I see how this is going.

You said that you wanted a definition for the Greek word "anathema."
I subsequently did the research, posted up a source for my definition of the word, and you turn around and deny the acceptability of the lexicon to which I referred claiming that its authors are probably under an anathema themselves.
Cute.

It's YOUR turn now.
Give a definition with its source.
_____

PS: your playing around with (rationalizing) the meaning of 1 Cor 16:22 is not helping matters much. I can very well counter-rationalize your claim with: "The ones whom Paul indicates as those not loving the Lord are those men who are downright antagonistic -- and forever will be -- towards the Lord. IOW, it's not merely a temporary loveless condition ... a condition that comes "factory installed" with all non-believers."

Mr. Dispy wrote:
For some reason, this definition didn't appear on my browser, so reposting in reply in case it benefits others.

Quite a back and forth here over the week end! I think you two are on the right track, but I would also ask that you (for the benefit of those of us watching the tennis match) consider what Paul meant when he said, "Let him be" - what tense and voice is that verb, "let be"?

In the Greek it is simply:
"anathema esto"
esto (the verb "be")
is in the 3rd person
Present tense,
Active voice,
Imperative mood,
singular.

It's VERY strong stuff!

John UK wrote:
DJ
I am quite surprised that you imagine I *choose to lessen its impact because it suits my argument*.

You treat me as though I am not willing to hearken to the truth, whatever that truth may be. It bothers me nothing to lose a debate if only it means I have a better understanding.

And it doesn't do to imagine that the Holy Ghost just plonks the truth in my nut without recourse to Gr words and meanings. Otherwise why post them up?

_____

Definition of: "Anathema"
From "[URL=http://www.biblestudytools.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=331&version=kjv]]]The KJV New Testament Greek Lexicon[/URL]"

A thing set up or laid by in order to be kept -- specifically, an offering resulting from a vow, which after being consecrated to a god was hung upon the walls or columns of the temple, or put in some other conspicuous place

A thing devoted to God WITHOUT HOPE of being redeemed, and if an animal, to be slain; therefore a person or thing DOOMED to destruction

A curse

As Luther quaintly put it: "Here Paul is breathing fire." Paul intensified the antithesis between himself and his Galatian opponents by pronouncing a solemn curse upon anyone who proclaimed a counterfeit gospel. The fact that Paul issued this condemnation in the strongest words possible and then repeated it for emphasis makes this one of the harshest statements in the entire New Testament.

Further, you conveniently forget that Paul brought even the angels within the purview of his anathema! Do you suppose that Paul was making some sort of statement about excommunicating ANGELS?

NO!!!

You cite Gal 3:10&13 because they contain the words "curse" and "cursed" in them thinking that these are the equivalent of the word "accursed" found in Gal 1:8&9 and Rom 9:3
Simply put, they are not.

The Greek words katara [κατάρα] & epikataratos [ἐπικατάρατος] are used in Gal 3:10&13. They carry the meaning of being under a curse which can be remedied upon belief or redemption.

On the other hand, the Greek word anathema [ἀνάθεμα] is found in Gal 1:8&9 and Rom 9:3. This word carries the meaning of: "a thing devoted to God WITHOUT HOPE of being redeemed"

Do you see the difference?

Therefore, Paul, in Gal 1:8&9 is NOT expressing to the Galatians that the false preachers of "another gospel" REMAIN in their cursed status under the law, but that they incur the irredeemable penalty and condition of being made ANATHEMA!

Likewise in Rom 9:3.
Paul is saying that for the sake of his Jewish brethren, he would be "accursed from Christ" -- forever, irredeemably condemned -- ANATHEMATIZED!

You err.
All men are under the WRATH of God and stand to be condemned as long as they remain unbelievers. They are NOT under the CURSE of God! They are NOT anathematized. There is a HUGE difference. The former can be remedied, the latter can not. Being anathematized (by God) is akin to judicial hardening by God -- like what He did to Pharaoh -- there comes a point of no return.

So there is no flavor of Paul merely stating that those in Gal 1:8,9 & 1Cor 16:22 should remain in their unbelieving state, but rather (IMO) he is stating something MUCH stronger: he is invoking an imprecation and calling for their cursing by God
"LET HIM BE ACCURSED!"
"LET HIM BE ANATHEMA!"

If you boys can't see the FORCE with which Paul is making his anathemas, then ...
Let me put it this way: there are no STRONGER statements made by Paul in all of his epistles than what he declares in Gal 1:8,9.

_____

Hidemi Williges wrote:
Some questions for you calvinists:
1. So the citizens of Nivevah were the elect, if that is true, then why send Jonah there?
2. If the elect have no choice but to be the elect, then why send the comforter to these people since regardless of who they are, they are forever elect?
3. If, prior to the great flood, if all the non-elect were destroyed for their evil, then what happened to Ham and his decendents?
4. If you are the elect, how would you know? Did God send you a message?
5. If God elected some people then why did he waste so much time with Israel?
6. If God is not willing that any should perish then why did he elect some to heaven and the rest to hell?
7. If Calvinism is great and Biblical, then why do your congregations keep so many of the traditions of the catholic church and rarely, if ever evangelize?

Predictably, you greatly minimize the FORCE with which Paul is anathematizing those who preach "another gospel" in Gal 1:8,9. Amazing!

And if his readers (the Galatians) didn't get it the first time he said it, Paul REPEATS his phrase "let him be accursed" again in verse 9. Obviously, if YOU were one of his Galatian readers, you would have needed Paul to repeat his anathema a THIRD time before you realized how strongly Paul was condemning those false preachers!

Paul is NOT saying: "Gee, golly, these peddlers of a different gospel shouldn't be preaching what they preach, but that's okay, because God will fix their wagon at the Judgement. And they shouldn't be preachers because they will come under greater condemnation. So, dear chappie Galatians, let them go their own merry way and pray that God will convert them someday."

NO!
Paul HAMMERS these false preachers with "LET HIM BE ACCURSED!"
TWICE!
Paul is using the emphatic by repetition -- a good Hebraic literary technique.

Sorry, but you don't have a good grip on what's happening in Gal 1:8,9

Now see if you can water down 1 Cor 16:22
"If any man love not the Lord Jesus Christ, LET HIM BE ANATHEMA"

Fancying oneself as some sort of "Protestant Pope" who pronounces anathemas upon sinners and excommunicates those who love not the truth, is not the issue here. Likewise, Paul's apostleship ceasing with the Apostlic Age is just not germane to the debate concerning imprecatory prayer. Neither is your name-dropping the RCC into the argument.

IMHO, PROPER imprecatory prayers have a VERY narrow focus: they are prayers which are to come against the enemies of God's Gospel of Grace. In every case in which Paul makes some sort of imprecation, it is because someone has come against Jesus Christ and/or His Gospel.

Now, ... you readily admit that Paul's words are authoritative as Scripture. EXCELLENT! Should you then not come into agreement with what these Scriptures of Paul [Gal 1:8, Gal 5:12, 1 Cor 16:22, 2 Tim 4:12] proclaim? These particular Scriptures are directed against enemies of the Gospel. They plainly state: "LET HIM BE ACCURSED" and "LET HIM BE ANATHEMA." Do you not agree that much of what good prayer consists of is actually praying Scripture back to God? There is nothing unbiblical with making Paul's declarations a part of our prayers although there is no direct injunction for us to do so.

Michael Hranek wrote:
DJC49
You really think so? Perhaps for someone like David who had a heart after God and was offended that Goliath blasphemed the LORD

but for others perhaps as an example those who love their "Calvinism" or whatever other "ism" more than they do Jesus Christ it is very much a matter of self-righteously justifying their hatred of others .......it is not at all a distortion of the issue.

_____

Now for the Biblical, NT essence of what imprecatory prayer is all about:

Galatians 1:8
"But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, LET HIM BE ACCURSED"

(Please note: Paul is NOT interceding for God's enemies!)

Galatians 5:12
"I would they were even CUT OFF which trouble you."

(Please note: Paul is NOT interceding for God's enemies!)

1 Cor 16:22
"If any man love not the Lord Jesus Christ, LET HIM BE ANATHEM"

(Please note: Paul is NOT interceding for God's enemies!)

2 Tim 4:14
"Alexander the coppersmith did me much evil: the Lord reward him according to his works"

John UK wrote:
Maybe the time has come to prove conclusively that for a professing Christian to pray for the downfall of individuals by way of a 'curse' upon them is totally alien to the New Covenant ethic.

I therefore suggest a biblical debate to any willing to hold forth their view on this, by way of taking a scripture text and looking at it in detail and exhaustively. I have no shortage whatever of scripture proofs for my position, but I will not be distracted into going round and round in circles. Let us look at each scripture in turn, and hopefully we may arrive at a biblical rather than a man-centred position. Forget Calvin, forget Arminius, forget Whitefield (my hero), forget Wesley, forget Spurgeon (for a minute) and let us truly be SOLA SCRIPTURA men, instead of HALF-BIBLE men who have been brainwashed into believing something that is incorrect.

Any takers?

"[URL=http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=91508175319]]]Are Imprecatory Prayers Appropriate for the Church?[/URL]"

_

*MH*

Thinking christian wrote:
Hello DJC49
Just a question. Do you think the prayers of saints have any impact on Gods conversion of a man? Is there evidence from the N.T, and where are we commanded to pray for sinners?

Here are a few more verses from the NT which argue for an integral role that prayer plays in bringing conversion to sinners:

John 17:20
"Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word"
(Here, Jesus prays for believers not yet in existence that they "all be one" SO THAT even others -- the world -- might believe that the Father had indeed sent the Son!)

2Thess 3:1
"Finally, brethren, pray for us, that the word of the Lord may have free course, and be glorified, even as it is with you"
(Prayer for the dissemination of the Gospel)

Luke 10:2
"Therefore said he unto them, The harvest truly is great, but the labourers are few: PRAY YE therefore the Lord of the harvest, that he would send forth labourers into his harvest"
(Prayer for more preachers)
___

John Yurich USA wrote:
There is nothing mysterious about the doctrine of the Holy Trinity. The Holy Trinity is totally comprehensible and totally logical.

Thinking christian wrote:
Hello DJC49
Do you think the prayers of saints have any impact on Gods conversion of a man? Is there evidence from the N.T, and where are we commanded to pray for sinners?

Paul believed in election. Did he not? Yet he wrote in Rom 10:1
"Brethren, my heart's desire AND PRAYER to God for Israel is, that they might be saved."

And in Matt 5:44 we read:
"... and PRAY FOR THEM which despitefully use you, and persecute you"
What manner of prayer might this be?

Mr. Dispy wrote:
Why, then, would you pray against the means God is using?

Sorry, but I don't have a schematic on how exactly God saves His own. (And I KNOW how much you pre-trib/pre-mill Dispies absolutely LOVE [URL=http://www.yeshuaagapao.com/images/blog/Bible_Chart_-_Ages_And_Dispensation.png]]]charts and diagrams[/URL]!)
_____

Mr. Dispy wrote:
I thought election meant (for Calvinists, anyway) that what some pastor does has no impact on whether someone would be saved....? Are you now saying that some element of human will might enter into salvation? (I certainly hope not - I don't want your hypermen colleagues to turn on you with imprecatory prayers for apostasizing!)

Bayou Bob wrote:
My point is that we shouldn't be calling anyone's Pastor a heretic. ( ) But, I notice that in step with Calvin, Modern Calvinist's love calling people derogatory names.

Mr. Dispy wrote:
And one of those absolutes is that God always wants us to pray for the destruction of the ungodly?

IMHO, the issue is not IF the Christian should ever resort to imprecatory prayer, but WHEN.