Did you go into one of your trances or something Woody? - fortheDeclaration
In going back over the last thread to find what ftd calls my "lie" I found that he has an amazing ability to mock and mock and mock. Just look at his contribution to this thread. It seems pretty obvious that he is mocking what he has never experienced. Therefore, he is desperately trying to show that intimate encounters with the Lord are nothing more than trances or something.
We also represent something which he does not like in this regard. We say that the Lord will open up the heavens to show the light of His glory to His chosen ones. We talk about the irresistible vision of that glory shining in our lives and giving us a new taste and desire for His glory. So, he must either accept what we say and examine himself or he must seek to destroy us.
It is depravity and a predestination thing.
He absolutely hates the idea that he is utterly helpless and at the mercy of the Lord so he searches the scriptures in a vain attempt to show that Romans 3 really doesn't mean all men and really doesn't apply to him. So, with this in mind, let us look at his posting:
LOL! A bit hypersensitive there aren't you Woody! Still mad because I caught you lying about the 'Greek' on Acts.17:27? - fortheDeclaration
To be quite honest I'm really at a loss as to what this lie on my part really is. So, I searched out my For whom did Christ die thread to see what he means:
Those verses only prove that man doesn't seek God,(therefore God seeks man). However, it doesn't mean that man can't seek God.
That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us.(Acts.17:27)That is 'plain' scripture also.
Even so come Lord Jesus
95 posted on 1/20/02 9:02 PM Pacific by fortheDeclaration
He really is desperate to make the scriptures say that man really does want to seek God in his Adamic natural state. Just look at his post #85 on this thread which he flatly declares that God breathes a [living] spirit into man when he is born. It really does seem to match quite closely with the Peligan denial of Original Sin.
I'll take the Man I met, thank you.... - CCWoody
Woody- do you think sounding cryptic makes you sound intelligent? I think you are not a Calvinist but a mystic pretending to be a Calvinist because you think they are 'intellectual'. When push comes to shove it is your 'experiences' that come into play, not scriptures.
No doubt but ye are the people and wisdom shall die with you(Job.12:1)
564 posted on 1/22/02 9:12 PM Pacific by fortheDeclaration
Notice the clear pattern. He mocks because he has never met the Lord Jesus. Now, here is the "lie:"
Correct, it just says that God has made it possible (hapily) - fortheDeclaration
Ya' see, this just makes you look desperate. You must take me for some kind of fool to think that you can say that "haply" means possible and that I don't know any better. It does not.
Acts 17:27 does not mean what you want it to mean. It never has and it never ever will. You are so desperate to deny that God is in control that you are just inventing things in the scriptures.
ara {ar'-ah}
probably from 142 (through the idea of drawing a conclusion); part
AV - therefore + 3767 7, so then + 3767 4, now therefore + 3767 1, then + 1065 2, wherefore + 1065 1, haply + 1065 1, not tr 7, misc 7; 51
1) therefore, so then, wherefore
1138 posted on 1/25/02 5:48 PM Pacific by CCWoody
Hapily does not mean possible. Ara does not translate to possible. FortheDeclaration maintains that he obtained the below information from Strongs (which is exactly where I pulled mine), but it really doesn't matter. Possible is not even a definition that he has provided. And perhaps does not mean possible. He continues to pit scripture against scripture and make a mockery out of the Word of God.
(686)prob from 142(through the idea of drawing a conclusion)a particle denoting an inference more or less decisive (as follows) hapily, what manner( of man), no doubt, perhaps, so be, then, therefore, wherefore. often used in connection with other particles...
Now, how do the other versions translate it? The NASB,NIV-perhaps NKJV-hope
Now, you can do what the Tyndale and Geneva do, leave out the particle and just translate it 'That they should seek God if they might feel and find him...' but the particle does mean 'perhaps'.
However, that is not the real problem with the verse for the Calvinist, the real problem is should seek Him, which shows He has made possible
1191 posted on 1/26/02 1:43 AM Pacific by fortheDeclaration
To show just how silly this post of his really is, look at this example: My Caddie is about ready to die permanently. I could not tell you how many times I have had somebody say that I should get a new car. Well, it is rather tough to do when I don't have the cash to go out and buy a new car. I probably should drive my piece of junk to the yard and get a new car, but I simply do not have the cash to make it happen.
FortheDeclaration's problem is not that he is calling me a liar; it is that he simply refuses to examine himself and would rather lash out at us. It is a depravity and a predestination thing, of course. He needs to repent and call upon the name of the Lord.
Looks to me like you're letting the nets down where He tells you to!.
17:27 {That they should seek God} (zetein ton qeon). Infinitive (present active) of purpose again. Seek him, not turn away from him as the nations had done (#Ro 1:18-32). {If haply they might feel after him} (ei ara ge yelafeseian auton). First aorist active (Aeolic form) optative of yelafaw, old verb from yaw, to touch. So used by the Risen Jesus in his challenge to the disciples (#Lu 24:39), by the Apostle John of his personal contact with Jesus (#1Jo 1:1), of the contact with Mount Sinai (#Heb 12:18). Here it pictures the blind groping of the darkened heathen mind after God to "find him" (heuroien, second aorist active optative) whom they had lost. One knows what it is in a darkened room to feel along the walls for the door (#De 28:29; Job 5:14; 12:25; Isa 59:10). Helen Keller, when told of God, said that she knew of him already, groping in the dark after him. The optative here with ei is due to the condition of the fourth class (undetermined, but with vague hope of being determined) with aim also present (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 1021). Note also ara ge the inferential particle Ara with the delicate intensive particle ge. {Though he is not far from each one of us} (kai ge ou makran apo henos hekastou hemwn huparconta). More exactly with B L (kai ge instead of kaitoi or kaitoi ge), "and yet being not far from each one of us," a direct statement rather than a concessive one. The participle huparconta agrees with auton and the negative ou rather than the usual me with the participle makes an emphatic negative. Note also the intensive particle ge.
17:27 zhtein ton kurion ei ara ge yhlafhseian auton kai euroien kaitoige ou makran apo enos ekastou hmwn uparconta
685 ara ar-ah' probably from 142; properly, prayer (as lifted to Heaven), i.e. (by implication) imprecation:--curse. see GREEK for 142
This verse speaks to God displaying Himself in creation..that even the heathan can see Him in their darkness..(All creation speaks of God)
From the Geneva bible
(p) For as blind men we could not seek out God except by groping, before the true light came and enlightened the world. >
This was a free offer of the gospel to the Greeks. Some like Thomas would poke their fingers in the hole and KNOW others would mock and walk away
IMHO
17:27 {That they should seek God} (zetein ton qeon). Infinitive (present active) of purpose again. Seek him, not turn away from him as the nations had done (#Ro 1:18-32). {If haply they might feel after him} (ei ara ge yelafeseian auton). First aorist active (Aeolic form) optative of yelafaw, old verb from yaw, to touch. So used by the Risen Jesus in his challenge to the disciples (#Lu 24:39), by the Apostle John of his personal contact with Jesus (#1Jo 1:1), of the contact with Mount Sinai (#Heb 12:18). Here it pictures the blind groping of the darkened heathen mind after God to "find him" (heuroien, second aorist active optative) whom they had lost. One knows what it is in a darkened room to feel along the walls for the door (#De 28:29; Job 5:14; 12:25; Isa 59:10). Helen Keller, when told of God, said that she knew of him already, groping in the dark after him. The optative here with ei is due to the condition of the fourth class (undetermined, but with vague hope of being determined) with aim also present (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 1021). Note also ara ge the inferential particle Ara with the delicate intensive particle ge. {Though he is not far from each one of us} (kai ge ou makran apo henos hekastou hemwn huparconta). More exactly with B L (kai ge instead of kaitoi or kaitoi ge), "and yet being not far from each one of us," a direct statement rather than a concessive one. The participle huparconta agrees with auton and the negative ou rather than the usual me with the participle makes an emphatic negative. Note also the intensive particle ge.
17:27 zhtein ton kurion ei ara ge yhlafhseian auton kai euroien kaitoige ou makran apo enos ekastou hmwn uparconta
685 ara ar-ah' probably from 142; properly, prayer (as lifted to Heaven), i.e. (by implication) imprecation:--curse. see GREEK for 142
This verse speaks to God displaying Himself in creation..that even the heathan can see Him in their darkness..(All creation speaks of God)
From the Geneva bible
(p) For as blind men we could not seek out God except by groping, before the true light came and enlightened the world. >
This was a free offer of the gospel to the Greeks. Some like Thomas would poke their fingers in the hole and KNOW others would mock and walk away
IMHO
17:27 {That they should seek God} (zetein ton qeon). Infinitive (present active) of purpose again. Seek him, not turn away from him as the nations had done (#Ro 1:18-32). {If haply they might feel after him} (ei ara ge yelafeseian auton). First aorist active (Aeolic form) optative of yelafaw, old verb from yaw, to touch. So used by the Risen Jesus in his challenge to the disciples (#Lu 24:39), by the Apostle John of his personal contact with Jesus (#1Jo 1:1), of the contact with Mount Sinai (#Heb 12:18). Here it pictures the blind groping of the darkened heathen mind after God to "find him" (heuroien, second aorist active optative) whom they had lost. One knows what it is in a darkened room to feel along the walls for the door (#De 28:29; Job 5:14; 12:25; Isa 59:10). Helen Keller, when told of God, said that she knew of him already, groping in the dark after him. The optative here with ei is due to the condition of the fourth class (undetermined, but with vague hope of being determined) with aim also present (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 1021). Note also ara ge the inferential particle Ara with the delicate intensive particle ge. {Though he is not far from each one of us} (kai ge ou makran apo henos hekastou hemwn huparconta). More exactly with B L (kai ge instead of kaitoi or kaitoi ge), "and yet being not far from each one of us," a direct statement rather than a concessive one. The participle huparconta agrees with auton and the negative ou rather than the usual me with the participle makes an emphatic negative. Note also the intensive particle ge.
17:27 zhtein ton kurion ei ara ge yhlafhseian auton kai euroien kaitoige ou makran apo enos ekastou hmwn uparconta
685 ara ar-ah' probably from 142; properly, prayer (as lifted to Heaven), i.e. (by implication) imprecation:--curse. see GREEK for 142
This verse speaks to God displaying Himself in creation..that even the heathan can see Him in their darkness..(All creation speaks of God)
From the Geneva bible
(p) For as blind men we could not seek out God except by groping, before the true light came and enlightened the world. >
This was a free offer of the gospel to the Greeks. Some like Thomas would poke their fingers in the hole and KNOW others would mock and walk away
IMHO
One of the problems with today's churchgoers is that they have a name that they are alive and are dead. Jesus specifically rebuked the people who think that their study of the Bible amounts to salvation. The Reformers pointed out over and over and over that this is a disastrous mistake.
We have to meet to Christ in the Spirit. A churchgoer can search the Scriptures and think that in them he has life, but if that sinner does not go to Christ in the Spirit, he is just a reprobate who thinks he is saved.
This is what the Reformation was all about. But I frankly fear that ftD doesn't know squat about the faith of the Reformation. (See my previous post, in which I warned that some of today's "Arminian Baptists" have strayed so far from the important truths which were ardently defended by the Reformers and the Anabaptists and the early Baptists that they don't know what justifying faith is. The majority of 18th century Baptists would consider ftD to be an ill-mannered scoffer against the Word of God.)
And now, what part of the article did I address that to? The last part when you started rambling about 'giants in the land'
In going back over the last thread to find what ftd calls my "lie" I found that he has an amazing ability to mock and mock and mock.
There is a lot to mock!
Just look at his contribution to this thread.
Do you own the thread? You seem pretty concerned about my 'contributions' to it! My contribution is to expose you rascals for the liars that you are!
It seems pretty obvious that he is mocking what he has never experienced. Therefore, he is desperately trying to show that intimate encounters with the Lord are nothing more than trances or something.
I have never gone into a trance, that is true!
We also represent something which he does not like in this regard. We say that the Lord will open up the heavens to show the light of His glory to His chosen ones. We talk about the irresistible vision of that glory shining in our lives and giving us a new taste and desire for His glory. So, he must either accept what we say and examine himself or he must seek to destroy us.
You guys must love to hear yourselves talk 'good words and fair speeches'
It is depravity and a predestination thing. He absolutely hates the idea that he is utterly helpless and at the mercy of the Lord so he searches the scriptures in a vain attempt to show that Romans 3 really doesn't mean all men and really doesn't apply to him. So, with this in mind, let us look at his posting:
No, Romans 3 isn't saying what you are trying to make it say! Scripture must reconicle with scripture, not be ignored, as you guys do with your little proof texts. Every heresy has them you know, the Catholics have theirs, Arminians have theirs, Cambelites theirs, you are no different.
LOL! A bit hypersensitive there aren't you Woody! Still mad because I caught you lying about the 'Greek' on Acts.17:27? - fortheDeclaration To be quite honest I'm really at a loss as to what this lie on my part really is. So, I searched out my For whom did Christ die thread to see what he means:
Your lie was denying that what you wrote did not say what you thought, as you admitted in an earlier post!(or have you forgotten that already-'I did not expressly say'..)
Those verses only prove that man doesn't seek God,(therefore God seeks man). However, it doesn't mean that man can't seek God. That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us.(Acts.17:27)That is 'plain' scripture also. Even so come Lord Jesus 95 posted on 1/20/02 9:02 PM Pacific by fortheDeclaration He really is desperate to make the scriptures say that man really does want to seek God in his Adamic natural state. Just look at his post #85 on this thread which he flatly declares that God breathes a [living] spirit into man when he is born. It really does seem to match quite closely with the Peligan denial of Original Sin.
How is giving life to a baby mean that the baby does not have Original sin. The baby receives human life, but is spiritually dead.
I'll take the Man I met, thank you.... - CCWoody Woody- do you think sounding cryptic makes you sound intelligent? I think you are not a Calvinist but a mystic pretending to be a Calvinist because you think they are 'intellectual'. When push comes to shove it is your 'experiences' that come into play, not scriptures. No doubt but ye are the people and wisdom shall die with you(Job.12:1) 564 posted on 1/22/02 9:12 PM Pacific by fortheDeclaration Notice the clear pattern. He mocks because he has never met the Lord Jesus. Now, here is the "lie:"
No, I mock at you because you can't tell the truth!
Correct, it just says that God has made it possible (hapily) - fortheDeclaration Ya' see, this just makes you look desperate. You must take me for some kind of fool to think that you can say that "haply" means possible and that I don't know any better. It does not. Acts 17:27 does not mean what you want it to mean. It never has and it never ever will. You are so desperate to deny that God is in control that you are just inventing things in the scriptures. ara {ar'-ah} probably from 142 (through the idea of drawing a conclusion); part AV - therefore + 3767 7, so then + 3767 4, now therefore + 3767 1, then + 1065 2, wherefore + 1065 1, haply + 1065 1, not tr 7, misc 7; 51 1) therefore, so then, wherefore 1138 posted on 1/25/02 5:48 PM Pacific by CCWoody Hapily does not mean possible. Ara does not translate to possible. FortheDeclaration maintains that he obtained the below information from Strongs (which is exactly where I pulled mine), but it really doesn't matter. Possible is not even a definition that he has provided. And perhaps does not mean possible. He continues to pit scripture against scripture and make a mockery out of the Word of God.
That is exactly where I got mine from! Moreover, both the NAS and NIV translated the word 'perhaps' and the NKJ translated it 'hope', the word meant exactly what the King James stated it meant-perhaps.
(686)prob from 142(through the idea of drawing a conclusion)a particle denoting an inference more or less decisive (as follows) hapily, what manner( of man), no doubt, perhaps, so be, then, therefore, wherefore. often used in connection with other particles... Now, how do the other versions translate it? The NASB,NIV-perhaps NKJV-hope Now, you can do what the Tyndale and Geneva do, leave out the particle and just translate it 'That they should seek God if they might feel and find him...' but the particle does mean 'perhaps'. However, that is not the real problem with the verse for the Calvinist, the real problem is should seek Him, which shows He has made possible 1191 posted on 1/26/02 1:43 AM Pacific by fortheDeclaration To show just how silly this post of his really is, look at this example: My Caddie is about ready to die permanently. I could not tell you how many times I have had somebody say that I should get a new car. Well, it is rather tough to do when I don't have the cash to go out and buy a new car. I probably should drive my piece of junk to the yard and get a new car, but I simply do not have the cash to make it happen.
I guess the above is suppose to mean something? You going into one of your trances again?
FortheDeclaration's problem is not that he is calling me a liar;
No,because it is true
it is that he simply refuses to examine himself and would rather lash out at us. It is a depravity and a predestination thing, of course. He needs to repent and call upon the name of the Lord.
Now, you see what I mean? You guys are always talking like Arminians! Now, if I were not saved (but I am) how could I repent and believe unless elected? Why do you guys say what you do not believe?