.
You read part of a citation from Vines, consider that authoritative, and yet reject the rest of it as 'opinion'...unbelievable!
I consider his view on the word 'beget' authoritive since it lines up with Thayer and Strong.
If the word means 'used in the birth of Christ' and refers back to Psa.2:7 that is my view of Begotten, referring to the Incarnation. TRANSLATION: "It doesn't matter if every orthodox Greek scholar in existence thinks differently, they're wrong."
What matters is what the scripture teaches.
I think a guy named Luther stated something like that once!
Vine's attempt to avoid that clear conclusion are meaningless. TRANSLATION: "I don't know a Greek participle from a "partridge in a pear tree", but I am afraid to admit that the Greek experts, including those who church fathers who read the manuscripts that were used in the King James Version that I worship and reached a different conclusion than what I believe at the Council of Nicea, and produced the Nicene Creed, which proves that I am wrong...so they must be wrong! Yea, thats the ticket!
Keep yapping.
The fact is that you are wrong, the word 'beget' refers to the Incarnation.
Psa.2 is referring to a specific time (this day) when the Father says Thou art my Son, this day, have I begotten thee, it is referring to the Incarnation (Acts.13:33, Heb.1:3, Heb.5:5) as stated by Vine! i see that you've got your reservations made for the lake of fire.
LOL!
Go back and read some more Greek, you need it.
Typical Cabal 'scholarship'
So, your objection is to the fact that, prior to Regeneration, the Bible says that Paul was Spiritually Dead?
Well, that just goes to show you once again -- you hate the Bible, not Calvinism. The Bible says that prior to Regeneration, Paul was Spiritually Dead.
I'm very sorry that you hate the Bible. That makes me sad.
Romans 8:8 -- So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God. So, why is it again that you preach the anti-Biblical belief that Unregenerate Men choose the God-pleasing choice to Repent unto Jesus, when Romans 8:8 explicitly states that Unregenerate Men NEVER do that which is God-pleasing? Thrill me with your wisdom. Because that verse is dealing with the carnal man who is a believer out of fellowship, not a natural man who is a unbeliever. Chapter 8 in Romans is dealing with believers not unbelievers!
Oops. I'm sorry, dippity-doo-dah, that little dodge won't work.
See, Paul expressly states in the passage itself that he is talking about the Unregenerate unbelievers as being "in the flesh", and the Regenerate believers as being "in the Spirit".
On the one hand, IF you believe that those who are Once Saved are Always Saved, then you CANNOT say that the "Carnal" in this passage are back-slidden believers, because Paul says that the Carnal do not belong to Christ and do not have the Spirit and that Christ does not dwell in them.
So, unless you believe that a believer's salvation belonging to Christ is some kind of in-again, out-again revolving door, then Paul is obviously talking about unregenerate unbelievers when he is talking about those who don't belong to Christ and don't have the Spirit and Christ doesn't dwell in them. Unbelievers. Unless you think that Salvation is a revolving door.
And that means:
Which of course, disqualifies your entire theology as a satanic lie against God, against the Bible, and against the One True Gospel.
An enemy of Christ, lest ye repent.
Seven you are staring with a false premesis and building on that
Eve did not bring the fruit to Adam. Adam had violated the responsibility that God had given to him
Gen 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth
Adam stood next to Eve and watched the interaction between Eve and the serpent..
Gen 3:6 And when the woman saw that the tree [was] good for food, and that it [was] pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make [one] wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.
Adam had dominion over that serpent and he could have told it to leave and it would have had to. Instead he allowed his wife to see if the warning of God was true..He made no attempt to stop her..(he had dominion over her as her husband)
If we fast forward to the temptation of Christ we see Him refuse the temptation that befell the 1st Adam (lust of the eyes,lust of the flesh and the pride of life)
Just as Adam had a choice so did Jesus , to speculate that he was without choice violates the word of God
Mat 26:53 Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and he shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels?
Jesus had a choice and He expressed it
Jhn 5:30 I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me.
For his pleasure were all things created~ That does not mean he takes pleasure in destruction and judgement. Considering the cost, I say that things were improved, by his creation.
No God does not take pleasure , but His Holiness and Justice demands it. He Does take pleasure in the glory that comes to Him from those judgements..
Isa 45:6 That they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the west, that [there is] none beside me. I [am] the LORD, and [there is] none else.
No I did not "ignore" the article. I simply deny the truth of it..
I never said that Pharaoh did not at times harden his heart (like you I do read the scriptures). But God knew that the Pharaoh would harden his heart..God made that pharoah..He knew exactly the choices that the Pharoah would make..
However there came a time when God HIMSELF acted so that they would know He was God..
Dec no one has said that man does not make choices..or that he has a human volition. But God made each of us so that He knows what our choices will be. God had made Pharoah..He knew the heart of that man..God made him to act (choose) in the way He did. God was not surprised
His comment on how the Jews read it may be of value on the original Hebrew
"...and gave also to her husband with her; that he might eat as well as she, and partake of the same benefits and advantages she hoped to reap from hence; for no doubt it was of good will, and not ill will, that she gave it to him; and when she offered it to him, it is highly probable she made use of arguments with him, and pressed him hard to it, telling him what delicious food it was, as well as how useful it would be to him and her. The Jews infer from hence, that Adam was with her all the while, and heard the discourse between the serpent and her, yet did not interpose nor dissuade his wife from eating the fruit, and being prevailed upon by the arguments used; or however through a strong affection for his wife, that she might not die alone, he did as she had done: and he did eat; on which an emphasis may be observed, for it was upon his eating the fate of his posterity depended; for not the woman but the man was the federal head, and he sinning, all his posterity sinned in him, and died in him; through this offence judgment came upon all to condemnation; all became sinners, and obnoxious to death,Romans 5:12. If Eve only had eaten of the forbidden fruit, it could only have personally affected herself, and she only would have died; and had this been the case, God would have formed another woman for Adam, for the propagation of mankind, had he stood; though since he fell as well as she, it is needless to inquire, and may seem too bold to say what otherwise would have been the case.
Moreover the craftiness of Satan betrays itself in this, that he does not directly assail the man, but approaches him, as through a mine, in the person of his wife. This insidious method of attack is more than sufficiently known to us at the present day, and I wish we might learn prudently to guard ourselves against it. For he warily insinuates himself at that point at which he sees us to be the least fortified, that he may not be perceived till he should have penetrated where he wished. The woman does not flee from converse with the serpent, because hitherto no dissension had existed; she, therefore, accounted it simply as a domestic animal.VBS was right. Poor Adam.
...
And gave also unto her husband with her. From these words, some conjecture that Adam was present when his wife was tempted and persuaded by the serpent, which is by no means credible. Yet it might be that he soon joined her, and that, even before the woman tasted the fruit of the tree, she related the conversation held with the serpent, and entangled him with the same fallacies by which she herself had been deceived. Others refer the particle hm[ (immah,) “with her,” to the conjugal bond, which may be received. But because Moses simply relates that he ate the fruit taken from the hands of his wife, the opinion has been commonly received, that he was rather captivated with her allurements than persuaded by Satan’s impostures. F166 For this purpose the declaration of Paul is adduced, ‘Adam was not deceived, but the woman.’ (1 Timothy 2:14.). But Paul in that place, as he is teaching that the origin of evil was from the woman, only speaks comparatively. Indeed, it was not only for the sake of complying with the wishes of his wife, that he transgressed the law laid down for him; but being drawn by her into fatal ambition, he became partaker of the same defection with her. And truly Paul elsewhere states that sin came not by the woman, but by Adam himself, (<450512>Romans 5:12.) Then, the reproof which soon afterwards follows ‘Behold, Adam is as one of us,’ clearly proves that he also foolishly coveted more than was lawful, and gave greater credit to the flatteries of the devil than to the sacred word of God.
So, unlike you, W E Vine knew what the Greek actually said.
The point is that Vines agrees that begetting in Psa 2:7 is dealing with the Incarnation.
That is nonsense, he said just the opposite, you are still lying to us. i told you what page the citation is on, look at it and tell us just where in that citation Vine agrees that begetting in Psalm 2:7 is dealing with the incarnation.
Now, what his opinion after that is is irrevelant! He is just contradicting himself!
Since he never said that begetting in Psalm 2:7 is dealing with the incarnation, the only person he is "contradicting" is you!
He doesn't like it, but there it is, the word 'beget' means Christ being born.
Sometimes beget does mean born, but not in Psalm 2:7, Acts 13:33, Hebrews 1:5, or Hebrews 5:5
He says that because he knew the bible, and the rules of the Greek language.
First off, you need realise that the word gennao is in the perfect, not present tense in Acts 13:33, Hebrews 1:5 and Hebrews 5:5.
The translators of the KJV knew that the Greek perfect tense does not correspond with the English perfect tense. They knew that English has no tense that is the equivalent to the Greek perfect active, so, what to do?
The translators decided to get it as close as the English language allowed.
Here is what the Greek perfect active means:"The Greek perfect tense denotes a present state resultant upon a past action.
DEFINITION
The force of the perfect tense is simply that it describes and event that, completed in the past (we are speaking of the perfect indicative here), has results existing in the present time (i.e., in relation to the time of the speaker). Or, as Zerwick puts it, the perfect tense is used for "indicating not the past action as such but the present 'state of affairs' resulting from the past action".(4)
The KJV translators, realising that the emphasis was on the present result of an event that happened in past time translated the Greek perfect tense with the English present. Note that to this day, no translation has equaled the KJV in rendering the Greek perfect tense into English.
Since the event recorded in the New Testament is a citation of Psalm 2:7, the event happened before David was inspired by God to compose Psalm 2!
Once again, the rightly divided word of God has made you a liar and a heretic.
You need to repent or face the lake of fire...turn or burn!
Calvin seemed to take a pass
From these words, some conjecture that Adam was present when his wife was tempted and persuaded by the serpent, which is by no means credible. Yet it might be that he soon joined her, and that, even before the woman tasted the fruit of the tree, she related the conversation held with the serpent, and entangled him with the same fallacies by which she herself had been deceived. Others refer the particle hm[ (immah,) “with her,” to the conjugal bond, which may be received.
I hate to disagree with Calvin here ...BUT Adam was not deceived..He sinned..
I go with the Jews on this..Calvin actually punted on it
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.