Hermeneutics: Interpreting Scripture

  • 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.
Three Main Heresies of Oneness / “Jesus Only” / UPCI Teaching

You will run across a lot of it on this site.

  1. Denial of the Trinity – They reject the biblical view of one God in three eternal Persons (Father, Son, Holy Spirit) and teach Modalism — one Person appearing in different roles.
      Refuted by: Matthew 3:16–17 (KJV), John 1:1–2 (KJV), John 14:16 (KJV)
  2. Baptismal Regeneration – They claim salvation and forgiveness come only through baptism “in Jesus’ name,” rather than through faith in Christ’s finished work.
     Refuted by: Acts 10:43–48 (KJV), Romans 10:9–10 (KJV), Ephesians 2:8–9 (KJV)
  3. Tongues as Proof of Salvation – They insist speaking in tongues is the necessary sign of receiving the Holy Spirit.
     Refuted by: Romans 8:9 (KJV), 1 Corinthians 12:13 (KJV), 1 Corinthians 12:30 (KJV)

Salvation is by grace through faith, not by water or works — and the true God is eternally Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.


Grace and peace.
 
LightBearer316 said:
Three Main Heresies of Oneness / “Jesus Only” / UPCI Teaching

You will run across a lot of it on this site.
  1. Denial of the Trinity – They reject the biblical view of one God in three eternal Persons (Father, Son, Holy Spirit) and teach Modalism — one Person appearing in different roles.
      Refuted by: Matthew 3:16–17 (KJV), John 1:1–2 (KJV), John 14:16 (KJV)
  2. Baptismal Regeneration – They claim salvation and forgiveness come only through baptism “in Jesus’ name,” rather than through faith in Christ’s finished work.
     Refuted by: Acts 10:43–48 (KJV), Romans 10:9–10 (KJV), Ephesians 2:8–9 (KJV)
  3. Tongues as Proof of Salvation – They insist speaking in tongues is the necessary sign of receiving the Holy Spirit.
     Refuted by: Romans 8:9 (KJV), 1 Corinthians 12:13 (KJV), 1 Corinthians 12:30 (KJV)
Salvation is by grace through faith, not by water or works — and the true God is eternally Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.

Grace and peace.
Click to expand...

Hey LB,

Scripture describes the Father, Son and HS as having different roles in relating to believers, but that does not deny the Trinity.
I think the flaw of modalism is viewing the modes or roles as happening one at a time instead of simultaneously.

Matt. 3:16-17 portrays the Father's role as heavenly Being, Jesus as Son, and the HS as the "means between".
John 1:1-2&14 portrays God as the Word and Jesus as the Word (HS) incarnate.
John 14:16 & 16:13 portrays the HS as counselor and truth guiding believers.

Do you want to apply biblical hermeneutics by taking the lead in discussing the next passage, 2Cor. 4:3-4?

(Ditto g&p :^)
 
NewLifeInChrist said:
I will answer the question by telling a story...

I had a interaction with a preacher who's church I was visiting. The discussion turned south when He would not concede that God's authority is greater than the Bible's authority. As I was leaving, he said, "Something is wrong with your hermeneutics". I felt spiritually drained on the way home and asked God if it were possible that I had been wrong and the preacher had been right. Immediately, God reminded me of the Scripture, "But you must continue in the things which you have learned and been assured of, knowing from whom you have learned them" (2 Ti 3:14).

This is an important lesson. You can trust and be confident in your interpretation of Scripture if (and only if) you know that God is the one who taught it to you and if He is assuring you that it is true.
Click to expand...
Or only if you have correctly ascertained what the author intended when he wrote it. That
 
GWH said:
I view hermeneutics or interpreting GW in part as harmonizing Scripture regarding various topics, and thus I am concerned with the debate between tulipists and MFWers on CC, which will be resolved only when folks understand how to harmonize the two veins of verses that are cited by each group, so let us attempt to do so.

Tulipists typically cite the following Biblical passages regarding the T in TULIP for total depravity: Rom. 3:10-12/Psa. 14:1-3 = 53:1-3,
1Cor. 2:14, 2Cor. 4:3-4, Jer. 17:9a, Eph. 2:1, 4:17-19, Matt. 13:13/Isa. 6:9-10, Ezek. 36:26, Mark 7:21-23, John 3:19, 6:44&63-65.

How can these be harmonized with those passages cited by MFWers for indicating the opposite?
Click to expand...

The next Scripture is 2Cor. 4:3-4, "Even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing. The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God."

When we consider the context for help with interpreting this passage, we notice that it is framed by Paul saying God's mercy
has given him the ministry of "setting forth the truth plainly... to every man's conscience... Jesus Christ as Lord". (2Cor. 4:1-2&5)

We have already seen in a previous post that 1Cor. 1:21-24 says God was pleased to save those who believe and that 1Cor. 15:1-11 indicates belief is a free decision.

Thus, we see that interpreting 2Cor. 4:3-4 as teaching that God approves of the god of this age blinding people's minds so they cannot repent and be saved is wrong, because the context indicates that souls may see the light or glory of God in Christ and be saved.

MFWers would cite 2Cor. 4:11-12 as a counterpoint verse showing that God gives everyone the opportunity to be persuaded, have a change of heart, and be saved (cf. 1Tim. 2:3-4).
 
GWH said:
The next Scripture is 2Cor. 4:3-4, "Even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing. The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God."

When we consider the context for help with interpreting this passage, we notice that it is framed by Paul saying God's mercy
has given him the ministry of "setting forth the truth plainly... to every man's conscience... Jesus Christ as Lord". (2Cor. 4:1-2&5)

We have already seen in a previous post that 1Cor. 1:21-24 says God was pleased to save those who believe and that 1Cor. 15:1-11 indicates belief is a free decision.

Thus, we see that interpreting 2Cor. 4:3-4 as teaching that God approves of the god of this age blinding people's minds so they cannot repent and be saved is wrong, because the context indicates that souls may see the light or glory of God in Christ and be saved.

MFWers would cite 2Cor. 4:11-12 as a counterpoint verse showing that God gives everyone the opportunity to be persuaded, have a change of heart, and be saved (cf. 1Tim. 2:3-4).
Click to expand...

Oops! Make that 2Cor. 5:11-12.
 
The problematic part of the tulipist interpretation of election is not the term “elect”, which simply means “choose souls to be saved”,
but rather it is whether God shows favoritism by determining that only some sinners will be saved while the majority of humanity are condemned to hell. Here is the tulipist dogma and Scriptures indicating the opposite understanding in parentheses:

T – total depravity, meaning souls are unable to exercise sufficient MFW to seek salvation. (Matt. 7:7, Rom. 1:20, 2:5, 3:22-28)

U – unconditional election, meaning that souls need not satisfy a divine requirement such as faith or repentance, but God chooses to save some while damning the rest to hell. (Matt. 4:17, 7:21, John 3:16, Eph. 2:8-10, Gal. 5:6, 1John 3:23)

L – limited atonement, meaning that Christ died to pay the penalty of sin only for elect souls. (Rom. 3:22-26, 5:18, 2Cor. 5:14-19, Heb. 2:14-17, 1John 2:2)

I – irresistible grace, meaning that elect souls cannot resist or refuse God’s will for them to be saved. (Matt. 13:14-15, 23:37, 1Tim. 2:3-4, Tit. 2:11, 2Pet. 3:9)

P – perseverance of the saints, meaning that the elect cannot repudiate their salvation and commit apostasy, because God perseveres in keeping them saved. (Rom. 11:22, 1Cor. 15:2, Gal. 5:4, Col. 1:22-23, 2Thes. 1:4-5, 2Tim. 2:12, Heb. 3:6&14, 10:35-36, Jam. 1:12, 2Pet. 1:10-11, 2:20, 1John 2:24-25 and Rev. 2:10)

The viewpoint opposed to TULIP affirms God's fairness and love for all souls, who may choose to repent and be saved because God graces all sinners with sufficient conscience or Moral Free Will (MFW). Thus, this interpretation of Scripture may be termed "MFWism".
 
A systematic study of the doctrine of election might begin well by interpreting a proof-text that seems to be the fountainhead of the TULIP dogma, namely Romans 9:10-24, in the context of the rest of relevant Scripture in Romans regarding salvation/election (s/e), which is Romans 1-11. Here are the most relevant excerpts of such a study:

1. Romans 1:16 says the Gospel reveals that (s/e) is for “everyone who believes”, both Jew and Gentile.

2. Romans 1:17 describes s/e as “righteousness from God” that is by faith “from first to last” or from creation until the end.

3. Romans 2:4 teaches that God’s kindness or patience with sinners is meant to lead them toward repentance, which implies that sinners are able to repent because of God’s leading.

4. Romans 2:5 warns that those who do not repent but instead stubbornly resist God’s leading are storing up wrath against themselves for the day when God’s righteous judgment will be revealed, which implies that God enables sinners to repent–or not (cf. Deut. 30:19).

5. Romans 2:6 affirms what is called karma by saying that “God will give to each person according to what he has done”, which (in Gal. 6:7-9) is called reaping what a person sows.

6. Romans 2:7 speaks of the need for “persistence in doing good” and seeking glory, honor and immortality in order to receive s/e or eternal life, which echoes what Jesus commanded (in Matt. 7:7) and connects with the doctrine of perseverance (cf. Heb. 10:36 & Jam. 1:3-4).

7. Romans 2:11 teaches that “God does not show favoritism” (cf. Eph. 6:9, Col. 3:25, 1Pet. 1:17), which is how God judges people justly, so the fact that some sinners ignore God’s Gospel indicates that His will or leading is resistible because of MFW.

8. Romans 2:15 teaches that sinful souls have a conscience or awareness of “the requirements of the law”, which may be combined with Romans 1:20 to teach that God’s power and moral nature or will may be perceived via creation and conscience (called natural revelation), thus those unfamiliar with God’s Word in Scripture have no good reason for resisting divine leading and choosing atheism/evil.

9. Romans 3:20-21 states the law makes souls conscious of sin and that “the Law and Prophets testify” or prepare the way for the new revelation of righteousness from God apart from the Law, which takes up where Romans 1:17 left off.

10. Romans 3:22a says that “righteousness from God” or s/e comes through faith “in Jesus Christ” (cf. Eph. 2:8), a phrase Paul used eleven times in Ephesians 1:3-14 to indicate s/e.

11. Romans 3:22b says that God’s righteousness is given “to all who believe—there is no difference”” signifying that all sinners may believe or be s/e (cf. 1Tim. 2:3-4, John 3:16, Tit. 2:11), because there is no favoritism (#7).

12. Romans 3:23 teaches that “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God”, meaning that no one can be good enough to earn salvation because of their own merit.

13. Romans 3:24 says sinners “are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus” (via faith per v.22, cf. 3:27-28); s/e is free because Christ paid the price/cost.

14. Romans 3:25a explains redemption as being “a sacrifice of atonement” for those who have faith in Christ’s work of dying in their place.

15. Romans 3:25b further explains that God demonstrated his just patience (#3) or forbearance in leaving unpunished those sins committed before the revealing of the Gospel (foreshadowed in Gen. 22:8 & 13), implying that sinners had/have the opportunity to believe and be s/e thereby demonstrating God’s justice/not showing favoritism (#11).

16. Romans 3:26 continues to emphasize divine justice by declaring it three ways (“justice…, just…, justifies”), which justness is synonymous with righteousness (2Thes. 1:5-6, Heb. 6:10).

17. Romans 4:1-25 presents Abraham as a Gentile who became the physical father of the Jews and the spiritual father of all who choose to have faith in God/Christ.

18. Romans 5:1 echoes Eph. 2:8 by describing s/e as justification through faith, Eph. 1:5 & 7 by using the phrase “through Jesus Christ”, and Eph. 2:14 by describing s/e as having peace with God.

19. Romans 5:2 & 5 also echo Eph. 2:18 & 3:1 by describing s/e as having access to God’s grace via the Holy Spirit.

20. Romans 5:6-10 states that God’s love (cf. kindness in #3) for the ungodly, for sinners and for His enemies is demonstrated by Christ dying for their s/e or justification/reconciliation.

TBC...
 
21. Romans 5:12-21 describes s/e in corporate terms, saying that–like the first man–all (many?) men also sinned and died, and God’s grace comes to all (many?) because of Jesus Christ.

22. Romans 6:1-14 describes s/e in terms of Christians being united with Christ’s death and resurrection, so they who are under grace should not allow sin to reign in their bodies but should instead serve God as instruments of righteousness.

23. Romans 6:15-23 describes s/e in terms of being slaves to whom one willingly obeys, whether to sin or to obedience of God’s teaching that leads to righteousness, which results in eternal life “in Christ Jesus our Lord” (cf. #10).

24. Romans 7:1-6 describes s/e in terms of a wife’s remarriage after the death of her husband, saying that Christians have been released from the dead letter of the law so that they may serve God in the new way of the Spirit.

25. In Romans 7:7-25 Paul describes s/e in terms of struggle between what a person’s conscience wants to do and what his sinful nature causes him to do until he is rescued by Christ.

26. In Romans 8:1-25 Paul describes the s/e struggle in terms of Christians–who are indwelt by the Spirit and freed from living in accordance with the sinful nature—as putting to death sinful deeds, because they are God’s children and co-heirs of Christ’s glorious resurrection.

27. In Romans 8:28-30 Paul says that those who love God were foreknown and “predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son”, which is akin to what Paul said in Ephesians 1:4-14, that before creating the world God chose or predestined those sinners “in Christ” to be blameless sons and receive the Holy Spirit.

28. Romans 8:31-39 elaborates on the previous point by saying that there is nothing that can separate “we” (who reflect God’s love per v.28) from Christ’s love (but Heb. 10:26-36 indicates one exception).

29. In Romans 9:1-5 Paul notes how sad it is that those who are part of the human ancestry of Christ reject him as Messiah, but being a member of Abraham’s spiritual children is what is crucial (#17).

30. Romans 9:6-13 states that God had chosen which one of Rebecca’s sons (through whom Messiah’s lineage would be traced) before they were born (cf. Mal. 1:2-3). The word translated as “hate” (miseo) is the same as in Luke 14:26 with reference to family, so a better translation would be “preferred”: loving Jacob/hating Esau refers to God preferring that Jacob’s descendants serve as the heritage for Messiah rather than to individual salvation.

31. Romans 9:14-16 stresses that s/e depends on God’s mercy rather than being achieved by human effort (#12), although the preceding context has shown that (the non-meritorious condition of) faith is involved, which truth can be stated as “God initiates; sinners cooperate—or not”, because of MFW.

32. Romans 9:17 refers to pharaoh in Exodus 9:13-35 as an example of someone whom God allowed to oppose His will so that His power might be manifested by the plagues. The OT passage indicates that pharaoh was conscious of his sin but “He and his officials hardened their hearts” (v.34b).

33. Romans 9:18 says that God “hardens whom He wants to harden”, which raises the question asked in v.19, “Why does God blame sinners who cannot resist His will?” Paul’s response (Rom. 9:20-21) is that God has the might and thus the right to determine what is right. Then he speculates (“What if”) that God might have patiently endured evildoers (#20) as evidence of His glory toward recipients of His mercy (Rom. 9:22-23).

34. In Romans 9:24-33 and 10:1-4 Paul notes that God elected to choose Gentiles with saving faith instead of Israelites who sought salvation by works and stumbled over the Gospel of Christ, even though “everyone who believes” receives righteousness or s/e.

TBC...
 
The Danger of Calvinism

1. If Calvinism is correct and God decreed/ordained/predestined every single event to happen, then that would mean He is directly and personally responsible for every rape, murder, liar, molester, thievery, idolater, drunkard, junkie, sorcerer, atheist, Satanist, terrorist, human genocide, etc etc. He would be responsible for every single evil that has ever walked the face of the planet…you name it…He decreed/ordained it to happen due to Calvinism. And that is utter blasphemy.

2. This doctrine is making God the author of evil/sin/wickedness. It’s a very ungodly doctrine that has people to be lost when they had no choice in the matter due to God purposefully choosing them to be lost. It makes God a respecter of persons, and has Him being very unjust which is completely opposite of a loving and Holy God. On judgment day, as they are being cast into the lake of fire, they should say “NOOOO!!! I DIDN’T HAVE A CHANCE!! It’s not MY fault!! YOU didn’t give ME the ABILITY to CHOOSE!!!” Calvinism’s God simply says “Tough…you can’t and couldn’t do a thing about it because those were the cards that were stacked against you and those are the cards that I dealt you.”

3. According to consistent Calvinists, nothing happens outside of God’s will and we can’t do anything outside of His will. Everything that happens is because it has been decreed before the world ever began. So, when a child gets molested is that God’s will? Is the molester doing the will of God by doing that sin that they were decreed to do? If the molester does not do that, then would the molester be going outside of God’s will that the molester was decreed to do? If a good Samaritan stops the molester from doing a sin, then the good Samaritan that stops them would be going against what God has decreed the molester to do, or whoever else that is sinning. Such a sick and blasphemous doctrine.

4. How does anyone know what God has decreed if people are told to stop doing something when God has decreed it? Would a Christian be wrong for telling a sinner who was decreed by God to sin to stop sinning? Would the decree of God have a Christian stop a sinner from sinning interfere or go outside God’s will with His decree to have a sinner commit sin? In other words, their doctrine has God contradicting Himself in what He has decreed. This doctrine makes no sense at all.

5. Did God decree all of this to happen? Did He decree me to type and post this? If He did, then is it wrong what I believe? If it is, then did God decree something wrong since I strongly disagree with Calvinism? If Calvinists disagree, then were they decreed to disagree with what God decreed of me to believe? Everyone would be going against what God decrees according to Calvinism. If some are unconditionally chosen to have eternal life, then why bother preaching the gospel? Why bother giving us the Bible? Why did Jesus have to die if some are already unconditionally saved?

6. If everything is predestined by God, then why bother telling a sinner they are in the wrong since they are doing what God predestined, decreed, and or ordained them to do or believe in the first place?

7. The doctrine of Calvinism makes God into an evil tyrant that is unmerciful and is not the God of the Bible. Why would it matter to Calvinists how anyone acts if God has decreed/ordained them to act like that? Would they now be saying what God has decreed to be wrong with how someone acts? Why would anyone have to justify their behavior if God is the one who decreed it? If God decreed it, then would that not make it justifiable?

8. If we do what God has decreed of us by telling Calvinists they are in biblical error, then we would be doing what God wants us to do since we have been decreed to do that. And at the same time, they would be telling us we are in biblical error, as they would feel they would be doing what God wants them to do since they claim He decreed them to do that, which once again is making God decree things differently, which is making God essentially decree against Himself. Who can believe it?

9. Their own theology (when taking logically and consistently) is everything that we do is simply what God makes us do or forces us to do--including not to believe Calvinism. It’s God’s fault for having some to think the way they do about Calvinism, all while the Calvinists are mad because people who believe differently than them are only doing what God decreed me and others to do. Was God wrong in decreeing people to be this way?

10. We are made in the image of God. How can we be made in the image of God if we are born sinners and how can our soul and spirit come from God if we are born sinners, i.e. child of the devil? What part of us is born totally depraved? What part of man is made in the image of God and what part of man is born in sin? Did God have some to be made in His image, yet have them be as children of the devil at birth??

11. The logical conclusion to their doctrine is nothing more than utter blasphemy.

Scriptural refutation of Calvinism: The Bible tells us to diligently seek Him (Heb. 11:6). If we don’t have the ability to seek God, then why would the author of the book of Hebrews tell us to diligently seek Him? We are told to seek the Lord (Acts 17:27, Old Testament example, Deut. 4:29). Other passages that tells us to seek are Matthew 6:33(seek the kingdom of God), Matthew 7:7 (seek and ye shall find).

How was the angel of God able to give Cornelius a vision telling him to send for Peter, and the Spirit telling Peter three men (I believe one of them being Cornelius) are said to have seeked after Peter (Acts 10:19), when the Spirit was not poured on Cornelius and his kin until after Peter got there (Acts 10:44)? If it takes a direct operation by the Spirit to seek God, then how did Cornelius do this before the Spirit fell on him and the other Gentiles, and gave them the abilities to speak in tongues?

If we are so depraved and we can’t seek after God, then why are there passages telling us to “come”? (Rev. 22:17, Matthew 11:28). If we don’t have the ability to choose since we are depraved, then why are there passages telling us to choose? (OT: Deut. 30:9 “choose life”, Joshua 24:15 “choose you this day whom ye will serve”)

The Bible says Christ died for all men (1 John 2:2, 2 Cor. 5:15, etc etc). For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life (John 3:16). He wants all to be saved and come unto the knowledge of the truth (1 Tim. 2:4). The limited atonement view believes He only died for the elect.

“Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye.” (Acts 7:51). We can, and we do have free will to resist.

There were some in the church of Galatia who were being warned what would happen if they leave Christ, or if they had already rejected Christ to return to the law of Moses, which caused them to have fallen from grace Gal. 5:3-4). I would say some had rejected Christ because Galatians 1:6says “I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel”, and I believe Paul was also warning the others of what would happen if they had done this. Some might say Gal. 5:3-4 doesn’t apply today since no one returns back to the law of Moses, but for our time the result would be the same to anyone who remove themselves from Christ. The result would be they fall from grace. (Gal. 5:4).

The Hebrews author said “Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?” (Heb. 10:29)

“Looking diligently lest any man fail of the grace of God…” (Heb. 12:15)

Does this sound like the God of the Bible to you? Does the God of the Bible have us to be born sinners, damned in sin to the point we can’t believe, choose or seek Him unless God chooses us to be able? Does the God of the Bible unconditionally elect who will be saved and lost with no choice of their own? Did the God of the Bible have Jesus to die for all men or only the elect? Did He not give us free will to reject grace? Does the God of the Bible not warn us about the danger of apostasy? Why even bother telling others to place faith in God if they don’t have the ability without God giving it to them?
 
If God unchangeably determines every thought, motive, and deed, then Calvinists can't just give him credit for the good things. He may decree them in different ways. He has a secondary means for ways for one thing and for another he decrees it differently. But He’s still unchangeably decreeing all of it. And there is no human power for any human being to do anything differently. And by the way, that would include Adam. And so, that makes him the author of sin [when you take Calvinism consistently and logically]. In Calvinism, even the first evil intention, even the one in Satan's heart, Satan had no control. He had to do it. He had to want to do it. Whatever it is, you have to be consistent. And Calvinists are inconsistent. If they are going to give God the credit for all the good things, they have to give him the credit for all the bad things, which ultimately is saying He is the author of sin, that makes Him evil.

Calvinism is an inconsistent doctrine and theology. Here’s why: If God has eternally decreed every thought, choice, action, motive, desire, etc etc, then in consistent Calvinism, Romans 9 would be “O man, who are you to reply against God? You’re the man who has been eternally decreed to reply against God. How dare you do what God ordained you to do from eternity? Oh, and by the way, you are going to be rebuked and eternally punished for doing what you were eternally determined and decreed to do” all while Calvinism teaches and believes God is righteous, holy, loving and just. Can’t have it both ways.
 
How do we apply verses from the Old Covenant when we aren’t under it?
 
Blue155 said:
The Danger of Calvinism

1. If Calvinism is correct and God decreed/ordained/predestined every single event to happen, then that would mean He is directly and personally responsible for every rape, murder, liar, molester, thievery, idolater, drunkard, junkie, sorcerer, atheist, Satanist, terrorist, human genocide, etc etc. He would be responsible for every single evil that has ever walked the face of the planet…you name it…He decreed/ordained it to happen due to Calvinism. And that is utter blasphemy.

2. This doctrine is making God the author of evil/sin/wickedness. It’s a very ungodly doctrine that has people to be lost when they had no choice in the matter due to God purposefully choosing them to be lost. It makes God a respecter of persons, and has Him being very unjust which is completely opposite of a loving and Holy God. On judgment day, as they are being cast into the lake of fire, they should say “NOOOO!!! I DIDN’T HAVE A CHANCE!! It’s not MY fault!! YOU didn’t give ME the ABILITY to CHOOSE!!!” Calvinism’s God simply says “Tough…you can’t and couldn’t do a thing about it because those were the cards that were stacked against you and those are the cards that I dealt you.”

3. According to consistent Calvinists, nothing happens outside of God’s will and we can’t do anything outside of His will. Everything that happens is because it has been decreed before the world ever began. So, when a child gets molested is that God’s will? Is the molester doing the will of God by doing that sin that they were decreed to do? If the molester does not do that, then would the molester be going outside of God’s will that the molester was decreed to do? If a good Samaritan stops the molester from doing a sin, then the good Samaritan that stops them would be going against what God has decreed the molester to do, or whoever else that is sinning. Such a sick and blasphemous doctrine.

4. How does anyone know what God has decreed if people are told to stop doing something when God has decreed it? Would a Christian be wrong for telling a sinner who was decreed by God to sin to stop sinning? Would the decree of God have a Christian stop a sinner from sinning interfere or go outside God’s will with His decree to have a sinner commit sin? In other words, their doctrine has God contradicting Himself in what He has decreed. This doctrine makes no sense at all.

5. Did God decree all of this to happen? Did He decree me to type and post this? If He did, then is it wrong what I believe? If it is, then did God decree something wrong since I strongly disagree with Calvinism? If Calvinists disagree, then were they decreed to disagree with what God decreed of me to believe? Everyone would be going against what God decrees according to Calvinism. If some are unconditionally chosen to have eternal life, then why bother preaching the gospel? Why bother giving us the Bible? Why did Jesus have to die if some are already unconditionally saved?

6. If everything is predestined by God, then why bother telling a sinner they are in the wrong since they are doing what God predestined, decreed, and or ordained them to do or believe in the first place?

7. The doctrine of Calvinism makes God into an evil tyrant that is unmerciful and is not the God of the Bible. Why would it matter to Calvinists how anyone acts if God has decreed/ordained them to act like that? Would they now be saying what God has decreed to be wrong with how someone acts? Why would anyone have to justify their behavior if God is the one who decreed it? If God decreed it, then would that not make it justifiable?

8. If we do what God has decreed of us by telling Calvinists they are in biblical error, then we would be doing what God wants us to do since we have been decreed to do that. And at the same time, they would be telling us we are in biblical error, as they would feel they would be doing what God wants them to do since they claim He decreed them to do that, which once again is making God decree things differently, which is making God essentially decree against Himself. Who can believe it?

9. Their own theology (when taking logically and consistently) is everything that we do is simply what God makes us do or forces us to do--including not to believe Calvinism. It’s God’s fault for having some to think the way they do about Calvinism, all while the Calvinists are mad because people who believe differently than them are only doing what God decreed me and others to do. Was God wrong in decreeing people to be this way?

10. We are made in the image of God. How can we be made in the image of God if we are born sinners and how can our soul and spirit come from God if we are born sinners, i.e. child of the devil? What part of us is born totally depraved? What part of man is made in the image of God and what part of man is born in sin? Did God have some to be made in His image, yet have them be as children of the devil at birth??

11. The logical conclusion to their doctrine is nothing more than utter blasphemy.

Scriptural refutation of Calvinism: The Bible tells us to diligently seek Him (Heb. 11:6). If we don’t have the ability to seek God, then why would the author of the book of Hebrews tell us to diligently seek Him? We are told to seek the Lord (Acts 17:27, Old Testament example, Deut. 4:29). Other passages that tells us to seek are Matthew 6:33(seek the kingdom of God), Matthew 7:7 (seek and ye shall find).

How was the angel of God able to give Cornelius a vision telling him to send for Peter, and the Spirit telling Peter three men (I believe one of them being Cornelius) are said to have seeked after Peter (Acts 10:19), when the Spirit was not poured on Cornelius and his kin until after Peter got there (Acts 10:44)? If it takes a direct operation by the Spirit to seek God, then how did Cornelius do this before the Spirit fell on him and the other Gentiles, and gave them the abilities to speak in tongues?

If we are so depraved and we can’t seek after God, then why are there passages telling us to “come”? (Rev. 22:17, Matthew 11:28). If we don’t have the ability to choose since we are depraved, then why are there passages telling us to choose? (OT: Deut. 30:9 “choose life”, Joshua 24:15 “choose you this day whom ye will serve”)

The Bible says Christ died for all men (1 John 2:2, 2 Cor. 5:15, etc etc). For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life (John 3:16). He wants all to be saved and come unto the knowledge of the truth (1 Tim. 2:4). The limited atonement view believes He only died for the elect.

“Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye.” (Acts 7:51). We can, and we do have free will to resist.

There were some in the church of Galatia who were being warned what would happen if they leave Christ, or if they had already rejected Christ to return to the law of Moses, which caused them to have fallen from grace Gal. 5:3-4). I would say some had rejected Christ because Galatians 1:6says “I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel”, and I believe Paul was also warning the others of what would happen if they had done this. Some might say Gal. 5:3-4 doesn’t apply today since no one returns back to the law of Moses, but for our time the result would be the same to anyone who remove themselves from Christ. The result would be they fall from grace. (Gal. 5:4).

The Hebrews author said “Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?” (Heb. 10:29)

“Looking diligently lest any man fail of the grace of God…” (Heb. 12:15)

Does this sound like the God of the Bible to you? Does the God of the Bible have us to be born sinners, damned in sin to the point we can’t believe, choose or seek Him unless God chooses us to be able? Does the God of the Bible unconditionally elect who will be saved and lost with no choice of their own? Did the God of the Bible have Jesus to die for all men or only the elect? Did He not give us free will to reject grace? Does the God of the Bible not warn us about the danger of apostasy? Why even bother telling others to place faith in God if they don’t have the ability without God giving it to them?
Click to expand...

I agree, and I hope it is okay if I add much of what you posted to our website.
 
Blue155 said:
How do we apply verses from the Old Covenant when we aren’t under it?
Click to expand...

The same way Paul did:

TOP #255: By learning all Scripture Christians may be wise regarding correct doctrine, rebuking and righteousness, becoming equipped for doing good works. [2Tim. 3:14-17&4:5] This a significant nuance or elaboration of TOP #157 & 202. Paul applies it by charging Timothy with preaching God’s Word, correcting false doctrine, rebuking sin and encouraging persevering faith.

TOP #202: Repentance or conversion should be followed by learning more of God’s Word in order to avoid being deceived by false arguments or doctrine. [Col. 2:4-8, cf. TOP #255 & 256]. This truth, called discipleship or sanctification, is akin to TOP #155 & 157. The part of GW that is necessary to believe for salvation is the Gospel (which may be called the kerygma or preaching), and the additional learning that needs to occur for spiritual maturation is the “all truth” in JN 16:13 and the “all things/everything” in MT 28:20 (which may be called the didache or teaching).

TOP #153: The body of Christ or God’s household may be viewed as a spiritual edifice founded on Scripture and with Christ as the cornerstone. [Eph. 2:18-22] Jesus is also called the capstone and the stumbling-stone in 1Pet. 2:6-8. The body metaphor is also employed in Eph. 4:15-16. The edifice is called “church” in Eph. 3:10.

TOP #25: All have sinned by breaking moral law but may be justified by God’s grace through faith in Christ’s redemption or atonement. [Rom. 3:9-26] Verse 21 states that “the Law and Prophets testify” or prepare the way for the new revelation of righteousness from God apart from the Law, which takes up where Romans 1:17 left off.

TOP #1: God chose Israel for the purpose of providing the Savior Jesus, who was crucified but raised from the dead in fulfillment of prophecy, and through whom the good news regarding forgiveness of sins by faith in Him is proclaimed. [Acts 13:16-39, 1Cor. 15:4]

TOP #268: Jesus was represented or foreshadowed in the OT by Melchizedek. [Heb. 5:6&10, 6:20, 7:1-17] The name in Hebrew means “king of righteousness”. In Gen. 14:18-20 Mel is called the king of Salem and priest of God Most High, who blessed Abram. Psa. 110:4 said the Lord will be a priest forever in the order of Mel.

TOP #280: Abraham’s offer of his only son as a sacrifice prefigured or foreshadowed Christ’s resurrection. [Heb. 11:17-19, TOP #48] One might have expected Paul to say it foretold Christ’s atonement, but he goes beyond death to the crux of the cross in the context of TOP #111.

TOP #281: Moses’ choice to be included in the people of God is equivalent to the cooperation with God of those who hear the Gospel and believe in Christ. [Heb. 11:24-28] Christ’s atonement is signified by the shedding of blood at the original Passover. This is another passage in the vein of teachings about a provisional or proto-Gospel being in effect until the NT atonement occurred and the full Gospel was revealed (TOP #10), and this chapter connects saving faith with cooperative deeds, even by Rahab (cf. TOP #28, 39, 48, 54, etc.).

TOP #284: Make every effort not to be godless like Esau and thereby commit apostasy. [Heb. 12:14-17] This harks back to Heb. 6:4-6 (TOP #270).

TOP #274: The OC sacrifices were ceremonial external regulations applicable for Jews until the NC was revealed. [Heb. 9:9-10] Such regulations should not be confused with moral teachings reaffirmed by the NT.

TOP #131: Do not pervert the Gospel of Christ by reverting to belief that salvation is earned via observing the law. [Gal. 1:6-9, 5:1-12] Such doctrine is anathema or condemned (1Cor. 16:22). The purpose of the law of Moses was to lead people to faith in Christ (Gal. 3:22-24). This truth is akin to TOP #37.

TOP #132: Now that the Gospel has been revealed, the Mosaic law no longer keeps us prisoners. [Gal. 3:25] This truth is also taught in Heb. 7:18-10:1 by saying the old Mosaic law or covenant (not Abrahamic) has been superseded by the new covenant of Christ, the Gospel. Saving faith makes souls sons/children of God (TOP #38).
 
Perhaps it would be helpful for any newcomers to review the biblical hermeneutic or parameters for interpreting the Bible proposed in this thread. It begins with the instruction of Paul (1Thes. 5:21) to “Test everything. Hold on to the good.” A truthseeker is guided by the question: What is most true or closest to the truth, especially the Truth of God’s Word?

The method for discerning truth employs subjective logic that is made as objective as possible by learning from Scriptural and other truthseekers. As a result of seeking ultimate truth, I have come to value two NT teachings as key points from which to triangulate or use to guide an interpretation of the Bible, especially problematic statements.

First, God loves and wants to save everyone. Seven Scriptures teaching divine omnilove include: 1John 4:7-12, Rom. 5:8, Matt. 5:44&48, Gal. 5:6&14, Eph. 3:17b-19, Eph. 5:2 and 1Tim. 2:3-4, which might be deemed the “7 pearls”. Christ died to show God’s love and the possible salvation of all (Rom. 5:6-8) including His enemies: those who are ungodly, atheist, anti-Christ, pseudo-Christian (Matt. 7:21, John 8:42-44).

Second, God is just (2Thes. 1:6a, cf. Rom. 3:25-26 & 9:14, Deut. 32:4, Psa. 36:6, Luke 11:42, Rev. 15:3). Explanations of God’s Word should not impugn God’s justice and love for all people (Joel 2:13, John 3:16). This parameter is affirmed in the OT (Psa. 145:17): “The Lord is righteous in all his ways, and holy in all his works.”

Even the wrath of God is an expression of His love and justice. The writer of Hebrews (Heb. 12:4-11) indicates that divine wrath is intended as discipline for the purpose of teaching people to repent of their hatefulness and faithlessness (Pro. 3:12, Isa. 33:14-15 Rev. 3:19). If a righteous explanation cannot be found for a passage of Scripture purporting to describe God’s will (such as Joshua 6:17-24, 8:2&24 & 10:28-40, 11:6-23), then it should be considered as historical or descriptive of what people perceived rather than as pedagogical or prescriptive of God’s nature. Unrighteous rage should not be attributed to God!
 
Another important elements in this Bible-based hermeneutic is that everyone lives by fallible faith/belief/opinion and sufficient knowledge of evidence rather than by absolute certainty or proof or coercion (2Cor. 5:7), so humility is needed. A logical train of thought leads an unbiased truthseeker to have a propensity to believe in an all-loving God, who is not tricky and does not hide the way to heaven (Heb. 11:6, Acts 13:10). Humanity’s understanding of God evolved or progressed through the millenniums, so that the OT was superseded by the NT, which is the apex of divine revelation (Heb. 7:18, 8:13, 9:15).

This hermeneutic seeks to harmonize disparate Scriptures as taught by Paul (in 1Thes. 5:21), exemplified by Jesus (in Matt. 4:6-7) and illustrated by the transparent overlays of bodily systems found in some books on anatomy. Considering both sides of an issue or doctrine is called dialectical theology. An interpreter should want to include all true assertions in the picture of reality without making a “Procrustean Body” by cutting off or ignoring parts that do not seem to fit, because the correct understanding must be self-consistent or else God would be tricky. The whole truth combines parts without sawing!

The Bible says God’s Spirit is love and truth (1John 4:8 & 5:6), which means all love (agape, Rom. 6:5-8) in all people is God’s operation, and all truth in all cultures is God’s revelation. Thus, becoming a Christian theist does not mean rejecting what is good and true in one’s pre-Christian experience or culture. When considering two different understandings (thesis A versus antithesis B), the truth may not be either one or the other but rather the proper harmonization of the two. (Both A and B = synthesis C.)

The Bible teaches (Gen. 1:3, John 1:1-3) that both the world and inspired words are expressions of God’s Word/Logos, and thus scientific and spiritual truths must be compatible or else God would be tricky. So, while belief that God is love and Jesus is Lord is based upon the biblical revelation, some knowledge also is gleaned from the natural sciences and common sense. While this interpretation of reality is influenced by the Bible, it also utilizes God-given logical thinking where the Bible seems silent, hoping and praying to be guided by the Spirit of Truth (John 14:17).
 
Hermeneutics applies logical reasoning in order to understand biblical texts, because God is Logos (John 1:1), and right reasoning/logic is the way every sane soul has access to the supreme Mind or Logos (1Cor. 2:11-16). It is the glue that binds all individual truths together in one comprehensive faith. Logic provides the rationale for believing that the history of humanity is not a farce, and it sustains the hope of experiencing love and joy in a future heavenly existence. The beauty of this hermeneutic is the harmonization of whatever is good and true. However, I realize that—just as frequently happens when a person shares favorite musical or scenic beauty with someone else—it may not move your soul like mine (Matt. 11:16-17).

The explanation of how the infinite and holy God communicates with finite and fallible humans affirms two phenomena: accommodation and distanciation. It appears that God accommodated His revelation so that it corresponded with the evolutionary stages of human moral and intellectual development, imparting His Spirit/Word by means of words, both literal and allegorical or metaphorical (John 16:25&29, cf. Matt. 7:24-27, 16:6-12, etc.), and both explicit (Matt. 5:21) and implicit (Rom. 13:3-4). God’s Word is revealed by creation (Rom. 1:20), by incarnation (John 1:14) and by inspiration (2Tim. 3:15-17).

In order to create volitional beings having moral free will, God designed reality so that His presence is less than compelling, so that we experience God as distant from us and “unknown” (Acts 17:23). Even Jesus (God the Son) on the cross cried out “My God [the Father], why have you forsaken [taken God the Spirit from] me?” (Matt. 27:46, Psa. 51:11) We may feel distant from God even though He is close or immanent, “for in Him we live and move and have our being” (Acts 17:28), because God’s normative means of conversion is persuasion rather than coercion (Matt. 12:39, 24:24, 1Cor. 1:22-23). This is seen very clearly in Jesus’ lament over the obstinacy of Jerusalem (Matt. 23:37).

Apparently, undeniable miracles would be coercive or tantamount to demanding conversion and love at gunpoint. Because of human limitations and the necessity of accommodation and distanciation, we must be content with sufficient rather than perfect or inerrant knowledge of God’s revelation and not be unduly concerned when we find grains of sand (discrepancies and problematic passages) amid the gold or truth. God’s method of conversion is NOT coercion!
 
I emphasize logic/reason without intending to demean emotion. Both are important aspects of personality, but their relationship is analogous to that of saving faith and works: faith precedes love (per Gal. 5:6), and right reasoning should guide one’s emotion (1Cor. 14:15-20).

We should not divorce the mind of Christ (1Cor. 2:16) from the person of the Holy Spirit (Rom. 5:5). Right reasoning or logic (discernment) functions in a way similar to the OT law: leading sinful souls to learn the need for God’s Gospel (Gal. 3:19-25).

Biblical passages that seem to support the view that human logic/discernment (Phil. 1:10, 1Cor. 2:14) is a divine gift include the following:

1. “Come now, let us reason together,” says the Lord. (Isa. 1:18a)

2. “They hated me without reason.” (John 15:25)

3. “So [Paul] reasoned in the synagogue with the Jews and the God-fearing Greeks, as well as in the marketplace day by day with those who happened to be there.” (Acts 17:17)

4. “We do, however, speak a message of wisdom [right reasoning] among the mature…” (1Cor. 2:6)

5. “When I was a child… I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me.” (1Cor. 13:11)

6. “Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have.” (1Pet. 3:15b)

These passages indicate that we should think and attempt to learn the best beliefs/opinions or solutions regarding issues including the arguments or accusations of atheists.
 
LightBearer316 said:
Three Main Heresies of Oneness / “Jesus Only” / UPCI Teaching

You will run across a lot of it on this site.
  1. Denial of the Trinity – They reject the biblical view of one God in three eternal Persons (Father, Son, Holy Spirit) and teach Modalism — one Person appearing in different roles.
      Refuted by: Matthew 3:16–17 (KJV), John 1:1–2 (KJV), John 14:16 (KJV)
  2. Baptismal Regeneration – They claim salvation and forgiveness come only through baptism “in Jesus’ name,” rather than through faith in Christ’s finished work.
     Refuted by: Acts 10:43–48 (KJV), Romans 10:9–10 (KJV), Ephesians 2:8–9 (KJV)
  3. Tongues as Proof of Salvation – They insist speaking in tongues is the necessary sign of receiving the Holy Spirit.
     Refuted by: Romans 8:9 (KJV), 1 Corinthians 12:13 (KJV), 1 Corinthians 12:30 (KJV)
Salvation is by grace through faith, not by water or works — and the true God is eternally Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.
Grace and peace.
Click to expand...

Yes, and God eternally loves humanity, offering salvation to all from Eden until Judgment Day.
 
The endless debates on CC illustrate the truth that there will be disagreement regarding the correct interpretation of Scripture
because of the need for hermeneutics or harmonizing various biblical statements. This truth was exemplified by Jesus while being tempted by Satan, who quoted Psalms 91:11-12 (in Matt. 4:6), whereupon Jesus cited Deut. 6:16. The apparent harmonization was that although according to the Psalmist God rescues his beloved from ultimate harm, this does not mean believers will experience no earthly suffering.

Another example of harmonizing Scripture by interpreting it correctly was by Paul in Gal. 4:21-31 where Paul understands the story of Sarah and Hagar figuratively to signify that Hagar represents those who are slaves to the OT law, whereas Sarah corresponds to those who are freed from sin by the HS via accepting the Gospel and therefore inherit God's promise to Abraham (cf. Rom. 4:13-16).

This is why the crucial need is for Christians on CC to agree regarding the Gospel before bickering regarding the rest if they must.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back