God's sovereignity and man's "freedom"...

[SovereignGrace]

OK, so how do you know what God's will is if He is so far away and uninterested in your day to day life? Does the Holy Spirit witness with your spirit? How do you go about your daily life with such an impersonal God? Isn't God your Father too? Isn't He touched by your weaknesses? Isn't He moved by your prayers? The Bible says He is so I prefer to believe He is than He isn't. Your views on God are too far away for me to grasp.
And the Bible also says that we need to "with all the saints begin to grasp the height and length and breath of His love for us"

Well, you are the one who says we have a 'god' who is impersonal. But in reality, its your view that has an impersonal 'god'. In your view, God only goes so far, seeing He won't violate this mythical free will. He then says, "this is as far as I am coming, now you come to Me." That's your view in a nutshell, seeing I held to that falsity for many years.

In your view, God stands on the bank as you were drowning and tossed you a flotation device. It was up to you to grab it and allow Him to drag you to the shore, or reject it and drown. The only problem with that scenario, and its a huge problem, is your weren't drowning, but you were drowned and floating like a log. God is so personal that He dove in, dragged your dead corpse to the shore, and brought you back to life all of His own doing. That is what nekros in Ephesians 2:3 means. It means a literally dead corpse. That was your inner being, your spirit, dead as a corpse floating in that pond He drug you out of.

Now, who's God is impersonal now?

 

[MarcR]

Sorry, but few of us are grammarians, and probably even fewer know about Hebrew grammar. The ordinary reading of that says "pleased", and I am sure the KJV translators made an informed decision to say "pleased", not "pleases".

When you cite the Hebrew text in support of an argument; it becomes reasonable and appropriate to explain what the Hebrew text means.

Regardless how the verse was translated in the KJV, I doubt very much that you believe that God no longer does as He pleases or that He will not do as He pleases in the future.

The sense of the Hebrew perfect is Completion. The English past usually does also convey a sense of completion.

In the verse in question, the completion refers to quality not time.

God does Exactly, Completely, and Absolutely as He pleases NOW in the past and in the future.

 

[Snoozy]

OK, so how do you know what God's will is if He is so far away and uninterested in your day to day life? Does the Holy Spirit witness with your spirit? How do you go about your daily life with such an impersonal God? Isn't God your Father too? Isn't He touched by your weaknesses? Isn't He moved by your prayers? The Bible says He is so I prefer to believe He is than He isn't. Your views on God are too far away for me to grasp.
And the Bible also says that we need to "with all the saints begin to grasp the height and length and breath of His love for us"

is this the kind of teaching available from tv?

touched by your weaknesses? we got spouses for that.

God is the King. God is not just a buddy u go to the beach with come on now. yes i know if we do His will Jesus calls us friends. no need to bring that up.

God isnt far away, but God isnt a human. sounds like u want to make God a man who feels like we do and is controlled by His emotions.

its like if we do something stupid and get burnt, then God comes in and says "there there, lean on my shoulder, im also hurt by what happened . i share ur pain"
whereas what God really probably is saying is "repent!"

very humanistic i must say. even scary.

 

[valiant]

Originally Posted by Nehemiah6

Sorry, but few of us are grammarians, and probably even fewer know about Hebrew grammar. The ordinary reading of that says "pleased", and I am sure the KJV translators made an informed decision to say "pleased", not "pleases".

When you cite the Hebrew text in support of an argument; it becomes reasonable and appropriate to explain what the Hebrew text means.

Regardless how the verse was translated in the KJV, I doubt very much that you believe that God no longer does as He pleases or that He will not do as He pleases in the future.

The sense of the Hebrew perfect is Completion. The English past usually does also convey a sense of completion.

In the verse in question, the completion refers to quality not time.

God does Exactly, Completely, and Absolutely as He pleases NOW in the past and in the future.

Marc is correct. The two main tenses in Hebrew express completed action (the perfect tense) and incompleted action (the imperfect tense). They were more interested in the doing rather than when it was done.

Thus the prophets regularly use the 'perfect tense' to express what God was going to do in the future because as God's work it could be seen as already complete.

The considered judgment of the KJV translators is no better than the considered judgment of modern translators.

 

[preacher4truth]

When you cite the Hebrew text in support of an argument; it becomes reasonable and appropriate to explain what the Hebrew text means.

Regardless how the verse was translated in the KJV, I doubt very much that you believe that God no longer does as He pleases or that He will not do as He pleases in the future.

The sense of the Hebrew perfect is Completion. The English past usually does also convey a sense of completion.

In the verse in question, the completion refers to quality not time.

God does Exactly, Completely, and Absolutely as He pleases NOW in the past and in the future.

Good post. Sadly, KJVO'ers will not allow these truths.

The KJV says it, it corrects everything, any truths derived from bringing the original languages into the English language that show the limitations of doing so are seen as an "attack" on God and on his Word. In other words, reason and truth are blindly rejected for a preferred and idolized translation.

Therefore any corrections or methods to enhance understandings of the text that seem to correct even a tense of a word are cast out. Those who do these things, according to the KJVO'ers, are corrupters of the Word, heretics &c.

 

[Nehemiah6]

Good post. Sadly, KJVO'ers will not allow these truths.

The issue is not whether God does exactly as He pleases today. Of course He does, but the sovereignty of God is warped by Calvinists to accommodate their fallacies. God has made absolutely no decree to save some and damn others, and that is an abominable doctrine.

If you will go to Bible Hub, you will find that the literal Hebrew is translated as "pleased" (as already shown) and the KJV follows the Hebrew exactly, whereas the modern versions do as they please. And as mentioned, readers are not required to be grammarians to figure out what is translated.

Attacking KJVO'ers won't get you anywhere, since every modern version is a corrupt Bible, and we see this over and over again when people quote from a modern version and it gives a totally misleading meaning. Not to mention the thousands of words of Scripture which have simply been deleted.

 

[valiant]

The issue is not whether God does exactly as He pleases today. Of course He does, but the sovereignty of God is warped by Calvinists to accommodate their fallacies. God has made absolutely no decree to save some and damn others, and that is an abominable doctrine.

But He HAS made a decree to save some and left others condemned.

If you will go to Bible Hub, you will find that the literal Hebrew is translated as "pleased" (as already shown) and the KJV follows the Hebrew exactly,

But is the Bible Hub accurate. In this case it clearly does not understand Hebrew.

Attacking KJVO'ers won't get you anywhere, since every modern version is a corrupt Bible, and we see this over and over again when people quote from a modern version and it gives a totally misleading meaning. Not to mention the thousands of words of Scripture which have simply been deleted.

So you're a KJVer. That explains everything LOL

 

[heartofdavid]

This thread is yet another door into the predestination debate.

Truth on both sides.
The problem with the pre d crowd is that they don't look deep enough .
It is not a one dimensional dynamic.

 

[Issachar92]

Calvinists like to throw out the "why did you believe, and your neighbour didn't? Are you wiser than him?" card. As to make you stumble in their pseudo-intellectual way. They do this to try to put the self-righteous tag on ya. Next time they throw it out there:


Dan 12:3 And they that be wise shall shine as the brightness of the firmament; and they that turn many to righteousness as the stars for ever and ever.
10 Many shall be purified, and made white, and tried; but the wicked shall do wickedly: and none of the wicked shall understand; but the wise shall understand.


Pro 8:17 I love them that love me; andthose that seek me early shall find me.(wisdom)
35 For whoso findeth me findeth life, and shall obtain favour of the LORD.


Mat 7:24 Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock:


Acts 17:11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.
12 Therefore many of them believed; also of honourable women which were Greeks, and of men, not a few.


2 Tim 3:15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

Paul called himself the wise masterbuilder, hows that for being humble? Yall would consider him self-righteous on the spot if this was going on today!

 

[Nehemiah6]

But He HAS made a decree to save some and left others condemned.

This is not only PURE FOOLISHNESS but blasphemy.

God can never contradict Himself. Therefore it is impossible that He would make a decree to save some and to leave others to Hell. You could call that a damnable doctrine.

Here's the proof from the very words of the Savior that this doctrine of unconditional election is totally false.

οὐ γὰρ ἀπέστειλεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν υἱὸν αὐτοῦ εἰς τὸν κόσμον ἵνα κρίνῃ τὸν κόσμον ἀλλ' ἵνα σωθῇ ὁ κόσμος δι' αὐτοῦ

King James Bible
For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.

Strong's Concordance

kosmos: order, the world​

Original Word: κόσμος, ου, ὁ
Part of Speech: Noun, Masculine
Transliteration: kosmos
Phonetic Spelling: (kos'-mos)
Short Definition: the world, universe
Definition: the world, universe; worldly affairs; the inhabitants of the world; adornment.

Thayer's Greek Lexicon
STRONGS NT 2889: κόσμος

κόσμος, κόσμου, ὁ;

5.the inhabitants of the world: θέατρον ἐγενήθημεν τῷ κόσμῳ καί ἀγγέλοις καί ἀνθρώποις, 1 Corinthians 4:9 (Winers Grammar, 127 (121)); particularly the inhabitants of the earth, men, the human race (first so in Sap. (e. g. )):Matthew 13:38; Matthew 18:7; Mark 14:9; John 1:10, 29 ( L in brackets); ; Romans 3:6, 19; 1 Corinthians 1:27f (cf. Winer's Grammar, 189 (178)); ; 2 Corinthians 5:19; James 2:5 (cf. Winer's Grammar, as above); 1 John 2:2 (cf. Winer's Grammar, 577 (536))

If God's plan for sending His Son into the world is that through Him THE WORLD MIGHT BE SAVED, then it is impossible that He would contradict Himself and say something else somewhere else. Indeed, you will not find a single Scripture to support the false notion that God elects some for salvation. He desires that the whole world of humanity be saved (1 Tim 2:4).

So Valiant would you rather believe Calvin than God? It seems Calvinists would rather do that than recant and repent.

 

[valiant]

Originally Posted by MarcR

Hebrew does not have a past tense.

Hebrew verbs do not look at time. They describe quality of action. The Hebrew perfect (which is used here) expresses action completed. The imperfect describes action which is incomplete. The present describes action which is ongoing. These descriptions of the tenses is rather simplistic [it is a great deal more complex]. In any case any or all the tenses can refer to present, past, or future time.

Sorry, but few of us are grammarians, and probably even fewer know about Hebrew grammar. The ordinary reading of that says "pleased", and I am sure the KJV translators made an informed decision to say "pleased", not "pleases".

I agree with Marc. Hebrew tenses express completed action (perfect) and incompleted action {imperfect). The Hebrews etion,were interested in doing not in when it was done.

Thus the prophets regularly spoke of the future in the perfect tense because they saw God's action as certain of completion

 

[valiant]

This is not only PURE FOOLISHNESS but blasphemy.

God can never contradict Himself. Therefore it is impossible that He would make a decree to save some and to leave others to Hell. You could call that a damnable doctrine.

Here's the proof from the very words of the Savior that this doctrine of unconditional election is totally false.

οὐ γὰρ ἀπέστειλεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν υἱὸν αὐτοῦ εἰς τὸν κόσμον ἵνα κρίνῃ τὸν κόσμον ἀλλ' ἵνα σωθῇ ὁ κόσμος δι' αὐτοῦ

King James Bible
For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.

so according to you He failed?

Strong's Concordance

kosmos: order, the world​

Original Word: κόσμος, ου, ὁ
Part of Speech: Noun, Masculine
Transliteration: kosmos
Phonetic Spelling: (kos'-mos)
Short Definition: the world, universe
Definition: the world, universe; worldly affairs; the inhabitants of the world; adornment.

Thayer's Greek Lexicon
STRONGS NT 2889: κόσμος

κόσμος, κόσμου, ὁ;

5.the inhabitants of the world: θέατρον ἐγενήθημεν τῷ κόσμῳ καί ἀγγέλοις καί ἀνθρώποις, 1 Corinthians 4:9 (Winers Grammar, 127 (121)); particularly the inhabitants of the earth, men, the human race (first so in Sap. (e. g. )):Matthew 13:38; Matthew 18:7; Mark 14:9; John 1:10, 29 ( L in brackets); ; Romans 3:6, 19; 1 Corinthians 1:27f (cf. Winer's Grammar, 189 (178)); ; 2 Corinthians 5:19; James 2:5 (cf. Winer's Grammar, as above); 1 John 2:2 (cf. Winer's Grammar, 577 (536))

If God's plan for sending His Son into the world is that through Him THE WORLD MIGHT BE SAVED, then it is impossible that He would contradict Himself and say something else somewhere else. Indeed, you will not find a single Scripture to support the false notion that God elects some for salvation. He desires that the whole world of humanity be saved (1 Tim 2:4).

So Valiant would you rather believe Calvin than God? It seems Calvinists would rather do that God than recant and repent.

I believe God when He says, 'I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and compassion on whom I will have compassion, so then it is NOT of him who wills, nor of him who runs, but of GOD Who has mercy'.

 

[Nehemiah6]

I believe God when He says, 'I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and compassion on whom I will have compassion, so then it is NOT of him who wills, nor of him who runs, but of GOD Who has mercy'.

And since God says He will have mercy on ALL, do you also believe that or not? It is interesting how Calvinists dodge the bullet by picking and choosing verses without regard to context!

GOD WILL HAVE MERCY ON ALL ISRAEL
30 For as ye in times past have not believed God, yet have now obtained mercy through their unbelief:
31 Even so have these also now not believed, that through your mercy they also may obtain mercy.
32 For God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all. (Rom 11:30-32)

GOD WILL HAVE MERCY ON "WHOSOEVER" -- ANYONE AND EVERYONE
And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely. (Rev 22:17)

ONCE AGAIN THE WORDS OF THE LORD JESUS CHRIST TO REFUTE AND REBUKE CALVINISTS
For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. (John 3:17).

 

[John146]

This is not only PURE FOOLISHNESS but blasphemy.

God can never contradict Himself. Therefore it is impossible that He would make a decree to save some and to leave others to Hell. You could call that a damnable doctrine.

Here's the proof from the very words of the Savior that this doctrine of unconditional election is totally false.

οὐ γὰρ ἀπέστειλεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν υἱὸν αὐτοῦ εἰς τὸν κόσμον ἵνα κρίνῃ τὸν κόσμον ἀλλ' ἵνα σωθῇ ὁ κόσμος δι' αὐτοῦ

King James Bible
For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.

Strong's Concordance

kosmos: order, the world​

Original Word: κόσμος, ου, ὁ
Part of Speech: Noun, Masculine
Transliteration: kosmos
Phonetic Spelling: (kos'-mos)
Short Definition: the world, universe
Definition: the world, universe; worldly affairs; the inhabitants of the world; adornment.

Thayer's Greek Lexicon
STRONGS NT 2889: κόσμος

κόσμος, κόσμου, ὁ;

5.the inhabitants of the world: θέατρον ἐγενήθημεν τῷ κόσμῳ καί ἀγγέλοις καί ἀνθρώποις, 1 Corinthians 4:9 (Winers Grammar, 127 (121)); particularly the inhabitants of the earth, men, the human race (first so in Sap. (e. g. )):Matthew 13:38; Matthew 18:7; Mark 14:9; John 1:10, 29 ( L in brackets); ; Romans 3:6, 19; 1 Corinthians 1:27f (cf. Winer's Grammar, 189 (178)); ; 2 Corinthians 5:19; James 2:5 (cf. Winer's Grammar, as above); 1 John 2:2 (cf. Winer's Grammar, 577 (536))

If God's plan for sending His Son into the world is that through Him THE WORLD MIGHT BE SAVED, then it is impossible that He would contradict Himself and say something else somewhere else. Indeed, you will not find a single Scripture to support the false notion that God elects some for salvation. He desires that the whole world of humanity be saved (1 Tim 2:4).

So Valiant would you rather believe Calvin than God? It seems Calvinists would rather do that than recant and repent.

Come on Nehemiah6. You know "the world" means the world of the elect.

 

[Nehemiah6]

Come on Nehemiah6. You know "the world" means the world of the elect.

No doubt!

An exclusive club for those who can't handle the truth.

 

[trofimus]

Come on Nehemiah6. You know "the world" means the world of the elect.

Should you not be both calvinists? Because the KJV translators were calvinists and you think they were soooo educated and geniuses of all time...

Its strange to hear that the great translators of your perfect KJV believed in a "damnable" doctrine...

 

[Bogadile]

Can't help but laugh at you guys with the big words about God's amazing sovereignty and putting in the word... "anthropomorphism" The ascribing of human motivation, characteristics, or behavior to inanimate objects, animals or natural phenomena. (had to look that one up)
.

The reason for those big words is because the Bible presents us with God repenting, and also saying the Lord does not repent. Now some people like to defend the faith and therefore are interested in how to harmonize the bible and make everything fit.

I know big words and theological words can be annoying, but necessary. I hate not having the answer

 

[Angela53510]

The issue is not whether God does exactly as He pleases today. Of course He does, but the sovereignty of God is warped by Calvinists to accommodate their fallacies. God has made absolutely no decree to save some and damn others, and that is an abominable doctrine.

If you will go to Bible Hub, you will find that the literal Hebrew is translated as "pleased" (as already shown) and the KJV follows the Hebrew exactly, whereas the modern versions do as they please. And as mentioned, readers are not required to be grammarians to figure out what is translated.

Attacking KJVO'ers won't get you anywhere, since every modern version is a corrupt Bible, and we see this over and over again when people quote from a modern version and it gives a totally misleading meaning. Not to mention the thousands of words of Scripture which have simply been deleted.

I cannot stress enough that Bible Hub is NOT a good source to exegete words. Why? Because it is a back translation from the from the KJV NOT THE original languages. It merely puts words underneath the KJV and then translates them. It doesn't look at the Masoretic text, the LXX or the Greek NT. It only confirms KJV biases.

Marc has studied Hebrew his whole life. How does that compare to a back translation from the KJV? Well, Marc wins, hands down.

It is such a mistake to overlay English onto the original languages. Greek tenses are all about "aspect." Not time! Look up aspect, and try and figure it out. I've been working on it for years. Hebrew has verb tenses like Qal and Nifal and other words you have never heard of. All representing some sort of completed or incomplete time.

Over and over, people point to Bible Hub as a good source for exegeting words, when it could not be farther from the truth. As for corrupt Bibles, KJV takes the prize on that. The manuscripts used to translate the KJV were late, corrupted Byzantine copies of copies of copies. The later Byzantine manuscripts were conflated horribly. Manuscripts are carefully catalogued and charted. Each mistake, as it is copied in the Byzantine texts, is called a "family" containing the mistakes. These can literally be seen as additions in a certain generation which are then copied into succeeding generations. Until you get to the manscripts used for the KJV and you have a total corrupted mess of additions, words changed, high Christology added to the name of Jesus, and whole portions added to the text.

KJV is probably the most corrupt version there is!

 

[John146]

I cannot stress enough that Bible Hub is NOT a good source to exegete words. Why? Because it is a back translation from the from the KJV NOT THE original languages. It merely puts words underneath the KJV and then translates them. It doesn't look at the Masoretic text, the LXX or the Greek NT. It only confirms KJV biases.

Marc has studied Hebrew his whole life. How does that compare to a back translation from the KJV? Well, Marc wins, hands down.

It is such a mistake to overlay English onto the original languages. Greek tenses are all about "aspect." Not time! Look up aspect, and try and figure it out. I've been working on it for years. Hebrew has verb tenses like Qal and Nifal and other words you have never heard of. All representing some sort of completed or incomplete time.

Over and over, people point to Bible Hub as a good source for exegeting words, when it could not be farther from the truth. As for corrupt Bibles, KJV takes the prize on that. The manuscripts used to translate the KJV were late, corrupted Byzantine copies of copies of copies. The later Byzantine manuscripts were conflated horribly. Manuscripts are carefully catalogued and charted. Each mistake, as it is copied in the Byzantine texts, is called a "family" containing the mistakes. These can literally be seen as additions in a certain generation which are then copied into succeeding generations. Until you get to the manscripts used for the KJV and you have a total corrupted mess of additions, words changed, high Christology added to the name of Jesus, and whole portions added to the text.

KJV is probably the most corrupt version there is!

What's amazing is the KJV spurred on the greatest revival the world has ever seen. That's called fruit. The new versions have led to the Laodicean Age. That's called corrupt fruit.

 

[Nehemiah6]

Should you not be both calvinists? Because the KJV translators were calvinists and you think they were soooo educated and geniuses of all time... Its strange to hear that the great translators of your perfect KJV believed in a "damnable" doctrine...

1. The is no doubt that many of the KJV translators were Puritans, therefore Calvinists. But there were others who were not. And since there were over 50 translators involved for checks and balances, no one's biases or prejudices could affect the translation. In the end the KJV was simply a faithful word-for-word translation which was also beautifully done, so that this Bible became a literary "Classic" in its own right. It also withstood the test of time.

2. Also, unlike today's Calvinists, the KJV translators were committed to accurately and faithfully translating the Scriptures, which they also did expertly, since the array of outstanding scholars among them is truly astounding. So the last thing any of them would have attempted would be be fudge the Scriptures so that they would reflect their personal doctrines.

3. Even the enemies of the KJV on the 19th century Revision Committee dared not claim that the translators had "messed" with the Bible. So the bottom line is that the Bible refutes and rebukes Five Point Calvinism even though Calvinists were involved with the translation. If that is not further evidence that God's hand was over this translation, then nothing will convince you.