One of God's little ones wrote: BUT, as I suspected, such a thing would be too much to ask for a such a ego as yours. [/URL]
No ego. Just a humble acknowledgement of God unconditionally choosing me to be a the Weapon of Mass Instruction. _______________________________________
I appreciate the sentiments of badhorse777 concerning this issue. It's just too bad that he is wrong and I am right (ha!).
I would have to disagree that Calvinism as we know it can be found in the Bible. The Calvs had years for them to provide a simple declarative statement that clearly states any of their supposed presupositions.
Out of the many that they have, they have yet to provide one verse that clearly proves it.
Who knows, maybe badhorse, could do a better job. He seems like he does not have a fanatical hatred towards those who disagree and thus fall into the many pitfalls that others fall who reveal such an extreme theological bias.
I believe God loves the world and I can give a simple declarative statement that STATES exactly that if taken literally.
Somewhat confused wrote: But the person has free will, and according to your theology God is impotent to save him without his prior consent.
Back to the strawman argument I see. Do you guys ever try to argue with a real argument? Since when is "free will" a threat to God, especially when it was He who ordained it? How is YOUR free will anymore a threat than that of a lost persons?
Or maybe I should just take it as a confession that the Calvinist god is impotent whenever confronted with a free moral agent.
Somewhat confused wrote: Oh really!! Could have fooled me. Have you been following JD's comments recently where he has denied any prior work of God and also that it is God who makes a difference? You and your camp are all alike- completely dishonest!
Yes, I have, and I probably could become a millionaire betting against your ability to find such a quote from any of our camp. You treat us, like you treat the Bible in that you care not what we state but rather what you wish us to state. It's much more easier for the Calvinist to argue against a ghost.
Somewhat confused wrote: IOW you make yourself a universalist!
Another goalposting strawman. Let me know when you are done.
Discerning Believer wrote: So Yamil, would you go so far as to say that you believe that there is no difference between "through faith" and "by faith" regardless of the underlying Greek text that they are indeed different. But would you say thay mean exactly the same thing.
I am saying that they can be translated both ways. I trust the KJV translators rendering over yours.
Read what I stated.
Just because something can be translated one way does not mean that it should. Of course you have no concept of what I am talking about, because (not an ad hominem) you speak only one language let alone understand greek.
There is a difference between connotative meanings and denotative meanings. In words from one lanuguage (ie greek) that can be translated multiple ways in another language (ie english) one would need to consider the context of which it is used.
I believe that the KJV translators where correct in their translation. But it would not surprise me if you would now throw away the KJV in favor of a modern translation to try to defend your petty doctrine.
Then I really will need the phone number to your pastor. Ha!
I am not sure you are aware of what you are saying. You have two problems with your analysis:
1. Simply because something can be translated does not mean that it should be translated that way. What you propose is a logical fallacy.
2. The 40 plus KJV translators translated translated it "by faith" in more than one occasion. I tend to trust them over someone who is still trying to grasp the difference between active and passive voice.
3. At least I am theologically honest to admit that both faith and grace (and blood) are all equal grounds for justification. What you are proposing is that someone who is elect but does not necessarily have faith can be justified. A faithless elect?
The text means what it states, and states what it means. It's a shame that you guys have to go through logical hurdles to avoid the plain meaning of Scriptures. To avoid the simplicity of the Gospel, you find digging yourself deeper into the hole of the ridiculous.