Is Calvinism Wrong?
- Thread starter Robert Pate
- Start date
Rosenritter
New member
Perhaps you aren't familiar with the truism, that you cannot prove a negative? It is the one that asserts a positive of whom proof is required. Since you now seem to be familiar with the example, it would be like you asking me to prove that an invisible flying spaghetti monster isn't orbiting Pluto.
| Eisegesis is the process of interpreting a text or portion of text in such a way that the process introduces one's own presuppositions, agendas, or biases into and onto the text. This is commonly referred to as reading into the text.The act is often used to "prove" a pre-held point of concern to the reader and to provide him or her with confirmation bias in accordance with his or her pre-held agenda. |
Before you said you couldn't make heads or tails of it. If you now understand his point, then please explain what Gill had to say in your own words.
It's called considering the different evidences concerning a question on their merits. John Gill is not correct in his every opinion, but he does take a high view of scripture rather than engaging in heated emotional argument. I would wait for your restatement here to ensure that you recognize the point in question.
Looking one step ahead here and assuming that you will answer in good faith, I have another question for you. What is the meaning of a "clean animal" compared to an "unclean animal?" If you can answer this now it will save some time for testing Gill's answer.
... and one more thing.
Even if you think you have stated this previously, would you please restate or confirm your understanding of:
1) the purpose of the sabbath,
2) when it was commanded,
3) to whom was commanded,
4) when it was made known,
5) and whether it part of the covenant or separate from the covenant?
Last edited:
Rosenritter
New member
Further past this you say it isn't literal but continue to deny that idolatry is being compared to adultery, But if it isn't being used as a comparison (a metaphor or a figure) that only leaves the actual or literal sense. Your own words are contradicting themselves.
Yes, it is a lot of work because you won't speak clearly. If you argue that Israel was actually committing adultery with rocks and stones, then you literally do not know the difference ... or were you trolling? If you don't want to be spoken down to, please be forthcoming.
Come now, if you will speak saying that Israel was symbolically committing adultery, or metaphorically committing adultery, or that the personification of Israel was figuratively committing adultery, then we are all speaking English again.
The meaning of the word adultery does not literally apply to stocks and stones; the commandment against adultery not does not speak against idolatry. There's a reason Israel was given a separate commandment for that.
Jeremiah 3:9 KJV
(9) And it came to pass through the lightness of her whoredom, that she defiled the land, and committed adultery with stones and with stocks.
Can we therefore agree that Jeremiah 3:9 uses the word adultery in the metaphorical sense rather than the literal sense? (yes/no)
Last edited:
The thrust of this post seems to miss my point.
Are you really suggesting that Jesus didn't teach that following the Mosaic Law was required and that He taught salvation by grace?
If so, you could not be more wrong. If not for the Pauline epistles, we would all be Messianic Jews, we would all insist that circumcision is required and we'd all be zealous for the law.
I "attempt" nothing. When it comes to righteousness, I've got nothin'! I've got less than nothin'! Every attempt I make to be righteous only digs me deeper into a hole. I cannot be better. My flesh is incapable of pleasing God and my inner man is complete in Him. Either way, there's no way for me to be better. So what's there to "attempt"?
Truths that cannot be found on the lips of Jesus during His Earthly ministry because He was here as a Jew under the Law, He obeyed the Law and taught others to do the same and He, being innocent was killed by that same Law as a propitiatory sacrifice for those of us who are not innocent.
Resting in Him,
Clete
Last edited:
Right Divider
Body part
I don't understand what you're saying there Clete. Can you clarify?
I don't think that you see the consiquences of such a take on this single verse. It cuts against the grain of Paul's entire ministry.
To make the point, I'm going to bring something up that might seem like it's coming out of the blue and what follows is only a very very breif cursory presentation of a little known but very important issue that not only connects the Old and New Testaments into a coherent whole but stands as proof positive that what got nailed to that Tree was the Law and nothing else...
There is a startling and undeniable connection between the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil and the Law. It is no mistake that Jesus is described as a curse and as having been "hung on a tree". The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil and the Law have at least seven parallels in scripture...
The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil
- The Tree is the ministry of death. Gen 2:17
- Do not partake of the Tree. Gen. 2:17
- In the day you partake of the Tree, you will die. Gen. 2:17
- By the Tree is the knowledge of sin. Gen. 3:22
- The Tree brought the offense. Rom. 5:17
- The Tree’s curse died on the cross.Rom 5:18-19
- The Tree of Life is in the new heaven, but not the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. Ezek. 31:15; Rev. 22:14
The Law
- The law is the ministry of death. 2 Cor. 3:7
- Do not partake of the law. Rom. 7:6; 10:4
- In the day you partake of the law, you will die. Rom. 7:9
- By the law is the knowledge of sin. Rom. 3:20; 7:7
- The law made the offense abound. Rom. 5:20
- The law was nailed to the cross. Col. 2:13-14, 16
- The Law of the Spirit is in the new heaven, but not the Law of Death. Rom. 8:2; 7:6
So take all that in and then read Galatians 3...
Galatians 3:10 For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse; for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who does not continue in all things which are written in the book of the law, to do them.” 11 But that no one is justified by the law in the sight of God is evident, for “the just shall live by faith.” 12 Yet the law is not of faith, but “the man who does them shall live by them.”
13 Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us (for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree”), 14 that the blessing of Abraham might come upon the Gentiles in Christ Jesus, that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.
13 Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us (for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree”), 14 that the blessing of Abraham might come upon the Gentiles in Christ Jesus, that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.
No no no.
Don't do this! It isn't the 633 commandments, its the Ten commandments. That's because there's ten things in it - ten things.
God through Jeremiah and Ezekiel was drawing a parallel, not expanding the law against adultery. Israel is God's "bride" and she "cheated" on Him and so He divorced her (that's what the book of Lamentations is - Israel's divorce decree from God.)
So, in other words, the Law of Moses is based upon and contained in the Ten Commandments and are, therefore, essentially the same thing.
I mean, what are you do here other than expanding the Ten Commandments into the Law of Moses?
Resting in Him,
Clete
It is the Law (The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil - see post immediately prior to this one) that demands death in payment for trangressions of it. Jesus, being innocent, qualified as a propitiatory sacrifice to satify the demands of the Law.
Does that help?
Right Divider
Body part
I've never seen the Bible describe the tree of the knowledge of good and evil as "the Law". Seems a bit far-fetched to me.
It is undeniably true. See the parallels between the two in post 847.
Plus, it does make same intuitive sense, right?
What is the law other than knowledge of good and evil?
I strongly recommend reading The Plot by Bob Enyart.
Last edited:
Rosenritter
New member
You are asking two separate questions. I'll answer them in reserve order:
1) Salvation has always been through faith and by grace; Grace is undeserved favor, God responds to faith with grace, Abraham and David (being examples from without and within the Law of Moses) were both justified by faith and not works of the law. All have sinned, but the forgiveness of sins is grace in action.
Jesus taught salvation by grace: "thy sins be forgiven thee", "for this thy brother was dead, and is alive again; and was lost, and now is found", "that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."
2) The law of Moses was an extension of the covenant with the Abraham, extending to the children of Israel and the Jews. While Jesus yet lived that covenant was in effect, and it remained in effect until they murdered the Prince of Life with whom the covenant had been made. The analogy to a marriage covenant is significant, as it is well understood that the is only binding until the death of one of the parties. Likewise, the new testament is made upon the blood of the testator, and the former covenant is called old, and waxes away. That covenant was severed when the veil of the temple was rent from the top to the bottom.
Hebrews 8:13 KJV
(13) In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.
Jesus did not teach against the Law of Moses (for the Jew) as that covenant had force while it yet remained (while he yet lived.) For those under that law obedience to that law was required (obedience unto the Lord is required of all who follow the Lord.) God has always required faith and obedience from our heart regardless of the specific law or commands that he has for us: in this God has not changed (Hebrews 13:8).
Jesus confirmed the Law of Moses because Jesus taught that the Law of Moses led to Him. The Law of Moses never carried the promise of salvation unto eternal life; that has always been of the grace of God. Jesus (God) carries the promise of salvation unto eternal life, and that is the gospel of life and immortality brought to light (2 Timothy 1:10).
Matthew 5:17 KJV
(17) Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
John 5:46-47 KJV
(46) For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me.
(47) But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?
Luke 24:44-47 KJV
(44) And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.
(45) Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures,
(46) And said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day:
(47) And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.
Galatians 3:24 KJV
(24) Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.
Without Paul (had he resisted) God would have raised up someone else or explained in another way until the understanding finally dawned. We would have someone else writing to us of how Abraham and David were justified by faith apart from works of the law.
It seems to me that you are mixing several assumptions, namely: first, that the Law of Moses under the old covenant contained salvation in itself; second, that the covenant at Sinai could extend beyond the children of Israel to whom it was offered; and third, that the covenant would still be in effect between the two parties after one party murdered the other party.
Zechariah 11:10-12 KJV
(10) And I took my staff, even Beauty, and cut it asunder, that I might break my covenant which I had made with all the people.
(11) And it was broken in that day: and so the poor of the flock that waited upon me knew that it was the word of the LORD.
(12) And I said unto them, If ye think good, give me my price; and if not, forbear. So they weighed for my price thirty pieces of silver.
Hebrews 8:6-8 KJV
(6) But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.
(7) For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.
(8) For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:
Hebrews 8:13 KJV
(13) In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.
Jesus commanded Peter to come out on the water. If Peter had not attempted to fulfill the command, he would not have walked as far as he did, he would have never walked at all. Our walk with God is not without sacrifice or effort, we run, we fight, we strive for the gospel's sake.
1 Corinthians 9:23-27 KJV
(23) And this I do for the gospel's sake, that I might be partaker thereof with you.
(24) Know ye not that they which run in a race run all, but one receiveth the prize? So run, that ye may obtain.
(25) And every man that striveth for the mastery is temperate in all things. Now they do it to obtain a corruptible crown; but we an incorruptible.
(26) I therefore so run, not as uncertainly; so fight I, not as one that beateth the air:
(27) But I keep under my body, and bring it into subjection: lest that by any means, when I have preached to others, I myself should be a castaway.
And didn't Jesus first require something from this man? Did he not require faith as the grain of mustard seed before helping his unbelief?
Mark 9:23-24 KJV
(23) Jesus said unto him, If thou canst believe, all things are possible to him that believeth.
(24) And straightway the father of the child cried out, and said with tears, Lord, I believe; help thou mine unbelief.
Please, let's not get lost in tiny semantics? The opposite of "to attempt" is "to not attempt" and if one "attempts not" to obey "Love God" in faith and belief can God possibly be pleased? "Without faith it is impossible to please him?" (Hebrews 11:6) Is God not pleased by faith and belief?
Hebrews 13:16 KJV
(16) But to do good and to communicate forget not: for with such sacrifices God is well pleased.
And is God not pleased with the sacrifices of the broken and contrite heart?
Psalms 34:18 KJV
(18) The LORD is nigh unto them that are of a broken heart; and saveth such as be of a contrite spirit.
Psalms 51:16-17 KJV
(16) For thou desirest not sacrifice; else would I give it: thou delightest not in burnt offering.
(17) The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit: a broken and a contrite heart, O God, thou wilt not despise.
I have seen some people have a reflex reaction against the word "obedience" even objecting to the hymn "Trust and obey, for there is no other way."Obedience should cause no offense to those under grace.
Romans 6:15-17 KJV
(15) What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid.
(16) Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?
(17) But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you.
Romans 16:25-26 KJV
(25) Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began,
(26) But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith:
What truths supposedly cannot be found from Jesus before the cross? The Sadducee alleged that there was no resurrection, which Jesus showed was proved even from the burning bush. Whatever it is that you were about to say, how sure are you that this was not already revealed or through the words of Jesus?
Matthew 9:13 KJV
(13) But go ye and learn what that meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice: for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.
Last edited:
Right Divider
Body part
While some of that looks pretty good; some of it looks a bit contrived to me.
Perhaps.
Perhaps.
Sure, buy me a copy.
Right Divider
Body part
Was this Jesus teaching grace?
Mat 6:14-15 KJV For if ye forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you: (15) But if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.
Rosenritter
New member
I passed right over that. If he was innocent under the Law, how could he be said to be killed by (under, within) that same Law?
Rosenritter
New member
The knowledge of good and evil could also mean that humanity would literally learn the full extent of good and evil through the harshest teacher of all, personal experience. "Experience is the best teacher, and a fool will know no other school." When Adam and Eve set themselves up as gods to know (judge, experience) good and evil, they (metaphorically) opened Pandora's box and now we also inherit that curse.
It only takes a little poison to render the finest food as deadly. It only takes a little evil to result in this world that we have made evil from its starting point of "very good" in Eden. Left to continue we would murder every one and every thing until "no flesh should be saved alive." It was a really stupid choice spurred on by the serpent through vanity, but humanity is such that we refuse to "believe until we see it for ourselves."
The alternative would have been the Tree of Life unto immortality and eternal life through faith in God, that through love and obedience he really did have the best for us, far better than the serpent's temptation of becoming "as gods" and trying to do a better job ourselves.
Rosenritter
New member
YES!
In the parable of the servant who owed ten thousand talents, did he deserve (earn) the right to have his debt forgiven? Did he repay this debt either through gathered money, or the sale of his family into slavery? Was this forgiveness of debt earned through the law, or forgiven of grace?
Spoiler
The answer is grace.
As for the parable, the lesson is that there are still conditions upon this undeserved pardon. Grace is unearned, but it is not unconditional.
Right Divider
Body part
Jesus said that their trespasses WOULD BE forgiven ONLY if they forgave others their trespasses.
Paul said that OUR trespasses were ALL ALREADY forgiven.
Col 2:13 KJV And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses;
Things that are different are not the same.
...
Last edited:
...
Last edited:
...
Last edited:
Right Divider
Body part
:thumb: