The Slaying of Reformed Theology (Calvinism)

[nikolai_42]

At [MENTION=5671]nikolai_42[/MENTION]

[MENTION=1746]freelight[/MENTION] has provided you with pry bars to my stance. You are welcome to research his content. It is accurate.

If you catch it... you will have the needed ammunition you need to "open" Canon.

A key to crippling my stance would be to find an extra canonical reference in canon that points to what has been labeled...

"Apocrypha" or false books (As referred to by the Protestant types)

I would expect you to find one of these references in canon and site the extra canonical source. Happy hunting, and prepare to open... Pandora's box. : )

I'm afraid I don't have the leisure (at the moment) to go through Freelight's argument. The issue of opening the canon is secondary to what I am trying to say. That is, your attempting to limit exegesis to linguistic analysis and simple, plain reading of the text is overly simplistic and results in you being able to draw the line in a somewhat arbitrary manner. That is, it enables one to say "What that teacher is saying is unscriptural and I reject it simply on the basis that he is adding to scripture" when all he may be doing is elucidating on the broader scriptural argument.

Take it this way...

I John 2:27 says "Let NO man teach you.". Ephesians 4:11 says "And He gave some...teachers.". I believe the word used in both cases (for teach/teacher) comes directly from the root we use in English for didactic. So the immediate linguistic analysis results in a direct contradiction. The intent of scripture requires either great analytical skills or great spiritual insight (or both). If it is simply great analytical skills, then what Paul says about the spiritual man judging all things and know man knowing the things of God save the Spirit of God is broken down to something along the lines of "A man well-versed in linguistics and analytical grammar is given to teach the things of God." That may be true in some or many cases, but it is NOT what I Corinthians 2:11-16 is asserting. It is clearly saying that the teacher approved by God is spiritual. He may well be very analytical, but the foundation of his ability to teach is of the Spirit of God (not of intellectual capacity). Indeed, much can be gleaned from the scriptures by simple inductive reasoning (and agreeing with what is said). But there remain things "hard to be understood" that are proof of the necessity that all the Truth be taught by someone who is Spiritual (I use capital "S" to indicate one who is directed by the Holy Spirit). If James 3:1 is really just saying that the teacher of scripture will be judged based primarily on his intellectual ability, then the core of the Truth is being missed. The Spirit of God is the teacher who reveals Christ. But that doesn't automatically mean everyone who calls themselves a teacher because of ability is a teacher. There are qualifications.

Which brings me to another point I haven't really raised yet. The scriptures seem to teach that Truth (not just propositional, logical assertions) implies something beyond mathematical provability.

If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself.
John 7:17

Now...either that means that we won't know if Jesus is telling the truth until we test Him and do what He says, or it is more the fact that Truth involves a moral and spiritual component that must undergird knowledge. The faith and obedience and spiritual/moral quality of a man is a prime indicator of what that man is teaching. A good tree cannot bring forth bad fruit - and neither can a bad tree bring forth good fruit. And when you look at the qualifications for bishops (indeed, even simply those called "servants of the Lord"), they are to be apt to teach. In other words, it must be that what they teach is a part of their being - not just an academic reality. This is a proof of their teaching - and I think I am safe in just asserting that those that have moral and spiritual "high ground" are those whose words carry more weight because of their righteousness (Matthew 7:28-29 furnish the prime example for this).

I would even add that those who teach as ones being instructed into the Kingdom are those who are led by the Spirit of God (Romans 8:14). As such, their authority is not merely a reasoned one (though their words will not contradict scripture but uphold more than just the letter of it) but one that comes from God.

*The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.
John 3:8

When the Spirit of God leads a man, not only is his logic impeccable, but there is inevitably something beyond what is rationally deduced that accompanies his message.

While I believe this is all important, it has to be a secondary point because if an angel from heaven can preach a different gospel while appearing as God's messenger, then one needs to be careful that the letter not be made unimportant. In that case it is enough to say that such a being is contradicting scripture (regardless of how spiritual they may appear) and to reject their teaching. But I also recognize that such a deception is first of all spiritual. So there again, the qualification for knowing the Truth necessarily involves something beyond man's natural capabilities (lest they be deceived by someone smarter).

Thirdly, I see this as coming down to wanting an objective measure of Truth which is accepted and recognized by all. The basis upon which someone accepts something as true is not always clear. The objective basis upon which someone should accept something as true is not always straightforward. If two people are "of the same spirit", they will agree readily and communication will be an easy matter since they are operating on the same foundation. If two do NOT "agree in spirit", conflict and clashing will follow. So when John says "They went out from us...that they might be made manifest that they were not of us." (I John 2:19), you find a situation in which (ultimately) there is no common accepted basis for determining truth. So to find a single, universal (accepted) basis for determining truth, all would have to agree (and all do not). But on the other end of the spectrum, scripture is not of private interpretation. And while the scriptures are accepted as truth across confessing Christendom, differences (sometimes significant differences) occur because the written word is not a sufficient basis for determination of Truth. One can establish rules and decide that - within the bounds of those rules - it is determinant what is actually true. But one cannot properly prove that which exceeds the bounds of the domain of interest. What that means in terms of theology (as best I can tell) is that if a system (the bible, in this case) is analytical (can be broken down in logical terms - however one decides to do that), you will inevitably end up with things that not only can't be proven, but things that can't even be assessed properly within the bounds of that system (i.e. the logic used to assess the scriptures). Which means (as far as I can tell) there are two options :

1. Accept everything in scripture at face value without analyzing in any sense of the word (except reading and understanding what the plain English says)

OR

2. Accept that there have to be teachers who will have to teach by the leading of the Holy Spirit to understand critical things in scripture that won't otherwise be understood (at least not properly).

Honestly, I have no problem with anyone who wants to do #1, but that precludes nearly all arguments (other than those like "Because scripture says so"). And as I tried to point out above, when you run into situations like the difficulties posed by I John 2:27 and Ephesians 4:11 in the light of I Corinthians 2:11-16, you either have to allow the difficulty to remain and live realizing that tension may not be solved anytime soon (trusting God will show you) or recognizing that others have been given insight that you (and I) may not have. And again...I personally have NO problem with #1 (other than it makes being a Berean a risky proposition). It also casts doubt on the necessity for the role of teacher - I do recognize that the moral argument made above means a teacher may be more of a spiritual role - but then again, that also means teaching transcends mere academic rigor. However, if that's the case, then this whole thread (nay...board!) needs to dissolve into nothing (and it's entirely possible that might be of God....)

I hope that's at least semi-coherent. This is a huge topic and there are so many things I want to raise but haven't ordered them as well as I would like.

 

[nikolai_42]

[MENTION=18375]Evil.Eye.<(I)>[/MENTION]

Let me ask you briefly, how does one teach on matters such as what the Mark of the Beast actually is? Taking just that as an example, note that the passage tells the reader that it requires wisdom to calculate that number and apply it properly. How does one decide that that passage is very literal (i.e. that at some point every man alive will be forced to take some sort of mark? One wonders how the commonly referenced microchip under the skin qualifies since it isn't the literal rendering of the Greek word for "mark" as I understand. How does one get victory over a number or a brand (or even a microchip) in the hand or forehead (Rev. 15:2)? How does one teach that topic in the way you believe acceptable teaching is employed? As I read your position (and please correct me if I mistake it), that prophecy has to be literally fulfilled in a very physical way to be able to be taught. That is the upshot, I think, of linguistic analysis and letting one's 'yes' be 'yes' etc...

And another topic comes to mind. I am going to assume that you don't believe in predestination in the Reformed sense. If you do, then...well, frankly, this point falls flat on its face. But wouldn't you really (using your approach to teaching - linguistic analysis and scriptural intent - be forced to at least concede that predestination has strong merit? Take this passage as an example :

And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose.
For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.
Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.
Romans 8:28-30

Verse 30 seems to pretty clearly put predestination ahead (in order) of calling, justification and glorification. All that comes first is foreknowing. If this foreknowledge is second hand, what does that say about the Creator? It says He didn't know what He was making (completely, at least) until AFTER He made it (whether prophetically in eternity past or actually at the moment of conception). And since this is used in the context of salvation (that only those God knew ahead of time would be predestined etc...), does that mean God really didn't know what He was creating when He made those who were not predestined? That, it seems to me, is the upshot of that knowledge is just a passive taking in of knowledge. Because that means God didn't even take that knowledge in when it came to those who would not be conformed to Christ. As such, I take it that that knowledge is an intimate one - implying joining and relationship in a similar sense to what we see in the biblical definition of marriage. God "knew" these individuals before they were even predestinated. So doesn't that make the plain reading of this passage pretty clearly pro-Reformed?

I added that example - not to tout predestination, but rather to show that even with the approach you propose, tradition and other bases for making judgments about truth (beyond what we (say we) adhere to) are present in our reading of scripture. The God says it, I believe it, that settles it approach - while laudable - inevitably gets overturned because of our natural unbelief and line of questions. And many times where Jesus could have said "You just don't believe", He instead approaches the individual accepting the basis of their own line of reasoning and exposes their flaws that way. The first example that always comes to mind is that of the man who buried his talents. The Lord doesn't dispute his claim that the Master was "a hard man" but essentially says If you really believed that, you should have at least gotten me some interest in my investment.

And in an inverted sense of what I'm saying, He praises the steward (of the Luke 16:1-13 parable) who knew he was about to lose his job. In spite of the fact that he wasted his master's goods, he gets a commendation for acting pragmatically to make sure he had a place to go after he lost his current position. Jesus didn't chide him (at least not in this context) for his wastefulness, but commended him for using what he had wisely to ensure he had friends that would receive him once he was turfed out.

The point here is that there is a place for reasoning and critical thought beyond the obvious - but we also need to make sure that it is rigorous lest we fall prey to one of our own prejudices. The Lord can catch us in our self-deceit without too much effort (and using our own logic against us).

 

[Eagles Wings]

@nikolai

Excellent posts in this thread.

 

[Crucible]

Counter reformists have a skewed perception on canon vs apocrypha.

Martin Luther actually put the apocrypha in the Bible, but tucked it in the back as to separate it from what was readily accepted as canon in the first centuries.

Apocrypha are simply scriptures with unsure origins- some can be proven wrong, others not so much.

What's funny, however, is that the canon was authorized by the same people who those such as Madists denounce today- and speaking of which, nobody knows who the author of Acts is

This is a bit of the irony with these self-styled Bible thumpers.

 

[Evil.Eye.<(I)>]

I'm afraid I don't have the leisure (at the moment) to go through Freelight's argument. The issue of opening the canon is secondary to what I am trying to say. That is, your attempting to limit exegesis to linguistic analysis and simple, plain reading of the text is overly simplistic and results in you being able to draw the line in a somewhat arbitrary manner. That is, it enables one to say "What that teacher is saying is unscriptural and I reject it simply on the basis that he is adding to scripture" when all he may be doing is elucidating on the broader scriptural argument.

Take it this way...

I John 2:27 says "Let NO man teach you.". Ephesians 4:11 says "And He gave some...teachers.". I believe the word used in both cases (for teach/teacher) comes directly from the root we use in English for didactic. So the immediate linguistic analysis results in a direct contradiction. The intent of scripture requires either great analytical skills or great spiritual insight (or both). If it is simply great analytical skills, then what Paul says about the spiritual man judging all things and know man knowing the things of God save the Spirit of God is broken down to something along the lines of "A man well-versed in linguistics and analytical grammar is given to teach the things of God." That may be true in some or many cases, but it is NOT what I Corinthians 2:11-16 is asserting. It is clearly saying that the teacher approved by God is spiritual. He may well be very analytical, but the foundation of his ability to teach is of the Spirit of God (not of intellectual capacity). Indeed, much can be gleaned from the scriptures by simple inductive reasoning (and agreeing with what is said). But there remain things "hard to be understood" that are proof of the necessity that all the Truth be taught by someone who is Spiritual (I use capital "S" to indicate one who is directed by the Holy Spirit). If James 3:1 is really just saying that the teacher of scripture will be judged based primarily on his intellectual ability, then the core of the Truth is being missed. The Spirit of God is the teacher who reveals Christ. But that doesn't automatically mean everyone who calls themselves a teacher because of ability is a teacher. There are qualifications.

Which brings me to another point I haven't really raised yet. The scriptures seem to teach that Truth (not just propositional, logical assertions) implies something beyond mathematical provability.

If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself.
John 7:17

Now...either that means that we won't know if Jesus is telling the truth until we test Him and do what He says, or it is more the fact that Truth involves a moral and spiritual component that must undergird knowledge. The faith and obedience and spiritual/moral quality of a man is a prime indicator of what that man is teaching. A good tree cannot bring forth bad fruit - and neither can a bad tree bring forth good fruit. And when you look at the qualifications for bishops (indeed, even simply those called "servants of the Lord"), they are to be apt to teach. In other words, it must be that what they teach is a part of their being - not just an academic reality. This is a proof of their teaching - and I think I am safe in just asserting that those that have moral and spiritual "high ground" are those whose words carry more weight because of their righteousness (Matthew 7:28-29 furnish the prime example for this).

I would even add that those who teach as ones being instructed into the Kingdom are those who are led by the Spirit of God (Romans 8:14). As such, their authority is not merely a reasoned one (though their words will not contradict scripture but uphold more than just the letter of it) but one that comes from God.

*The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.
John 3:8

When the Spirit of God leads a man, not only is his logic impeccable, but there is inevitably something beyond what is rationally deduced that accompanies his message.

While I believe this is all important, it has to be a secondary point because if an angel from heaven can preach a different gospel while appearing as God's messenger, then one needs to be careful that the letter not be made unimportant. In that case it is enough to say that such a being is contradicting scripture (regardless of how spiritual they may appear) and to reject their teaching. But I also recognize that such a deception is first of all spiritual. So there again, the qualification for knowing the Truth necessarily involves something beyond man's natural capabilities (lest they be deceived by someone smarter).

Thirdly, I see this as coming down to wanting an objective measure of Truth which is accepted and recognized by all. The basis upon which someone accepts something as true is not always clear. The objective basis upon which someone should accept something as true is not always straightforward. If two people are "of the same spirit", they will agree readily and communication will be an easy matter since they are operating on the same foundation. If two do NOT "agree in spirit", conflict and clashing will follow. So when John says "They went out from us...that they might be made manifest that they were not of us." (I John 2:19), you find a situation in which (ultimately) there is no common accepted basis for determining truth. So to find a single, universal (accepted) basis for determining truth, all would have to agree (and all do not). But on the other end of the spectrum, scripture is not of private interpretation. And while the scriptures are accepted as truth across confessing Christendom, differences (sometimes significant differences) occur because the written word is not a sufficient basis for determination of Truth. One can establish rules and decide that - within the bounds of those rules - it is determinant what is actually true. But one cannot properly prove that which exceeds the bounds of the domain of interest. What that means in terms of theology (as best I can tell) is that if a system (the bible, in this case) is analytical (can be broken down in logical terms - however one decides to do that), you will inevitably end up with things that not only can't be proven, but things that can't even be assessed properly within the bounds of that system (i.e. the logic used to assess the scriptures). Which means (as far as I can tell) there are two options :

1. Accept everything in scripture at face value without analyzing in any sense of the word (except reading and understanding what the plain English says)

OR

2. Accept that there have to be teachers who will have to teach by the leading of the Holy Spirit to understand critical things in scripture that won't otherwise be understood (at least not properly).

Honestly, I have no problem with anyone who wants to do #1, but that precludes nearly all arguments (other than those like "Because scripture says so"). And as I tried to point out above, when you run into situations like the difficulties posed by I John 2:27 and Ephesians 4:11 in the light of I Corinthians 2:11-16, you either have to allow the difficulty to remain and live realizing that tension may not be solved anytime soon (trusting God will show you) or recognizing that others have been given insight that you (and I) may not have. And again...I personally have NO problem with #1 (other than it makes being a Berean a risky proposition). It also casts doubt on the necessity for the role of teacher - I do recognize that the moral argument made above means a teacher may be more of a spiritual role - but then again, that also means teaching transcends mere academic rigor. However, if that's the case, then this whole thread (nay...board!) needs to dissolve into nothing (and it's entirely possible that might be of God....)

I hope that's at least semi-coherent. This is a huge topic and there are so many things I want to raise but haven't ordered them as well as I would like.

[MENTION=18375]Evil.Eye.<(I)>[/MENTION]

Let me ask you briefly, how does one teach on matters such as what the Mark of the Beast actually is? Taking just that as an example, note that the passage tells the reader that it requires wisdom to calculate that number and apply it properly. How does one decide that that passage is very literal (i.e. that at some point every man alive will be forced to take some sort of mark? One wonders how the commonly referenced microchip under the skin qualifies since it isn't the literal rendering of the Greek word for "mark" as I understand. How does one get victory over a number or a brand (or even a microchip) in the hand or forehead (Rev. 15:2)? How does one teach that topic in the way you believe acceptable teaching is employed? As I read your position (and please correct me if I mistake it), that prophecy has to be literally fulfilled in a very physical way to be able to be taught. That is the upshot, I think, of linguistic analysis and letting one's 'yes' be 'yes' etc...

And another topic comes to mind. I am going to assume that you don't believe in predestination in the Reformed sense. If you do, then...well, frankly, this point falls flat on its face. But wouldn't you really (using your approach to teaching - linguistic analysis and scriptural intent - be forced to at least concede that predestination has strong merit? Take this passage as an example :

And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose.
For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.
Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.
Romans 8:28-30

Verse 30 seems to pretty clearly put predestination ahead (in order) of calling, justification and glorification. All that comes first is foreknowing. If this foreknowledge is second hand, what does that say about the Creator? It says He didn't know what He was making (completely, at least) until AFTER He made it (whether prophetically in eternity past or actually at the moment of conception). And since this is used in the context of salvation (that only those God knew ahead of time would be predestined etc...), does that mean God really didn't know what He was creating when He made those who were not predestined? That, it seems to me, is the upshot of that knowledge is just a passive taking in of knowledge. Because that means God didn't even take that knowledge in when it came to those who would not be conformed to Christ. As such, I take it that that knowledge is an intimate one - implying joining and relationship in a similar sense to what we see in the biblical definition of marriage. God "knew" these individuals before they were even predestinated. So doesn't that make the plain reading of this passage pretty clearly pro-Reformed?

I added that example - not to tout predestination, but rather to show that even with the approach you propose, tradition and other bases for making judgments about truth (beyond what we (say we) adhere to) are present in our reading of scripture. The God says it, I believe it, that settles it approach - while laudable - inevitably gets overturned because of our natural unbelief and line of questions. And many times where Jesus could have said "You just don't believe", He instead approaches the individual accepting the basis of their own line of reasoning and exposes their flaws that way. The first example that always comes to mind is that of the man who buried his talents. The Lord doesn't dispute his claim that the Master was "a hard man" but essentially says If you really believed that, you should have at least gotten me some interest in my investment.

And in an inverted sense of what I'm saying, He praises the steward (of the Luke 16:1-13 parable) who knew he was about to lose his job. In spite of the fact that he wasted his master's goods, he gets a commendation for acting pragmatically to make sure he had a place to go after he lost his current position. Jesus didn't chide him (at least not in this context) for his wastefulness, but commended him for using what he had wisely to ensure he had friends that would receive him once he was turfed out.

The point here is that there is a place for reasoning and critical thought beyond the obvious - but we also need to make sure that it is rigorous lest we fall prey to one of our own prejudices. The Lord can catch us in our self-deceit without too much effort (and using our own logic against us).

Above all things... Daniel was Humble. Daniel 10:12

The mark of the beast is the single most mis-interpreted thing in the Bible. Western Eschatology sees it as 666, because of its transliteration. The Codex Vacicanious shows a much different picture. Gemateia has been incorporated into biblical prophecy by Western, False prophets.

If the Kingdom of heaven is like children... then faith and the what and when are all that is required for understanding. God reveals what we need, when we need it. Men have attempted to peer into the mysteries of God for many centuries. When Alexander the Great met the Jewish High Priest... he did not slaughter him, because God gave him a dream. The High Priest showed Alexander that he was the goat that never touched the ground because his overtaking of Persia was so rapid.

Humility, faith... timing. I don't know is ok. We know what we must.

What is your reply to this scripture that no one has replied to?

Spoiler

John 16:12 “I still have many things to tell you, but you can’t bear them now.

Luke 21:20 “However, when you see Yerushalayim surrounded by armies, then you are to understand that she is about to be destroyed.

Luke 21:21-23 Those in Y’hudah must escape to the hills, those inside the city must get out, and those in the country must not enter it. For these are the days of vengeance, when everything that has been written in the Tanakh will come true. What a terrible time it will be for pregnant women and nursing mothers! For there will be great distress in the Land and judgment on the people.

Luke 21:4 Some will fall by the edge of the sword, others will be carried into all the countries of the Goyim, and Yerushalayim will be trampled down by the Goyim until the age of the Goyim has run its course. Romans 11:24-27 For if you were cut out of what is by nature a wild olive tree and grafted, contrary to nature, into a cultivated olive tree, ! For, brothers, I want you to understand this truth which God formerly concealed but has now revealed, so that you won’t imagine you know more than you actually do. It is that stoniness, to a degree, has come upon Isra’el, until the Gentile world enters in its fullness; and that it is in this way that all Isra’el will be saved. As the Tanakh says, “Out of Tziyon will come the Redeemer; he will turn away ungodliness from Ya‘akov and this will be my covenant with them, . . . when I take away their sins.”

Luke 21:27-28 And then they will see the Son of Man coming in a cloud with tremendous power and glory. When these things start to happen, stand up and hold your heads high; because you are about to be liberated!”

Acts 1:10-12 As they were staring into the sky after him, suddenly they saw two men dressed in white standing next to them. The men said, “You Galileans! Why are you standing, staring into space? This Yeshua, who has been taken away from you into heaven, will come back to you in just the same way as you saw him go into heaven.” Then they returned the Shabbat-walk distance from the Mount of Olives to Yerushalayim.

Zechariah 14:2-5 “For I will gather all the nations against Yerushalayim for war. The city will be taken, the houses will be rifled, the women will be raped, and half the city will go into exile; but the rest of the people will not be cut off from the city.” Then Adonai will go out and fight against those nations, fighting as on a day of battle. On that day his feet will stand on the Mount of Olives, which lies to the east of Yerushalayim; and the Mount of Olives will be split in half from east to west, to make a huge valley. Half of the mountain will move toward the north, and half of it toward the south. You will flee to the valley in the mountains, for the valley in the mountains will reach to Atzel. You will flee, just as you fled before the earthquake in the days of ‘Uziyah king of Y’hudah. Then Adonai my God will come to you with all the holy ones.

Joel 4:9-12 “Proclaim this among the nations: ‘Prepare for war! Rouse the warriors! Let all the fighting men approach and attack.’ Hammer your plow-blades into swords and your pruning-knives into spears. Let the weak say, ‘I am strong.’ Hurry, come, you surrounding nations, gather yourselves together!” Bring your warriors down, Adonai! “Let the nations be roused and come up to the Valley of Y’hoshafat Adonai judges. For there I will sit to judge all the surrounding nations.”

Joel 4:1-2,3 “For then, at that time, when I restore the fortunes of Y’hudah and Yerushalayim, I will gather all nations and bring them down to the Valley of Y’hoshafat Adonai judges. I will enter into judgment there for my people, my heritage Isra’el, whom they scattered among the nations; then they divided my land. 2:32 At that time, whoever calls on the name of Adonai will be saved. For in Mount Tziyon and Yerushalayim there will be those who escape, as Adonai has promised; among the survivors will be those whom Adonai has called.

Revelation 20:11-15 Next I saw a great white throne and the One sitting on it. Earth and heaven fled from his presence, and no place was found for them. And I saw the dead, both great and small, standing in front of the throne. Books were opened; and another book was opened, the Book of Life; and the dead were judged from what was written in the books, according to what they had done. The sea gave up the dead in it; and Death and Sh’ol gave up the dead in them; and they were judged, each according to what he had done. Then Death and Sh’ol were hurled into the lake of fire. This is the second death — the lake of fire. Anyone whose name was not found written in the Book of Life was hurled into the lake of fire.

Joel 2:1-3 Joel 4:9-12 “Blow the shofar in Tziyon! Sound an alarm on my holy mountain!” Let all living in the land tremble, for the Day of Adonai is coming! It’s upon us! — a day of darkness and gloom, a day of clouds and thick fog; a great and mighty horde is spreading like blackness over the mountains. There has never been anything like it, nor will there ever be again, not even after the years of many generations. Ahead of them a fire devours, behind them a flame consumes; ahead the land is like Gan-‘Eden, behind them a desert waste. From them there is no escape. “Proclaim this among the nations: ‘Prepare for war! Rouse the warriors! Let all the fighting men approach and attack.’ Hammer your plow-blades into swords and your pruning-knives into spears. Let the weak say, ‘I am strong.’ Hurry, come, you surrounding nations, gather yourselves together!” Bring your warriors down, Adonai! “Let the nations be roused and come up to the Valley of Y’hoshafat Adonai judges. For there I will sit to judge all the surrounding nations.”

Revelation 21:3-4, 22-23 I heard a loud voice from the throne say, “See! God’s Sh’khinah is with mankind, and he will live with them. They will be his people, and he himself, God-with-them, will be their God. He will wipe away every tear from their eyes. There will no longer be any death; and there will no longer be any mourning, crying or pain; because the old order has passed away.” I saw no Temple in the city, for Adonai, God of heaven’s armies, is its Temple, as is the Lamb. The city has no need for the sun or the moon to shine on it, because God’s Sh’khinah gives it light, and its lamp is the Lamb.

Joel 3:5 Joel 2:27 2:32 At that time, whoever calls on the name of Adonai will be saved. For in Mount Tziyon and Yerushalayim there will be those who escape, as Adonai has promised; among the survivors will be those whom Adonai has called. You will know that I am with Isra’el and that I am Adonai your God, and that there is no other. Then my people will never again be shamed.

I ask you this because it exalts on thing... Scriptural continuity. You either believe it, or you desire to shoe horn your favorite human prophets spin into it.

This is my reply and challenge to you.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

NT Canon Recognized and Received

NT Canon Recognized and Received

Counter reformists have a skewed perception on canon vs apocrypha.

An interesting read related to the NT canon and how early it was recognized and received (contra Rome's claims):

http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2009/05/twenty-seven-book-new-testament-before.html

"The earliest extant source I'm aware of who advocates that twenty-seven-book canon is Origen, more than a century before Athanasius."

AMR

 

[God's Truth]

The blind arguing with the blind on what they 'see'.

 

[nikolai_42]

Above all things... Daniel was Humble. Daniel 10:12

The mark of the beast is the single most mis-interpreted thing in the Bible. Western Eschatology sees it as 666, because of its transliteration. The Codex Vacicanious shows a much different picture. Gemateia has been incorporated into biblical prophecy by Western, False prophets.

If the Kingdom of heaven is like children... then faith and the what and when are all that is required for understanding. God reveals what we need, when we need it. Men have attempted to peer into the mysteries of God for many centuries. When Alexander the Great met the Jewish High Priest... he did not slaughter him, because God gave him a dream. The High Priest showed Alexander that he was the goat that never touched the ground because his overtaking of Persia was so rapid.

Humility, faith... timing. I don't know is ok. We know what we must.

I know I sometimes have trouble mixing my answers of "why" and "how" in some of my posts, so that may be why you missed my point. It wasn't intended to determine what the Mark of the Beast is (though there is quite a bit to consider there), but rather to show that the definition you have of teaching is one which is selectively restrictive. But having said that, many of your words above appear to fit right in with your own definition of adding to scripture (anything that isn't direct linguistic analysis of the text or restatement of the intent of scripture). Maybe, since the second prong of your definition is so broad, that's how you justify what you have said - because it is clear you have used several other disciplines to determine what scripture is saying (history, historical interpretation, textual criticism, contextual analysis etc...). But what strikes me is that the view you espoused in that paragraph (is it really what you believe?) appears to have been formed by one man not long ago based upon a supposed revelation that the text is actually a representation of a Muslim symbol of sorts. Never mind that Vaticanus didn't have any scripture beyond Hebrews until around the time of the Reformation. If all of the canon rested on that sort of foundation, how much of it could be considered scripture?

But again...the point is not what (precisely) the Mark of the Beast is, but what was done to come to that conclusion certainly goes beyond your described limits of what is proper teaching and (aside from the possibility that this was just a revelation without proper grounding) the general motions (not specific rigor) gone through to come up with this idea are right in line with many Reformed (and non-Reformed) teachers of days gone by.

I have no problem with the fact that there are mysteries. I don't know anything outside of what the Lord has granted. But that doesn't mean it drops whole cloth out of heaven (as, for example, the Koran and the Book of Mormon were supposed to have done). The Lord reveals things in ways so that He gets the glory and not man. The Holy Spirit's ministry, I believe, is a hidden one. He doesn't point to Himself but to Christ. Likewise, when things are revealed to us by the Holy Spirit, they are done so with great and incontestable confirmation. But so intimately tied to the Word that it is not as though a man has uttered something of his own wisdom. In other words, it won't hang on its own but be inextricably and deeply enmeshed with the revelation of God in the bible.

I don't have the time to address the spoiler at the moment...

 

[Evil.Eye.<(I)>]

I know I sometimes have trouble mixing my answers of "why" and "how" in some of my posts, so that may be why you missed my point. It wasn't intended to determine what the Mark of the Beast is (though there is quite a bit to consider there), but rather to show that the definition you have of teaching is one which is selectively restrictive. But having said that, many of your words above appear to fit right in with your own definition of adding to scripture (anything that isn't direct linguistic analysis of the text or restatement of the intent of scripture). Maybe, since the second prong of your definition is so broad, that's how you justify what you have said - because it is clear you have used several other disciplines to determine what scripture is saying (history, historical interpretation, textual criticism, contextual analysis etc...). But what strikes me is that the view you espoused in that paragraph (is it really what you believe?) appears to have been formed by one man not long ago based upon a supposed revelation that the text is actually a representation of a Muslim symbol of sorts. Never mind that Vaticanus didn't have any scripture beyond Hebrews until around the time of the Reformation. If all of the canon rested on that sort of foundation, how much of it could be considered scripture?

But again...the point is not what (precisely) the Mark of the Beast is, but what was done to come to that conclusion certainly goes beyond your described limits of what is proper teaching and (aside from the possibility that this was just a revelation without proper grounding) the general motions (not specific rigor) gone through to come up with this idea are right in line with many Reformed (and non-Reformed) teachers of days gone by.

I have no problem with the fact that there are mysteries. I don't know anything outside of what the Lord has granted. But that doesn't mean it drops whole cloth out of heaven (as, for example, the Koran and the Book of Mormon were supposed to have done). The Lord reveals things in ways so that He gets the glory and not man. The Holy Spirit's ministry, I believe, is a hidden one. He doesn't point to Himself but to Christ. Likewise, when things are revealed to us by the Holy Spirit, they are done so with great and incontestable confirmation. But so intimately tied to the Word that it is not as though a man has uttered something of his own wisdom. In other words, it won't hang on its own but be inextricably and deeply enmeshed with the revelation of God in the bible.

I don't have the time to address the spoiler at the moment...

I find your attitude refreshing, non-condescending and positive.

Just the fact that you are not afraid to acknowledge that there are "genuine" mysteries that we don't understand says much positive for your journey and search. In the end... it's between each of us and our Infinitely Loving Creator.

 

[Evil.Eye.<(I)>]

The blind arguing with the blind on what they 'see'.

BRB

You, to those, protecting a child from a rapist, wolf, robber, pedefile...:

Is this sincere love that God speaks of?



I love the babes, sheep, enough, to protect them from wolves, such as yourself. I do not like wolves....saint John W I am.


Wolfie. Get out of our territory, as members of he boc do not negotiate with wolves, or communists.

Is this sincere love that God speaks of?

Yes

Mt. 23

So then, you are claiming you are evil?

Go think about what you say more before you say it. HAAAHAHAHAA

Mt. 7:11

Spoiler

With a name like "evil I" 1 Tim. 1:15 , I believe it is clear I make no claims of being God.

Again... Philippians 3:9 ... do you believe every word?

Yes or No? Mt. 5:37

[MENTION=3267]GodsTruth[/MENTION] ?

https://youtu.be/ad1sqYJg7jg

Look... my [MENTION=3267]GodsTruth[/MENTION] impression

 

[freelight]

Pick and Choose,....just because......

Pick and Choose,....just because......

4: James 2:9, Also Acts 10:34 and Romans 2:11

#

Going thru all your points in the OP,...I forget if I took a stab at this one yet #4. - that God shows no favoritism. This is an interesting point, as some would claim otherwise, with the 'chosen people' concept being applied to certain individuals or a community of persons. So, we have a paradox of sorts, in what is meant by being a 'respector of persons'. Apparently those who respect God, God will respect, but his loving kindness/mercy, offer of salvation appears be made available to all persons and peoples. In view of God wholly passing over some souls (which I exposed in my former commentary on 'preterition'), by no choice or action on their part, and then another group being CHOSEN for salvation, again, by no choice or action on their part,....well, I think this goes beyond any protest of God not being a respector of persons, because in this doctrine,...God is respecting only an elect group for an undisclosed reason (by his own arbitrary choice) - just because He does whatever he wills, for his own reasons, so its a purely selfish program on God's part. In this teaching,...God is certainly partial, of exclusive choosing, mysteriously biased, divisive, segregating, withholding, favoring only the elect and saving them only for his self-enhancing glory, but how his glory is enhanced by the predetermined damnation of souls apart from their own choosing is one of those mysteries....

 

[God's Truth]

Going thru all your points in the OP,...I forget if I took a stab at this one yet #4. - that God shows no favoritism. This is an interesting point, as some would claim otherwise, with the 'chosen people' concept being applied to certain individuals or a community of persons. So, we have a paradox of sorts, in what is meant by being a 'respector of persons'. Apparently those who respect God, God will respect, but his loving kindness/mercy, offer of salvation appears be made available to all persons and peoples. In view of God wholly passing over some souls (which I exposed in my former commentary on 'preterition'), by no choice or action on their part, and then another group being CHOSEN for salvation, again, by no choice or action on their part,....well, I think this goes beyond any protest of God not being a respector of persons, because in this doctrine,...God is respecting only an elect group for an undisclosed reason (by his own arbitrary choice) - just because He does whatever he wills, for his own reasons, so its a purely selfish program on God's part. In this teaching,...God is certainly partial, of exclusive choosing, mysteriously biased, divisive, segregating, withholding, favoring only the elect and saving them only for his self-enhancing glory, but how his glory is enhanced by the predetermined damnation of souls apart from their own choosing is one of those mysteries....

Excellent points about God. However, God is a jealous God and wants you to come to Him only by His Word. You go through different gods and different prophets.

 

[God's Truth]

BRB




Yes

Mt. 23



Mt. 7:11

Spoiler

[MENTION=3267]GodsTruth[/MENTION] ?

Spoiler

You are not supposed to stay evil!

How did you miss that point?

You are not supposed to stay evil.

 

[nikolai_42]

Going thru all your points in the OP,...I forget if I took a stab at this one yet #4. - that God shows no favoritism. This is an interesting point, as some would claim otherwise, with the 'chosen people' concept being applied to certain individuals or a community of persons. So, we have a paradox of sorts, in what is meant by being a 'respector of persons'. Apparently those who respect God, God will respect, but his loving kindness/mercy, offer of salvation appears be made available to all persons and peoples. In view of God wholly passing over some souls (which I exposed in my former commentary on 'preterition'), by no choice or action on their part, and then another group being CHOSEN for salvation, again, by no choice or action on their part,....well, I think this goes beyond any protest of God not being a respector of persons, because in this doctrine,...God is respecting only an elect group for an undisclosed reason (by his own arbitrary choice) - just because He does whatever he wills, for his own reasons, so its a purely selfish program on God's part. In this teaching,...God is certainly partial, of exclusive choosing, mysteriously biased, divisive, segregating, withholding, favoring only the elect and saving them only for his self-enhancing glory, but how his glory is enhanced by the predetermined damnation of souls apart from their own choosing is one of those mysteries....

Very quickly...being a "respecter of persons" is in many ways exactly what you are saying it is not. That is, if God were a respecter of persons then He would think more highly of some men than others because of who they are and what they have done. If someone approaches God on the basis of their credentials - how important they are (for whatever reason), God doesn't receive that person. The word "person" in the KJV was more specific than just "some man" :

These are murmurers, complainers, walking after their own lusts; and their mouth speaketh great swelling words, having men's persons in admiration because of advantage.
Jude 16

A "person" wasn't just a human, it was an identity - who someone is based on their rank, wealth, privelege etc... God doesn't respect that. God receives all those that fear Him and are righteous (Acts 10:34-35)...which is only possible if God first works in that man....

 

[Evil.Eye.<(I)>]

Excellent points about God. However, God is a jealous God and wants you to come to Him only by His Word. You go through different gods and different prophets.

Do you know [MENTION=1746]freelight[/MENTION] 's heart? He is not what you suggest.

Acts 17 for you, mam. Read it and see that Freelight is genuinely wise as a serpent but harmless as a dove.


<(I)>

 

[Evil.Eye.<(I)>]

The Slaying of Reformed Theology (Calvinism)

Very quickly...being a "respecter of persons" is in many ways exactly what you are saying it is not. That is, if God were a respecter of persons then He would think more highly of some men than others because of who they are and what they have done. If someone approaches God on the basis of their credentials - how important they are (for whatever reason), God doesn't receive that person. The word "person" in the KJV was more specific than just "some man" :

These are murmurers, complainers, walking after their own lusts; and their mouth speaketh great swelling words, having men's persons in admiration because of advantage.
Jude 16

A "person" wasn't just a human, it was an identity - who someone is based on their rank, wealth, privelege etc... God doesn't respect that. God receives all those that fear Him and are righteous (Acts 10:34-35)...which is only possible if God first works in that man....

Nikolai,_42

Your removing the natural thrust of this scripture... to fit the lens of reform. Consider this massively supported analogy from scripture. Jews and Gentiles will make this clear. When the Jews were "Elect"... they spoke exactly as you just did. But when Jesus came the first time... He began to reveal that the "Elect" were far more than just the "Elect". Paul finalized this at Christ's post ascension instruction.

Now the "gentiles" think they are the "Elect" and Jesus is to return. God's Love is boundless! No boundaries. Be weary before you surround yourself with all OP points.

Also... Acts 10:34 and Romans 2:11 back up the scripture you have attempted to "adjust" with Reformed logic.

Read OP points 5 and 6 and see where you are headed. And consider John and the epistles of John as my staunch back up. All of 1 Corinthians 13 will bring a swift end to any argument that God is limited in Love or bound to a group. All of James 2, paralleled with several of Christ's parables will force you to reconsider your stance, or at least show your Mis-assertion of Reformed misinformation.

Also... you referenced Eschatology and I have given you scripture on the matter. You must either hold to Reformed Eschatology and discount literal scripture, or acknowledge that Reformed, systematic theology is incapable of defining scripture. That chunk awaits your return dialogue.

 

[freelight]

Excellent points about God. However, God is a jealous God and wants you to come to Him only by His Word. You go through different gods and different prophets.

:thumb:

My 'God' is the Universal Infinite One - out from this 'One' comes all, and in this 'One' inheres all.


I don't subscribe to a jealous 'God' in any sense that it places Deity within a mere finite conception of 'jealousy' as far as man imagines, so such is merely 'figurative' highlighting the personal sense of possession in the relationship between the lover and beloved.

 

[God's Truth]

:thumb:

My 'God' is the Universal Infinite One - out from this 'One' comes all, and in this 'One' inheres all.


I don't subscribe to a jealous 'God' in any sense that it places Deity within a mere finite conception of 'jealousy' as far as man imagines, so such is merely 'figurative' highlighting the personal sense of possession in the relationship between the lover and beloved.

The Holy Bible is true. God is a jealous God. You are sinning.

If you are a female and are married then you do not mind if your husband goes with another and vice versa. You speak of unnatural things, and I am a naturalist.

 

[God's Truth]

Do you know [MENTION=1746]freelight[/MENTION] 's heart? He is not what you suggest.

Acts 17 for you, mam. Read it and see that Freelight is genuinely wise as a serpent but harmless as a dove.


<(I)>

We have to obey God the Father as what is written in the Holy Bible.

You go against telling someone the truth about God and you will share in freelight's sin.

 

[freelight]

Respect on some points is earned......

Respect on some points is earned......

Very quickly...being a "respecter of persons" is in many ways exactly what you are saying it is not. That is, if God were a respecter of persons then He would think more highly of some men than others because of who they are and what they have done. If someone approaches God on the basis of their credentials - how important they are (for whatever reason), God doesn't receive that person. The word "person" in the KJV was more specific than just "some man" :

These are murmurers, complainers, walking after their own lusts; and their mouth speaketh great swelling words, having men's persons in admiration because of advantage.
Jude 16

A "person" wasn't just a human, it was an identity - who someone is based on their rank, wealth, privelege etc... God doesn't respect that. God receives all those that fear Him and are righteous (Acts 10:34-35)...which is only possible if God first works in that man....

I agree, and such was included in my understanding. Elsewhere I agree that 'salvation is of God', and nothing is obtained apart from grace, but we may explain 'grace' differently. I've treated 'preterition' elsewhere, and how it violates the very character and ethic of love, and shows God's 'choosing' as wholly arbritrary, making 'God' like the Wizard of Oz, or some cosmic slot machine. Calvinism does not hold to the reality of the Father's infinite LOVE for his offspring, since He wholly abandons them, DEPRIVING a portion of souls of his saving grace, when he COULD offer it to them. This is a travesty of so called love. - and as I shared,...defending such deviltry by saying "god can do as he pleases, after all, hes god!" adds to the insanity.