Romans 10:13

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Jun 20, 2022
6,460
1,330
113
If you knew anything of theological history, you would know that John Calvin never created TULIP!

"The name sometimes implies that they stem directly from John Calvin. In truth though, the formulation came after Calvin as a response from the Reformed to the Arminian Remonstrance that posited 5 points of objection in opposition to Reformed Theology. Perhaps ironically, Jacob Arminius (1560 – 1609) studied in Geneva under Calvin’s successor, Theodore Beza. He would eventually become a professor of theology and reject certain of Calvin’s doctrines pertaining to soteriology (theology of salvation). His followers, under the name Remonstrance, drafted up Five Articles and put them before the authorities in Holland. The Reformed response to these came at the Synod of Dort (1618-1619) which are reflected in the Canons of Dort and which became known popularly as the five points of Calvinism. So the five points of Calvinism were actually in response to the five points of objections the Arminians raised.

https://www.theotivity.com/post/tulip-intro

In fact, Calvin died over 1564, 50 years before the Canons of Dort, in 1628-19. So, to put Calvin & TULIP together, is historical nonsense. Further, the Synod of Dort occurred in the Netherlands. They speak Dutch there! The word in Dutch for the flower tulip is tulp. Missing I!

In fact, TULIP is an English acronym. I have no idea what the Dutch word is for Total, Unlimited, Irresistible, or the other words. But I am sure there is probably some difference. I know the acronym was never used till the 20th century, and many Reformed Theologians take issue with some of the TULIP points.

WHY TULIP DOES NOT EQUAL REFORMED THEOLOGY
In spite of its frequent use by critics and advocates of “Calvinism” alike, TULIP does not provide an adequate or accurate distillation of Reformed theology.
First, TULIP is a relatively recent acronym used to summarize a much older theological document–a document that did not itself provide a summary of Reformed theology. Specifically, TULIP was developed in the twentieth century English-speaking world to describe the “five points” made in the Canons of Dort in 1618-1619. The Canons are not even an attempt to give a broad statement of Reformed belief in its five points. Instead, the document is organized into five points to respond to the five points presented in an Arminian document called the Remonstrance, which speaks to a cluster of issues related to predestination, the Spirit, and the assurance of salvation. The Dutch Reformed Church had no need for a general statement of Reformed doctrine; it already possessed one in the Belgic Confession. This confession gave a wide-ranging exposition of Reformed teaching, including the sacraments, the Trinity, the nature of the church and state, the person and work of Christ, and so on"

https://reformedjournal.com/the-problem-with-tulip-or-more-than-tulips-in-this-field/#:~:text=First, TULIP is a relatively,of Dort in 1618-1619.

So perhaps instead of using the wrong person's name and the entirely wrong acronym, we should call this view, Reformed, which is what most people who believe this doctrine call themselves. I am certain there is no church of Calvin, either. Nor is there a church of Arminius, although Arminian is a type of soteriology, which Arminius did not actually create!

There is so much wrong with this whole thread. Neither the OP nor most of the opposition really understand much more than folk theology! And the OP is completely off track in his soteriological beliefs! Well, maybe he is a rare hypercalvinists, but I've never actually met one!

I also doubt this poster can actually read Hebrew or Greek, but is quoting some made up source somewhere. As to the Septuagint (translated in 300 BC) having wrong doctrine and the Masoretic Hebrew text from the 10th century AD being right, that really comes out of the whole Hebrew Roots, Messianic mov't. If the LXX was good enough for Jesus and his disciples, I think it was good enough for anyone. I've studied both the Septuagint in Koine Greek & the Masoretic Hebrew text in Hebrew. While there are minor differences, not enough to create a totally wrong doctrine on the basics of soteriology, or how we are saved. Besides your total lack of knowledge of historical theology, you have no direct knowledge of any of the 3 languages the Bible was written in! And no, a Strong's concordance word search does not count as any knowledge of the original languages.

Finally, so many people totally putting down John Calvin! Do you also put down Martin Luther? Because Calvin & Luther basically started the Protestant Church. Henry VIII took England out of communion with Rome, causing a 100 year civil war in England between the 2 religions, other than not acknowledging the pope as head of the church, there were almost no theological differences between the Anglican Church (Church of England) & the Roman Catholic Church.

Interestingly enough, Henry's son, Edward VI, was trained in Reformed Theology, by using mostly the Bible. England, of course had many varieties of churches in authority including the Puritans, who eventually ended up in North America, escaping persecution in England, when the tide of authority turned again. As for Calvin, Luther, and Arminius, they were all men of their times. They made terrible mistakes, but their heart was to bring the church back to the Bible, and to salvation through Jesus, not an errant church. Most of Europe was either Reformed or Lutheran, except where Catholicism remained.

Any time you put down any of the founders of the Protestant Church, you are saying you are against Protestantism. As for me, I do lean Reformed, but I have never read anything by Calvin, nor do I agree totally with all Reformed doctrine. But all the early Protestants opened the door out of Catholicism, which wouldn't allow the Bible to be read by the common people, kept the services & Bible in Latin, so no one could understand much about God except their interpretation, till the second half of the 20th century!

What were Protestants protesting? The Roman Catholic Church!
What were the Reformers trying to Reform? The Roman Catholic Church, which didn't even get the order of salvation right, and impressed upon people that salvation was only through the RCC. Luther, Calvin and other early Reformers literally freed us from the chains of Catholicism! So watch your ignorant tongues, when you put down any of the early Reformers, whether you agree or totally disagree with their soteriology!
TULIP is a lie that doesn't match the Hebrew Text like it does the Septuagint. Who cares about who introduced it? The concept was here 1,000 years BEFORE Calvin was born and Calvin just put his own personal stamp on it.

I don't follow the Hellenized Septuagint. We have the literal Words of God in the Tanakh. The Greek was great because Everyone spoke Greek.

But the true literal Words of God are only found in the Tanakh!
 

Magenta

Senior Member
Jul 3, 2015
61,133
30,265
113
Magenta -----your statement was that God was involved in your life as an unbeliever -----

Who was your god when you were unsaved -----Satan ---not God ----
-Questions -----I will wait for your answer

So what change did God make in your personal life as an unbeliever -----Did He Bless your life as an unbeliever ---or were you under the Curse -- ------as Scripture say ----
Yes, God blessed me and protected me many times as an unbeliever, and all experience God's grace
in some way, shape or form before they surrender their opposition to God and are saved by grace
through faith in the shed righteous blood of His Son, Jesus Christ, Who incarnated specifically to
give His life as a ransom for many, for any who would do so (believe). He also revealed Himself
to me a number of times, as I was seeking truth over a period of years; true, I was not seeking
Him, but Truth is embodied in the Person and work of Jesus Christ. These are things which are
Scriptural truths also: the seeker will find; God will reveal Himself; He draws us with loving
kindness. One of my most profound life experiences was at the end of my marriage, at
Passover in 1988. I went to see a movie on the life of Christ based on the gospel of Luke, at a
neighbourhood church. I have shared about this multiple times over the course of my years here.


Here are a couple of posts I made on it recently:

This is where someone needs to say that God lets us know that we are loved and forgiven :)

I experienced this in a very profound way when I was at or nearing one of the lowest points of my
life, feeling so broken and like such a failure and pretty hopeless and in a lot of emotional pain.


Although I did not believe in that God at the time, so it is one of those things that are a bit paradoxical.

I had gone to a neighbourhood church around Passover at the end of my marriage because they
were showing a movie based on the gospel of Luke, and I was curious to know Who Jesus was.


I did not leave with understanding of Who Jesus was(/is), but I did leave with the knowledge
that God loved me and forgave me even when I could not love or forgive myself, and that was
something I treasured, even as I thought, it's too bad it had to happen in a church
-:unsure::giggle:


Along with the experience of His love and forgiveness being imparted to me was also the knowledge that
He knew and understood all of how I had ended up where I was, and that I was undeserving of His love.


Not in a way that was shaming or to make me feel guilty. Just a knowing that I truly was unworthy.

I thought a lot about Jesus right after that, but it was many more years before I came to believe.

https://christianchat.com/bible-dis...octrines-of-grace.209781/page-13#post-5028445

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

I cared about knowing I was loved, perhaps having something to do with having grown up in a large family where we were never shown affection or told we were loved. I did not have just the knowledge of being loved passed on to me in that experience, for it was more like my whole body was filled with the light of His love. It was overwhelming and more love than I had ever felt or experienced in my life, before or since. And along with that came the knowledge that He knew me fully... I entered into a phase of spiritual seeking after that, which engaged me for many years as I worked full time and eventually began working on developing a sideline concerning my main pagan interest, which is what I was called out of in another profound experience fifteen years after that first one. In the meantime I knew God was working in my life, but I was opposed to the Biblical God and Christianity, and anything to do with organized religion; that may have had something to do with my strict religious upbringing, which I rebelled fairly heartily against.

An example of how I knew God was working in my life was while chasing after love, at the end of a relationship, when I sat down to write out my feelings, right away I was so so so tired of feeling the way I did, and a cry rose up as from the depth of my being for God to help me. Within days I was clean and sober after 24 years of drinking and drugging. I lost the desire to use mind and mood altering substances, and began in earnest working on my "recovery." That entailed a lot of meetings in different fellowships and seeking guidance and support from others who also encouraged me to pray, which I did. I relapsed after eight years but was still not a believer at that point. I passed my twelve year milestone not too long ago:D

https://christianchat.com/bible-dis...octrines-of-grace.209781/page-14#post-5028489

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Many people don't realize it, but the whole purpose of the program is to help people establish and maintain a personal relationship with God. I was not a Christian; I was a spiritual seeker for many years, in hard rebellion against the traditional God, Christianity, and organized religion. I did, however, work the steps, learned to pray, ask for help, take suggestions, and lean on the fellowship for extra support when I felt I needed it, and it in turn gave me many friends and acquaintances, lots of inspiration, guidance, and direction. I did eventually surrender my opposition to God, for God powerfully and profoundly revealed Himself to me in various way numerous times over the years. The Biblical promise came true: If you seek sincerely, you will find :)(y)
 
Jun 20, 2022
6,460
1,330
113
Here is Proof that MAN will still Believe a LIE:


We have a Doctrine based on most of its base points off the Septuagint, which is a Hellenized Translation, not even the actual Words of God.

And, we have the Tanakh, which came [[Directly]] from OUR OWN GOD.

Which Doctrine would be correct here, the one based off Greek Myth, that your Bible still INCLUDES ((UNICORNS and other Mythical Dialect that was familiar in the Greek Myth)) into a translation of God's Word...
or

the Literal actual WORDS of GOD from Himself in the Tanakh?
 

Nehemiah6

Senior Member
Jul 18, 2017
26,074
13,778
113
But the true literal Words of God are only found in the Tanakh!
There is no question that the Greek Septuagint (LXX) translation of the Hebrew Tanakh is a CORRUPTED version of the OT. Those who need confirmation should go to The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah by Alfred Edersheim and read about it.
 
Dec 21, 2020
1,825
474
83
There is no question that the Greek Septuagint (LXX) translation of the Hebrew Tanakh is a CORRUPTED version of the OT. Those who need confirmation should go to The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah by Alfred Edersheim and read about it.
Since they quoted the LXX frequently, Paul and other NT writers never got that memo.
 

Webers.Home

Well-known member
May 28, 2018
5,893
1,084
113
Oregon
.
Given the context of the verse wouldn't the Lord here be Jesus?

Well; personally, I don't think it's good idea to christianize the Lord of Joel
2:32, but that's just me because I really think that, in context, Rom 10:13
it's encouraging folks to call on the one who restored Jesus' dead body to life
rather than calling on His son.
_
 
Jun 20, 2022
6,460
1,330
113
Since they quoted the LXX frequently, Paul and other NT writers never got that memo.
They quoted what was already being practiced to a people who mostly all had one thing in common, they Spoke Greek. The Disciples were fluent in Aramaic, which is short hand Hebrew. But everywhere the Greek Language was simplest to learn for a Second Language.
So naturally, outside of specific wording like Tabitha and Eli LLama Sabachthani (to which the Greek has no letters or examples of to format a Greek word so left in Natural Aramaic), They would speak Greek to Foreigners. Behind closed doors, amongst themselves, obviously it was 100% Aramaic.
 

Magenta

Senior Member
Jul 3, 2015
61,133
30,265
113
Well; personally, I don't think it's good idea to christianize the Lord of Joel
2:32, but that's just me because I really think that, in context, Rom 10:13
it's encouraging folks to call on the one who restored Jesus' dead body to life
rather than calling on His son.
_
No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again.
 

Ted01

Well-known member
May 14, 2022
1,055
448
83
Yes, God blessed me and protected me many times as an unbeliever, and all experience God's grace
in some way, shape or form before they surrender their opposition to God and are saved by grace
through faith in the shed righteous blood of His Son, Jesus Christ, Who incarnated specifically to
give His life as a ransom for many, for any who would do so (believe). He also revealed Himself
to me a number of times, as I was seeking truth over a period of years; true, I was not seeking
Him, but Truth is embodied in the Person and work of Jesus Christ. These are things which are
Scriptural truths also: the seeker will find; God will reveal Himself; He draws us with loving
kindness. One of my most profound life experiences was at the end of my marriage, at
Passover in 1988. I went to see a movie on the life of Christ based on the gospel of Luke, at a
neighbourhood church. I have shared about this multiple times over the course of my years here.
Awesome share!! I was moved the first time that I heard it... and still find it glorifying to God :D

I too believe that God had been at work in my life long, long before I came to accept and believe - way before Salvation.
 

Inquisitor

Well-known member
Mar 17, 2022
3,388
1,006
113
.



Well; personally, I don't think it's good idea to christianize the Lord of Joel
2:32, but that's just me because I really think that, in context, Rom 10:13
it's encouraging folks to call on the one who restored Jesus' dead body to life
rather than calling on His son.
_
Colossians 3:17
Whatever you do in word or deed, do everything in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks through Him to God the Father.
 

oyster67

Senior Member
May 24, 2014
11,887
8,705
113
Romans 10:13
King James Version

13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.

Does this mean that everyone who has ever called upon the name of Jesus will be saved?
This verse means exactly what it says. It does not say that a Christian may go off afterwards to the far country and live for self and still go to heaven without repentance and returning home like the Prodigal Son.

Cast not away such great salvation. If you have wandered off the path, then call upon the name of the Lord in repentance and be saved.
 

Angela53510

Senior Member
Jan 24, 2011
11,786
2,959
113
The Orthodox Church departed from the Catholic Church in the eleventh century. That was nearly five hundred years before Calvin was born.

There were reformers way before Calvin.

In the 9th century the theologian Gottschalk of Orbais was condemned for heresy by the Catholic church, Gottschalk believed that the salvation of Jesus was limited and that his redemption was only for the elect.[42] The theology of Gottschalk anticipated the Protestant reformation.[43][44] Ratramnus also defended the theology of Gottschalk and denied the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist; his writings also influenced the later Protestant reformation.[45] Claudius of Turin in the 9th century also held Protestant ideas, such as faith alone and rejection of the supremacy of Peter.[46] (wikipedia)

King Henry could not get a divorce, the Pope would not grant King Henry a divorce from Catherine. So King Henry started his own church and got his divorce. That's the origin of the church of England.
Just so you know, my grandparents were Ukrainian Orthodox. I've been to various services, including weddings and funerals. The RCC & the Orthodox split over a few small issues, overtly, like the filioque clause, and whether to use leavened or unleavened bread for communion. But the basic reason was because they wanted independence from the pope, just like King Henry VIII. Who I covered in detail in the post you replied to!

Which YOU obviously did not read!! Appalling ignorance. If you want to criticize my post, then at least read the post, and reply to it.

As for your extremely obscure individuals, which you copied and pasted directly off of something in the internet, given the number references to the footnotes (but no footnotes!). If you knew anything about scholarship, you would understand that there are copyright laws against directly copying and posting anything without quotes, and without a link to the source. You pretend to be an intellect, but directly stealing material without acknowledging the source is plagiarism. It's enough to get you thrown out of any university, college or theological school or seminary. Academic institutes even have computer programs to identify plagiarism, it is done so frequently these days with the internet! So you have kindly established that you have no post secondary academic background at all. But wait, you are probably going to say something about people going to post secondary institutes, being over educated fools, or perhaps those going to seminary having no relationship with God. Another piece of utter nonsense!

Getting back to your obscure people in you unlinked paragraph, you miss the entire point! Google Reformers of the Protestant mov't, and you will find Calvin & Luther at the top of the list. For example:

"The greatest leaders of the Reformation undoubtedly were Martin Luther and John Calvin. Martin Luther precipitated the Reformation with his critiques of both the practices and the theology of the Roman Catholic Church. John Calvin was the most important figure in the second generation of the Reformation, and his interpretation of Christianity, known as Calvinism, deeply influenced many areas of Protestant thought. Other figures included Pope Leo X, who excommunicated Luther; the Holy Roman emperor Charles V, who essentially declared war on Protestantism; Henry VIII, king of England, who presided over the establishment of an independent Church of England; and Huldrych Zwingli, a Swiss reformer."

https://www.britannica.com/event/Reformation

I didn't mention Zwingli, because he is not as well known, nor the Anabaptists -although the Mennonites honour Menno Simons, a Catholic priest turned early Protestant. I did a research paper on him early in my MDiv, to find Simons' writings on peace, for which the mov't is based on, only to find he had only written one thing - that he wanted peace when the city he was in was attacked! The Anglicans were initially identical to Catholics, although they became more Protestant later on! I also didn't mention the Moravians and Count Zindendorf, who had the 100 year prayer meeting, and started the modern missionary mov't. Important? Yes! But not as influential as Luther & Calvin.

As far as John Calvin, one of his major contributions to the Reformation was his books. They set out the basics of what Protestantism is all about!

"Institutes of the Christian Religion emphasized the primacy of the individual in relation to God, maintaining there was no need for an intermediary and the Catholic Church was unbiblical. In Calvin's view, God himself had given the individual the means to commune with the divine and simplicity was at the heart of the Christian message. Calvin's conservative views and insistence on the primacy of scripture, as well as his persecution of those considered heretics or libertines, elevated his status from rebel-reformer to a defender of the faith which, by this time, meant Christianity as defined outside the strictures of the Catholic Church."

https://www.worldhistory.org/Protestant_Reformation/

If you had mentioned Jan Hus and John Wycliffe as important as pre-Reformers, I would have agreed with you. Instead, you reach back into the middle of the Middle Ages in the 9th centuries for some totally unknown people who influenced no one. The Reformation could have started with Jan Hus, but most say it started technically when Luther nailed his 95 Theses to the door of the church in Wittenberg. Luther started a Movement! A huge portion of Europe remains Lutheran to this day! Calvin started the Reformed Movement, which spread to France, Holland, Scotland and many other places. I proudly count the French Huguenots (Reformed) in my lineage, who were persecuted and escaped to England. The Reformation was a specific period of time, (1517- 1555 or 1648) in a specific place (Europe & eventually North America) led by specific people (Luther, Calvin & Zwingli!) Maybe you should study about it before you make such absurd posts! It is an historical designated period of time, which you have obviously never heard of!

If you wanted to argue against my statements, bringing up the Orthodox Church, who consider themselves as the first church & believe and practice church almost the same doctrine as Catholics, you totally missed the mark on that one! Any Orthodox person would freak out if you called their church Protestant. Although they did put church services & the Bible into the vernacular, & relied on the Bible much more than the RCC. If anything, they are the third major church! But NEVER Protestant.

A lot of Christian Church history I just know, because of family, and paying attention. I also took 3 semesters of church history in seminary, and a full course on the Reformation for my PhD. It doesn't make me a complete expert, but it does give me an amazing overview of the history of Christianity, which you, Inquisitor, have just told the entire forum know nothing about with this ridiculous post!
 

Angela53510

Senior Member
Jan 24, 2011
11,786
2,959
113
TULIP is a lie that doesn't match the Hebrew Text like it does the Septuagint. Who cares about who introduced it? The concept was here 1,000 years BEFORE Calvin was born and Calvin just put his own personal stamp on it.

I don't follow the Hellenized Septuagint. We have the literal Words of God in the Tanakh. The Greek was great because Everyone spoke Greek.

But the true literal Words of God are only found in the Tanakh!
Sure! Hebrew Roots guy! Keep pushing this ignorance! Just wrong! I've already explained why! Nothing to do with the differences between the Hebrew OT& the Greek OT! They are doctrinally the same! I've read them both in the original languages! Have you?
 

Angela53510

Senior Member
Jan 24, 2011
11,786
2,959
113
That is a common fallacy. Palestinian Jews did not need a Greek translation.
You could not be more wrong! 80% of the time in the NT where Jesus and his disciples quoted the OT, they used the LXX. They memorized the Septuagint. By the time of Jesus in Palestine & the Mediterranean, Koine Greek was the common language! Koine means "common." Every Palestinian spoke Greek, although some, like Paul, spoke it much better than John, whose epistles are the simplest Greek in the NT. In Greek in Seminary, we were able to read John's epistles in the first semester.

Of course, being a KJV person, you have to support the 10th century AD Masoretic Genrew version, which the KJV translators used. Even though the Greek Septuagint was used from 300 BC, and used by literally everyone in the first century!
 

Nehemiah6

Senior Member
Jul 18, 2017
26,074
13,778
113
You could not be more wrong! 80% of the time in the NT where Jesus and his disciples quoted the OT, they used the LXX.
Since I have referred you to Edersheim's classic and scholarly work -- The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah -- I believe we should trust his assessment over any false ideas about the value of the LXX. The very fact that it incorporated all those apocryphal books should be enough. Christ made it crystal clear that there are only 24 books in the Hebrew Tanakh.
 
Dec 21, 2020
1,825
474
83
Since I have referred you to Edersheim's classic and scholarly work -- The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah -- I believe we should trust his assessment over any false ideas about the value of the LXX. The very fact that it incorporated all those apocryphal books should be enough. Christ made it crystal clear that there are only 24 books in the Hebrew Tanakh.
The fact remains. Jesus, Paul, and others quoted the LXX.
 
Jun 20, 2022
6,460
1,330
113
The fact remains. Jesus, Paul, and others quoted the LXX.
They quoted Enoch as well and that Book is not considered Inspired as well as the Hellenized Septuagint.

So what, they used the Greek to people WHO ONLY SPOKE GREEK, imagine that, speaking to people in their own Language to spread the Gospel of Christ.

Sounds like a logistical move out of Rather obvious reasons for using a Greek Version to people who ONLY SPOKE GREEK.

It's so obvious why they used portions of the Septuagint even You should be ashamed to mention they quoted the Septuagint.