From the foundation of the world

Discussion in 'Calvinism/Arminianism Debate' started by Van, Dec 14, 2013.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Van

    Van
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2011
    Messages:
    9,515
    Likes Received:
    49
    Recently yet another Calvinist claimed "from the foundation of the world" referred to a time before anyone was born. However, if we look at Luke 11:50-51 we see prophets shed their blood "from the foundation of the world." Specially the time from Abel to Zacharias. So yet again, Calvinism has been shown to misrepresent the very words of Christ.

    Calvinism tries to say the same period is in view, whether the scripture says before the foundation of the world or after the foundation of the world, redefining "apo" to mean "before".

    SNIP
     
    #1 Van, Dec 14, 2013
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 17, 2013
  2. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,292
    Likes Received:
    782
    SNIP

    Posts like this are a disgrace and unnecessary. Cals genuinely hold their position after searching the scriptures for themselves. We may disagree but these attack dog posts are not helpful to meaningful discussions. And your post gives the sense that you have no intent on such a thing. Such posts serve no purpose other than to feed the flesh.
     
    #2 Revmitchell, Dec 14, 2013
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 17, 2013
  3. Van

    Van
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2011
    Messages:
    9,515
    Likes Received:
    49
    SNIP
    Next, why not address the topic rather than attack the poster?

    Returning to topic after addressing yet another attempt to derail rather than enlighten, from the foundation of the world refers to the time period from creation to the end of time. When scripture seeks to address the period before creation, the phrase most often used is "before the foundation of the world."

    Calvinism must redefine "apo" which means after or since or subsequently to mean before.SNIP
     
    #3 Van, Dec 14, 2013
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 17, 2013
  4. Earth Wind and Fire

    Earth Wind and Fire
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2010
    Messages:
    18,917
    Likes Received:
    94
    Thank You!:applause:
     
  5. Van

    Van
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2011
    Messages:
    9,515
    Likes Received:
    49
    More attacks and more cheering of attacks, folks the Calvinists only attack and never discuss doctrine. They love to read minds and tell others what someone was thinking.

    Returning yet again to the actual topic, the meaning of the phrase, "from the foundation of the world" it refers to the time period from creation to the end of time. This is shown to be true by Luke 11:50-51.

    Calvinism tries to redefine the meaning of "apo" to mean before. SNIP
     
    #5 Van, Dec 14, 2013
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 17, 2013
  6. InTheLight

    InTheLight
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2010
    Messages:
    16,189
    Likes Received:
    611
    Van, if you can edit your OP, simply remove the last sentence and take out the attitude. I would like to hear how the Calvinists would rebut your OP.
     
  7. Iconoclast

    Iconoclast
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2010
    Messages:
    13,378
    Likes Received:
    728
    Revmitchell

    yes ....:wavey:

    .
    yes....:wavey:
    yes...and quite often:thumbsup:
    yes.....the flesh

    true...this is no secret...it is virtually any cal.

    The very first sentence makes it clear I am talking about the post not the poster. Your op was discredited by the last sentence in your post. It is clear you are not looking for a discussion only to demonize that which you disagree with..[/QUOTE]


    discredited....yes it was.

    in other words...pure twaddle,more shuck and jive,
     
  8. Iconoclast

    Iconoclast
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2010
    Messages:
    13,378
    Likes Received:
    728
    They might simply post scripture:

    9 Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began,

    1 Paul, a servant of God, and an apostle of Jesus Christ, according to the faith of God's elect, and the acknowledging of the truth which is after godliness;

    2 In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began;
     
  9. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,292
    Likes Received:
    782
    The difficulty with doing this is that there is no indication of how it is both perceived and interpreted. It give off an arrogant attitude that there is only one possible way to understand and why in the heck doesn't everyone just get it. Much like the op it does nothing to further the discussion.
     
  10. Iconoclast

    Iconoclast
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2010
    Messages:
    13,378
    Likes Received:
    728
    InTheLight

    Maybe they would just read the scriptures:wavey:

    1 Paul, a servant of God, and an apostle of Jesus Christ, according to the faith of God's elect, and the acknowledging of the truth which is after godliness;

    2 In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began;


    9 Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began,

    See...ITL....just read the verses...and you too.... can be a cal....the verses are everywhere..


    24 Father, I will that they also, whom thou hast given me, be with me where I am; that they may behold my glory, which thou hast given me: for thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world.

    25 O righteous Father, the world hath not known thee: but I have known thee, and these have known that thou hast sent me.

    4 According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:

    5 Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,

    6 To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved.

    7 In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace;:thumbs::thumbs:
     
    #10 Iconoclast, Dec 14, 2013
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 14, 2013
  11. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,292
    Likes Received:
    782
    That does not accomplish what you believe it does.
     
  12. preacher4truth

    preacher4truth
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2010
    Messages:
    8,121
    Likes Received:
    0
    In Ephesians 1:4 the word 'before' is 'pro' which in fact means 'prior', or 'before' and is different from the example you use above. Your illustration fails and is simply apples and oranges. These are two differing words, thus you have not employed good hermeneutics nor does your rant prove your premise, it falls well short of your objective.

    As to Luke 11:50ff the simple and basic meaning is clear: the prophets have suffered all along in God's kingdom, and these were Sovereignly appointed to these things.

    The fact remains that God has chosen His people prior to time.

    Kindly I say that what is really happening is that you are misrepresenting the Reformed and in addition you are misrepresenting Scriptural principles and doctrine above.

    No one has redefined a word as your premise has been shown to be complete error. As far as my Calvinist brothers, on here and elsewhere, they are disciplined defenders of truth. This is perhaps one reason your error above is so readily dismantled.

    That's too bad you said that. Calvinism is honorable and reflects Biblical truth and doctrine.
     
    #12 preacher4truth, Dec 14, 2013
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 14, 2013
  13. Iconoclast

    Iconoclast
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2010
    Messages:
    13,378
    Likes Received:
    728
    I believe you might be correct here.....but it felt good just looking at the simplicity of the verses as written by the Apostle.All christians should rejoice at the blessing spoken of in these passages...before some try and wrest them away from the whole of scripture...I am on a short break now or I would offer more...maybe later...if anyone wants to really look at it.

    Thanks for your objectivity in your earlier posts.They were accurate and will lend some credibility when you post in opposition to your view of cals as "attack dogs":thumbsup:
     
  14. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,292
    Likes Received:
    782
    Well the other day John of Japan was needlessly attacked and you guys should call that poster out for that. Very shameful
     
  15. pinoybaptist

    pinoybaptist
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2002
    Messages:
    8,123
    Likes Received:
    1
    First off, understand this.
    I am not a Calvinist, and I do not mean that in a derogatory manner to my Calvinist brethren here.
    I hold to the TULIP, yes, but there is a little bit of difference in the way we Primitive Baptists understand some parts of this acronym.
    Secondly, I asked you a valid question as to what it is with the NASB that you find more accurate than the KJ translation with regards to this phrase.
    You ignored that question.
    Maybe you didn't have an answer ?
    Or maybe you would like some more time so you can concoct an explanation on how the NASB was able to come out with a better phrase without the Textus Receptus or whatever it was that the KJ translated from, seeing as they were first before the NASB ?
    Thirdly, you hate the Doctrines of Grace a.k.a Calvinism so much that you missed the entire point altogether.
    You see, 'from the foundation of the world' might mean, TO YOU, AT LEAST, that time before you read this post, or maybe tomorrow, or last year, but then, you know what ?
    IT DOESN'T MATTER when the foundation of the world was, the FACT is that the Eternal God WROTE NAMES in the Book of Life (His name for the book, not your hated Calvinists), and no matter what you say, whether it is being "in Christ" that matters, or being repentant, or being accepted by God, or accepting Christ as Savior, NONE of these will happen to those who ARE NOT in the Lamb's Book of Life written from the foundation of the world.
    Here's another fact and there is no way you can go around it, except if you go dishonest, and that is, AFTER THE CREATOR JUDGED THOSE WHO WERE CAST INTO THE LAKE OF FIRE, AS A FINAL PERIOD TO HIS SENTENCE OF CONDEMNATION, HE LOOKED FOR THEIR NAMES IN THE BOOK, AND THEIR NAMES WERE NOT FOUND IN THE LAMB'S BOOK OF LIFE.

    And the Holy Spirit unequivocably stated: And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire. Rev. 20:15 KJV

    don't like the KJ ?
    okay.
    here's the same verse in your preferred NAS:

    And if anyone's name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire. Rev. 20:15

    and how about the NIV:
    Rev. 20:15 - If anyone's name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.

    and from the latest 'darling' of non-KJ translations, the Holman Christian Standard:

    And anyone not found written in the book of life was thrown into the lake of fire.
     
  16. Iconoclast

    Iconoclast
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2010
    Messages:
    13,378
    Likes Received:
    728
    Revmitchell

    How else can you read these verses that makes any sense? They are quite clear and straightforward'


    You always make this charge of "arrogance" it is not arrogant at all to print and post clear verses. These verses speak of God's work before creation.These verses speak clearly it was...before the world was,before creation, God was in these verses revealing His eternal purpose to the church. He does so through the Apostles. he has not kept it a secret.

    RM...if a christian posts verses on the trinity....you do not protest and say how arrogant...so why do it here.

    For Van or anyone else to deny these verses is outside the faith once delivered to the saints.

    .

    These verses were offered to ITL who has been known to ridicule Cals.
    I cannot remember a post where ITL comments on any of these verses.

    Maybe you could further the discussion by commenting on these verses and demonstrating how they do not mean what they mean.:thumbs:

    Start right here;
    1 Paul, a servant of God, and an apostle of Jesus Christ,


    according to the faith of God's elect,

    and the acknowledging of the truth which is after godliness;

    2 In hope of eternal life,

    which God,

    that cannot lie,

    promised before the world began;


    or here;

    9 Who hath saved us,
    {who is the us?}

    and called us with an holy calling, {who is the us who are called}


    not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace,
    which was given us in Christ Jesus {again who is the us?}

    before the world began,{here the time is clearly established}

    Can you show how to view this differently? In a way that makes sense.
     
    #16 Iconoclast, Dec 15, 2013
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 15, 2013
  17. Iconoclast

    Iconoclast
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2010
    Messages:
    13,378
    Likes Received:
    728
    If it was the thread about "insults" I thought JoJ handled himself very well.
    He presented the biblical view.In the past three months I have seen threads that say it is ok for christians to insult,curse, fight other christians????
    I do not think this is biblically justifiable.
    JOJ won the debate when he said...it is one thing to speak harshly to those who oppose the gospel...but not other christians...or words to that effect.

    I do not see this as even debatable.
     
    #17 Iconoclast, Dec 15, 2013
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 15, 2013
  18. Sapper Woody

    Sapper Woody
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2011
    Messages:
    2,112
    Likes Received:
    104
    Icon, I am going to give my view of these scriptures as I understand them. I am coming at them from the viewpoint of a non-cal trying to understand Calvinism, so I can be better educated and informed, and decide what I believe is right.
    Coming at this in the most simple terms, it seems the last clause is pointing back to the most recent noun. In this case "purpose and grace". In God's foreknowledge, He knew of the fall of man, and had salvation plan already lined out. So, He gave us His purpose and grace in Christ Jesus before the world began. I personally don't see this as a predestination, but simply a provision from the beginning.

    To me, this reads the same way. Eternal life was promised to the world before time began. And also to me this seems to defeat Calvinism, as it was promised to "the world".

    I know you posted another verse later in the thread. I can't currently see it as I am on my phone. But I plan on reading and responding.

    On a side note, I don't see why this is such a hot button issue. I am saved. Does it matter if God "chose" me or just knew beforehand? It doesn't change my eternal destiny.
     
  19. Sapper Woody

    Sapper Woody
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2011
    Messages:
    2,112
    Likes Received:
    104
    This is the second answer I promised in my last post.

    This seems to me to be irrelevant. We know that God (the Father) has always loved Jesus (the Son).

    This one on the surface appears to agree with your stance. This is what I am looking for right here. Arguments from the Calvinist side that I can't just "flick away"; that actually cause me to stop and think and dig and learn.

    Most of the arguments I see from the Calvinist side I can see are obviously wrong, and I think, "How do they even get that from that verse?" So I am glad for a verse that I have to study more for clarification.
     
  20. Van

    Van
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2011
    Messages:
    9,515
    Likes Received:
    49
    Interesting observation. Perhaps I should insist that all the Calvinist posters edit "doctrines of grace" out of their posts. Since Calvinism in my view contains mostly mistaken doctrines, calling them the doctrines of grace is like men writing scripture by their own invention, then claiming it came from God.

    Finally, any time a poster or group of posters seeks to attack how something is said rather than what was said, they are simply trying to sidetrack, derail, disparage and so forth, i.e. they are "in the flesh."
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

Loading...