Quote: Read my post again and tell me where I suggest anything other than this.
Philo ~ 'Context-comparative' - "Only Scripture can interpret Scripture and never Contradicts itself ... anywheres."
| 2005/8/24 14:33||Profile|
Rom. 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, 21 because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23 and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible manand birds and four-footed animals and creeping things.
Rom. 1:24 Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, 25 who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.
According to Scripture all men are without excuse for all men have been given witness that God is. But what happens to those who deny God? Again Scripture teaches that God gives them over to their own flesh. What is the result of God's decision to withdraw from those who deny Him? The heart is hardened. If God withdraws then man has nothing in himself that will preserve him. He is dead without the influence of the Holy Spirit.
Judgement is a result of man's denial.
Ezek. 18:19 Yet you say, Why should the son not bear the guilt of the father? Because the son has done what is lawful and right, and has kept all My statutes and observed them, he shall surely live. 20 The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not bear the guilt of the father, nor the father bear the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself.
Ezek. 18:21 But if a wicked man turns from all his sins which he has committed, keeps all My statutes, and does what is lawful and right, he shall surely live; he shall not die. 22 None of the transgressions which he has committed shall be remembered against him; because of the righteousness which he has done, he shall live. 23 Do I have any pleasure at all that the wicked should die? says the Lord GOD, and not that he should turn from his ways and live?
Ezek. 18:24 But when a righteous man turns away from his righteousness and commits iniquity, and does according to all the abominations that the wicked man does, shall he live? All the righteousness which he has done shall not be remembered; because of the unfaithfulness of which he is guilty and the sin which he has committed, because of them he shall die.
Ezek. 18:25 Yet you say, The way of the Lord is not fair. Hear now, O house of Israel, is it not My way which is fair, and your ways which are not fair? 26 When a righteous man turns away from his righteousness, commits iniquity, and dies in it, it is because of the iniquity which he has done that he dies. 27 Again, when a wicked man turns away from the wickedness which he committed, and does what is lawful and right, he preserves himself alive. 28 Because he considers and turns away from all the transgressions which he committed, he shall surely live; he shall not die. 29 Yet the house of Israel says, The way of the Lord is not fair. O house of Israel, is it not My ways which are fair, and your ways which are not fair?
Ezek. 18:30 Therefore I will judge you, O house of Israel, every one according to his ways, says the Lord GOD. Repent, and turn from all your transgressions, so that iniquity will not be your ruin. 31 Cast away from you all the transgressions which you have committed, and get yourselves a new heart and a new spirit. For why should you die, O house of Israel? 32 For I have no pleasure in the death of one who dies, says the Lord GOD. Therefore turn and live!
God does not lie, He desires that all come to repentance. We know from Scripture that it is God who must reach out to the dead man. The dead man because of God's grace, has only to respond and turn to his Creator.
| 2005/8/24 15:58||Profile|
Winnipeg, Manitoba Canada
Praise God Dan that your not God, no offense intended ;-)
If there was predestined salvation, whats the point in serving God, your either saved or doomed either way, I mean, you can't get in and you can't get out, so either way you might as well let your flesh rule! Calv's list, on or off! No, no, no , no - this can't be so! The Word clearly says Jesus died for all! All that would recieve the Son would have Life and life eternal!
Phew..... thank God for His loving mercy, grace and kindness!
By the way, if you think your called to be saved over those that are called to be cast into hell, how do you know your on the "in list" over the "out list?" Maybe your just wasting what little time you have serving a ruthless God :-o
Again, no offense intended, just trying to make point, in-love I hope :-)
No offense received.
I think the problem most people have in coming to terms with God's utter sovereignty is that they fail to see things from God's perspective, reasoning instead as though God were restricted to man's perspective.
For instance - if I am here right now, I cannot be somewhere else - that is, I cannot be in two places at once. God can.
Likewise my consciousness is limited to the present - but God's conciousness transcends time - that is, I am stuck in the present, but God is equally conscious in the past, present and in the future. He isn't shifting fowards and backwards - rather He is simultaneously in every place during every time.
I mention this because my understanding of God's sovereignty depends on how 'big' my God is. My God isn't just a super human - He is HOLY ( -that is - He is absolutely and utterly Alien to everything in creation), HOLY, HOLY.
Now I believe that God is fully able to predestine some unto salvation without violating or compromising their freedom to chose Him. They hear his voice because they are His sheep. They don't become His sheep by hearing His voice - rather they come when He calls on account of them being part of His flock.
Likewise, God is not culpable for sending anyone to hell because even though they are vessels unto dishonor and ordained to damnation - yet they purchase it with their sin through their own free choice.
In my understanding, God is able to ordain something that men freely choose - and because of that choice God is not culpable when a man goes to hell - and man is not able to boast when God saves him.
Not everyone is able to understand God in this way, so I am never offended when someone doesn't. Before I took apart a rubik's cube, I was stumped as to how the thing could twist and turn like that and still be attached together - but when I finally saw it apart - it made perfect sense.
Daniel van de Laar
| 2005/8/24 16:02||Profile|
Good Job Jeff :-)
Philo, this is in reply also to your post on top of this page ....
(I meant to say "Contextual-Comparitive" there. Oops !)
You said .... Quote: "Read my post again and tell me where I suggest anything other than this."
To answer, this is where .....
It is important to remember that when the NT uses the word 'sklErunO' it is against an OT understanding of that concept, and the OT concept includes the sense of 'being strengthened'.
Not trying to split hairs here Philo, but just stressing "why" the N.T. writers 'chose' to use sklēruno. And as we'll see the Jews did also.
How can the N.T. use a word that is "[u]against[/u] an OT understanding of a concept" -- as you said ? And if the majority of Greek N.T. writers & translators chose "harden", why would you challenge that, when "harden" is in the definition and other uses of châzaq.
That statement [quoted above] would throw doubt on the 'inspiration' of the Greek writer's choice for words in the N.T..
Why split hairs on "strengthen", when most translators used "hardened" ? That's all I'm saying, because the quote above, again, is throwing some sort of "Non-Inspiration" toward the choice of the Apostle's to use sklēruno in the N.T.. That is what I meant by 'word games', when we play with meanings of words, "just because", and in the process, take away from the "Inspiration" of the N.T. writer's themselves.
I think the Greek usage, is trustworthy, in and of itself... and does not 'contradict' the O.T. s meaning at all (The O.T. & N.T. NEVER "contradict" each other), and that châzaq, can and has been translated as "hardened" enough times to make it a valid translation, as the list I gave shows and the definition also shows ...
H2388 châzaq A primitive root; to fasten upon; hence to seize, be strong (figuratively courageous, causatively strengthen, cure, help, repair, fortify), [u]obstinate[/u]; to bind, restrain, conquer: - aid, amend, X calker, catch, cleave, confirm, be constant, constrain, continue, be of good (take) courage (-ous, -ly), encourage (self), be established, fasten, force, fortify, [u]make hard, harden[/u], help, (lay) hold (fast), lean, maintain, play the man, mend, become (wax) mighty, prevail, be recovered, repair, retain, seize, be (wax) sore, strengten (self), be stout, be (make, shew, wax) strong (-er), be sure, take (hold), be urgent, behave self valiantly, [u]withstand[/u].
When we say, that châzaq, does not mean Harden(ed), than that would contradict Romans 9:18, and Scripture never contradicts Scripture.
The word for "hardeneth" used in the N.T. and in Rom. 9:18 is G4645 - sklērunō, which always is translated and defined as .....
Strongs G4645 σκληρύνω sklērunō From G4642; to indurate, that is, (figuratively) render stubborn: - harden.
Thayer Definition: G4645 σκληρύνω sklēruno
1) to make hard, harden
2a) to render obstinate, stubborn
2b) to be hardened
2c) to become obstinate or stubborn
Part of Speech: verb
A Related Word by Thayers/Strongs Number: from G4642
Total KJV Occurrences: 6
Heb_3:8, Heb_3:15, Heb_4:7
And also, "who" translated the Hebrew into the Greek, to give us the Septuagint. Was it not the Jews ?
Guess what, they used σκληρύνω - sklēruno also .... (please excuse all the little boxes - not compliant Greek font for Site) ....
Exo 4:21 εἶπεν δὲ κύριος πρὸς Μωυσῆν Πορευομένου σου καὶ ἀποστρέφοντος εἰς Αἴγυπτον ὅρα πάντα τὰ τέρατα, ἃ ἔδωκα ἐν ταῖς χερσίν σου, ποιήσεις αὐτὰ ἐναντίον Φαραω· ἐγὼ δὲ [b][u]σκληρύνω[/u][/b] τὴν καρδίαν αὐτοῦ, καὶ οὐ μὴ ἐξαποστείλῃ τὸν λαόν.
So do you see my point ? I don't like "hair-splitting", which you know full well, by now .... but to take away from the "Inspiration" of the Greek that these Authors used, is not a good thing to do.
SHALOM & AGAPE.
| 2005/8/24 16:32|
Part Two to Philo ~
A Quote from your post that I [b]do[/b] agree with .... and 'WHY' the Apostles and the translators of the Sepuagint "used" σκληρύνω sklēruno .... though you meant it in a negative/opposite sense,,,, as it turns out, that is exactly why they all chose sklēruno.
It 'was' Pharoah's "heart response" and not Predestination, in that he "chose" to "harden his heart" ... Amen.
Again, the same sun (God) that hardens clay (a heart condition)... melts ICE (a better heart condition).
From page 2 ~
It is probably instructive that the NT only ever uses the word 'sklErunO' in the terms of heart responses.
Acts 19:9 (KJVS)
But when divers were hardened, and believed not, but spake evil of that way before the multitude, he departed from them, and separated the disciples, disputing daily in the school of one Tyrannus.
Rom. 9:18 (KJVS)
Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.
Heb. 3:8 (KJVS)
Harden not your hearts, as in the provocation, in the day of temptation in the wilderness:
Heb. 3:13 (KJVS)
But exhort one another daily, while it is called To day; lest any of you be hardened through the deceitfulness of sin.
Heb. 3:15 (KJVS)
While it is said, To day if ye will hear his voice, harden not your hearts, as in the provocation.
Heb. 4:7 (KJVS)
Again, he limiteth a certain day, saying in David, To day, after so long a time; as it is said, To day if ye will hear his voice, harden not your hearts.
| 2005/8/24 16:59|
| Re: Has God predestined some for hell?|
That is actually a reasonable question. The key to understanding anything like this, is remembering that God is all-knowing, and that we (all of us) are not. It is foolish to say that the Lord doesn't know that outcome of history. He is outside of time. Therefore He knew who would be with Him before He created us. It is obvious we have a freewill, to reject the Holy Ghost, just read what Stephen said in Acts 7:51:
"ye do always resist the Holy Ghost"
Therefore God knows those who will turn their backs on Him, in fact, He knew before He created us. How can He be all-knowing, and not know that? He knew who His children would be before Genesis 1, but He never wanted anyone to perish, but He is just, and must punish evil:
2 Pet 3:9 "The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance."
| 2005/8/24 23:23||Profile|
Quote: I used 'against' here in the sense of against the background of, not against the sense of. I don't challenge it. You seem to want to reduce my post to an either/or which was not my intention. I say we must 'include' the sense of 'stengthening' to get the sense of the way the NT writers use the word 'sklErenO'. The context of biblical truth, of course, is the Bible not just a portion of it. We must move from the OT to the NT but we must also carry with us the concepts that have been established in the OT. This is true of many Bible concepts, not the least being 'baptism' and 'repentance'. I will go further it is impossible to understand what the NT means by repentance without carrying the concept from the OT. When Jesus used the word 'repentance' he made it plain what He meant by saying 'the men of Nineveh repented'. That means we have to read Jonah 3 to understand what 'repentance' means. When John 3:16 tells us of the blessing of believing in roots it in the narrative of Numbers 21:4-9. This is the way the NT works; mostly taking its quotations from the Septuagint where a Greek word had already acquired Hebrew concepts.
How can the N.T. use a word that is "against an OT understanding of a concept" -- as you said ? And if the majority of Greek N.T. writers & translators chose "harden", why would you challenge that, when "harden" is in the definition and other uses of châzaq.
That statement [quoted above] would throw doubt on the 'inspiration' of the Greek writer's choice for words in the N.T..
You will find no one on this thread with a higher view of verbal inspiration than me, so please don't question it. It throws no doubt on the inspiration of scriptures. If you had read my post you would have seen that I referenced the fact the the Septuagint used 'sklErenO' in Exodus 4. I don't think there are many who hold to the verbal inspiration of the Septuagint; where it is quoted in the NT that authenticates that particular passage and Paul's use of 'sklErenO' in the Pharaoh narrative certainly does that. My point, which you seem to find it impossible to understand is that Paul knew that 'chazaq' had been translated as 'sklErenO' in the Septuagint and because that carried within it the whole Hebrew sense of 'chazaq' it was a ready tool to continue the revelation.
I am not splitting hairs on 'sklErenO'; I am trying to broaden the definition of its biblical use to include the truths revealed in the OT. I am certainly not taking away the inspiration of the writers of the New Testament and if you think I am it only serves to show that you have either not understood what I am saying or chosen to split hairs.
| 2005/8/25 4:06||Profile|
I had to learn the hard way, on this board, what knit-picking and hair-splitting 'really' is ... so I truly have an even stronger adversion to it now, then before I even signed on to SI.
It was just this statement below, that concerned me and I tried to make that clear.
quote:"It is important to remember that when the NT uses the word 'sklErunO' it is against an OT understanding of that concept, and the OT concept includes the sense of 'being strengthened'."
This is what I saw that could take the " divine inspiration" from the Apostles in their using "harden" in the Greek, as they had and as the translators of the Septuagint had ... with good reason.
That was reason enough to make it a 'divinely inspired choice of words' ... when used in each case of the N.T. & the Septuagint, which 'would' give the O.T. 'concept' of that word, precisely as 'hardened' by the 70 or so translators, who did so in the Septuagint, B.C..
If the 70 or so and the Apostles didn't feel the need to "broaden" as you say, I don't feel we should.
Believe me, after being interrogated for days, about what language Matthew was written in ?, and to "prove" how gifts can clash, etc., I surely wouldn't want to put 'you or anyone else' through that type method, "just for fun".
I find that type debate, quite Cruel and unChristlike also.
Shalom & Agape again.
| 2005/8/25 7:00|
I am trying to see this whole issue playing out in how it is that God has 'strengthened' a person to harden themselves.
[i]Because with lies ye have made the heart of the righteous sad, whom I have not made sad; and [u]strengthened[/u] the hands of the wicked, that he should not return from his wicked way, by promising him life:[/i] Ezekiel 13:22
These are false ministers. Yet God has already said that he would test the people with such false ministers:
[i]If a prophet or a dreamer of dreams arises among you and gives you a sign or a wonder, and the sign or the wonder comes true, concerning which he spoke to you, saying, Let us go after other gods (whom you have not known) and let us serve them, you shall not listen to the words of that prophet or that dreamer of dreams; for [u]the Lord your God is testing you to find out if you love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul[/u],"[/i] (Deuteronomy 13:1-3).
So could we say that by God testing the people that he has in effect 'strengthened' them to harden themselves? As Ezekiel puts it, the means (ministers) by which God was testing the people have, "strengthened the hands of the wicked... by promising him life." This seems to be no different than allowing Satan into the Garden of Eden. It 'strengthened' their ability to disobey by providing a means by which their love and devotion could be challenged. It reminds me of Christ being led into the wilderness... etc. Without that leading into a place where the playing field was a bit more even- the enemy could cry foul that a hedge of protection was somehow present keeping him from touching a person (as with Job). It seems reasonable that [u]anytime God drops the hedge that He is strengthening our hands to choose to rebel if we desire[/u]. And in this process is encapsulated the whole- "blessed is the man that endureth temptation- for when he is tried... etc." How can a man choose other than God unless God takes some measure to level the field?
Robert Wurtz II
| 2005/8/25 9:14||Profile|
Quote:Are you now accusing me of being 'cruel and unChristlike' too?
I find that type debate, quite Cruel and unChristlike also.
| 2005/8/25 15:46||Profile|