To any theologians here...

[SociallyChallenged]

Our minds are too primitive to have full knowledge of what God is, or what He does, or why He made us. I know that He loves every single one of us and gives us the choice to chose Him. If people do not choose, God will not make them submit. The Lord has blessed me and He can bless any one of you guys. Just try to listen to His call.

-Brent

 

[petrek]

Platinum Gold, do you want to take this issue up seriously, because I will. As far as I'm concerned the issue is a no brainer. If God is who he claims to be, then he knows what words he meant to use, and he is more than capable of preserving his words.

Dave

 

[PlatinumGold]

<< Platinum Gold, do you want to take this issue up seriously, because I will. As far as I'm concerned the issue is a no brainer. If God is who he claims to be, then he knows what words he meant to use, and he is more than capable of preserving his words.
>>



and what does this have to do w/ the King James Version?? was King james somehow inspired? so does he fall in the same category as the bible writers? what about the Early church fathers who decided which books would be put in the Bible or not. Were they also inspired to the same level as the bible writers?

 

[jhu]

Its a philisopical question. I came to the conclusion studying the question.

of course. i did the same

 

[docmanhattan]

<< jhu sez...

<< no, i believe he's right. there is no free will. every single "choice" that you make was determined by everything else that's already happened. you don't have anymore free will than a computer. you just think you do >>



tex sez...

<< I'll say it again, to understand free well you would have to be all knowing. And since you are not, you can't understand how God can be all knowing and Man have free will. >>

Can either of you cite passages to support this? I'm trying to find where I'm saw this and will post once I do. >>

Okay, I gots me some ammo.

Here's what I was thinking, as well, as I was looking stuff up. The term "free will" my be a misnomer for the might be better described as a freedom to choose. I will use Phil 2:12-18 NIV as my example:

<< 12Therefore, my dear friends, as you have always obeyed--not only in my presence, but now much more in my absence--continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling, 13for it is God who works in you to will and to act according to his good purpose.
14Do everything without complaining or arguing, 15so that you may become blameless and pure, children of God without fault in a crooked and depraved generation, in which you shine like stars in the universe 16as you hold out[3] the word of life--in order that I may boast on the day of Christ that I did not run or labor for nothing. 17But even if I am being poured out like a drink offering on the sacrifice and service coming from your faith, I am glad and rejoice with all of you. 18So you too should be glad and rejoice with me. >>

There are 3 thing I want to point out here:

1) In Phil 2:12 "Therefore, my dear friends, as you have always obeyed" -although God is being a bit tongue in cheek, He's addressing the potential that's there and the operative word is "obey." To obey would imply that there was more than one option.

2) Phil 2:13 "for it is God who works in you to will and to act according to his good purpose. " -I actually take this to mean that God works on our hearts to helps us will and act as Christians ought to.

3) Phil 2:18 "So you too should be glad and rejoice with me" -Another example where it's not a command. It's not a absolute term that says "you WILL be glad and rejoice with me." It's a suggestion, albeit one from God, but a suggestion. I see no reason not to rejoice in God, but the Devil does a good job of fostering self-loathing in Christians thus depriving them of the joy that they could be experiencing.

I'm sure that someone will disagree. I look forward to the responces.

Cheers

sidenote: I don't know about anyone else, but I'm enjoying this discussion. It helps me sound out my ideas and challenges what I think. Good stuff.

 

[JohnnyReb]

Petrek,
The KJV debate is way off the current question. Start a new thread on that subject, I would love to discuss it with you. I'm a Bible-thumper from way back. I have a strong preference for the KJV but would disagree with you as to it's exclusive status.

John

 

[petrek]

Platinum Gold, words have meaning-if you change the words, you change the meaning. If the Bibles which are out there today all claiming to be the word of God are such, then God is a liar, because what he says/means is different depending on which version you read. The books that make up the Bible are the ones which were accepted by believers. King James did not translate the Bible, nor do I subscribe to the notion of dual inspiration. The issue is both complex and simple, and I have no problem getting into a serious scholarly debate on it, however at this current time I must go to league bowling and score a few 250 games (<--wishful thinking).

Dave

<-- 176 average

Edit: Just noticed your post Johnny, shall do.

Edit2: Johnny, I was pondering last night whether or not the KJV debate would fit into this discussion.

my pro: theology=based on words=which bible.

my con: thread doesn't specifically state bible version debate

my conclusion, see where the thread goes, Platinum brought the issue up, so I responded.

 

[Orsorum]

<< Though you may not exist without God, I don't see how you can say it is not your choice to follow Him... God does not decide who His followers are - He calls to every one of us...

I think one reason we live in this world, have free will, and have joys and sorrows, is so that we can decide our destiny - and that if we do end up in hell we can only have ourselves to blame. >>



He calls, yes; my friend has recently done some indepth studying of Calvinism (as JohnnyReb talks about) and is trying to rationalize those supported theological issues (with biblical support) and is trying to logically and compassionately come to a conclusion.

 

[Orsorum]

<<

<< Platinum Gold, do you want to take this issue up seriously, because I will. As far as I'm concerned the issue is a no brainer. If God is who he claims to be, then he knows what words he meant to use, and he is more than capable of preserving his words.
>>



and what does this have to do w/ the King James Version?? was King james somehow inspired? so does he fall in the same category as the bible writers? what about the Early church fathers who decided which books would be put in the Bible or not. Were they also inspired to the same level as the bible writers? >>



I have to ask some of the same questions that he just asked....

btw, it's my understanding that the KJV was written with an unreliable text (Textus Receptus, something like that) which lacks a lot of the validity and backing of the earlier texts (such as the Latin vulgate). Any thoughts?

 

[yerkel]

Dr. Victor Shepherd - Tyndale College and Seminary Professor

This man has taught me more about philosophy and Christendom in a few short months than any other influence out there. Head over to the Sermons page...one may be of interest to you regarding understanding suffering...contact me if you'd like it.

yerkel_00@hotmail.com

 

[JohnnyReb]

The KJV (New Testament) is based on the Greek Textus Receptus, which was Erasmus' Greek Bible. Erasmus was a contemporary of Luther and Zwigli. He went to one library and found six (I think) greek manuscripts. From these he formed the Textus Receptus, or Received Text.

Prior to this Christians did not look to the Greek, but rather the Latin text of the Roman Church.

Some people feel that more modern translations are closer to the original, because they are based on earlier manuscripts. The real problem has more to do with the philosophy of translation than the text in question, as there is little difference in ANY of the Greek texts.

What almost everyone needs to understand is that ALL translations are commentary. There are hard phrases to interpret and each translator brings his theological baggage to the table.

There are a couple of places where the NIV (as an example) replaces the Word of God with what the translators THINK God really meant.

One such place is 1 Sam 13:1. The Hebrew is so difficult to understand that the NIV translators pulled information from Acts (I think), to correct God. The text in the NIV has absolutley nothing to do with the Hebrew in 1 Sam 13:1. Following are quotes from different versions.

1 Samuel 13:1 (KJV) Saul reigned one year; and when he had reigned two years over Israel, . . .

1Sam 13:1 (NAS) "Saul was forty years old when he began to reign, and he reigned thirty- two years over Israel."

1Sam 13:1 (NIV) "Saul was [thirty] years old when he became king, and he reigned over Israel [forty-]two years."

Tyndale (Matthews' Bible): "Saul was as a child of a year old, when he began to reign. And when he had reigned two years over Israel, . . .

Geneva: "Saul now had beene King one yeere, and hee reigned two yeeres over Israel."

Young's Literal: "A son of a year [is] Saul in his reigning, yea, two years he hath reigned over Israel, . . . "

Jewish Publication Society Tanakh: "Saul was . . . years old when he became king, and he reigned over Israel two years." (Footnote: "The number is lacking in the Heb. text; also, the precise context of the 'two years' is uncertain. The verse is lacking in the Septuagint.")

The question then is it more God-honoring to assume that the text offers an acceptable meaning as it stands in the Hebrew, or to intervene with notes about what is allegedly missing?

The Massorites never made a change in this verse, due to their high respect for Scripture. I believe we can learn from their example.

John

 

[Orsorum]

Johnny Reb - I think I remember that... the TR was more literal translation, whereas the Latin vulgate was a more conceptual translation... is that right?

 

[LactoseIntolerant9]

Zakath15,

I think every Christian will struggle with this issue at one point in their faith. Don't be discouraged! I recommend reading Wayne Grudem, a professor at Trinity. He has a big book called Systematic Theology, and a shorter version (still about 300 pages =) called Bible Doctrine. The issue of the sovereignty of God/responsiblity of man are dealt with bibilically. He also talks about sin, grace, salvation, all in accordance with Scripture.

However, it is important to realize that we will (as some people have already mentioned) never FULLY understand how God reconciles both, but just know that they do coexist and Paul believed it (Phil 2:12-13) and lived a Christ-centered life. Hope this helps...

 

[JohnnyReb]

Johnny Reb - I think I remember that... the TR was more literal translation, whereas the Latin vulgate was a more conceptual translation... is that right?

Nobody really knows what sources the Vulgate utilized. It has some value as a window to the Hebrew and Greek used in 400 AD as the sources, since those sources no longer exist.

The TR is the first Greek NT printed on the (then) new printing press. Sold about 3300 copies in two years. Probably the first best-seller.


Back in the day, I used Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia and Nestle-Aland 27th edition (NA27).


John

 

[Moonbeam]

You said you have a question, but I see a bunch of questions. What is the question?

 

[Moonbeam]

 

[Orsorum]

Lactose - I will recommend that book to my friend. Thank you for your understanding and empathy.

JohnnyReb - do you know Greek or Hebrew? (I think I should have deduced this by now...)

Moonbeam - I was asking if anyone had any answers to my friends numerous questions.

 

[Orsorum]

Moonbeam = nef...

 

[Moonbeam]

My, my, my, how quickly we forget:

"This is a serious question, one that I'm putting a lot of thought into and trying to figure out an answer to. I would appreciate it if people would refrain from shouting NART or flaming... it's useless and a waste of everyone's time."

A serious question sounds like one question to me. And I would appreciate it if you didn't call me a nef, not because I care, mind you, but so as not to waste everyone's time.

It has been my experience that asking questions took me someplace, but that happened because I had to refine the question again and again. If you choose not to do so that's fine by me.

I say over and over without effect that to ask a question does not confer a capacity to understand or profit from an answer. You may be in need, not of answers, but something completely different. What is questioning and what is having answers? Can it be that questions are a stirring of consciousness and answers are the way back to sleep? Maybe there is a thing called answering questions and transcending questions via awakening. Maybe in the act of 'being' there is an ending of questions.

"All you need is love, la de da de da, all you need is love ..........."

 

[Orsorum]

Moonbeam - I didn't really mean to contradict myself; it was almost second-nature to post the nef comment. Sorry for the hypocrisy.

It's difficult for me to revise the question, simply because I'm still trying to figure out what to ask, myself.

I guess one of the fundamental difficulties in reconciling a Calvinistic view of the world is that somewhere, the decision is eventually left in God's hands... which means, eventually, that the decision for some poor souls to go to hell is God's decision... and that's very difficult to explain. Why should hell even exist, for that matter?

It's a very basic question, one that most Christians and non-Christians have grappled with. That's what I'm wondering at the moment.

 

[Moonbeam]

Well I guess I would say that when you love, when you are filled up with love that makes you burst you will become as much like God as you can be, you will be created in his image, and where you leave off and God begins will be impossible to say, partly so because the question won't arise. Now in such a state, where the heart has taken wing, maybe the questions about hell will simply vanish.

 

[Moonbeam]

By the way, when you try to figure out what you are asking, I think the question should lead deeper and deeper, not into philosophical clarity, but how you feel. Im experience tells me that behind questions are feelings that we are unconscious of, feelings that answers put to sleep, but raw gut wrenching guestions can help to put us in touch with. One question I eventually came to is why am I unhappy.

 

[JohnnyReb]

i]JohnnyReb - do you know Greek or Hebrew? (I think I should have deduced this by now...)[/i]

I wouldn't say that I know either Greek or Hebrew. I did study both (along with Aramaic) years ago. My proficiency level is such that I can make effective use of certain tools and I can usually tell when someone is full of it when they say "What this really said was....."

I don't think that any of the various English translations are perfect. This is why the serious Bible student will study the original languages. If you don't want to devote the time/effort, find someone you can trust and take their word for it. There are a number of good commentaries.

Back to the original question:

Calvinism/Reformed Theology is horses--t. (Pardon my language, but even with great contemplation I could find no other word that fits my thoughts on the matter.)

You might believe that it is a Biblical doctrine, unless you read the whole of Scripture. A concept that any Bible student must become aware of is the mega-context of scripture. The entirety of the Canon has a context. If any part seems to contradict this mega-context, then you are misinterpreting it.

Time is a product of creation. God created creation. It is no greater matter for God to be outside time than for a watchmaker to be outside the watch. It is not greater feat than for the watchmaker to know that the watch will read 12 o'clock and about when that will happen.

The Bible clearly says in Romans and in one of the Peters that election is based on God's foreknowledge.

The Elect are the whosoever wills, and the non-elect are the whosoever won'ts. The Bible clearly says that "whosoever will may come" and that "whosoever believes" will be Saved.

It is rather simple, if you will just read the words. Whosoever implies the choice we make. Now, understand, that the whole subject of Faith is often misunderstood.

God gives us Faith to believe. We either use this Faith and are saved or do not and are damned. Some will say that using Faith is work. Say I work all day and make $50, and then I come to you and stuff it in your pocket. A guy comes along and is going to kill you unless you give him $50. You reach in your pocket and hand him the roll of dough. Who did the work? Me. Who used the fruit of my work to save his life? You. Did you earn your life by reaching in your pocket? No.

John

 

[PlatinumGold]

Johnny reb

some nice stuff there.

Pistos, it's the greek word for faith. my study of the word lead me to believe that the greeks used it only in the context of a relationship between man and the divine. Also, Pistos is the Verb form of the word. In english we don't have good equivalents, Faith is the noun and Belief is the Verb but doesn't do the true word Pistos justice. Pistos is GOD's Action on man. it's what creates w/in man the ability see spiritual things. it's also referred to as spiritual rebirth in John 3.

Calvinism went to an extreme when emphasizing God's Election over mans free will.

Armenianism on the other hand goes to the other exreme emphasizing mans free will over God's election.

The truth is probably a combination of the beliefs. Man in the sin condition is incapable of Choosing God. God makes the initial Election (My personal belief is that God gives everyone this chance), then man has the choice to accept or reject that choosing of God.

 

[PistachioByAzul]

How can free will exist when humans are born and conditioned to act a certain way? We don't choose who we want to be in a vaccum, we are conditioned by our circumstances, of which circumstances we are to be faced with we also have no control. Your friend was raised to think that he has a "beautiful relationship with God", but it seems to me like he is questioning it, so maybe the dice will continue to fall in his favor and he will find the inner peace at the point when he is content with nothing and the questions no longer arise. Moonbeam always does a much better job of this.

Tell him, God is there if you know how not to look for him