Tasted Death for every Man !

[rogerg]

The Greek word pas in the NT means:

Pas
all , all things , every , all men , whosoever , everyone , whole , all manner of , every man , no Trans , every thing , any , whatsoever , whosoever , always , daily , any thing , no , not tr ,
704

Yes, thank you OzSpen I appreciate your reply, and I think I understood that "all" is a valid possibility for the definition of the word. So then, if we were to use your interpretation of "whosoever" -- that it means "all", another way to say it would be: "all(who) believeth in him should not perish....". However, this is not the same as saying that all ARE able to believe in Him, only that all of those who do will not perish but have been given life eternal.
The question then becomes: who will/can believeth? I think the Bible is clear that it is only those chosen by God to such, and that they (alone) will absolutely be given that faith (as a gift). Please observe:

[Jhn 6:64-65 KJV]
64 But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him.
65 And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.

[1Co 2:14 KJV] 14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know [them], because they are spiritually discerned.

** note: "natural man" (above) is symbolic of the unsaved.

 

[OzSpen]

Yes, thank you OzSpen I appreciate your reply, and I think I understood that "all" is a valid possibility for the definition of the word. So then, if we were to use your interpretation of "whosoever" -- that it means "all", another way to say it would be: "all(who) believeth in him should not perish....". However, this is not the same as saying that all ARE able to believe in Him, only that all of those who do will not perish but have been given life eternal.
The question then becomes: who will/can believeth? I think the Bible is clear that it is only those chosen by God to such, and that they (alone) will absolutely be given that faith (as a gift). Please observe:

[Jhn 6:64-65 KJV]
64 But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him.
65 And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.

[1Co 2:14 KJV] 14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know [them], because they are spiritually discerned.

** note: "natural man" (above) is symbolic of the unsaved.

rogerg,

Then we have to deal with the meaning of 2 Peter 3:9 (NASB), "The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not willing for any to perish, but for all to come to repentance (emphasis added)."

Since God is not willing for any to perish, surely that means that it is possible for all to believe.

Oz

 

[for_his_glory]

FHG,

Do you understand that by that kind of reply you have committed erroneous reasoning? Instead of discussing the theology at hand, you have brushed the issue aside because it is "a Calvinistic site."

This is known as a Genetic Logical Fallacy: The Genetic Fallacy "bases the truth claim of an argument on the origin of its claims or premises."

The origin of the claim was presented by you: "It's a Calvinistic site" so the information on the site can't be fully trusted to conform with general theological doctrine ("but some topics in it are true".) Therefore, the claim is true/false because of this Calvinistic information.

It's a subtle error of reasoning but, nevertheless, it is still an error.

The better approach would be for you and me to check on the Scriptures for the biblical teaching on any doctrine and not blame the outcome on its Calvinistic (or Arminian) origin.

Oz

I'm just saying that not everything of Calvinism is false, but that we need to discern if what he has taught lines up with scripture when we use that website, or any website.

 

[rogerg]

Then we have to deal with the meaning of 2 Peter 3:9 (NASB), "The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not willing for any to perish, but for all to come to repentance (emphasis added)."

OzSpen,

I think that to resolve your question, we need read 2 Peter 1:1 - 1:4 to set the stage as to whom Peter is speaking to. In the below we can see, I believe, that it pertains to those who have already become, or will become, saved by God. I don't think the verse you quoted is intended to encompass everyone-- it is just that God is not willing that any of His elect should perish

First, let's look at your verse:

2 Pet 3:9
The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

Notice the "us-ward". Peter explains the "us-ward" in 2Peter 1:1 - 1:4

[2Pe 1:1-4 KJV]
1 Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ:
2 Grace and peace be multiplied unto you through the knowledge of God, and of Jesus our Lord,
3 According as his divine power hath given unto us all things that [pertain] unto life and godliness, through the knowledge of him that hath called us to glory and virtue:
4 Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust.

So, while I could be wrong, I believe that 2 Peter 3:9 is consistent with what I had said in my first reply to you

 

[for_his_glory]

Where do you find in the Bible that "whosoever" means that "all" have the opportunity to come to Christ? Could it be at least theoretically possible, that Christ's purpose was to specifically save only those intended by God to salvation making them the "whosoever(s)"? Think about the implications of your point of view: those who are unable for any reason to believe, such as those who will not have opportunity to hear the true Gospel; those who are mentally deficient that cannot perceive the Gospel; those who die in the womb, ETC, according to you, everyone in those categories, can never be saved - so, based upon that please explain what their spiritual end will be, since apparently Christ is of no benefit whatsoever to them, even though (as you say) Christ died for them too. This means that if Christ sacrificed on their behalf, and fully removed their transgression, yet they can never find forgiveness. I believe your conclusions therefore to be biblically, theologically, and logically unsound.
Further, and even more alarmingly, your point of view takes away the role of Saviour from Christ and makes it the responsibility of each individual to achieve on their own.

Consider the contradiction your interpretation raises when we compare John 17:9 to 3:16. In John 17:9 we read:
[Jhn 17:9 KJV] 9 I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me; for they are thine.

Jesus tells us in the above verse that He prays not for this world - the world that you say the Father so loved - supposedly including everyone- yet He prays not for it, but only for those whom the Father has given to Him (and vise versa), for they alone are the ones the Father claimed.

Compare to John 3:16:

[Jhn 3:16 KJV]
16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

We can see by comparing these two verses, that the "whosoever" cannot be a group of "all" people who inherently comprise it. Nevertheless, according to you, from that group of "all", per you, the only ones who can be saved are those with the intellectual ability that can reason their way into a faith in Christ.

[Jhn 3:17 KJV]
17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.

In John 18:38, Jesus informed us that His kingdom was not of this world.

[Jhn 18:36 KJV]
36 Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.

and

[Luk 22:30 KJV] 30 That ye may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

We know that God will destroy this world (Kosmos) along with everything in it, so then how would He be able to also save it (per your statement regarding John 3:16) and yet will have to at the same time, to destroy it (per 2 Peter 3:10 - 13)? So, based upon your understanding, how does God achieve both of these mutually exclusive events?

[2Pe 3:10 KJV] 10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.
[2Pe 3:13 KJV]
13 Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.

[Mar 10:30 KJV] 30 But he shall receive an hundredfold now in this time, houses, and brethren, and sisters, and mothers, and children, and lands, with persecutions; and in the world to come eternal life.

So, the world that God so loved which world is identified in John 3:16, is further explained in Mark 10:30. From Mark 10:30, we can know it is the world to come that is the one that God loves and is where eternal life will be found but it is not this current world.

It's kind of late for me now since I get up early, so I'm not sure that my post is entirely intelligible. I may therefore have to amend it tomorrow after I reread it. If you disagree with it (which I'm sure you will), or don't understand it, please let me know and I'll try to clarify.

You have given a prime example of limited atonement as they pick out a verse here and there to prove their POV.

God's grace is extended to all who will believe and confess Christ as their Lord and Savior. There are no implications, for God so loved the world (people) as it's not my view, but that of what God has already said.

Those who are mentally deficient that cannot perceive the Gospel; those who die in the womb are innocent of evil as they have no knowledge of good and evil just like it was in the beginning before the fall of Adam.

Rom 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

There is no contradiction between John 3:16 and John 17:9. John 17:1-26 Jesus is speaking about those who are already His own that he prays for God to keep them safe.

Please read the full context.


John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
John 3:17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
John 3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
John 3:19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.
John 3:20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.
John 3:21 But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.

 

[rogerg]

God's grace is extended to all who will believe and confess Christ as their Lord and Savior. There are no implications, for God so loved the world (people) as it's not my view, but that of what God has already said.

No, those who believe do so because they HAVE ALREADY been given God's grace. The receiving of grace precedes the receiving of faith. Faith is given as a product of grace/salvation.

There is no contradiction between John 3:16 and John 17:9. John 17:1-26 Jesus is speaking about those who are already His own that he prays for God to keep them safe.

If there is only one world then there definitely would be contradictions. Thankfully, two worlds are in view.

I already explained the verses you included above. I'd rather not do so again unless I really need to. Please reread it closely.

Those who are mentally deficient that cannot perceive the Gospel; those who die in the womb are innocent of evil as they have no knowledge of good and evil just like it was in the beginning before the fall of Adam.

Where do you find that doctrine in the Bible - that according to you some have to bring themselves to faith to be saved, while others don't? That POV is entirely illogical and unbiblical. It is a complete violation of the doctrine of Christ. Everyone is saved on the same basis - that Christ saves them with nothing required by them - it is a gift. What I've been saying is that no one can do anything for it: it is God alone who has chosen who will become saved, regardless of their intellectual state, abilities, or age - God is the Saviour who has done it all for us. You seem to want to have it both ways, but I don't think that salvation works that way. You seemingly have forced yourself into a very illogical box with a lot of exceptions, trying to get all of your salvation pieces (relative to your understanding) to fit them together, which they never can nor will.


If you believe there are exceptions to how/whether someone can become saved, what then do you think these verses mean? They tells us that we are ALL in exactly the same predicament.

[Rom 3:9-10 KJV]
9 What then? are we better [than they]? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin;
10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:

[Psa 58:3 KJV] 3 The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies.

No exceptions will be made by God-- all are under sin from being within the womb until becoming either saved or death. So then, all who become saved, must become saved, in exactly the same way.

 

[for_his_glory]

No, those who believe do so because they HAVE ALREADY been given God's grace. The receiving of grace precedes the receiving of faith. Faith is given as a product of grace/salvation.


If there is only one world then there definitely would be contradictions. Thankfully, two worlds are in view.

I already explained the verses you included above. I'd rather not do so again unless I really need to. Please reread it closely.


Where do you find that doctrine in the Bible - that according to you some have to bring themselves to faith to be saved, while others don't? That POV is entirely illogical and unbiblical. It is a complete violation of the doctrine of Christ. Everyone is saved on the same basis - that Christ saves them with nothing required by them - it is a gift. What I've been saying is that no one can do anything for it: it is God alone who has chosen who will become saved, regardless of their intellectual state, abilities, or age - God is the Saviour who has done it all for us. You seem to want to have it both ways, but I don't think that salvation works that way. You seemingly have forced yourself into a very illogical box trying to get all of your salvation pieces (relative to your understanding) to fit them together, which they never can nor will.


If you believe there are exceptions to how/whether someone can become saved, what then do you think these verses mean? They tells us that we are ALL in exactly the same predicament.

[Rom 3:9-10 KJV]
9 What then? are we better [than they]? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin;
10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:

[Psa 58:3 KJV] 3 The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies.

No exceptions will be made by God-- all are under sin from being within the womb until becoming either saved or death. So then, all who become saved, must become saved, in exactly the same way.

So, you believe all with mental incapacities and baby's that have died are all going to hell

I am not going to argue that of the false teaching of limited atonement placing conditions of God's free gift of grace.

 

[rogerg]

So, you believe all with mental incapacities and baby's that have died are all going to hell

No, that is NOT what I believe. The Bible tells us that everyone elected by God to salvation, regardless of intellectual state, ability, age, will, must, become saved. That's the only way for it to be consistent and fair across the full spectrum and not based upon our efforts or abilities.

Regardless of how you may feel personally regarding how should be, nevertheless, everyone from Adam and Eve onward, were born under sin. So, it therefore seems that you don't believe Psalms 58:3 is true? Explain why you disbelieve it?

am not going to argue that of the false teaching of limited atonement placing conditions of God's free gift of grace.

If grace is a "free gift" given to everyone, then everyone must become saved, right? Is that your belief? But we know that not everyone will be saved, so obviously, grace is not given to everyone.

Regarding "limited atonement" as you call it, what do you think these verses mean:

[Eph 1:1, 4-5 KJV]
1 Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, to the saints which are at Ephesus, and to the faithful in Christ Jesus: ...
4 According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:
5 Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,

 

[OzSpen]

I'm just saying that not everything of Calvinism is false, but that we need to discern if what he has taught lines up with scripture when we use that website, or any website.

FHG,

Well said and I agree with you. However, we all need a well-polished arsenal of hermeneutical tools (for interpretation) so we are not imposing our meaning on the text.

I have read much of Calvin's Institutes of the Christian Religion with which I agree. However, in the realm of his interpretation of salvation (soteriology) is where I find most difficulty. I have to realize the TULIP acronym was not directly formulated by Calvin. See my article, Was John Calvin a TULIP Calvinist?

I find better value in Henry C Thiessen, Introductory Lectures in Systematic Theology (Eerdmans) and Purkiser, Taylor & Taylor, God, Man and Salvation (Beacon Hill Press of Kansas City).

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

OzSpen,

I think that to resolve your question, we need read 2 Peter 1:1 - 1:4 to set the stage as to whom Peter is speaking to. In the below we can see, I believe, that it pertains to those who have already become, or will become, saved by God. I don't think the verse you quoted is intended to encompass everyone-- it is just that God is not willing that any of His elect should perish

rogerg,

What you have written to others and me indicates your predisposition to Calvinism's view of election and salvation.

I'm referring to 2 Peter 3:1-10 (NIV) and a parallel in Jude 17-18: There will be scoffers in the "last days" (2 Pet 3:3-4 NIV) Four warnings are given to the false teachers.

1. thelontas: They deliberately/willingly forget the Great Flood when God intervened in history to destroy the ancient world (2 Pet 3:5-6). The argument rules out God intervening in history of the ancient world.

2. Secondly, the false teachers are "scoffing" at the delay of the Lord's second coming. Peter's argument is that this delay (based on Ps 90:4) has a purpose: "For a thousand years in your sight are like a day that has just gone by." The false teachers are overlooking the Lord's timetable: "Do no forget."

3. Third argument grows out of the second argument. The reason for God's delay is because of His grace. It is not based on God's inability to act with his second coming. The scoffers claimed God was slow to keep his promise and some Christians could have been influenced by the argument. Patience drives God's plan.

4. The reminder given to the early church was that the day of the Lord would come suddenly. Jesus taught this and the coming was as unexpected as a thief in the night (Matt 24:42-44). "The heavens will disappear with a roar." "Roar" (rhoizedon) is used only this one time in the NT and means "the noise made by something moving swiftly through the air" (BAG, p. 744).

Therefore, Roger, I urge you to engage in careful exegesis (obtaining the meaning out of the text) and not imposing your Calvinistic meaning on the text (eisegesis).

Oz

 

[rogerg]

Therefore, Roger, I urge you to engage in careful exegesis (obtaining the meaning out of the text) and not imposing your Calvinistic meaning on the text (eisegesis).

Oz,
Thank you for what I perceive to be a sincere concern and critique on your part. However, I have to say in all honestly that in reading your last reply, I have not the foggiest idea how you could come to the conclusion that you did regarding my posts? I would very much like that you explain to me your thinking in detail on how you perceive that I am a scoffer of the Bible? In fact, everything I post follows the simple requirement that it originates from the Bible and most importantly that it starts from and ends with Christ and the absolute unshakable truth that He alone is Lord and Saviour. As Lord and Saviour, only He can save us, otherwise, it would be an attempt on our part to displace that role and title from Him which we should never attempt to do, especially should we seek to replace Him with/by ourselves as saviour. If you would, please go back and rereview my posts, you will very often find that I've included verses to help to substantiate my point.
Regarding that I am a Calvinist, while you may not believe this, I have never knowingly read anything written by him or his acolytes. Other than a passing familiarity with him, I do not know his doctrines in depth - not that I would necessarily disagree with them though - I wouldn't be surprised if more than one person could reach the same conclusions should they start from the same source.
My reading and my doctrine focus on, and is limited solely to, the Bible, which I truly believe fully sufficient and complete in all respects because it is from God. In fact, the Bible itself tells us that it is, by which, it also implies we are not to use any other source besides itself, to include the writings of those who would like to make it conform to their way of thinking, so I would advise you to be very careful of that. However, in order for us to correctly comprehend its message, we must employ the rules for interpretation that it alone sets forth.

Please observe:

[2Ti 3:16-17 KJV]
16 All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.
If you would, please explain why/how you came to the conclusion that you did regarding my posts.

Remember, what I'm saying is this: that Christ alone is Lord and Saviour, we are not - think about what that means

Roger

 

[for_his_glory]

we all need a well-polished arsenal of hermeneutical tools (for interpretation) so we are not imposing our meaning on the text.

Could not some of those tools lead to that of a carnal logical thinking? All that is given by men/women for our learning has to line up with the full context of scripture in order to understand that which has already been written.

1John 2:26 These things have I written unto you concerning them that seduce you.
1John 2:27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.

 

[OzSpen]

Could not some of those tools lead to that of a carnal logical thinking? All that is given by men/women for our learning has to line up with the full context of scripture in order to understand that which has already been written.

1John 2:26 These things have I written unto you concerning them that seduce you.
1John 2:27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.

FHG,

Of course, all tools can be abused, so self-control and godly control are needed in all things - including writing, interpreting and editing.

Oz

 

[for_his_glory]

FHG,

Of course, all tools can be abused, so self-control and godly control are needed in all things - including writing, interpreting and editing.

Oz

I agree

 

[OzSpen]

Oz,
Thank you for what I perceive to be a sincere concern and critique on your part. However, I have to say in all honestly that in reading your last reply, I have not the foggiest idea how you could come to the conclusion that you did regarding my posts? I would very much like that you explain to me your thinking in detail on how you perceive that I am a scoffer of the Bible? In fact, everything I post follows the simple requirement that it originates from the Bible and most importantly that it starts from and ends with Christ and the absolute unshakable truth that He alone is Lord and Saviour. As Lord and Saviour, only He can save us, otherwise, it would be an attempt on our part to displace that role and title from Him which we should never attempt to do, especially should we seek to replace Him with/by ourselves as saviour. If you would, please go back and rereview my posts, you will very often find that I've included verses to help to substantiate my point.
Regarding that I am a Calvinist, while you may not believe this, I have never knowingly read anything written by him or his acolytes. Other than a passing familiarity with him, I do not know his doctrines in depth - not that I would necessarily disagree with them though - I wouldn't be surprised if more than one person could reach the same conclusions should they start from the same source.
My reading and my doctrine focus on, and is limited solely to, the Bible, which I truly believe fully sufficient and complete in all respects because it is from God. In fact, the Bible itself tells us that it is, by which, it also implies we are not to use any other source besides itself, to include the writings of those who would like to make it conform to their way of thinking, so I would advise you to be very careful of that. However, in order for us to correctly comprehend its message, we must employ the rules for interpretation that it alone sets forth.

Please observe:

[2Ti 3:16-17 KJV]
16 All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.
If you would, please explain why/how you came to the conclusion that you did regarding my posts.

Remember, what I'm saying is this: that Christ alone is Lord and Saviour, we are not - think about what that means

Roger

rogerg,

<<Thank you for what I perceive to be a sincere concern and critique on your part. However, I have to say in all honestly that in reading your last reply, I have not the foggiest idea how you could come to the conclusion that you did regarding my posts? I would very much like that you explain to me your thinking in detail on how you perceive that I am a scoffer of the Bible?>>

Did I say you were a scoffer of the Bible? No, my exposition of 2 Peter 3:1-10 was that Peter was addressing scoffers in the Christian community. Take a read of what I wrote in #1,190.

I wrote: “Four warnings are given to the false teachers.” I did not say they were 4 warnings against your false teaching. “I urge you to engage in careful exegesis (obtaining the meaning out of the text) and not imposing your Calvinistic meaning on the text (eisegesis).”


What have you taught in this thread?

“The Bible tells us that everyone elected by God to salvation, regardless of intellectual state, ability, age, will, must, become saved. That's the only way for it to be consistent and fair across the full spectrum and not based upon our efforts or abilities.” Where in 2 Peter is that taught?

I consider Psalms 58:3 to be absolutely true.

‘If grace is a "free gift" given to everyone, then everyone must become saved, right?’ False! You have defined grace your way. The Bible’s teaching is that grace is extended to all – some call it prevenient grace – but it is only accepted by some. Please remember the exegesis of Eph 2:8-9 (NIV). See: Did Jesus die for the sins of the whole world? and Does regeneration precede faith in Christian salvation?

‘If grace is a "free gift" given to everyone, then everyone must become saved, right? Is that your belief? But we know that not everyone will be saved, so obviously, grace is not given to everyone.” Your view is refuted by my article: Does 2 Peter 3:9 teach universalism?

As I read your responses, I see Calvinistic additives in action. I urge you to be a careful exegete of Scripture and not what I see you doing with your eisegesis in this thread.

Oz

 

[rogerg]

Did I say you were a scoffer of the Bible? No, my exposition of 2 Peter 3:1-10 was that Peter was addressing scoffers in the Christian community. Take a read of what I wrote in #1,190.

Well, you called me a false teacher did you not, or did I misunderstand you? If you did, then that makes me a scoffer of the Bible logically speaking, does it not?

In reading the rest of your prior post, I didn't see that you included arguments to counter what I've written. Besides that you perceive them as being taken from Calvin's doctrines (which they weren't), but even had they been, would that make them invalid, and if so, why? Do you consider him to be anathema to Christianity for some reason? I briefly looked at the links you provided -- I assume them to have been written by you. However, unless you make the points you raised in them available in this thread, I will be unable to reply to them, but should you, I would be happy to do.

I realize this might sound rude, and I don't mean it so but instead being a sincere question to you, which is: do you actually spend time reading primarily the Bible itself, or has your understanding of the BIbe been gained through the writings of others?

 

[OzSpen]

Well, you called me a false teacher did you not, or did I misunderstand you? If you did, then that makes me a scoffer of the Bible logically speaking, does it not?

In reading the rest of your prior post, I didn't see that you included arguments to counter what I've written. Besides that you perceive them as being taken from Calvin's doctrines (which they weren't), but even had they been, would that make them invalid, and if so, why? Do you consider him to be anathema to Christianity for some reason? I briefly looked at the links you provided -- I assume them to have been written by you. However, unless you make the points you raised in them available in this thread, I will be unable to reply to them, but should you, I would be happy to do.

I realize this might sound rude, and I don't mean it so but instead being a sincere question to you, which is: do you actually spend time reading primarily the Bible itself, or has your understanding of the BIbe been gained through the writings of others?

Would you please refer me to my post where I called you a false teacher?

 

[OzSpen]

I realize this might sound rude, and I don't mean it so but instead being a sincere question to you, which is: do you actually spend time reading primarily the Bible itself, or has your understanding of the BIbe been gained through the writings of others?

Roger,

I find your comment to be rude and abrasive in condemning me. I obtain my doctrine primarily from reading the Bible but do not deny that God has gifted people to be teachers in the church, 1 Cor 12:28 and Eph 4:11 "for the equipping of the saints for the work of ministry."

I'm pleased to benefit from God's gift of equippers and thank Him for them.

Oz

 

[rogerg]

Would you please refer me to my post where I called you a false teacher?

" What you have written to others and me indicates your predisposition to Calvinism's view of election and salvation.

I'm referring to 2 Peter 3:1-10 (NIV) and a parallel in Jude 17-18: There will be scoffers in the "last days" (2 Pet 3:3-4 NIV) Four warnings are given to the false teachers."

 

[rogerg]

I find your comment to be rude and abrasive in condemning me. I obtain my doctrine primarily from reading the Bible but do not deny that God has gifted people to be teachers in the church, 1 Cor 12:28 and Eph 4:11 "for the equipping of the saints for the work of ministry."

I'm pleased to benefit from God's gift of equippers and thank Him for them.

I didn't condemn you. As I am unfamiliar with your background and preferences, I asked a sincere question with no presuppositions assumed. I didn't state you didn't/don't read the Bible, I only asked. Generally, I've found that people use the writings/interpretations of others believing them a trustworthy substitute and choose not to delve into the depth of the Bible itself. I have found that some in their posts, reference the writings of evangelists, authors, etc. to varying degrees, as substantiation/source for their pro/con arguments depending upon whatever is under discussion. While I may disagree with their conclusions, that doesn't mean I condemn them because of the methodology they may employ, although I myself would not choose to do it that way.