ARGH!!! Calvinism makes me furious!!!

[Z Man]

Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer

Originally posted by Z Man

To clear things up, no one is saying that God 'forces' people to sin. Get that 'strawman' out of your thick heads now...

Please explain the following statement that you made...

God said that sometime in the future, He was going to give David's wives to another man. In other words, God ordained adultry.

Resting in Him,
Clete

God ordered by virtue of superior authority - decreed - that David's wives would commit adultry. How else do you want me to explain it? It's pretty straightforward, don't you think?

You make it sound as if God forces people AGAINST their wills to sin, and that's not the case. You fail to realize that 'there is none righteous; there is none who understands; there is none who seeks after God; there is none who does good, no, not one' (Romans 3:10-12), and 'that the wickedness of man is great in the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart is only evil continually' (Genesis 6:5).

 

[Z Man]

Originally posted by godrulz

Did God put a hook in their jaw and drag them into adultery?

Nope.

Where they responsible for their sin?

Yep.

Did they have sex, or did God manipulate invisible strings on their genitals?

Ummm... they committed adultry that God had ordained. Get it?

Maybe this will help you understand:

Genesis 20:3-6
But God came to Abimelech in a dream by night, and said to him, "Indeed you are a dead man because of the woman whom you have taken, for she is a man's wife." But Abimelech had not come near her; and he said, "Lord, will You slay a righteous nation also? Did he not say to me, 'She is my sister'? And she, even she herself said, 'He is my brother.' In the integrity of my heart and innocence of my hands I have done this." And God said to him in a dream, "Yes, I know that you did this in the integrity of your heart. For I also withheld you from sinning against Me; therefore I did not let you touch her.

Hmmm... Abimelech thought that because of the integrity of his heart that he was innocent from touching Abrahams wife, yet, God said that wasn't the whole truth. Yes Abimelech did not touch her from the integrity of his heart, and yes it was also because God did not allow him to touch her. The moral of the story is that it is possible for us to be responsible for something God ordained the whole time.

Want another example? Look at Peter's denial of Jesus. Did not Jesus tell Peter that he would deny Him 3 times that night? But when Peter fulfilled God's prophecy, Peter did not resent to blaming God for his sins. Instead, Peter wept bitterly. He knew he was guilty, even though Jesus had ordained it earlier that night.

 

[godrulz]

Did Jesus ordain and predestine the denial of Peter, or did He predict it based on His character? One should not read predestination and ordination into every free choice.

 

[Clete]

Z Man,

Have you ever heard of the law of non contradiction?

It basically says that things that are self-contradictory cannot be true because they are rationally impossible.

Your position is self-contradictory.

• "...God ordained adultry."
  
  "...no one is saying that God 'forces' people to sin."
  
  "God ordered by virtue of superior authority - decreed - that David's wives would commit adultry."

Make up your mind, or live with the fact that you are being irrational.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Originally posted by godrulz
did God manipulate invisible strings on their genitals?

Don't ya hate when that happens?


Errrr...... Nevermind. :noid:

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer

Z Man,

Have you ever heard of the law of non contradiction?

It basically says that things that are self-contradictory cannot be true because they are rationally impossible.

Your position is self-contradictory.

• "...God ordained adultry."
  
  "...no one is saying that God 'forces' people to sin."
  
  "God ordered by virtue of superior authority - decreed - that David's wives would commit adultry."

Make up your mind, or live with the fact that you are being irrational.

Resting in Him,
Clete

:thumb:

 

[1Way]

godrulz,
I could quote you saying, the open view "reconciles" or "harmonizes" predestination and man's free will, and yet when I challenge that characterization, you end up back pedaling. I never said you misunderstand what the open view entails, I simply attacked your characterization of it by using the idea of "harmonization".

Please just answer this question if you think you know the answer and can remain consistent with that answer.

Does the Open View:

A - harmonize predestination and man's free will, (you said as much)

or instead,

B - does it harmonize nothing, but rather it accurately reflects the truth about both bible issues? (I said as much in contradicting contrast to your characterization)

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Originally posted by 1Way
Does the Open View:

A - harmonize predestination and man's free will, (you said as much)

or instead,

B - does it harmonize nothing, but rather it accurately reflects the truth about both bible issues? (I said as much in contradicting contrast to your characterization)

Aren't both A and B correct?

 

[godrulz]

Originally posted by 1Way

godrulz,
I could quote you saying, the open view "reconciles" or "harmonizes" predestination and man's free will, and yet when I challenge that characterization, you end up back pedaling. I never said you misunderstand what the open view entails, I simply attacked your characterization of it by using the idea of "harmonization".

Please just answer this question if you think you know the answer and can remain consistent with that answer.

Does the Open View:

A - harmonize predestination and man's free will, (you said as much)

or instead,

B - does it harmonize nothing, but rather it accurately reflects the truth about both bible issues? (I said as much in contradicting contrast to your characterization)

I would not dissect my hasty posts like they are Scripture. I do not see what you are getting at. If there was a better way to phrase things, I should rework it. Your subjective impression of my wording might not be what I intended or what others think I mean.

Let's see now.

I do not know what you mean by harmonize. For some, they have trouble understanding how free will and predestination are compatible. Those who think they are are compatibilists. Those who think Calvinistic predestination and libertarian freedom are contradictory are called incompatibilists (theological definitions). I am in the latter category. Secular philosophers also speculate about this. The issue is how we view freedom and define predestination.

I believe there is a biblical view on predestination. God predestines some, but not all things. I also believe we have genuine freedom since we are in the image of God. This is in line with the Open View and we seem to agree it is biblical.

So, I do not remember saying harmonize, but the above is trying to clarify what I mean (may be different than what you think I meant).

If I had to pick, I would say B is what I meant. A does not sound like something I said or meant. Like I said, hasty, tired posts can sometimes be worded clearer. Are we on the same page yet? Thanks for keeping me on my toes. Iron sharpens iron.

 

[1Way]

Knight,
Interesting. Primarily speaking, predestination and man's free will are bible teachings. To suggest that the bible needs harmonization is to suggest that it is wrong unless man can harmonize these errors. But my understanding of God's word is that it is truthfully one complete and whole truth that needs no harmonization what so ever. God's word is clear that some things are predestined, not all things. And the bible is clear that man has a free will.

You can't harmonize what is in perfect unity. You can only harmonize that which is incongruent or does not fit together well.

The solution is to drop man's views and hold up God's views foremost. It is not to harmonize two bible teachings that without man's help is actually a contradiction or an unfit conflict. God's word is true and thus functionally harmonious from cover to cover. I believe that presenting people with the absolute truth is far more compelling than saying, I have reconciled predestination and man's free will because that statement brings with it the accusation that God's word is either incomplete or self contradictory/conflicting.

 

[godrulz]

We are in agreement. I think you are making a mountain out of a molehill. I am not sure where you get the idea that we both do not view the Word as complete, non-contradictory, and in no need of man bailing it out or harmonizing it.

One exception is that there are alleged or apparent Bible discrepancies. These can be 'resolved' and clarified with historical, grammatical, or contexual studies. e.g. the resurrection accounts, Paul's conversion, etc. Same story, different perspectives or emphasis.

 

[1Way]

Godrulz,
In response to your post #1415
It was your post #1392, you said

Some focus on predestination passages only. Others focus on the verses that show that the future is open and God changes His mind. The truth is that God predestines somethings as settled, while other things are unsettled and open. Calvinists do not see this. Open Theists have found a system to reconcile the passages.

See, if you keep God's word first and foremost, as the truth is what sets man free, then you have proper room to consider man's views, but if you go the other way, then you are putting fire in your lap! Manmade tradition is the hotbed for false doctrine, but you treat it like it's the hotbed for biblical truth, when instead, the bible is the true source of biblical truth (go figure, please). You have God's word and you have man's, the choice SHOULD BE SIMPLE!

I did not make a mountain out of anything, you have called me all kinds of slander for trying to make one simple point, YOU have been boiling over troubled waters that you now say are calm and cool, not me.

 

[1Way]

godrulz, post 1 of 2

From your post #1417
You said

If I would just read the Plot, you could accuse me of getting my understanding from man (Enyart). If I just read a critique, then I am also influenced by man. If I just read the Bible (like millions of others) and never come to a Mid-Acts understanding, then I will be told I need a man to show me the teaching in the Bible. If I do the right thing and objectively look at Enyart's writings, a critique, and the Bible first and foremost, then the Bible has no weight since I read "The Plot" or a one page critique.

Mischaracterization will get you no where.

Here is what happened.
You feign the importance of God's word for directing faith, and then constantly reference man's views when also admitting that you have not given God's word the full attention it deserves yet. If that is true, then you have no business staking claims as though you know the truth one way or the other. In fact, at one time you nearly said as much! You said, I hold these views tentatively until I give sufficient study to God's word over these matters! And then you turn right around and make the most knowledgeable claims about these issues. Your words and your actions are in conflict.

I never said nor implied that:
you only seek man's views just as I already reminded you that I also never said that you never seek God's views! So your argument here is a straw man.

• "If I just read the Bible (like millions of others) and never come to a Mid-Acts understanding, then I will be told I need a man to show me the teaching in the Bible."

Let me know when you find millions of people who have read the bible without any ilk of manmade tradition messing up their understanding. Again, man made tradition comes from the masses, it comes from the millions you constantly and ignorantly presuppose are objective and divorced from manmade tradition. The masses "typify" manmade tradition, that is there primary legacy!!!

In the bible, millions could be heading into the desert and finding their death because of not accepting the truth from God, but the few who are typified as children who instead trust God with humble hearts instead of going with the masses. THAT IS WHAT GOD TEACHES EACH AND EVERY ONE OF US, HE DOES NOT TEACH, SEEK YE FIRST THE TRADITIONS OF MEN AND CONSIDER HOW MANY BELIEVE PRIOR TO FINDING A SOLID UNDERSTANDING OF GOD'S WORD/TRUTH YOURSELF.

I say all that to finally answer your statement. I would NOT tell you that you need man to show you the teachings within the Plot (that are accurate reflections of what God's word teaches). You still don't get it. I would tell you to get rid of your manmade traditions that bind you and hinder you because of false doctrine. It's the truth that set man free, not false doctrine. If you only have truth, and you don't have false teaching, and you accept and trust in the truth, then ANY bible teaching is able to be understood and believed, including open theism or mid acts.

Then you said

Every time you use a Bible tool, is that a reliance on man and not the Word or Spirit? Did Jesus learn Hebrew and Aramaic at some point? Did Paul speak Greek and know Judaism at birth?

I NEVER ARGUED AGAINST THE PROPER USE OF MAN'S IDEAS. I ALWAYS ARGUED AGAINST THEIR IMPROPER USE.

You said

The Mid-Acts position is not self-evident, and it is not just because many people have been taughy a different view. I see Pentecostal distinctives and Open Theism in Scripture without any manmade influences. I will need 'The Plot' and its hundreds of pages to systematically convince me. As I look up his references in the footnotes, there are contextual, grammitical, and translation issues. All his arguments are not strong nor does the proof texting help. I read the Plot with the Bible and dig in. Apart from one short article, I am not aware of critiques against it. If the critiques argue from sound exegesis and refute certain points, then that is just as valid as Enyart using various arguments and verses to support his view.

I see now that other statements you made were specifically directed at Bob Enyart's theology. Like prooftexting and using just one translation is laziness. You are a trip. You have bitten off far more than you can chew. But I will say one more thing. Bob Enyart is strong on doing the opposite of proof texting, that is the foundation of his bible study method. First get the overview of the entire bible so that the details will fall naturally into place. The entire bible becomes a proof text, that is the way the bible is to God, and it' should be that way for us too.

What chapter are you on in the Plot?

 

[1Way]

godrulz, post 2 of 2

You said

Ten people can prayerfully read certain verses or passages and come away with various conflicting understanding. Often the issue is resolved by checking a more accurate translation or the original languages. This is rightly dividing the Word, studying to show yourself a workman approved, not leaning on traditions. It is the opposite if one does due diligence.

Consider all scholarship from all Christian traditions and then get the clue!!! They all use your suggestions for what you say should resolve the conflict, yet after they use your due diligence, they all remain just as contradictory and false as they started out! Manmade Christian tradition is the hotbed for false Christian doctrine. You have never yet resigned to that fact with any sort of substantial consistency. So you hopefully look at me and say, well Mr. Smarty, if I'm wrong and your right, what is the answer if it's not grammatical accuracy and more accurate translations and a better understanding of the original languages??? First let me qualify by saying that those things are not bad, it's good to have that kind of honorable aids while keeping in mind that they can be terribly wrong, but God's word is never wrong. But I say, all those excellent manmade reference works they have led millions and millions into the slew of false and contradictory doctrine! IT IS THE TRUTH THAT SETS MEN FREE, NOT WHAT IS FALSE.

So, you take a humble view of your human ideas, and basically trash them in comparison to God's word. You say, concerning man's ideas, they are all lies compared to God's ideas, so I'm going to suspend my belief in so called Christian teachings, and instead, I'm going to first and foremost read the entire word of God, and get a solid understanding of everything that He has to say so that when I carefully consider the details, they will naturally fall into place. I think Jesus was serious when He said

Matthew 4:4 But He answered and said, "It is written, ‘Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God.’"

Then maybe you know better than God, maybe Jesus should have said that, well, the scriptures are great, but you'd better go to cemetery first so that you can learn proper grammar and linguistic scholarship, and then while your at it, invest in many different translations so that you can finally understand that truth that can set you free, which is not simply God's word, it's man's guide to God's word that ultimately sets man free. Ok, but seriously, God says that His word is sufficient for all matters of faith and right living. So yes, manmade reference works can be a good aid, but the primary resource should ALWAYS be God's word! Understand that first and foremost and then because you have the contextual overview of the entire bible, it will become difficult to get any details in a way that violates the bible's entire context, it's possible, but very difficult.

So to summarize, your answer highlights word studies, lexicons, commentaries, theology textbooks, and other linguistic and theology reference works. Yet that is ultimately "the" path to finding all Christian false doctrine. My solution to the age old problem of 10 people finding 20 different meanings to any passage or verse, is to stop violating God's word, first read and understand the entire bible's main storyline and plot and plot twists, then with that solid comprehensive knowledge, the art and biblical mandate of making perfect sense out of the details nearly becomes child's play.

If your going to become a brain surgeon, do you start out by reading an advanced level book and turning to the page right before doing your first actual operation? Or do you first learn about all the general medical ideas like basics of how the immune system works, how the nervous system works, and so on? You first learn how the entire outfit works together to keep you alive so that when you attack any single crucial detail, you will not screw up any other aspect of the body's functions.

First get a solid grasp of the entire bible, especially concerning the plot and it's twists, that basically represents the entire bible context so that you understand what God is trying to convey at any particular location in the bible. Only after you gain a solid understanding of the entire bible's storyline, can you rightly say that you are best suited to work your way through the details.

God's word first and foremost. Man's ideas is the hotbed for false doctrine. The choice should be clear.

 

[godrulz]

Originally posted by 1Way

Godrulz,
In response to your post #1415
It was your post #1392, you said See, if you keep God's word first and foremost, as the truth is what sets man free, then you have proper room to consider man's views, but if you go the other way, then you are putting fire in your lap! Manmade tradition is the hotbed for false doctrine, but you treat it like it's the hotbed for biblical truth, when instead, the bible is the true source of biblical truth (go figure, please). You have God's word and you have man's, the choice SHOULD BE SIMPLE!

I did not make a mountain out of anything, you have called me all kinds of slander for trying to make one simple point, YOU have been boiling over troubled waters that you now say are calm and cool, not me.

I do not know why you are dissecting one sentence like it is a claim to inspiration. This sentence does not prove I put man above the Word. It is an observation that Calvinism and Arminianism do not reflect sound Bible interpretation compared to what is called Open Theism. If I could rephrase it to match your thought patterns, go ahead and rewrite it. Most readers would not jump to conclusions based on one word.

Scratch 'reconcile'. Open Theists correctly interpret and understand predestination and free will. The other views import a deductive, preconceived theology. Why not find out what I mean instead of holding me to your misunderstanding of what you think I meant?

 

[1Way]

godrulz,
You said

I do not know why you are dissecting one sentence like it is a claim to inspiration.

There you go stretching things out of proportion. No, I have been trying to keep the perspective that I have been mantaining, and that is concerning the point that you made that the Open View "reconciles predestination and man's free will scripture passages", IF YOU AGREE WITH ME THAT IT DOES NOT DO THAT, THEN SIMPLY SAY SO, STAND CORRECTED, it's no big deal.

Why does it matter? To me, stating it more correctly can only help the Open View be understood more correctly. Again, if you agree that the Open View does not reconcile scripture, then simply say so and be done with that issue. The issue about you putting too much emphasis on man's views is rather tangential to this point, but is connected because you see man's versions of these passages, and thus your answer was naturally shaded by that focus. Your right, we all do that from time to time. I'm just saying recognize that fact and instead give proper credence to God's word and move on.

 

[godrulz]

Originally posted by 1Way

godrulz, post 2 of 2

You said Consider all, and I don't mean most or some, I mean all scholarship from all Christian traditions!!! They all use your suggestions for what you say should often resolve the conflict, yet after they use your due diligence, they all remain just as contradictory and false as they started out! Manmade Christian tradition is the hotbed for false Christian doctrine. You have never yet resigned to that fact with any sort of substantial consistency. So you hopefully look at me and say, well Mr. Smarty, if I'm wrong and your right, what is the answer if it's not grammatical accuracy and more accurate translations and a better understanding of the original languages??? First let me qualify by saying that those things are not bad, it's good to have that kind of honorable aids while keeping in mind that they can be terribly wrong, but God's word is never wrong. But I say, all those excellent manmade reference works they have led millions and millions into the slew of false and contradictory doctrine! IT IS THE TRUTH THAT SETS MEN FREE, NOT WHAT IS FALSE.

So, you take a humble view of your human ideas, and basically trash them in comparison to God's word. You say, concerning man's ideas, they are all lies compared to God's ideas, so I'm going to suspend my belief in so called Christian teachings, and instead, I'm going to first and foremost read the entire word of God, and get a solid understanding of everything that He has to say so that when I carefully consider the details, they will naturally fall into place. I think Jesus was serious when He said Then maybe you know better than God, maybe Jesus should have said that, well, the scriptures are great, but you'd better go to cemetery first so that you can learn proper grammar and linguistic scholarship, and then while your at it, invest in many different translations so that you can finally understand that truth that can set you free, which is not simply God's word, it's man's guide to God's word that ultimately sets man free. Ok, but seriously, God says that His word is sufficient for all matters of faith and right living. So yes, manmade reference works can be a good aid, but the primary resource should ALWAYS be God's word! Understand that first and foremost and then because you have the contextual overview of the entire bible, it will become difficult to get any details in a way that violates the bible's entire context, it's possible, but very difficult.

So to summarize, your answer highlights word studies, lexicons, commentaries, theology textbooks, and other linguistic and theology reference works. Yet that is ultimately "the" path to finding all Christian false doctrine. My solution to the age old problem of 10 people finding 20 different meanings to any passage or verse, is to stop violating God's word, first read and understand the entire bible's main storyline and plot and plot twists, then with that solid comprehensive knowledge, the art and biblical mandate of making perfect sense out of the details nearly becomes child's play.

If your going to become a brain surgeon, do you start out by reading an advanced level book and turning to the page right before doing your first actual operation? Or do you first learn about all the general medical ideas like basics of how the immune system works, how the nervous system works, and so on? You first learn how the entire outfit works together to keep you alive so that when you attack any single crucial detail, you will not screw up any other aspect of the body's functions.

First get a solid grasp of the entire bible, especially concerning the plot and it's twists, that basically represents the entire bible context so that you understand what God is trying to convey at any particular location in the bible. Only after you gain a solid understanding of the entire bible's storyline, can you rightly say that you are best suited to work your way through the details.

God's word first and foremost. Man's ideas is the hotbed for false doctrine. The choice should be clear.

I agree with your premise. This is why most Bible schools teach Bible Survey before Greek, individual books and verses.

I read the Bible over and over as a new believer. I still do. I did not consult books. This is not mutually exclusive to using a language tool. Many Calvinistic proof texts are based on mistranslations or poor exegesis. One can come up with certain ideas reading the KJV only. Another step is added to go from Greek to English and then Arachaic English to our vernacular. Cute meant bow legged back then. Now it means pretty. If we read KJV only, we will misunderstand passages. Other times cultural issues come into play. What the first century writers understood, we may not have a clue or interpret wrongly based on our modern, North American mindset. It is sloppy interpretation and application to just read your favorite English translation. We will certainly get the overview and everything we need for salvation, but Eph. 1 on the surface could lead us to Calvinism. It is a difficult passage. Word studies on foreknowledge, for example, would allow us to formulate a correct understanding. Reading the word and importing our preconceived ideas gets us in trouble. If you are an expert on everything, then you do not need tools. Tools have limitations, but that does not mean to use them is not honoring the Word or looking to man. If we lived in the first century and spoke Greek, we would not need them. The reality is that we are centuries and cultures removed. Even Peter said there were difficult things in Paul's writings.

I give a friendly reminder that some translations are INACCURATE and you go on a diatribe that we just need to read the Word. I do not deny this, but in thorny issues, we have to go deeper sometimes. English as one word for loving God and hot dogs. Am I wrong to mine the treasures of the Word by studying the nuances of eros, agape, storge, phileo? See my heart and mind. I agree with you in principle, but am not so arrogant to think I cannot learn from others. If you expect me to learn from you, why can't I learn from Luther, Wesley, Packer, Boyd, or whoever?

You should not have a problem with this if you have a teacher bent (we both do). Studying the Word of God can involve tools, but they are taken with a grain of salt. Your assumption is that "The Plot" gives an overview and key to Bible understanding. This is fine if that is correct. If his assumptions are faulty, then you have become guilty of the very thing you accuse me of.

Galatians 2:7 is a pivotal text that supposedly solves all doctrinal disputes (yellow lights should go off at this point alone).

"...they saw that I had been entrusted with the task of preaching the gospel to the Gentiles, just as Peter had been to the Jews."

This simply means that the one Gospel was taken by two different individuals to two different audiences/target groups (cf. Billy Graham going to North America and Luis Palau going to South America; one Gospel, not two gospels).

It is deductive and eisegesis to say that this is a proof text for a gospel of the circumcision and another different gospel of the uncircumcision for the foundation of the early Church. Soon after there was neither Jew, not Gentile, just Paul's Gospel. To say Peter, James, and John were clued out about the death and resurrection, and that their books are not applicable to me is specious. To negate the impact of Christ's teaching for all believers is even worse. I do recognize Old and New Covenant distinctions. I do recognize a transition period and doctrinal debates in the early Church. I do not think Enyart's template that negates water baptism, charismata, etc. is the key that has been missed and lost to the Body of Christ all these years. I do agree we need an overview of the Bible. It is God's story of creation, redemption, and consummation. It is a revelation of who He is and His great ways. The Bible has everything we need to know about this life and the next. Please be patient if I do not see Gal. 2:7 as the key to unlock Bible interpretion and resolve all doctrinal disputes. I agree with 6-7/10 conclusions, but cannot agree with a few points based on exegesis of the relevant texts on certain doctrines. Enyart is a great speaker, pastor, evangelist, but that does not make him an infallible Bible scholar. He was influenced by Hill and the school. We have all been influenced by someone or something. We are all prone to preconceived ideas and can innocently read Scripture through those lenses. This is why I desire to know what the Word says, not what man says. I know you share that desire.

 

[godrulz]

Originally posted by 1Way

godrulz,
You said There you go stretching things out of proportion. No, I have been trying to keep the perspective that I have been mantaining, and that is concerning the point that you made that the Open View "reconciles predestination and man's free will scripture passages", IF YOU AGREE WITH ME THAT IT DOES NOT DO THAT, THEN SIMPLY SAY SO, STAND CORRECTED, it's no big deal.

Why does it matter? To me, stating it more correctly can only help the Open View be understood more correctly. Again, if you agree that the Open View does not reconcile scripture, then simply say so and be done with that issue. The issue about you putting too much emphasis on man's views is rather tangential to this point, but is connected because you see man's versions of these passages, and thus your answer was naturally shaded by that focus. Your right, we all do that from time to time. I'm just saying recognize that fact and instead give proper credence to God's word and move on.

Roger. Like it or not, my understanding of the Open View has been influenced by writers who expound and exegete relevant verses.

 

[1Way]

godrulz,
From your post 1437
You said

(1) I agree with your premise. This is why most Bible schools teach Bible Survey before Greek, individual books and verses.

(2) I read the Bible over and over as a new believer. I still do. I did not consult books. This is not mutually exclusive to using a language tool. Many Calvinistic proof texts are based on mistranslations or poor exegesis.

(1) Right, but go a step deeper now, don't stop there! I agree that all cemeteries who promote so much false doctrine realize that there is a great benefit for going first and foremost with God's word, BUT, THEY ARE NOT CONSISTENT IN THAT PRECEPT. They do not stick with that principle and because of that, they end up violating God's word precisely along the lines of their preferred manmade traditions. So the answer is not a simple acknolwedgement that a solid overview of the bible should be first and foremost, no, the answer involves remaining consistent in not allowing manmade tradition to become prefered over God's word. And please respond to the following claim. Although the vast majority of seminaries and bible schools agree with FIRST AND FOREMOST GO WITH GOD'S WORD, they each end up straying from that principle in order to promote some manmade tradition instead.

So it's deeper and much more of a problem than most admit.

(2) And here I kindly suggest that you are part of the masses who have the right general idea, but have strayed not because you wanted to, but because manmade tradition is just that much of force in Christian faith, it is the hotbed of false doctrine, but God's word is the source for eternal truth. The comparison is a far larger contrast than what "everyone" believes.

But thanks for the large scale concession, maybe you are finding me a bit more reasonable and with an eye for what is godly and right after all.

Laughing out loud! Oh man, this was good, you said.

Cute meant bow legged back then. Now it means pretty.

I did not know that! :chuckles:

You said

See my heart and mind. I agree with you in principle, but am not so arrogant to think I cannot learn from others. If you expect me to learn from you, why can't I learn from Luther, Wesley, Packer, Boyd, or whoever?

I can and do, but not if they end up contradicting or violating scripture. See, it ALWAYS comes back to what scripture teaches, ALWAYS. So the best route is to go to the source first and foremost "and consistently". The way I see it, I find you relying so much on man's views before you have gotten a really solid understanding of God's word (mostly because of manmade tradition, not your lacking of desire to learn), and that demonstrates the wrong emphasis, yet you continually act like it's just fine. But what you say is what EVERY cemetery and bible school would say, they would mouth agreement with you 100% and go against me for being too extreme and dogmatic. But the fact is that if you take their views together and compare them against God's word, they constantly disagree with each other and violate God's word! So I don't want that for you, I want what God expects you to do instead, trust Him first and foremost no matter what the masses say!

 

[1Way]

godrulz,
From your post 1438
You said

Roger. Like it or not, my understanding of the Open View has been influenced by writer's who expound and exegete relevant verses.

Great, Like it or not, when you rest too much on man's views, you are begging for disaster. EVERY SINGLE MANMADE TRADITION THAT VIOLATES GOD'S WORD SOUNDS EXACTLY LIKE YOU DO. We are objective, it's God's word that we honor first and foremost. Get it through your head man, there is a difference between claims and views and the truth in reality. You can't get more foundational than this, God's word is truth, God is true, so is His word. And so stick with that fact with bible based consistency, stop following the masses who mouth bible conformation while unwittingly violating God's word on an almost constant basis. Stay true to the truth, stick with God's word not man's traditions.

So you never did answer my question that you quoted. Do you stand corrected or not? Does the Open View reconcile scripture, or was that a slight mischaracterization based upon a lack of distinction between scripture and man's view of scripture?