God Can't Do That?

[Brother Mike]

OK my friend, actually I thought better of just stopping this thread. Because of all the misunderstanding of my position I will go on to defend that position and hopefully straighten out some thinking....First of all Mike, I want you to read my post #47. Now this statement is for everyone who has participated in my thread. I am NOT a hypercalvinist. I am NOT a five point Calvinist. I am a four point Calvinist (actually there is no such thing) I think, where most who were a part of this thread misunderstood my position is when Pharaoh was mentioned. Somehow people thought that I believed that anyone who is not "elect" (called before the foundation of the world) would fall into this category. If somehow I hinted at that I'm sorry because that is not what I believe. The Pharaoh's and the conquests of Joshua are in the past, not present, that I know of. OK, that leaves the people that are left who are not the "called" ones (elect). Those people fall under a position that I have coined "GC" or "General Call" of the Gospel. This is where evangelists operate. This is what post #47 presents, I think. So, now that you know clearly what my position is, what's wrong?

Well, Truth over Tradition and myself suspected this. We put you in the cage with the rest of the Hyper Calvinist, and without understanding your heart it is very easy to just "PRESUME" for you what your belief's are.

That is why I did not want you to get frustrated or give up because this is something that is common on forums like these and I know it's possible to get on the same page and get light on things from other revelations God has given others.

So then if you could shed some light on this position about those called into (General Gospel) and those who do not fall under that. I heard a position like this sort of but it was called Arminianism. This belief was founding way back in 1560.

It's more of a position that God does not dictate to everyone what their life outcome will be, but knows everyone's life outcome. So man has a type of control, but some are called into preaching the Word (Elect) and the others are refereed to someone told me as overcomer.

I do not take their position that God knows everything from start to end about everyone. There are so many scriptures that say different and to a hyper Calvinist they don't say God just knows such as a fortune teller but God predestined.

It goes back to Adam....... Did God predestine Adam to fail or did God know Adam would fail. We don't have a scripture indicating God predestined or knew but these two doctrines try to take a position on it anyway without the scripture.

If God knew Adam would fail, then what point did God know? With knowing comes responsibility and with responsibility comes predestination or else God is not in control of his own creation. This is why the two groups fight among each other.

So keep in mind this...........

2Pe 1:10 Wherefore the rather, brethren (Every person born again or everyone Peter could call a brother in the Lord) , give diligence (Something we have to do) to make your calling and election sure: for if ye do these things (A condition on our part in realation to God's plan, purpose and calling on our life) , ye shall never fall:

God has an election and calling on every person He made. A predestined path of his choice as we are created for his workmanship (Eph)

1Co 12:12 For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ.

1) Jesus just did not die for us and our sins but for the Whole World (1Jn 2:3)

2) Everyone who is a believer is part of the body and no body part is more elected or better than another body part. All have a calling and election to pursue.

3) Not every believe will be faithful and complete their race. Most don't even understand that they have a part that is just as important as the guy who is a Prophet or Pastor. There is no such thing as a part that is less than another.

A couple this week had us watch their kids while they did ministry work at the Church. My wife and I have the same reward for helping to enable them to do that work. Most callings are not speaking positions but enabling those speaking positions to do their job.

Look at Stephan. He was a waiter so to speak. He helped settle the dispute about a certain group getting fed so the Apostles could pray and not have to spend time settling these petty disputes. Stephan enabled them to do their Job and calling though Stephan was not an Apostle.

Also while Stephan was working, God did many miracles through him because He had faith and was faithful. So even being just a server of tables, Stephan was increased with true riches (The power and favor of God) while serving others so the Apostles could do their work.

So what are your thoughts on this?

Blessings.

Mike.

 

[TRUTH over TRADITION]

....... I started this thread with the idea of focusing on the Biblical fact that a few people in Scripture........were used by God to demonstrate His power over evil. These people like Pharaoh were used for this purpose. Would they make it to God's Kingdom? No!

Texts like Exodus 9:16 do illustrate that God raised people up from time to time to demonstrate His power. I think arguing that point is tough to do, but, the idea that God created (not raised up) people to oppose Him and His intended Kingdom makes God sound maniacal and not very Godly and merciful. The chapter you use in Romans 9 to back this apparent assertion when looked at in full context of the Roman letter actually speaks about God's mercy, patience, and desire for those that ahd not accepted His Christ to come to repentance so they can avoid His wrath and have a place in the Kingdom as well.

This is my position:
Eph. 1:4 God, before the foundation of the world chose certain people to be holy. Over the centuries, they would be birthed into certain generations to be a holy witness to that generation.

What's this over the centuries talk about? The Ephesians letter has no such language. Paul told his brethren that they were among the blessed in Christ that God had chosen to be adopted and were subsequently sealed with God's Holy Spirit. Because of THEIR adoption, Paul and his sealed brethren would be able to have a Kingdom inheritance not promised to all men.

We therefore have two classes of people entering into God's plan to populate His kingdom.
1. The elect - Ephesians 1:4
2. The folk who come in by the General Call of the Gospel. - 2 Peter 3:9

To a certain degree you may be in line with what is written in the scriptures regarding this issue. There does seem to be varying 'classes' of people that will get to experience the Kingdom of the Ages. One class would appear to be the saints that get an inheritance and positions in the Kingdom. Some, if not all of which would rule with the Christ. In addition to the saints, there are the resurrected righteous that were not sealed as were the saints that are granted lasting life under the reign of the Kingdom of Heaven. These have no position or inheritance in the Kingdom, but are blessed by Jesus having conquered death giving them the hope of lasting life in a world (or arrangement) where peace reigns and sin and death have become a thing of the past.

The gospel message was designed to prepare those that were living while it was being delivered for the arrival of the Kingdom of Heaven. Jesus began his ministry by proclaiming the soon-coming kingdom (Matthew 4:17) and had a Kingdom-centric message throughout his ministry. The gospel was virtually all about this soon to be established Kingdom of the Ages and it was aimed at people that would be living during the time when that Kingdom was to be establish.

As far as we are concerned, the gospel message is not about the Kingdom or an inheritance but is instead about LIFE and how Jesus as made lasting life available to ALL MEN that are willing to submit to His rule and practice righteousness.

 

[Chopper]

Texts like Exodus 9:16 do illustrate that God raised people up from time to time to demonstrate His power. I think arguing that point is tough to do, but, the idea that God created (not raised up) people to oppose Him and His intended Kingdom makes God sound maniacal and not very Godly and merciful. The chapter you use in Romans 9 to back this apparent assertion when looked at in full context of the Roman letter actually speaks about God's mercy, patience, and desire for those that ahd not accepted His Christ to come to repentance so they can avoid His wrath and have a place in the Kingdom as well.



What's this over the centuries talk about? The Ephesians letter has no such language. Paul told his brethren that they were among the blessed in Christ that God had chosen to be adopted and were subsequently sealed with God's Holy Spirit. Because of THEIR adoption, Paul and his sealed brethren would be able to have a Kingdom inheritance not promised to all men.



To a certain degree you may be in line with what is written in the scriptures regarding this issue. There does seem to be varying 'classes' of people that will get to experience the Kingdom of the Ages. One class would appear to be the saints that get an inheritance and positions in the Kingdom. Some, if not all of which would rule with the Christ. In addition to the saints, there are the resurrected righteous that were not sealed as were the saints that are granted lasting life under the reign of the Kingdom of Heaven. These have no position or inheritance in the Kingdom, but are blessed by Jesus having conquered death giving them the hope of lasting life in a world (or arrangement) where peace reigns and sin and death have become a thing of the past.

The gospel message was designed to prepare those that were living while it was being delivered for the arrival of the Kingdom of Heaven. Jesus began his ministry by proclaiming the soon-coming kingdom (Matthew 4:17) and had a Kingdom-centric message throughout his ministry. The gospel was virtually all about this soon to be established Kingdom of the Ages and it was aimed at people that would be living during the time when that Kingdom was to be establish.

As far as we are concerned, the gospel message is not about the Kingdom or an inheritance but is instead about LIFE and how Jesus as made lasting life available to ALL MEN that are willing to submit to His rule and practice righteousness.

Hi ToT, Upon first reading of your post I agree with your thinking and thank you for making things a little clearer...."Over the centuries" comment was simply to establish the fact that our present time is not the only time election has an effect. God's process of choosing particular people of whom He foreordained a ministry and geographical location for that person's lifetime has been happening in all generations not just ours. Make sense?

 

[Chopper]

Well, Truth over Tradition and myself suspected this. We put you in the cage with the rest of the Hyper Calvinist, and without understanding your heart it is very easy to just "PRESUME" for you what your belief's are.

That is why I did not want you to get frustrated or give up because this is something that is common on forums like these and I know it's possible to get on the same page and get light on things from other revelations God has given others.

So then if you could shed some light on this position about those called into (General Gospel) and those who do not fall under that. I heard a position like this sort of but it was called Arminianism. This belief was founding way back in 1560.

It's more of a position that God does not dictate to everyone what their life outcome will be, but knows everyone's life outcome. So man has a type of control, but some are called into preaching the Word (Elect) and the others are refereed to someone told me as overcomer.

I do not take their position that God knows everything from start to end about everyone. There are so many scriptures that say different and to a hyper Calvinist they don't say God just knows such as a fortune teller but God predestined.

It goes back to Adam....... Did God predestine Adam to fail or did God know Adam would fail. We don't have a scripture indicating God predestined or knew but these two doctrines try to take a position on it anyway without the scripture.

If God knew Adam would fail, then what point did God know? With knowing comes responsibility and with responsibility comes predestination or else God is not in control of his own creation. This is why the two groups fight among each other.

So keep in mind this...........

2Pe 1:10 Wherefore the rather, brethren (Every person born again or everyone Peter could call a brother in the Lord) , give diligence (Something we have to do) to make your calling and election sure: for if ye do these things (A condition on our part in realation to God's plan, purpose and calling on our life) , ye shall never fall:

God has an election and calling on every person He made. A predestined path of his choice as we are created for his workmanship (Eph)

1Co 12:12 For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ.

1) Jesus just did not die for us and our sins but for the Whole World (1Jn 2:3)

2) Everyone who is a believer is part of the body and no body part is more elected or better than another body part. All have a calling and election to pursue.

3) Not every believe will be faithful and complete their race. Most don't even understand that they have a part that is just as important as the guy who is a Prophet or Pastor. There is no such thing as a part that is less than another.

A couple this week had us watch their kids while they did ministry work at the Church. My wife and I have the same reward for helping to enable them to do that work. Most callings are not speaking positions but enabling those speaking positions to do their job.

Look at Stephan. He was a waiter so to speak. He helped settle the dispute about a certain group getting fed so the Apostles could pray and not have to spend time settling these petty disputes. Stephan enabled them to do their Job and calling though Stephan was not an Apostle.

Also while Stephan was working, God did many miracles through him because He had faith and was faithful. So even being just a server of tables, Stephan was increased with true riches (The power and favor of God) while serving others so the Apostles could do their work.

So what are your thoughts on this?

Blessings.

Mike.

Oh boy, looks like we're on the same page, at last! I'll try and answer your question about the "GC"

The pastor of the Baptist Church that I attend is a "five point Calvinist" of which he and I have discussed many, many, times. I have Calvins "Institutes of the Christian Religion" among other writings by other men including the "Baptist Confession of Faith (1689)" revised by Charles H. Spurgeon. It is because of these many conversations with my pastor that I had to establish , in my mind an alternative to his belief that if a person was not "chosen" he had no choice to be saved. I have studied Arminianism and don't agree with that theory....Soooooo I had to come up with my own theory which included believers who were truly believers and those who only believe but have no works and in the end are those the Lord says "I never knew you." Also in Thess 2 there is mentioned a spiritual rebellion during the tribulation. The "GC" is responsible for bringing in folks who call themselves believers but are not. They are the ones who are the apostate or those caught up in "the rebellion." You see, in establishing a new theology in this area to combat Calvinism I had to bring in all situations whereby people like the ones who Jesus rejects even though they "believed" (John 2) and those in the religious rebellion (2 Thess. 2).

So we have two calls. (1) The call to the "elect". (2) The call to the "general" public. Since there are very clear Scriptures dealing with God not willing that anyone perish, someone had to establish a suitable position that covers both....The Calvinist says, when the Scripture says God is not willing that any perish, is talking about the elect. God is not willing that any of the elect perish. See how they do it?

Everyone has to have a choice to decide in where they will spend eternity. With my theory they do. I'm sure others have come up with idea's about this subject, I just haven't heard of any. So I invented the "General Call of the Gospel."

 

[Narwhalist]

OK folks, I started this thread with the idea of focusing on the Biblical fact that a few people in Scripture, Perhaps what Edward suggested, from a tainted blood line, I don't know, They were used by God to demonstrate His power over evil. These people like Pharaoh were used for this purpose. Would they make it to God's Kingdom? No!

This is my position:
Eph. 1:4 God, before the foundation of the world chose certain people to be holy. Over the centuries, they would be birthed into certain generations to be a holy witness to that generation.

Romans 9:16 Says, God's choice of showing mercy or wrath does not depend on the person's choices but on God. The whole ninth chapter explains this hard to accept Biblical teaching....We are only talking about a few people that are used by God in this fashion. Pharaoh and Judas are examples.

2 Peter 3:9 Says that the Lord is not willing that any person perish in hell, but that everyone would repent of their sins and be saved.

We therefore have two classes of people entering into God's plan to populate His kingdom.
1. The elect - Ephesians 1:4
2. The folk who come in by the General Call of the Gospel. - 2 Peter 3:9

The Elect are those who somehow were known by God before the worlds were made. He decided when we would be born, what generation we would be born in, and what gifts of the Holy Spirit we would have to reach the sphere of influence He would place us into. Thats why it is said, "Seek first the Kingdom of God."

The G.C. (general call) folk come to repentance through the ministry of great men like D.L. Moody, Billy Graham etc. This is a large group of believers. Some are true believers and mixed in are folk who like the Mt. 13 Sower & seed, only one out of four are really saved. (I don't know if that's a correct %) but you get my point.

That's it folks! If you have an argument with that? you owe me 10 bucks!

Ephesians 1:4 - God does chose people to do His work, and that is what Ephesians 1:4 is saying. He does elect some folks to do His work. How, I don't know

I'm just going to give you one Scripture that proves an error in your, I don't know, heated reply? Boy do you get worked up. You know Mike? There's nothing wrong with the way I presented Scripture. Teachers do it all the time. Probably your preacher did it last Sunday. I think if I gave you a hundred dollar bill, you'd not like the color! What's wrong? Did I say or do something to torque you off?

You say there is not one Scripture that tell of any man that came from the womb with a set and predentioned path NOT ONE!!!! Well guess what! You'd better read Jeremiah 1:5 "Now the word of the Lord came to me, saying, Before I formed you in the WOMB I knew you, and before you were born I appointed you a Prophet to the nation." Mike, I'm having a hard time with your responses. They come across as angry, and you're saying things that are not true.

As far as I'm concerned, Reba, or Free or any Mod. you can close this thread. We seem to be

Oh boy, looks like we're on the same page, at last! I'll try and answer your question about the "GC"

The pastor of the Baptist Church that I attend is a "five point Calvinist" of which he and I have discussed many, many, times. I have Calvins "Institutes of the Christian Religion" among other writings by other men including the "Baptist Confession of Faith (1689)" revised by Charles H. Spurgeon. It is because of these many conversations with my pastor that I had to establish , in my mind an alternative to his belief that if a person was not "chosen" he had no choice to be saved. I have studied Arminianism and don't agree with that theory....Soooooo I had to come up with my own theory which included believers who were truly believers and those who only believe but have no works and in the end are those the Lord says "I never knew you." Also in Thess 2 there is mentioned a spiritual rebellion during the tribulation. The "GC" is responsible for bringing in folks who call themselves believers but are not. They are the ones who are the apostate or those caught up in "the rebellion." You see, in establishing a new theology in this area to combat Calvinism I had to bring in all situations whereby people like the ones who Jesus rejects even though they "believed" (John 2) and those in the religious rebellion (2 Thess. 2).

So we have two calls. (1) The call to the "elect". (2) The call to the "general" public. Since there are very clear Scriptures dealing with God not willing that anyone perish, someone had to establish a suitable position that covers both....The Calvinist says, when the Scripture says God is not willing that any perish, is talking about the elect. God is not willing that any of the elect perish. See how they do it?

Everyone has to have a choice to decide in where they will spend eternity. With my theory they do. I'm sure others have come up with idea's about this subject, I just haven't heard of any. So I invented the "General Call of the Gospel."

Oh boy, looks like we're on the same page, at last! I'll try and answer your question about the "GC"

The pastor of the Baptist Church that I attend is a "five point Calvinist" of which he and I have discussed many, many, times. I have Calvins "Institutes of the Christian Religion" among other writings by other men including the "Baptist Confession of Faith (1689)" revised by Charles H. Spurgeon. It is because of these many conversations with my pastor that I had to establish , in my mind an alternative to his belief that if a person was not "chosen" he had no choice to be saved. I have studied Arminianism and don't agree with that theory....Soooooo I had to come up with my own theory which included believers who were truly believers and those who only believe but have no works and in the end are those the Lord says "I never knew you." Also in Thess 2 there is mentioned a spiritual rebellion during the tribulation. The "GC" is responsible for bringing in folks who call themselves believers but are not. They are the ones who are the apostate or those caught up in "the rebellion." You see, in establishing a new theology in this area to combat Calvinism I had to bring in all situations whereby people like the ones who Jesus rejects even though they "believed" (John 2) and those in the religious rebellion (2 Thess. 2).

So we have two calls. (1) The call to the "elect". (2) The call to the "general" public. Since there are very clear Scriptures dealing with God not willing that anyone perish, someone had to establish a suitable position that covers both....The Calvinist says, when the Scripture says God is not willing that any perish, is talking about the elect. God is not willing that any of the elect perish. See how they do it?

Everyone has to have a choice to decide in where they will spend eternity. With my theory they do. I'm sure others have come up with idea's about this subject, I just haven't heard of any. So I invented the "General Call of the Gospel."

 

[Chopper]

Ephesians 1:4 - God does chose people to do His work, and that is what Ephesians 1:4 is saying. He does elect some folks to do His work. How, I don't know

 

[Narwhalist]

Oh boy, looks like we're on the same page, at last! I'll try and answer your question about the "GC"

The pastor of the Baptist Church that I attend is a "five point Calvinist" of which he and I have discussed many, many, times. I have Calvins "Institutes of the Christian Religion" among other writings by other men including the "Baptist Confession of Faith (1689)" revised by Charles H. Spurgeon. It is because of these many conversations with my pastor that I had to establish , in my mind an alternative to his belief that if a person was not "chosen" he had no choice to be saved. I have studied Arminianism and don't agree with that theory....Soooooo I had to come up with my own theory which included believers who were truly believers and those who only believe but have no works and in the end are those the Lord says "I never knew you." Also in Thess 2 there is mentioned a spiritual rebellion during the tribulation. The "GC" is responsible for bringing in folks who call themselves believers but are not. They are the ones who are the apostate or those caught up in "the rebellion." You see, in establishing a new theology in this area to combat Calvinism I had to bring in all situations whereby people like the ones who Jesus rejects even though they "believed" (John 2) and those in the religious rebellion (2 Thess. 2).

So we have two calls. (1) The call to the "elect". (2) The call to the "general" public. Since there are very clear Scriptures dealing with God not willing that anyone perish, someone had to establish a suitable position that covers both....The Calvinist says, when the Scripture says God is not willing that any perish, is talking about the elect. God is not willing that any of the elect perish. See how they do it?

Everyone has to have a choice to decide in where they will spend eternity. With my theory they do. I'm sure others have come up with idea's about this subject, I just haven't heard of any. So I invented the "General Call of the Gospel."

Hello Chopper. I will try and reply in a manner which will not be interpreted as an affront to anyone. Forgive my previous post if you felt they were insulting in any manner, but I tend to get very excited about scripture interpretations since, in my heart, I know there's a correct way to do it and I wish everyone interpreted scripture in that correct way ( and I am not saying mine is the correct way). One thing I have noticed in the past is that many people don't "believe what they read, " instead they "read what they believe." What I mean is, looking at the scripture that says "God is not willing that any should perish," interpreting "any" to mean the elect only is reading one's belief into what scripture is saying and not what is actually written. It's similar to Mormon's interpretation of Ephesians 2:8-9 where they add "after all we do" to the scriptures to justify their beliefs. Ephesians doesn't say that, but it's what they read because they are "reading what the believe" not "believing what they are reading."

 

[TRUTH over TRADITION]

One thing I have noticed in the past is that many people don't "believe what they read, " instead they "read what they believe." What I mean is, looking at the scripture that says "God is not willing that any should perish," interpreting "any" to mean the elect only is reading one's belief into what scripture is saying and not what is actually written. It's similar to Mormon's interpretation of Ephesians 2:8-9 where they add "after all we do" to the scriptures to justify their beliefs. Ephesians doesn't say that, but it's what they read because they are "reading what the believe" not "believing what they are reading."

You nailed it. We have a tendancy to carry our biases with us and the way we perceived the world is more often than not displayed against the backdrop of our preconceptions and subjective convictions.

......... I tend to get very excited about scripture interpretations since, in my heart, I know there's a correct way to do it and I wish everyone interpreted scripture in that correct way ( and I am not saying mine is the correct way).

When I see a post like this I can't help but ask the following questions:
If you know that there's a correct way to interpret scripture, would you do us the favor of sharing it with us all so we can all be on the same page? If you know the correct way, why aren't you confident that your way is the correct way?

 

[Brother Mike]

Everyone has to have a choice to decide in where they will spend eternity. With my theory they do. I'm sure others have come up with idea's about this subject, I just haven't heard of any. So I invented the "General Call of the Gospel."

Well praise God!!!

It's just a matter of understanding each other because we don't have a phone or voice chat to hash it out quickly. This is why I take my beatings knowing the person my not have the foundation to understand me or have heard of my position before until it gets explained.

For me the body of Christ is the body of Christ is the body of Christ. So even though I have Pastored a Church, have laid hands on sick and seen them healed, I don't consider myself as a "Special Elect" because I just believed and that is what God told me to do. If God says pray 4 hours a day for a body to do the work then that is just as important. If God says be a CEO here and supply so that they may go out and preach then the reward is the same.

However, you agree that everyone on the planet has a choice as God said choose whom you will serve. No use in picking at how we think about it.

When we get to God picks who gets healed or God picks who gets saved I have a big issue with that because my own son should have been dead one day and the next they found no cancer. I did not waiver, did not doubt, did not say anything contrary to what God said, and God said with long life I'll satisfy him. I am very big on believing the Word and if God healed my son, then He will heal someone else's child that will believe what God said.

My Father in Heaven is a respecter of faith, and the heart that will obey and be faithful even in the small things. Even saved folk have problems with that and I am still understanding honor and obedience to even small things.

Apostasy or something else?

2Th_2:3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away (Apostasia) first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;

Now JLB can't tell the difference between a Greek Female noun or a Greek verb "UNLESS" it does not mess with his doctrine. The Word Apostasia is a Greek Female noun which means it can't define itself in relation to it's place. That is Greek 101.

Paul never mentioned the Church deflecting from the truth, in fact Paul said that the Lord is able to present himself a glorious church without spot or wrinkle, so taking this one verse despite all the other verses to mean "DEFLECTION FROM THE TRUTH" I have a big issue with.

Apostasia is a Female Greek Noun. It's "WORD STUDY" meaning means to depart from a previous standing. The root just means to depart from or away from and was used 17 times in the NT to meant leave something such as a place. There is nothing in Apostasia from it's root that means deflection from the truth or leave the truth.
ZERO.

You know there is a difference between the Word study and the concordance definition right?

A concordance Definition is a help to show how the Word was used, it is not always what the actual word means. We need the Greek Word study for that.

Strongs Concordance Definition:
Feminine of the same as G647; defection from truth (properly the state), (“apostasy”): - falling away, forsake.

Actual Greek Word meaning from root- Strongs.

646 apostasía (from 868 /aphístēmi, "leave, depart," which is derived from 575 /apó, "away from" and 2476 /histémi, "stand") – properly, departure (implying desertion); apostasy – literally, "a leaving, from a previous standing."

Paul's passage is a bit strange because normally the Female noun gets interpreted with a male noun after or the article subject. If we read it according to Rules (simple rules there are others)

Act 21:21 And they are informed of thee, that thou teachest (The Verb) all the Jews which are among the Gentiles to forsake (Apostasia) Moses, (Moses connecting noun from whom they departed) saying that they ought not to circumcise their children, neither to walk after the customs.

We can define the Female noun here because of the Verb and the Male noun after. They departed from what Moses taught.

With Paul it would read we depart from the Son of perdition first before the coming of Jesus. The subject of the Article being the coming together with Jesus.

That is not right though........... So we have to take the subject of the Article to define what Apostasia departs from. We depart first with Jesus at his coming.

Faith is a Female noun but does not denote faith in what, it could be faith it might rain or faith in God.
Wedding is a female noun, but does not denote who's.
Apostasia is a female noun but does not denote departing from what or whom.

If Paul used a Verb which also means Apostasy, then it would read different. The subject article is us coming together with Jesus......... Us and Jesus.
and it would mean what you described.

parapiptō
par-ap-ip'-to (VERB)
From G3844 and G4098; to fall aside, that is, (figuratively) to apostatize: - fall away.

Parapipto is the Verb that means to fall away from what is true. It has no root or connection to Apostasia though, but the correct verb if the Holy Spirit was describing some apostasy of the Church.

We have to be careful with our new English words from the Greek as they have different rules and mean different things. Such as Rapture in Latin when the word came from means something completely different from it's English meaning. Rapture's root or Rapt means big bird from there to snatch suddenly in Latin.

Be led...... don't take any mans word for what scriptures mean, check in with the Holy Spirit and see what exact words the Holy Spirit used for scriptures.

Mike.

 

[Deborah13]

OK my friend, actually I thought better of just stopping this thread. Because of all the misunderstanding of my position I will go on to defend that position and hopefully straighten out some thinking....First of all Mike, I want you to read my post #47. Now this statement is for everyone who has participated in my thread. I am NOT a hypercalvinist. I am NOT a five point Calvinist. I am a four point Calvinist (actually there is no such thing) I think, where most who were a part of this thread misunderstood my position is when Pharaoh was mentioned. Somehow people thought that I believed that anyone who is not "elect" (called before the foundation of the world) would fall into this category. If somehow I hinted at that I'm sorry because that is not what I believe. The Pharaoh's and the conquests of Joshua are in the past, not present, that I know of. OK, that leaves the people that are left who are not the "called" ones (elect). Those people fall under a position that I have coined "GC" or "General Call" of the Gospel. This is where evangelists operate. This is what post #47 presents, I think. So, now that you know clearly what my position is, what's wrong?

Hello Chopper, First let me say I think I understood your previous post that is in question. When I read it, it was clear to me that you were not even a 5 pointer, let alone hyper. Your definition of the General Call is quite the opposite of John Calvin's.
My One problem with your definition of the elect pertains to one scripture in particular where it appears to me that Paul is speaking of the whole body of the Church being the elect. So if you could explain your view of this scripture I may be able to see what you see.

Romans 8
27 and He who searches the hearts knows what the mind of the Spirit is, because He intercedes for the [a]saints according to the will of God.

31 What then shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who is against us? 32 He who did not spare His own Son, but delivered Him over for us all, how will He not also with Him freely give us all things? 33 Who will bring a charge against God’s elect? God is the one who justifies; 34 who is the one who condemns? Christ Jesus is He who died, yes, rather who was [c]raised, who is at the right hand of God, who also intercedes for us.

Thanks, Deb

 

[Chopper]

Well praise God!!!

It's just a matter of understanding each other because we don't have a phone or voice chat to hash it out quickly. This is why I take my beatings knowing the person my not have the foundation to understand me or have heard of my position before until it gets explained.

For me the body of Christ is the body of Christ is the body of Christ. So even though I have Pastored a Church, have laid hands on sick and seen them healed, I don't consider myself as a "Special Elect" because I just believed and that is what God told me to do. If God says pray 4 hours a day for a body to do the work then that is just as important. If God says be a CEO here and supply so that they may go out and preach then the reward is the same.

However, you agree that everyone on the planet has a choice as God said choose whom you will serve. No use in picking at how we think about it.

When we get to God picks who gets healed or God picks who gets saved I have a big issue with that because my own son should have been dead one day and the next they found no cancer. I did not waiver, did not doubt, did not say anything contrary to what God said, and God said with long life I'll satisfy him. I am very big on believing the Word and if God healed my son, then He will heal someone else's child that will believe what God said.

My Father in Heaven is a respecter of faith, and the heart that will obey and be faithful even in the small things. Even saved folk have problems with that and I am still understanding honor and obedience to even small things.

Apostasy or something else?
2Th_2:3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away (Apostasia) first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;

Now JLB can't tell the difference between a Greek Female noun or a Greek verb "UNLESS" it does not mess with his doctrine. The Word Apostasia is a Greek Female noun which means it can't define itself in relation to it's place. That is Greek 101.

Paul never mentioned the Church deflecting from the truth, in fact Paul said that the Lord is able to present himself a glorious church without spot or wrinkle, so taking this one verse despite all the other verses to mean "DEFLECTION FROM THE TRUTH" I have a big issue with.

Apostasia is a Female Greek Noun. It's "WORD STUDY" meaning means to depart from a previous standing. The root just means to depart from or away from and was used 17 times in the NT to meant leave something such as a place. There is nothing in Apostasia from it's root that means deflection from the truth or leave the truth.
ZERO.

You know there is a difference between the Word study and the concordance definition right?

A concordance Definition is a help to show how the Word was used, it is not always what the actual word means. We need the Greek Word study for that.
Strongs Concordance Definition:
Feminine of the same as G647; defection from truth (properly the state), (“apostasy”): - falling away, forsake.

Actual Greek Word meaning from root- Strongs.

646 apostasía (from 868 /aphístēmi, "leave, depart," which is derived from 575 /apó, "away from" and 2476 /histémi, "stand") – properly, departure (implying desertion); apostasy – literally, "a leaving, from a previous standing."

Paul's passage is a bit strange because normally the Female noun gets interpreted with a male noun after or the article subject. If we read it according to Rules (simple rules there are others)

Act 21:21 And they are informed of thee, that thou teachest (The Verb) all the Jews which are among the Gentiles to forsake (Apostasia) Moses, (Moses connecting noun from whom they departed) saying that they ought not to circumcise their children, neither to walk after the customs.

We can define the Female noun here because of the Verb and the Male noun after. They departed from what Moses taught.

With Paul it would read we depart from the Son of perdition first before the coming of Jesus. The subject of the Article being the coming together with Jesus.

That is not right though........... So we have to take the subject of the Article to define what Apostasia departs from. We depart first with Jesus at his coming.

Faith is a Female noun but does not denote faith in what, it could be faith it might rain or faith in God.
Wedding is a female noun, but does not denote who's.
Apostasia is a female noun but does not denote departing from what or whom.

If Paul used a Verb which also means Apostasy, then it would read different. The subject article is us coming together with Jesus......... Us and Jesus.
and it would mean what you described.

parapiptō
par-ap-ip'-to (VERB)
From G3844 and G4098; to fall aside, that is, (figuratively) to apostatize: - fall away.

Parapipto is the Verb that means to fall away from what is true. It has no root or connection to Apostasia though, but the correct verb if the Holy Spirit was describing some apostasy of the Church.

We have to be careful with our new English words from the Greek as they have different rules and mean different things. Such as Rapture in Latin when the word came from means something completely different from it's English meaning. Rapture's root or Rapt means big bird from there to snatch suddenly in Latin.
Be led...... don't take any mans word for what scriptures mean, check in with the Holy Spirit and see what exact words the Holy Spirit used for scriptures.

Mike.

Mike, I'd like your take on when Jesus Christ will present His Church to Himself without spot. I'm thinking at the marriage supper....You spoke of the 2 Thess. 2 apostasy. Some feel it is a Christian or Jewish thing but I believe it is a humanity thing. All those who are even close to being "religious" will rebel.

 

[Deborah13]

So

Oh boy, looks like we're on the same page, at last! I'll try and answer your question about the "GC"

The pastor of the Baptist Church that I attend is a "five point Calvinist" of which he and I have discussed many, many, times. I have Calvins "Institutes of the Christian Religion" among other writings by other men including the "Baptist Confession of Faith (1689)" revised by Charles H. Spurgeon. It is because of these many conversations with my pastor that I had to establish , in my mind an alternative to his belief that if a person was not "chosen" he had no choice to be saved. I have studied Arminianism and don't agree with that theory....Soooooo I had to come up with my own theory which included believers who were truly believers and those who only believe but have no works and in the end are those the Lord says "I never knew you." Also in Thess 2 there is mentioned a spiritual rebellion during the tribulation. The "GC" is responsible for bringing in folks who call themselves believers but are not. They are the ones who are the apostate or those caught up in "the rebellion." You see, in establishing a new theology in this area to combat Calvinism I had to bring in all situations whereby people like the ones who Jesus rejects even though they "believed" (John 2) and those in the religious rebellion (2 Thess. 2).

So we have two calls. (1) The call to the "elect". (2) The call to the "general" public. Since there are very clear Scriptures dealing with God not willing that anyone perish, someone had to establish a suitable position that covers both....The Calvinist says, when the Scripture says God is not willing that any perish, is talking about the elect. God is not willing that any of the elect perish. See how they do it?

Everyone has to have a choice to decide in where they will spend eternity. With my theory they do. I'm sure others have come up with idea's about this subject, I just haven't heard of any. So I invented the "General Call of the Gospel."

So now that I have read this post all I can say is, ????
John Calvin's General Call says that 'God calls all men with a general call, but that call is not efficacious (doesn't take effect). He explains for scriptures such as Hebrews 6:4-10, that these were people who God used but were never really saved. Much like your one's in the "I never knew you" scripture. They did use the power of the Lord's name, they believed for that but were not born again. They thought those "works" would save them.
So in your theory about the one's who apostate isn't any different than Calvin. You are still believing in the big 'I' in TULIP. Irresistible Grace. And that means that one does not REALLY have a choice.
We must be saved by grace, the grace of God, and if it is 'Irresistible' there is only one or two conclusions available.
Either God doesn't call everyone or God calls but does not call with His grace applied to all who respond so He doesn't save them.
So you do believe that salvation is not available to ALL men. Only to those that God applies His 'Irresistible Grace'.

NOW, I am NOT saying that IS how you believe. This is just what I am seeing and hearing. I may be very wrong!!!
Please explain. Thanks, Deb

 

[Chopper]

Hello Chopper, First let me say I think I understood your previous post that is in question. When I read it, it was clear to me that you were not even a 5 pointer, let alone hyper. Your definition of the General Call is quite the opposite of John Calvin's.
My One problem with your definition of the elect pertains to one scripture in particular where it appears to me that Paul is speaking of the whole body of the Church being the elect. So if you could explain your view of this scripture I may be able to see what you see.

Romans 8
27 and He who searches the hearts knows what the mind of the Spirit is, because He intercedes for the [a]saints according to the will of God.

31 What then shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who is against us? 32 He who did not spare His own Son, but delivered Him over for us all, how will He not also with Him freely give us all things? 33 Who will bring a charge against God’s elect? God is the one who justifies; 34 who is the one who condemns? Christ Jesus is He who died, yes, rather who was [c]raised, who is at the right hand of God, who also intercedes for us.

Thanks, Deb

Hi Deb, Paul seems to be speaking of Christians in general even though he uses the term elect. It may be that the term elect would invoke a little more serious thinking than if he left it out. The ones who might bring about an accusation would be those mentioned in verses 38, 39. Even those are helpless! It does seem that Paul is almost blending the elect with those who come in through the GC. So I agree with your thinking that it does appear that Paul is speaking of the whole body.

 

[Chopper]

So


So now that I have read this post all I can say is, ????
John Calvin's General Call says that 'God calls all men with a general call, but that call is not efficacious (doesn't take effect). He explains for scriptures such as Hebrews 6:4-10, that these were people who God used but were never really saved. Much like your one's in the "I never knew you" scripture. They did use the power of the Lord's name, they believed for that but were not born again. They thought those "works" would save them.
So in your theory about the one's who apostate isn't any different than Calvin. You are still believing in the big 'I' in TULIP. Irresistible Grace. And that means that one does not REALLY have a choice.
We must be saved by grace, the grace of God, and if it is 'Irresistible' there is only one or two conclusions available.
Either God doesn't call everyone or God calls but does not call with His grace applied to all who respond so He doesn't save them.
So you do believe that salvation is not available to ALL men. Only to those that God applies His 'Irresistible Grace'.

NOW, I am NOT saying that IS how you believe. This is just what I am seeing and hearing. I may be very wrong!!!
Please explain. Thanks, Deb

I'm not aware that Calvin had a general call. If he did it certainly is not mine. This is how I see the "Church" of Jesus Christ. Now I'd better get this exactly right. The Church (universal) is made up of two classes of believers who are Biblically saved. This Church also has people who profess but do not posses Salvation. Now most local churches or assemblies will have the same. I will identify the three:

Listen everyone, What I'm going to explain is the result of spending a lot of time looking over denominational interpretations of the rapture or raptures. It has always seemed to me that Baptists have to twist Scripture to support their pre-trib posture. Others as well. This has bothered me so I have been seeking a position that treats Scripture as it presents itself, not how I twist it. I will need everyone's help! This is in the early stages of my effort to establish a rapture doctrine that makes sense to ALL OF US, is that possible? Want to help me? I will put down what I have found and lets pick it apart.

Opps, I will pick this up tomorrow as I have to go out and visit someone who's not doing so hot. See ya

 

[Narwhalist]

You nailed it. We have a tendancy to carry our biases with us and the way we perceived the world is more often than not displayed against the backdrop of our preconceptions and subjective convictions.



When I see a post like this I can't help but ask the following questions:
If you know that there's a correct way to interpret scripture, would you do us the favor of sharing it with us all so we can all be on the same page? If you know the correct way, why aren't you confident that your way is the correct way?

Hello ToT. I hope you are well. My post does not say that my interpretations are the correct ones, it says that there is a correct way to interpret all of scriptures!! I am confident I am interpreting certain scriptures correctly, but at the same time I keep an open mind in case someone scripturally shows me I am wrong. It has happened because I am not in any way infallible. For example, there are scriptures in Revelation which I am not sure of the correct interpretation and I am studying them and praying to the Lord to reveal the truth to me. I believe the Lord reveals things to me slowly, because if I suddenly knew everything I would probably stop studying, but in time He will. I know there is a correct way because truth is absolute not relative. Either God chose me for salvation before I was born or he didn't, but it can't be both. As far as election I am confident my interpretation is correct because:
1) 2 Peter 3:9 - God desires that no one should perish and if God created people to perish, this creates a contradiction.
2) Romans 8:29-30 - "For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren. 30 Moreover whom He predestined, these He also called; whom He called, these He also justified; and whom He justified, these He also glorified." This simply means that those who will accept Jesus are predestine to conform to His image. Everyone has the chance, but God knows who will and who won't.
3) Titus 2:11 - " For the grace of God has appeared that offers salvation to all people."
4) Finally, God created us to worship Him and have fellowship. He gave Adam and Eve free will to choose, and Adam and Eve chose to disobey Him, thus sin came in, they were kicked out and mankind fell. God knew what would happen (foreknowledge). But God allowed for man's reconciliation by allowing His son to die for out sins and if any should believe in Him and repent, God would bestow them with grace and forgive their sins. But if God choses and creates some of us to go to heaven, then why didn't He do this in the beginning and avoid all of this. The reason He didn't I believe in my humble opinion because in order for it to be true love there has to be a choice, otherwise we would just be loving automatons that only loved Him because He gave us no choice.
There are scriptures out there which there is no question what they mean. There are scriptures out there which are difficult to get the true meaning. One must interpret the difficult scriptures in a way that they do not contradict the ones we are sure about, no vice versa. That is one of the main tools I use to interpret scripture.

 

[reba]

Chopper when you head into a rapture thread please take it over to end times... http://christianforums.net/Fellowship/index.php?forums/end-times.24/
Thanks a bunch reba

 

[Chopper]

Chopper when you head into a rapture thread please take it over to end times... http://christianforums.net/Fellowship/index.php?forums/end-times.24/
Thanks a bunch reba

OK Reba, I'll try and remember that. If not please remind me.

 

[Chopper]

Hello Chopper. I will try and reply in a manner which will not be interpreted as an affront to anyone. Forgive my previous post if you felt they were insulting in any manner, but I tend to get very excited about scripture interpretations since, in my heart, I know there's a correct way to do it and I wish everyone interpreted scripture in that correct way ( and I am not saying mine is the correct way). One thing I have noticed in the past is that many people don't "believe what they read, " instead they "read what they believe." What I mean is, looking at the scripture that says "God is not willing that any should perish," interpreting "any" to mean the elect only is reading one's belief into what scripture is saying and not what is actually written. It's similar to Mormon's interpretation of Ephesians 2:8-9 where they add "after all we do" to the scriptures to justify their beliefs. Ephesians doesn't say that, but it's what they read because they are "reading what the believe" not "believing what they are reading."

You are absolutely right my friend. Before my mind could receive something new, I had to stop any preconceptions. Baptist traditions are very strong impressions on a person's mind especially if he is going to teach. To "unlearn" some of them has been difficult for me. When I started out being the pastor in my first Baptist Church I was a member of the IFCA (Independent Fundamental Churches of America) an extremely legalistic bunch. Separation and secondary separation was their big subject back in the late 70s and early 80s. I had to unlearn all the Bob Jones, Rodney Bell, and other leaders, theology of legalism. There are still a lot of "old school" theology that I have to reconsider from time to time.

 

[Chopper]

OK all you budding theologians, Here, we will establish pre-rapture posture and then a rapture posture or position. What we come up with, has to be devoid of denominational influence. It may, I hope, become a doctrine that churches who are seeking answers outside of denominational thinking, will look at what we come up with and say YES, that's good.

First of all, before we go into the rapture and End Times, of which we will have to move from this forum to End Times Forum. There are people and Biblical positions that we have to agree upon.

1. Prior to the "Rapture" who is really saved? From what the Scriptures say, who is going to the Kingdom? I have believed that the "Church of Jesus Christ" is made up of 3 types of people. 1. The Bride. (possible example Mt 25:1-13, Ten Virgins) These are the ones in a local church that are very serious of their Salvation and have many works, some private, to prove it. They are a remnant of that church. The rest of the people of that church are somewhere in a scale of 1 to 5. 1 being a seeker, to just saved and those mildly interested.

OK, lets arrive at an understanding of who makes up a typical local assembly. Once this basic question is answered, we will start a new thread in "End Times" to discuss if there is, in fact, a pre-trib rapture, and then who goes in it.

Now!! If anyone thinks this is a bad idea for some reason, let me know please. If you think its a good idea and would like to participate, please let me know because in the future I might call on you to explain something.

 

[reba]

Yup Chopper as we get older we all have unlearn it seems...