Calvinists,Im Asking...

[Depleted]

By that logic, wouldn't all who strive to do God's will His elect, since "supposedly the non elect won't have a heart towards God, and will never even begin to think about doing God's will."?

I don't agree. Some people will strive to do God's will under the Law. (they will fail, but still they will strive)

The elect are those who accept the Gospel in faith that only by the grace of God through the redeeming blood of Jesus on the cross are you made a born again child of God sealed by the Holy Spirit.

I strove to do God's will before becoming his kid. It had nothing to do with wanting to please him. It had nothing to do with him. I wanted the sunny day, unicorns, pot of gold at the end of the rainbow eternal-vacation plan. Other than that, exactly why would anyone strive to do anything for God unless we have become his kids? There is nothing in it for us.

 

[SovereignGrace]

Oh you are right, you are consistent in eisegesis what you believe into any text you read

We know it's impossible for you to consider in light of what You know is right.

That's funny isn't it? Scripture says God will "ALL MEN to be saved, and to come to All knowledge of the truth". I think I'll keep sticking to the Word, not man made errors that contradict truth.

1Ti 2:3 For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour;
1Ti 2:4 Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.

Watch the way you address me, no need for
the snarky false accusation and attitude, it's not becoming of you. Thanks.


Side note: before you fling out the false accusation of "universalism" and "Pelagian" theology, I have already shown my beliefs are far from either. You just don't care to listen, because it's "impossible" for you to make false accusations?

All does not mean all as in every man who ever lived, but all in a sub set.

 

[Depleted]

Yes I know that. God is the light.

The question is does he give a small measure of light to all and they turn away from that light, or did He never really give the light to the majority of humanity to begin with?

I believe he gave a small measure of His light through all of humanity by His Law.

Yes I know the Law does not save, but that's not my point either.

[h=1]John 3:16-21 (ESV)[/h][h=3]16 “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. 17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. 18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God. 19 And this is the judgment: the light has come into the world, and people loved the darkness rather than the light because their works were evil. 20 For everyone who does wicked things hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his works should be exposed. 21 But whoever does what is true comes to the light, so that it may be clearly seen that his works have been carried out in God.”[/h]

 

[Depleted]

And that's where we disagree...

You believe the Old Covenant is the SAME as the new,JUST. That Jesus fulfilled it for us?

I believe that the New covenant is fundamentally different than the old one that Jesus replaced.

How is it different?

 

[Depleted]

Note (hopefully so I won't be misunderstood)

I do believe that Jesus fulfilled the Old Covenant perfectly. Only man to ever have done so.

I just believe that God established a New Covenant with His people. He did a New thing the world had never seen before, though many pagan religions pretend to copy Him.

From last question I just asked to this. Okay, this is the beginning sentence to your theory. Now all I need is what the theory is and proof of it for you. (If I want to go full-Reformed on you, that's five-points of proof. I'll be nice, and only go with three though. lol)

 

[Depleted]

Yeah...and non Calvinist have "systematic theology" too. Most also claim to look at the WHOLE BIBLE in context.

Admittedly you can always find folks both Reformed and Arminian would declare as preaching a false gospel, but the over all point is everyone wants to believe the way they read the Bible is the right way...

Otherwise they would change their views and positions.

Until hubby found out there was reformed, I really was stuck with "this part doesn't fit with this part" most of the time.

-- Don't sin. But I do sin.
-- "as for me and my family, we will choose the Lord." "Everyone who hates the light does not come to the light, lest his sins be exposed."

Everything was one big paradox.

 

[Angela53510]

Originally Posted by kaylagrl

Just put each other on ignore,I dont see minds changing. You might as well tune each other out.

Unfortunately some people think it's their "Christian duty" to call others names and insult them and slander them if you have a different view on a subject then they do.

Kaylagrl is right about putting them on ignore and not interacting with this type of behavior as nothing good comes from it and it only causes strife and division amongst us all.

Personally I have as much interest about what Calvinists believe as I do the ant population in the Amazon forest. It obviously is a subject that is extremely contentious and destructive when the wrong parties are involved.

When the bad behavior types show up - then it's time to stop the conversation because the environment changes and there is no place for understanding or learning from each other in a respectful truthful manner.

We all need each other as none of us has the whole truth about every subject. I am fully convinced that we haven't even scratched the surface yet of what our loving Father and Lord Jesus Christ has done for all of us in this world. The knowledge of their love and grace towards all of us is paramount to growing up in Him.

Love never fails. How all that plays out - I leave it in the Lord's hands.

In the meantime we have the ministry of reconciliation. God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself - not counting their sins against them. We beg you on behalf of Christ - be reconciled to God. 2 Cor. 5:18-21

So, if you don't care about Calvinism or Reformed doctrine, why bother to come on these threads at all?

Oh, so you can slander people about slandering people. Your second line, bolded, is how you attack everyone. It's called "passive-aggressive." It means pretending to be the innocent peacemaker, when your only goal is to slander the body of Christ.

Oh, and call out the "bad behaviour types," of which you are one. Passive-aggressive insults can be more damaging, in a lot of ways, than just taking people head on.

And no, you are not posting on this thread from love. You are posting to try and hurt people and slander them, as usual!

Now, back to our regularly scheduled thread!

 

[PeterJens]

I am sure after certain interactions, it is clear some are lost and will stay that way
forever. I think you either get the issue about love and connection, or you do not.

I get the impression from some they want a particular set of reactions, which make
their world or the person is lying and evil, and nothing they are sharing is truthful.

Words like twist, slander, malice, hatred appear as if anyone actually knows or cares
about the people individually but are mainly concerned about their experiences and meeting
with people who share them.

Repentance at a fundamental level does it for me. If you have deeply hurt another, you know
what sorry means and if one has been hurt what forgiveness is. But if love is locked out,
and these hurts never acknowledges the same words mean something different and connection
can never truly be established.

When we know we have hurt God and deeply regret it, the desire to walk in His ways is very
strong. Mary Magdalene had this, and honoured her Lord deeply. She speaks to my heart,
and is partly why I know Jesus. When much is forgiven much is appreciated.

 

[Angela53510]

Sorry 'bout that. I have traveled to Canada in two different routes. (I always went to a dinky village in the 10,000 Lakes region on Ontario, so any place else I've ever been in Canada was directly related to going there, or... going to Ottawa once, because Ontario was having a beer strike, and Dad needed his beer. lol) I've gone through starting at the Thousand Island Bridge or starting at Winnipeg. I always thought Winnipeg was about as south as you can go in Canada. I thought that was like the Florida Keys, as south as we can go before running out of the US.

Your geography is getting stranger and stranger. My suggestion is to look on a map of Canada. Winnipeg is about maybe 50 miles (??) north of the 49th parallel. Vancouver is practically on the 49th parallel. (On the west coast.) When I lived in Langley, a Vancouver bedroom community, I was 48 blocks from the American border. The dollar was treated as even, and I literally went weekly for gas, milk and cheese. (They were half price, still are, even with the dollar difference!) Those were the days before passports, where we got to know the border guards on both sides.

Vancouver, Island goes farther south than the 49th parallel. Then Ontario, Quebec and the some of the Maritime provinces are well below the 49th parallel. But really, there is NO south, like Florida or Arizona. The bulk of the population of Canada hangs on the American border. Lots of reasons, transportation like railways started it in the 18th century. Plus, closer to the American border. And if Canadians go south, they go to Florida or Arizona. Just like Americans! LOL California would be great, too, but too expensive for most people. We did a trip, and stayed with all my relatives, so that made the cost much lower!

But I am very puzzled about how you got beer in Ottawa in a beer strike. Because, although Ottawa is the capital of Canada, it is also part of the province of Ontario, and has to obey the same laws as everywhere else in Ontario.

So did you visit Kingston? That is a nice little town on the Thousand Islands.


I can't seem to get the map address of the good maps. This will have to do. The long line from the Pacific to the Great Lakes - Lake Superior) bordering on the US. is the 49th parallel. (That line was drawn by some politicians, I think in England? Washington and Oregon used to be part of British Columbia before some stupid people drew the line and gave it away. Winnipeg is north of that. As you can see cities like Toronto and Ottawa are below that. In fact, I believe that parts of southern Ontario are on the same parallel as the northern boundary of California.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geography_of_Canada

 

[Ariel82]

PeterJens what does your post have to do with Calvinism?

Did you even read the OP or are you just stalking G777?

Do you believe in the 5 petals of TULIP?

If you did not come to discuss Calvinism, please take your fight else where.

Lots of threads to chose from.

 

[Ariel82]

From last question I just asked to this. Okay, this is the beginning sentence to your theory. Now all I need is what the theory is and proof of it for you. (If I want to go full-Reformed on you, that's five-points of proof. I'll be nice, and only go with three though. lol)

Just about bedtime camping.

Brain doesn't function well. Probably could find something someone else wrote I agree with though but not sure how "reformed" it would be.

 

[Ariel82]

Found one for you Lynn (note haven't had time to check scriptures but it does gives basic differences between the two covenants)

Old Covenant versus New Covenant

Unlike the Old Covenant, the new one (first fully defined in Matthew 5 - 7) is spiritually based. It is founded on obedience from the heart and a fulfilling of God's laws not only in the letter but also in their spiritual intent. It promises spiritual blessings (John 3:16, Hebrews 8:6, 9:15, Romans 8, Luke 18:29 - 30), such as eternal life full of love and glory for those who obey God. Additionally, unlike the Old Covenant, the new one promises eternal death to those who completely and knowingly reject submitting to the Father.

*****

The New Covenant, in contrast, requires circumcision (repentance) of the heart (Acts 2:38, 3:19, Romans 2:25 - 29, Philippians 3:3, Colossians 2:11 - 13) and the Holy Spirit is made freely available to believers (Matthew 5:21 - 48, Romans 7:6, Galatians 2:20, Hebrews 8:10 - 12).

*****

Under the New Covenant, Jesus' sacrifice, the fruits of God's spirit and good works are required (Hebrews 9:10, 10:12, 13:15, Galatians 5:22 - 24, Ephesians 2:10, Romans 12:1 - 2, Matthew 19:17, Mark 15:15 - 18). Christ's sacrifice, in God's heavenly temple, forgive and justify those who repent and are baptized (Hebrews 7:25 - 27, 9:23 - 28 Acts 11:18, Galatians 2:20, Romans 3:24 - 25). He continually serves as man's spiritual High Priest and intercessor (Hebrews 4:14 - 16, 5:1 - 9, 7:17, Hebrews 8:1 - 2, 9:11).
****
In the New Covenant made possible through Jesus' blood, however, a believer's sins can be spiritually forgiven. The Holy Spirit within them is able to purge their consciences and make them wholly acceptable to the Father (Hebrews 10:14 - 17, 2Corinthians 3:9, Colossians 1:27, Matthew 5:48, Philippians 2:5, 3:9 - 17, Ephesians 4).

Can you give me scriptures where God promised Israel a perfect relationship like He has in the New Covenant?

I know God predicts making a New covenant but haven't seen any promises in the Old Covenant except physical temporal ones.

 

[Angela53510]

This truce thing is like: Behave how I like you to behave and I'll be your friend. Really? That's not a control mechanism.

Just wow.

It's funny about the labels thing. There have been several attempts to get some to show, exegetically, who the "us-ward" are in 2 Peter 3:9. Clearly it is describing the elect of God from the beginning of the epistle. That thought follows throughout the following chapters, leading to 3:9. Here the term "usward" is concerning the chosen, the elect, the saved. So here was the label attempted to be planted on me: That I am eiosegitical and "my reading into the Scriptures" accusation.

There was no proof, no showing by the passage this was done, just a plain unsubstantiated and frankly false accusation.

It is sad to see those who are eisegeting Scripture and completely misunderstanding. They generally go grab 1 Timothy 2:4 and go with the word all out of context. I've explained this earlier.

And the fact remains that no one wants to touch 2 Peter 3:9 because it is plain that Peter is speaking of the elect, not to the world abroad. But, can't have the Bible dictating to us beliefs that go against our tradition, can we?

I'm still desperately trying to catch up to the end of this thread. My real life interferes so much with my internet footprint.

I missed where 2 Peter 3:9 was originally posted, and then people keep referring to "us-ward??" Say what? Another reason I detest KJV. A word that doesn't exist, and forming the basis of part of a theological debate. (Nothing against you P4T!)

So I looked it up in the Greek.

"9 οὐ βραδύνει κύριος τῆς ἐπαγγελίας, ὥς τινες βραδύτητα ἡγοῦνται, ἀλλὰ μακροθυμεῖ εἰς ὑμᾶς, μὴ βουλόμενός τινας ἀπολέσθαι ἀλλὰ πάντας εἰς μετάνοιαν χωρῆσαι." 2 Peter 3:9 Greek SBLGNT

Eis is usually translated "into, in, among" but being a preposition, "toward or with"also work.

With you - HCSB NIV
Toward you - NASB, NET, ESV

What it CANNOT be is US. Us is a different word - 'hemas. This is Umas which means "you," "hemas" means us. Now, the 1550 Stephanus does use the wrong word. Another reason not to test those very late manuscipts, with so many copyists errors guide translations.

But, even if for some reason, you want to use "us" instead of "you," "us-ward" still has no meaning in Enlgish. So sorry, can't take it when someone posts middle (Ok early modern) English, and I don't understand the word.

I will say, I think the meaning is still probably the same?

 

[ForthAngel]

I'm still desperately trying to catch up to the end of this thread. My real life interferes so much with my internet footprint.

I missed where 2 Peter 3:9 was originally posted, and then people keep referring to "us-ward??" Say what? Another reason I detest KJV. A word that doesn't exist, and forming the basis of part of a theological debate. (Nothing against you P4T!)

So I looked it up in the Greek.

"9 οὐ βραδύνει κύριος τῆς ἐπαγγελίας, ὥς τινες βραδύτητα ἡγοῦνται, ἀλλὰ μακροθυμεῖ εἰς ὑμᾶς, μὴ βουλόμενός τινας ἀπολέσθαι ἀλλὰ πάντας εἰς μετάνοιαν χωρῆσαι." 2 Peter 3:9 Greek SBLGNT

Eis is usually translated "into, in, among" but being a preposition, "toward or with"also work.

With you - HCSB NIV
Toward you - NASB, NET, ESV

What it CANNOT be is US. Us is a different word - 'hemas. This is Umas which means "you," "hemas" means us. Now, the 1550 Stephanus does use the wrong word. Another reason not to test those very late manuscipts, with so many copyists errors guide translations.

But, even if for some reason, you want to use "us" instead of "you," "us-ward" still has no meaning in Enlgish. So sorry, can't take it when someone posts middle (Ok early modern) English, and I don't understand the word.

I will say, I think the meaning is still probably the same?

The context shows that the body is being addressed so it shouldn't change the meaning.

 

[preacher4truth]

I'm still desperately trying to catch up to the end of this thread. My real life interferes so much with my internet footprint.

I missed where 2 Peter 3:9 was originally posted, and then people keep referring to "us-ward??" Say what? Another reason I detest KJV. A word that doesn't exist, and forming the basis of part of a theological debate. (Nothing against you P4T!)

So I looked it up in the Greek.

"9 οὐ βραδύνει κύριος τῆς ἐπαγγελίας, ὥς τινες βραδύτητα ἡγοῦνται, ἀλλὰ μακροθυμεῖ εἰς ὑμᾶς, μὴ βουλόμενός τινας ἀπολέσθαι ἀλλὰ πάντας εἰς μετάνοιαν χωρῆσαι." 2 Peter 3:9 Greek SBLGNT

Eis is usually translated "into, in, among" but being a preposition, "toward or with"also work.

With you - HCSB NIV
Toward you - NASB, NET, ESV

What it CANNOT be is US. Us is a different word - 'hemas. This is Umas which means "you," "hemas" means us. Now, the 1550 Stephanus does use the wrong word. Another reason not to test those very late manuscipts, with so many copyists errors guide translations.

But, even if for some reason, you want to use "us" instead of "you," "us-ward" still has no meaning in Enlgish. So sorry, can't take it when someone posts middle (Ok early modern) English, and I don't understand the word.

I will say, I think the meaning is still probably the same?

I know you have nothing against me sis, and I would not take it as if you were.

I believe perhaps you're being too technical and/or maybe have jumped a word. The fact is Peter is addressing the recipients as you know. It also implies those other elect who have not come into the fold toward whom God is patient.

You say it cannot mean "us" yet the fact remains that Biblical scholars have properly used it in that sense.

I also think you're seeing "eis" used for "you" when it is actually being used as "toward". (NASB, ESV &c). Thus "usward" would be correct because it is "toward us" as to whom Peter is speaking.

 

[Ariel82]

1 Peter 2:17 Adj-AMP
GRK: πάντας τιμήσατε τὴν
NAS: Honor all people, love
KJV: Honour all [men]. Love
INT: everyone show honor to the

2 Peter 3:9 Adj-AMP
GRK: ἀπολέσθαι ἀλλὰ πάντας εἰς μετάνοιαν
NAS: to perish but for all to come
KJV: but that all should come
INT: to perish but all to repentance

Now this passage is worth reading and it clearly shows that "all" is everyone. Even our enemies, but it explains why some folks feel justify to attack anyone who don't agree with them...they just say "all" only means those they accept as "elect"

17Honor everyone. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the emperor.

18Servants, be subject to your masters with all respect, not only to the good and gentle but also to the unjust. 19For this is a gracious thing, when, mindful of God, one endures sorrows while suffering unjustly. 20For what credit is it if, when you sin and are beaten for it, you endure? But if when you do good and suffer for it you endure, this is a gracious thing in the sight of God. 21For to this you have been called, because Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example, so that you might follow in his steps. 22

At judgement day ALL will repent especially when faced with hellfire but it will be too late.

 

[Angela53510]

ForthAngel what are you views on the New Covenant?

Lynn said it was the same as the Old except it was between God and Jesus now.

I believe the New Covenant is different totally from the Old.

I believe that God's prophets in the OT were part of the New Covenant because they believed upon the promise of the Messiah, Jesus to save them
Covenant of Grace.

The folks under the Law or the Old Covenant believed that their keeping of the Law would save them and did not want a personal relationship with God. They wanted mediators of priest and prophets instead of direct communication with God.

I know you didn't ask me, but you are incorrect! The New Covenant is the fulfillment of the Old. But, the Old Covenant was still a covenant of grace with God's people. So many people have this strange idea that the OT is "law" and the NT is "grace." (Or covenants!) But, God gave incredible grace to his people in the OT.

Besides saving them out of Egypt, establishing David on the throne from whom would come Jesus, the Messiah, there are a lot of things people don't get.

For one thing, OT gods tended to be capricious and nasty. No one ever knew what was expected of them. Their gods never laid out any guidelines or laws for them to follow. They felt that they were always waiting for the next whim of their gods, to smite or to bless. But never knowing what brought that on.

When God called Moses, he started with some ground rules. Well, I guess the original rules were with the patriarchs. But he got very serious with Moses, and the people he called to be Israel.

People point to the 613 Levitical laws plus other laws and say, "Oh poor them, they had to obey all those silly laws!" But NO! In fact, that is what made these people have so much more stability than all the surrounding cultures. This was the power of God in their lives1 Of course, the Israelites were disobedient and didn't obey these laws, basically from Leviticus to Malachi! But, so much better than sacrificing babies to Moloch, because, maybe, just maybe that would appease that god?

These people in the ancient Near East wanted the sun and rain to happen each year so they could plant crops. They wanted their animals to bear young, and replenish their flocks. They didn't know about the earth going around the sun, and yes, spring would come again. They were at the mercy of anything the environment threw at them. But, the Israelites knew God was with them. Well, sometimes they did, and sometimes they worshiped golden calves and foreign gods who were nothing more than idols. But, the point being, God reached down and showed his mercy and grace to the Israelites. He used the prophets to speak of the Messiah to come. He set forth a sacrificial system, which not only foreshadows Jesus, but gave them remission from guilt and sins, both of individuals and the people.

Some excellent books to check out on this subject are by Daniel Block, an outstanding Hebrew and Old Testament scholar. He did "The Gospel According to Moses," and "Lord How I Love Your Torah." But, very difficult and technical books, be prepared for a hard read!

 

[Ariel82]

The word you want to examine to show that the promise is not made to ALL of humanity is the word translated "any"

2 Peter 3:9 Greek Text Analysis

Greek Concordance: τινὰς (tinas) -- 24 Occurrences

2 Peter 3:9 IPro-AMP
GRK: μὴ βουλόμενός τινας ἀπολέσθαι ἀλλὰ
NAS: you, not wishing for any to perish
KJV: willing that any should perish,
INT: not willing [for] any to perish but


Mark 12:13 IPro-AMP
GRK: πρὸς αὐτόν τινας τῶν Φαρισαίων
NAS: they sent some of the Pharisees
KJV: unto him certain of the Pharisees and
INT: to him some of the Pharisees

It makes more sense that it means a certain group of people,or the "you" as in believers only not perishing.

 

[ForthAngel]

1 Peter 2:17 Adj-AMP
GRK: πάντας τιμήσατε τὴν
NAS: Honor all people, love
KJV: Honour all [men]. Love
INT: everyone show honor to the

2 Peter 3:9 Adj-AMP
GRK: ἀπολέσθαι ἀλλὰ πάντας εἰς μετάνοιαν
NAS: to perish but for all to come
KJV: but that all should come
INT: to perish but all to repentance

Now this passage is worth reading and it clearly shows that "all" is everyone. Even our enemies, but it explains why some folks feel justify to attack anyone who don't agree with them...they just say "all" only means those they accept as "elect"



At judgement day ALL will repent especially when faced with hellfire but it will be too late.

The elect are the ones being addressed in 2 Peter 3.

8 But do not overlook this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. 9 The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance.


The body of Christ is being addressed through the entire chapter.

Who is the you here? It's the beloved bride of Christ.

 

[ForthAngel]

The word you want to examine to show that the promise is not made to ALL of humanity is the word translated "any"

2 Peter 3:9 Greek Text Analysis

Greek Concordance: τινὰς (tinas) -- 24 Occurrences



It makes more sense that it means a certain group of people,or the "you" as in believers only not perishing.

Context is what defines the words here. The way the passage is worded and who is being spoken to determines who the all are.