MacArthur

[DaveW]

9 minutes ago, Invicta said:

If you read what I actually said that I had read that Augustine was the first, then said that Clemment taight it.  Stop twisting my words.

 

 

Yes, Paul was a murderer but I follow him.

Not twisting your words - anyone can read what you said and what I said, and I am comfortable with that.

And I will point out that Paul did not murder anyone after he was saved, whilst Calvin murdered people WHILE HE LED HIS CHURCH AS POPE.

Someone is deliberately misrepresenting here, and it is not me.

To slander the Apostle Paul like that to defend a murderer and false teacher is an abominable thing.

Edited April 11, 2017 by DaveW
Phone spelling

[Invicta]

AS I said I don't follow Calvin, but I do have a book of some of  his commnetaries, although I vave not read a great deal of it, I did read a comment he made on Ephesians, that when we consider the claims of Christ and thee claims of Christ, even a ten year old boy could see that the pope is antischrist.  What a ten year old could see in Calvins's day, many can not see today.

I also once borrowed a biograhy of Calvin from the library.  Because some peple in our then church mentioned him but didn't seem to know a great deal about him.  I can't remember much about what they said, but one thing, that was that Calvin wanted to be buried in an unmarked grave as he didn't want anyone to rever him.  

 

[DaveW]

1 hour ago, Invicta said:

AS I said I don't follow Calvin,

You have said this several times, and yet you defend him, even to the point of slandering the Apostle Paul to do so, you support those who ARE calvinists when they come to attack on this site, you state things in the same terms as Calvinists, and you make statements that promote the Calvinist definitions of Bible terms.

You keep saying you are not a Calvinist, but you sound a lot like one.

And I don't know that I have ever met a Calvinist who didn't initially refuse to acknowledge his true position.

 

But if you say you are not, then we are forced to accept it...........

 

Can't help thinking...... if it swims like a duck, and waddles like a duck, and quacks like a duck...................

[DaveW]

2 hours ago, Invicta said:

If you read what I actually said that I had read that Augustine was the first, then said that Clemment taight it.  Stop twisting my words.

 

 

Yes, Paul was a murderer but I follow him.

I can't help it, I have to revisit this......

 

How absolutely disgraceful to compare the pre-salvation sins of Paul with the active leadership activities of Calvin.

Yes, Paul was responsible for the killing of Christians, and he personally desired letters from the leaders of the Jews to give him authority to hunt down Christians wherever he found them.

Act 9:1-5
(1)  And Saul, yet breathing out threatenings and slaughter against the disciples of the Lord, went unto the high priest,
(2)  And desired of him letters to Damascus to the synagogues, that if he found any of this way, whether they were men or women, he might bring them bound unto Jerusalem.
(3)  And as he journeyed, he came near Damascus: and suddenly there shined round about him a light from heaven:
(4)  And he fell to the earth, and heard a voice saying unto him, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?
(5)  And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.
 

BUT THESE THINGS WERE BEFORE HE WAS SAVED!!!!!!

Calvin on teh other hand was responsible, both directly in some cases, and indirectly in other cases, of causing the death of men whom he considered to be heretics.

John Calvin argued:

“Whoever shall now contend that it is unjust to put heretics and blasphemers to death, knowingly and willingly incur their guilt. It is not human authority that speaks, it is God who speaks and prescribes a perpetual rule for His Church.”

That he was involved in such actions is hardly surprising considering the above statement.

AND THESE THINGS WERE WHILST HE WAS A LEADER OF HIS NEW CHURCH.

I hesitate to say after he was saved, because the only record I have of anything like a salvation testimony, is not a salvation testimony.

But the biggest difference, and the thing that makes the statement of Invicta so reprehensible, is that Paul's actions were before he was saved, the action's of Calvin were while he was the leader of his church.

To even think of comparing the two, one the actions of an unsaved man who then got saved, and the other the actions of a man who was leading a church, is the height of misrepresentation, and shows how far a man will go to lift up Calvin - even to the depths of discrediting and slandering an Apostle of God, so as to present a murderous false teacher in the best light he can.

I say this is a foul and desperate action of a man who is committed to promoting a false teacher.

 

 

[wretched]

That is the gist of the calvin system: Man has no accountability in any area, lost or "saved".

Edited April 12, 2017 by wretched

[Pastor Scott Markle]

23 hours ago, No Nicolaitans said:

Perhaps I haven't studied it enough, but those verses in 1 Peter tell me that...

The second person of the Godhead was foreordained to...

• be the Christ/Messiah
• be the lamb of God; whereby, he (the second person of the Godhead) would "taste death for every man" and be the sacrifice for man's sins.

Considering that 1 Peter 1:17-21 is actually one sentence, it "appears" that the main thrust of the "sentence" seems to focus upon his salvific work...at least at this point, that's how it appears to me. :)

So, to answer the question...

As I read over the question...I find myself reading back over it...and re-reading it...and going back over it...and it's giving me a brain-meltdown. Perhaps this is where a lot of those nifty Calvinist words come from? When you have a brain-meltdown, create a word for it. LOLOLOL!

...and all I can offer is this based on my own understanding...

The second person of the Godhead was foreordained to be the Christ and lamb of God (and all that those two titles entail).

...and I'm sticking with that answer.

Speaking as Pastor Scott Markle, the opponent of Calvinism,

Indeed, it is an interesting subject to ponder in what manner the eternal Son of God was "foreordained" (Greek verb, "proginosko") as the Christ, the sacrificial Lamb of God, as per 1 Peter 1:18-21.

However, in the debate against Calvinistic doctrine, the word "foreordained" in 1 Peter 1:20 can create a significant difficulty for the non-Calvinist; for it would provide evidence that the Greek verb "proginosko" (which is the same Greek verb that is translated as "foreknow" in Romans 8:29) can carry the meaning of "foreordained" decisionally, as opposed to simply "foreknown" informationally, or even "foreloved" relationally.  As such, the use of the same Greek verb in Romans 8:29, translated "foreknow," could then mean "foreordained decisionally in Romans 8;29 also.  How then does the non-Calvinist deal with this problem?

[No Nicolaitans]

1 hour ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Speaking as Pastor Scott Markle, the opponent of Calvinism,

Indeed, it is an interesting subject to ponder in what manner the eternal Son of God was "foreordained" (Greek verb, "proginosko") as the Christ, the sacrificial Lamb of God, as per 1 Peter 1:18-21.

However, in the debate against Calvinistic doctrine, the word "foreordained" in 1 Peter 1:20 can create a significant difficulty for the non-Calvinist; for it would provide evidence that the Greek verb "proginosko" (which is the same Greek verb that is translated as "foreknow" in Romans 8:29) can carry the meaning of "foreordained" decisionally, as opposed to simply "foreknown" informationally, or even "foreloved" relationally.  As such, the use of the same Greek verb in Romans 8:29, translated "foreknow," could then mean "foreordained decisionally in Romans 8;29 also.  How then does the non-Calvinist deal with this problem?

Hold on...brain-meltdown in progress and I must needs think of a new word. :)

It's all just a matter of what it actually means...which to me, and from what I gather...it means "to KNOW beforehand. So there is no problem or predicament for me a.k.a. a non-Calvinist...

From G4253 and G1097; to know beforehand, that is, foresee: - foreknow (ordain), know (before).

[heartstrings]

What if it simply means, Ones he has "known" "before".........

Rom 8:29

For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to beconformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.

........as in "knew" them in salvation.

Mat 7:23

And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

.......so, the moment you get saved, God "predestinates" you to be comformed to His image? No? Just a thought.

[No Nicolaitans]

That's what it means...to KNOW BEFOREHAND.

It doesn't mean...to CHOOSE BEFOREHAND.

God knew who would and wouldn't be saved from eternity past. Those (whom he knew would be saved) have been predestinated for some things which result from them being saved.

Edited April 12, 2017 by No Nicolaitans
removed a "s"

[Pastor Scott Markle]

13 minutes ago, No Nicolaitans said:

That's what it means...to KNOW BEFOREHAND.

It doesn't mean...to CHOOSE BEFOREHAND.

God knew who would and wouldn't be saved from eternity past. Those (whom he knew would be saved) have been predestinated for some things which result from them being saved.

Yet the English word "foreordained" (found in the King James translation ONLY in 1 Peter 1:20, as the translation for the Greek verb "proginosko")  DOES indeed mean -- "to ordain beforehand; predestinate."

And the English word "ordain" means -- "1) to put in order, arrange, prepare; 2.a) to decree, order, establish, enact; 2.b) to predetermine, predestinate; 3) to invest with the functions or office of a minister, priest, or rabbi."

So then, CAN the Greek verb "proginosko" mean "to foreordain," that is -- "to before arrange; to before decree; to predetermine; to predestinate"?

[heartstrings]

5 minutes ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Yet the English word "foreordained" (found in the King James translation ONLY in 1 Peter 1:20, as the translation for the Greek verb "proginosko")  DOES indeed mean -- "to ordain beforehand; predestinate."

And the English word "ordain" means -- "1) to put in order, arrange, prepare; 2.a) to decree, order, establish, enact; 2.b) to predetermine, predestinate; 3) to invest with the functions or office of a minister, priest, or rabbi."

So then, CAN the Greek verb "proginosko" mean "to foreordain," that is -- "to before arrange; to before decree; to predetermine; to predestinate"?

I thought we were discussing the word "foreKNOW"??

 

First of all, the word origins of "ordain" simply mean "order" as in "set in order". If you want to see an example of another, the Greek word translated "ordained", in Acts 13:48,, is also translated "addicted" in another place in the NT. When you're "addicted" to something, your life is "set in order" and "established" toward that thing you're addicted to. Know what I'm saying? And I strongly suspect the "reformed" movement, early on, had great influence on how this English word has been corrupted. Now, ordain is mainly used to refer to a priest or preacher's "ordination" and little else. And I don't hardly think it meant "predestinate".

[No Nicolaitans]

16 minutes ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Yet the English word "foreordained" (found in the King James translation ONLY in 1 Peter 1:20, as the translation for the Greek verb "proginosko")  DOES indeed mean -- "to ordain beforehand; predestinate."

And the English word "ordain" means -- "1) to put in order, arrange, prepare; 2.a) to decree, order, establish, enact; 2.b) to predetermine, predestinate; 3) to invest with the functions or office of a minister, priest, or rabbi."

So then, CAN the Greek verb "proginosko" mean "to foreordain," that is -- "to before arrange; to before decree; to predetermine; to predestinate"?

Well, if I were really going to delve further into this (of which I don't have time right now), these are the steps that I probably would take...

1. I would try to find out what the English word "ordain" (or foreordain if possible) meant in the 1600s...or as close to the 1600s as possible.
2. I would then look at the other scriptural instances of the Greek word that is translated as "foreordained" here...to see their use(s) and context(s).
3. Then I'd probably look at what the Greek word "ordain(ed)" means.
4. Then I'd look at what context its various uses are.
5. Then with that knowledge, I'd again look at the the verse in question.

Whether I do all of that, I don't know. Gotta go...

Hope the Lord gives you a great day!

[wretched]

Please consider that the english word is more than sufficient (as always IMO). Ordained in any tense or usage requires a volunteer to agree to it. It never means nor implies against the will of an individual. God simply knows who all the voluntary believers are throughout history who are ordained to everlasting life.

The same explanation goes for the Lord Jesus Christ who the Father always knew would willingly be our Savior.

[Pastor Scott Markle]

13 minutes ago, heartstrings said:

I thought we were discussing the word "foreKNOW"??

Brother Wayne,

My posting as follows:

39 minutes ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Yet the English word "foreordained" (found in the King James translation ONLY in 1 Peter 1:20, as the translation for the Greek verb "proginosko")  DOES indeed mean -- "to ordain beforehand; predestinate."

And the English word "ordain" means -- "1) to put in order, arrange, prepare; 2.a) to decree, order, establish, enact; 2.b) to predetermine, predestinate; 3) to invest with the functions or office of a minister, priest, or rabbi."

So then, CAN the Greek verb "proginosko" mean "to foreordain," that is -- "to before arrange; to before decree; to predetermine; to predestinate"?

Was given in relation to my earlier posting as follows:

3 hours ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Speaking as Pastor Scott Markle, the opponent of Calvinism,

Indeed, it is an interesting subject to ponder in what manner the eternal Son of God was "foreordained" (Greek verb, "proginosko") as the Christ, the sacrificial Lamb of God, as per 1 Peter 1:18-21.

However, in the debate against Calvinistic doctrine, the word "foreordained" in 1 Peter 1:20 can create a significant difficulty for the non-Calvinist; for it would provide evidence that the Greek verb "proginosko" (which is the same Greek verb that is translated as "foreknow" in Romans 8:29) can carry the meaning of "foreordained" decisionally, as opposed to simply "foreknown" informationally, or even "foreloved" relationally.  As such, the use of the same Greek verb in Romans 8:29, translated "foreknow," could then mean "foreordained decisionally in Romans 8;29 also.  How then does the non-Calvinist deal with this problem?

There is no doubt that a Calvinist will use the King James translation's usage of the English word "foreordained" in 1 Peter 1:20 as a  translation for the Greek verb "proginosko" to argue that the Greek verb "proginosko" (which is also that found in Romans 8:29) CAN mean "predestinated; pre-chosen."  So then, how do we non-Calvinist's respond with Biblical validity unto this argument?

[Invicta]

while we are speaking about the misuse of words,  Who first used the word witness incorrectly as in "I am going to witness to him/her".  Or "I have been witnessing to so and so?"

 

 

Edited April 13, 2017 by Invicta