[geocentrism] Re: [Geocentric] Predestination
- From: Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2007 17:03:10 -0800 (PST)
The illogic of your position can then be easily seen in the fact that your
Proof text doesn?t even mention choice or Predestination.
My prooftext (which is the combined verses 19 & 20 of Romans 3 -- you do me a
major disservice by throwing out the second half of my prooftext) wasn't
intended to speak about choice or predestination. In fact, I made VERY clear
what the intent of the prooftext (so-called) was, and you continue to stuff
words in my mouth and re-route my positions into alien jungles. If the
scriptures you raise are not your ?Proof text? for what constitutes the nature
of predestination then what is the world is your argument? This thread is about
predestination you keep bring up everything except the verses that talk about
predestination..it is your manuvers that are like the butterfly... Please tell
me what exactly is the point of your argument if it is not the nature of Free
choice and Predestination? and if it is do you focus on scripture that doesn't
even mention it while ignoring the ones that do..!? as i stated last post logic
demands you start from the specific& or known and work to
the obscure and or Unkown.. the only reason I know anyone would do this
intentionaly is to employ that kind of backwards logic ( using the
undemosntrated first to define the specific or known) in order to make a
circular fallicay seem like a reasonable argument.
I'll say it for the fifth time: the point in question is, Would God command
all men everywhere to obey something that they can't possibly obey? Romans
3:19-20 answers in the affirmative. Irrelevant!. as it relates to
predestination, I never stated or implied otherwise. I am discussing free
choice and Predestination the fact the two are not mutually exclusive.. This
means that God CAN hold people responsible for X even if men are incapable of
fulfilling obligation X. So what God can do a lot of things, that doesn?t mean
he did It that way or the way you have in your head, you must demonstrate that
he did It that way to be relevant not just assert that he did because he could
have?..The entire principle (the hidden premise in your reasoning) is yielded
on this point: it means that dozens of chapters of commands in God's Word (the
law of which Romans 3:19 speaks), more voluminous than any that you've
indiscriminately poured into your posts, are all incapable of being
fulfilled by men. If men had free will, he could keep them: there'd be no
constraint upon him from doing so. I hear you saying that I hear you making
that extrapolation based on how you read but I don?t see where you read that in
scripture, especially since nowhere in the text you use even mentions free will
or mans choices, in fact if he had no choices what is the point of telling
anyone anything they can?t do anything about it.?..My point is that man is
self-willed,? man is self will because he has a will of his own which is what
free will is by definition of the term?..and that his nature constrains his
volition.. only to the extent that he cannot reach righteousness on is own your
?proof text? points that out but that is a far cry from man cannot chose
Christ the whole point for sending Christ was to give us a choice we could make
because we could not do it via just a law so God came in the Flesh not as a
spirit you miss the whole being in Christ thing if you
understood how you get into Christ you would see that Christ is the only
Choice we have for salvation! You extrapolate based on what the scripture does
not say not what it actually says?. ?the very fact that you Romans 3:19-20
supports my position, not yours. People paying attention to this exchange from
outside will see how badly you twist my meaning, and how forgetful you are in
grasping the point of my argumentation. You DO indeed gloss over it roughshod,
pursuing your own agenda? Note, also, that Romans 3:19 teaches that the world
of which Paul spoke was then contemporaneously held accountable before God:
Paul did not say "until Christ died, every mouth was stopped and the whole
world was accountable to God" -- nope, the tenses are all in the present. Paul
speaks of the present, post-Cross reality. You may not like it, but that's too
bad.
1.the only agenda I have demonstrated is to show you and everyone the error
of your logic as well as your exegesis as well as your extrapolated conclusions
about scripture.
2. you state?.?see how badly you twist my meaning?,??it is you who have
twisted mine latter you state.. ?Paul speaks of the present, post-Cross
reality.? In your point 11 in the last post I specifically stated that ?You
can?t establish the internal meaning of scripture without placing it context
..the fact you think you can demonstrates why you have no understanding of what
is is talking about and you get easily confused by ?law? and ?the law? God only
has one law but where the law of Christ is in effect the law of Moses was done
away with and where the law of Moses was in effect the law of Christ had not
come!? ..You know where Christ nailed it to the cross thing?!?. Colosians 2:
14. Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was
contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;
Acts 17:27. That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after
him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us: 28. For in him
we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have
said, For we are also his offspring. 29. Forasmuch then as we are the
offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or
silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device. 30. And the times of this
ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:
Again the imperative as well as the example both demonstrates what man does in
Christ and maybe you can actually get around to explaining how one gets into
Christ without making the choice to submit.
The "logic" which you say "demands" how I should start my reasoning process
is purely humanistic: it's raw rationalism, and I already pointedly undermined
Aristotelian logic in a related thread several weeks ago. Your "logic" would
have led Abraham to scoff at God's claim that Sarah would bear a child in her
90s. But Abraham "staggered not at the promise," illogical though it was. My
logic would have led Abraham to do nothing except what he did which was Chose
to trust in God just like you can do today..rather then put his trust in his
own reasoning as I have demonstrated your are............Your views/ my views
on Aristotle are irrelevant we are discussing what scripture has to say about
predestination and what It does not say as well as how that is/can be
demonstrated from scripture not anyones thoughts on Aristotle... I am pointing
out the error of your "logic".
What did Jesus say about the Law of Moses and its multitude of jots and
tittles? "Whosoever therefore shall break the least one of these commandments,
and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven:
but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the
kingdom of heaven." The word mistranslated "break" is the Greek verb "lusai,"
declined as "luse" here, means to "loosen" or "unbind," more fully to "treat as
no longer in force." Your persistent loosening of the jots and tittles of
Mosaic Law is something that our Lord Jesus spoke to very clearly in this
verse. Does your position not cause you concern in light of this? Don?t see
your point Christ specifically loosed us from the because he was/ is the
fulfillment of the Law??!?. Colosians 2: 14. Blotting out the handwriting of
ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of
the way, nailing it to his cross; That is why it is so important
to be in Christ. Matthew 5:17. Think not that I am come to destroy the law,
or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
While it is all too common (and woefully wrong) to mangle Matt. 5:17-18 as if
this would "fix" verse 19, that falls apart since a Law that is allegedly
abolished would NEVER entail verse 19, which begins with "gar" (translated into
English "for"). The meaning can't be "the Law is abolished, so anyone who
loosens it ruins his standing in God's kingdom, and any who observe its most
minor commandments -- jots and tittles -- are great in His kingdom." Now THAT
is a non sequitur???.Again you are either unwilling or unable to understand
the law of Christ and the Law of Moses both came from God but one was done away
with the other instituted, but they were not enforce at the same
time?.?Galatians 5:1. Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ
hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage. 2.
Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you
nothing. 3. For I testify again to every man that is circumcised,
that he is a debtor to do the whole law. 4. Christ is become of no effect
unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from
grace?.. Context bears out that since circumcision was part of the law of Moses
then that must be what he is discussing other wise he could just a well be
talking about the law of the Persians?.for sure he was not discussing the law
of Christ ?.Galaitins 6:2. Bear ye one another's burdens, and so fulfil the
law of Christ.:.. this is the value indeed absolute necessity of using the
context to define the meaning!
To stave off a possible wrong-headed appeal to verses 17 & 18, I'll go ahead
and do an exposition here.
me nomisete -- Do not even begin to think (ingressive force from the verb)
hoti -- that
elthon -- I have come
katalusai -- to dismantle/abolish/take apart/abrogate
ton nomon -- the Law
he tous prophetas -- or the prophets
ouk elthon -- I have not come (particle of negation before the verb)
katalusai -- to abolish
alla -- this is the STRONG Greek adversative, the soft one being "de".
Whatever follows "alla" must mean the precise opposite of what comes after.
"Alla" conditions the meaning of the next word when used in a Greek sentence.
plerosai -- ratify/endorse. "plerosai" has a range of meanings, which is
more minutely fixed in context due to the presence of "alla" in front of it.
The antonym of "take out of force" is to "keep in force"
amen -- verily
gar -- for/because
legoo -- I say
hemin -- unto you
heos -- until (the first of two "heos" clauses in this 18th verse)
an parelthe -- passes away
ho ouranos -- the heavens
kai he gea -- and the earth
iota hen -- one iota (one jot) -- meaning one Yod, the smallest letter in the
Hebrew alphabet comprising the text of the Law
he -- or
mia keraia -- one horn (one tittle) --- note the peculiar REPETITION of the
Greek one ("hen" and "mia," matched in gender to their subjects -- this becomes
important in the next "heos" clause)
ou me paralthe -- will not not (double negative in Greek to intensify the
negation) pass away
apo -- from
to nomou -- the Law
heos -- until. This is the SECOND "heos" in the sentence, a fact most
expositions woefully fail to account for with their self-imploding
interpretations.
an panta genetai -- all of them be accomplished. "panta", ALL, correlates
with the two repeated ONES earlier in the clause. ONE jot and ONE tittle shall
not pass until ALL be accomplished. "genetai" is not the same word as
"plerosai" in the preceding verse: this is not referring to Jesus fulfilling
prophecies, because the subject here is the jots and tittles of the Law ("to
nomou"), not "tous prophetas" (the prophets). Moreover, there are TWO "heos"
clauses -- the first "until" stating a terminus a quo (end point) where the Law
is to remain in full force and effect as being "the passing away of the heavens
and the earth." For this reason, Luke 16:17 asserts it is easier for the
heaven and earth to pass away than for one jot or tittle to pass from the Law.
Since the heavens and earth are still in existence, every jot and tittle of the
Law is still in full force and obligation upon every living human being. That
"heos" clause is clear, so what is then the meaning of the
second one? It can't be to have an earlier termination for the Law's being in
force than the first "heos" clause, otherwise the verse would be
self-contradictory and at war with itself. The verb "genetai" is the key -- it
is to accomplish or realize the jots and tittles, and they are accomplished
when the Law is fully obeyed, rather than perpetually broken. The time will
come when the prayer "Thy will be done in earth as it is in heaven" will be
accomplished. The final clause is a prediction that the Law of Moses will one
day be universally obeyed by all of God's image-bearers. (The means of this --
the power of the Holy Spirit -- is explained elsewhere by Christ, such as in
John 14 and 16, where the Spirit is to convict the entire world of sin and of
righteousness). The meaning is NOT that the Law would be abolished in about
three years when Jesus is crucified (which makes no consistent sense either
with the "until heavens and earth pass away" prerequisite, or with verse
19 that describes how one knows the difference between those who are least in
the kingdom of heaven and those who are great -- a distinction that follows as
a consequence of verse 17 and 18.) There are, then, TWO prerequisites for the
Law to pass away, given in both of the "heos" clauses -- first, the heavens and
earth have to pass away, and second, the entire law must be obeyed by the
population of the world. The jots and tittles are NOT accomplished when only
one person (Jesus) out of billions keeps it -- it is accomplished when everyone
keeps it. That time is afar off, as Hebrews 2:8 makes clear that "we see not
yet all things in subjection to Him." But the certainty of the fulfillment is
one that Christians will not stagger at.
So, now that we're back to verse 19, we have the preceding context that is a
self-consistent foundation for the "For..." that begins verse 19: the abiding,
continued validity of the Law of God embodied in the jots and tittles Jesus
referred to, of which He said that anyone loosening even the least (most minor)
of the commands would be called least in the kingdom of heaven. We are to
observe them, and teach them, the them being the least of God's commandments.
Of course, our Lord elsewhere insists on priorities (the "weightier matters of
the law" trump minor points like tithing mint and rue, but He also adds "these
ought ye to have done, without leaving the others undone." Jesus is fine with
tithing mint and rue IF the weightier matters are addressed, but to major in
the minors doesn't fly with Him. That is an activity condemned in Malachi 2:9
when God states "ye have not kept my ways, but have been partial in the law."
A partial obedience means a partial
disobedience. That doesn't fly.
Note that the Christian's relationship to the law as a "handwriting of
ordinances against us" is that the CHRISTIAN has died to the Law -- it wasn't
the Law that died, it was the Christian, whose penalty under the Law was paid
by Christ. The Christian's orientation to the Law, in the strength of the Holy
Spirit Who enables, is now consistent with the statement in Matthew 5:19. "Yea,
rather, we establish the law." Rom. 3:31.
We should correct a continued misquote that persists in some of these posts.
Nowhere does the Scripture say that the law of God is written on the hearts of
those outside of Christ, or on all men generally (as if the New Covenant
promise of God writing His law on the hearts and minds of His people applied to
all humanity indiscriminately). A careful examination of the alleged prooftext,
Romans 2:15, reveals that the Gentiles "show the work of the law written in
their hearts," namely a conscience bearing witness, either accusing or
excusing. The error is in holding that the entire prepositional phrase is "of
the law written in their hearts", but this is flat-out wrong. The correct
reading is "being such as show that the work of the law is written in their
hearts." What is written ("grapton") is NOT the Law (tou nomou) but the WORK
("ergon"). To render the clause the way most people misunderstand it, Paul
would have had to write "to ergon ta tou nomou" rather than "to
ergon tou nomou" as he did in verse 14. When he omits the "ta", he is making
it clear that the thing written isn't the Law but the "works of the Law," the
"ergon" of the Law, and only that. This distinguishes this doctrine from the
essential feature of the New Covenant that entails the writing of the Law of
God into the hearts and minds of God's people.
And so it goes.
You go to a lot of work there at the end but you still fail to
1. Show how Predestination has anything to do with free will or for that
matter how your ?proof text? itself even applies to predestination.
2.Demonstrate that your ?Proof text? states that man cannot choose Christ,
this is going to be difficult for you I know since it only address mans
inability to keep the law of Moses but as I have demonstrated those are not the
same two laws even if you want to translate as work of the law verse the law
itself it is a mute point!.. still Moses v Jesus. Although they can be
considered both ?the law of God? since the both came from God they were not in
effect at the same time therefore are not one in the same law, especially since
they have different commandments as well, which if there is any similitude
between Moses v Jesus law it is inherently that they both required a choices to
obey it is that choice that you don?t seem to ever get to?. One law was
fulfilled, but only for those who are IN CHRIST?.who came in the Flesh
3. Even touch the fact that since all these things re only available in
Christ.. How one gets into Christ without having made the choice to submit
oneself. I imagine this will probably be very difficult too since scripture
specifically state that we are to submit ourselves..!?. or maybe you can just
redefine what submit yourself means?.!? I would find the discussion on how one
gets into Christ..(v24).. most interesting since you go to great lengths to use
this text to attempt to demonstrate something it does not talk about, It would
be nice to see how the things that are actually stated in this text are related
to the issue at hand.
4. demonstrate what is the point even is. Even if you were right we cant
chose to do what is right? So what is the point of this debate? Who and how are
we going to convince anyone to submit?..and to and submit to what if they can?t
make that choice anyway..!?
Martin Selbrede <mselbrede@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jan 27, 2007, at 2:43 PM, Allen Daves wrote:
The illogic of your position can then be easily seen in the fact that your
Proof text doesn?t even mention choice or Predestination.
My prooftext (which is the combined verses 19 & 20 of Romans 3 -- you do me a
major disservice by throwing out the second half of my prooftext) wasn't
intended to speak about choice or predestination. In fact, I made VERY clear
what the intent of the prooftext (so-called) was, and you continue to stuff
words in my mouth and re-route my positions into alien jungles.
I'll say it for the fifth time: the point in question is, Would God command
all men everywhere to obey something that they can't possibly obey? Romans
3:19-20 answers in the affirmative. This means that God CAN hold people
responsible for X even if men are incapable of fulfilling obligation X. The
entire principle (the hidden premise in your reasoning) is yielded on this
point: it means that dozens of chapters of commands in God's Word (the law of
which Romans 3:19 speaks), more voluminous than any that you've
indiscriminately poured into your posts, are all incapable of being fulfilled
by men. If men had free will, he could keep them: there'd be no constraint upon
him from doing so. My point is that man is self-willed, and that his nature
constrains his volition. Romans 3:19-20 supports my position, not yours.
People paying attention to this exchange from outside will see how badly you
twist my meaning, and how forgetful you are in grasping the point of my
argumentation. You DO indeed gloss over it roughshod, pursuing your own
agenda.
Note, also, that Romans 3:19 teaches that the world of which Paul spoke was
then contemporaneously held accountable before God: Paul did not say "until
Christ died, every mouth was stopped and the whole world was accountable to
God" -- nope, the tenses are all in the present. Paul speaks of the present,
post-Cross reality. You may not like it, but that's too bad.
The "logic" which you say "demands" how I should start my reasoning process
is purely humanistic: it's raw rationalism, and I already pointedly undermined
Aristotelian logic in a related thread several weeks ago. Your "logic" would
have led Abraham to scoff at God's claim that Sarah would bear a child in her
90s. But Abraham "staggered not at the promise," illogical though it was.
What did Jesus say about the Law of Moses and its multitude of jots and
tittles? "Whosoever therefore shall break the least one of these commandments,
and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven:
but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the
kingdom of heaven." The word mistranslated "break" is the Greek verb "lusai,"
declined as "luse" here, means to "loosen" or "unbind," more fully to "treat as
no longer in force." Your persistent loosening of the jots and tittles of
Mosaic Law is something that our Lord Jesus spoke to very clearly in this
verse. Does your position not cause you concern in light of this?
While it is all too common (and woefully wrong) to mangle Matt. 5:17-18 as if
this would "fix" verse 19, that falls apart since a Law that is allegedly
abolished would NEVER entail verse 19, which begins with "gar" (translated into
English "for"). The meaning can't be "the Law is abolished, so anyone who
loosens it ruins his standing in God's kingdom, and any who observe its most
minor commandments -- jots and tittles -- are great in His kingdom." Now THAT
is a non sequitur.
To stave off a possible wrong-headed appeal to verses 17 & 18, I'll go ahead
and do an exposition here.
me nomisete -- Do not even begin to think (ingressive force from the verb)
hoti -- that
elthon -- I have come
katalusai -- to dismantle/abolish/take apart/abrogate
ton nomon -- the Law
he tous prophetas -- or the prophets
ouk elthon -- I have not come (particle of negation before the verb)
katalusai -- to abolish
alla -- this is the STRONG Greek adversative, the soft one being "de".
Whatever follows "alla" must mean the precise opposite of what comes after.
"Alla" conditions the meaning of the next word when used in a Greek sentence.
plerosai -- ratify/endorse. "plerosai" has a range of meanings, which is
more minutely fixed in context due to the presence of "alla" in front of it.
The antonym of "take out of force" is to "keep in force"
amen -- verily
gar -- for/because
legoo -- I say
hemin -- unto you
heos -- until (the first of two "heos" clauses in this 18th verse)
an parelthe -- passes away
ho ouranos -- the heavens
kai he gea -- and the earth
iota hen -- one iota (one jot) -- meaning one Yod, the smallest letter in the
Hebrew alphabet comprising the text of the Law
he -- or
mia keraia -- one horn (one tittle) --- note the peculiar REPETITION of the
Greek one ("hen" and "mia," matched in gender to their subjects -- this becomes
important in the next "heos" clause)
ou me paralthe -- will not not (double negative in Greek to intensify the
negation) pass away
apo -- from
to nomou -- the Law
heos -- until. This is the SECOND "heos" in the sentence, a fact most
expositions woefully fail to account for with their self-imploding
interpretations.
an panta genetai -- all of them be accomplished. "panta", ALL, correlates
with the two repeated ONES earlier in the clause. ONE jot and ONE tittle shall
not pass until ALL be accomplished. "genetai" is not the same word as
"plerosai" in the preceding verse: this is not referring to Jesus fulfilling
prophecies, because the subject here is the jots and tittles of the Law ("to
nomou"), not "tous prophetas" (the prophets). Moreover, there are TWO "heos"
clauses -- the first "until" stating a terminus a quo (end point) where the Law
is to remain in full force and effect as being "the passing away of the heavens
and the earth." For this reason, Luke 16:17 asserts it is easier for the
heaven and earth to pass away than for one jot or tittle to pass from the Law.
Since the heavens and earth are still in existence, every jot and tittle of the
Law is still in full force and obligation upon every living human being. That
"heos" clause is clear, so what is then the meaning of the
second one? It can't be to have an earlier termination for the Law's being in
force than the first "heos" clause, otherwise the verse would be
self-contradictory and at war with itself. The verb "genetai" is the key -- it
is to accomplish or realize the jots and tittles, and they are accomplished
when the Law is fully obeyed, rather than perpetually broken. The time will
come when the prayer "Thy will be done in earth as it is in heaven" will be
accomplished. The final clause is a prediction that the Law of Moses will one
day be universally obeyed by all of God's image-bearers. (The means of this --
the power of the Holy Spirit -- is explained elsewhere by Christ, such as in
John 14 and 16, where the Spirit is to convict the entire world of sin and of
righteousness). The meaning is NOT that the Law would be abolished in about
three years when Jesus is crucified (which makes no consistent sense either
with the "until heavens and earth pass away" prerequisite, or with verse
19 that describes how one knows the difference between those who are least in
the kingdom of heaven and those who are great -- a distinction that follows as
a consequence of verse 17 and 18.) There are, then, TWO prerequisites for the
Law to pass away, given in both of the "heos" clauses -- first, the heavens and
earth have to pass away, and second, the entire law must be obeyed by the
population of the world. The jots and tittles are NOT accomplished when only
one person (Jesus) out of billions keeps it -- it is accomplished when everyone
keeps it. That time is afar off, as Hebrews 2:8 makes clear that "we see not
yet all things in subjection to Him." But the certainty of the fulfillment is
one that Christians will not stagger at.
So, now that we're back to verse 19, we have the preceding context that is a
self-consistent foundation for the "For..." that begins verse 19: the abiding,
continued validity of the Law of God embodied in the jots and tittles Jesus
referred to, of which He said that anyone loosening even the least (most minor)
of the commands would be called least in the kingdom of heaven. We are to
observe them, and teach them, the them being the least of God's commandments.
Of course, our Lord elsewhere insists on priorities (the "weightier matters of
the law" trump minor points like tithing mint and rue, but He also adds "these
ought ye to have done, without leaving the others undone." Jesus is fine with
tithing mint and rue IF the weightier matters are addressed, but to major in
the minors doesn't fly with Him. That is an activity condemned in Malachi 2:9
when God states "ye have not kept my ways, but have been partial in the law."
A partial obedience means a partial
disobedience. That doesn't fly.
Note that the Christian's relationship to the law as a "handwriting of
ordinances against us" is that the CHRISTIAN has died to the Law -- it wasn't
the Law that died, it was the Christian, whose penalty under the Law was paid
by Christ. The Christian's orientation to the Law, in the strength of the Holy
Spirit Who enables, is now consistent with the statement in Matthew 5:19. "Yea,
rather, we establish the law." Rom. 3:31.
We should correct a continued misquote that persists in some of these posts.
Nowhere does the Scripture say that the law of God is written on the hearts of
those outside of Christ, or on all men generally (as if the New Covenant
promise of God writing His law on the hearts and minds of His people applied to
all humanity indiscriminately). A careful examination of the alleged prooftext,
Romans 2:15, reveals that the Gentiles "show the work of the law written in
their hearts," namely a conscience bearing witness, either accusing or
excusing. The error is in holding that the entire prepositional phrase is "of
the law written in their hearts", but this is flat-out wrong. The correct
reading is "being such as show that the work of the law is written in their
hearts." What is written ("grapton") is NOT the Law (tou nomou) but the WORK
("ergon"). To render the clause the way most people misunderstand it, Paul
would have had to write "to ergon ta tou nomou" rather than "to
ergon tou nomou" as he did in verse 14. When he omits the "ta", he is making
it clear that the thing written isn't the Law but the "works of the Law," the
"ergon" of the Law, and only that. This distinguishes this doctrine from the
essential feature of the New Covenant that entails the writing of the Law of
God into the hearts and minds of God's people.
And so it goes.
Martin
Other related posts:
