What verses are against calvinism?

Can you not read?? I already explained this.

This is the last time a personal attack will be accepted from you. Next time, it will be deleted and you will face future action. I have begged you several times to stay off the personal stuff and focus on the issues.

Now, as for "group," a group is singular, not plural. Notice the verb that goes with it: "Group is ..." not "group are ..." The language itself defies your explanation.

Furthermore, you didn't show a passage where the plural "you" is used as a collective. You simply are not doing your homework. You may be impressed with yourself. I am not because I find no convincing arguments that you are right. Unfortunately you have not provided any.

But a group of individuals is plural. Notice again the subject verb issue ... Group is (singular); individuals are (plural). So the text supports what I am saying.

No, it is yet another place where you twist words to try to make your point. That is wrong and unethical.

No it doesn't. It teaches what Paul teaches about sanctification when it says that sanctification (being conformed to his image) is inevitable in the Christian life. If anyone be in Christ he is a new creature ... be imitators of me as I am of Christ ... Jesus himself said "do as I have done." The bottom line is that sanctification is the beginning of our conforming to Christ.

And just when is that?? It does not give a time. It gives a standard of spiritual maturity.

Do you think all believers were as sanctified as Paul??? It seems very clear that people grow at different rates. That was the problem Paul addresses many times in his letter. Growth is an individual issue.

When is "then"? </font>[/QUOTE]Deals with revelation most likely, but still doesn't make your point. 1 Cor 3 says that we are being transformed into the same image even now.

Which I believe I mentioned already. Did you notice v. 3??? "EVeryone who has this hopes purifies himself just as he is pure." Once again, the context shows my point. In this life, we are to be becoming pure just as he is pure, becuase of our hope of final deliverance. Becoming pure as he is pure is being conformed to his image.

You confuse a couple of things. I do believe we can grow in our Christian walk, and indeed believe that we should grow and will grow. That does not mean we will become perfect. Once again, you have tried to pin something on me that I do not believe by twisting my words.

So?? We weren't talking about that.

Really??? Sin is a corporate issue??? So your sin is my sin??? That doesn't even make sense. Scripture plainly recognizes that not all individuals are equally holy in their practice.

Then why did Peter give the command to "Be holy"? If they were already holy, then that is a wasted command. Scripture is full of commands to be holy, therefore showing that positional holiness (which we have) is not the same as practical holiness (which we as individuals are commanded to have). You are confusing positional truth with living truth.

You have finally gotten to a corporate passage after all this time. Christ will present the church to himself as you say. But that does not negate all those commands you missed ... the commands that specify individual holiness.

This is ridiculous and you know it. It is time for you to lay off this kind of stuff and participate as a gentlemen in teh conversation. Don't bring your attitude in here.

But the point is that we are not talking about glorification. We are talking about sanctification.

A group would not have a plural pronoun. A group is singular. There are so many cases that make your argument an absolute hilarity to try to argue for.

For instance, when Paul uses a plural pronoun in 1 Thess 4:3, was he referring to a group??? Of course not. He was referring to individuals.

Notice how you added to Scripture to make your point. Why do you think that is acceptable?? That is why I say you have weak argumentation. You don't actually do anything but assume your point and then assert it. You don't argue your way to it by showing it to be true from Scripture.

What is a pronound?? Is that a new part of speech you made up????

[qutoe]Predictably, you will deny that I have not supported any of this contention with scripture, even though I have taken pains to both post my passages rather than merely referencing them and to make my point in the verse.</font>[/QUOTE]The weakness is that your vereses do not make your point apart from your assertion about them.

I don't do macro posting of lists that I am unfamiliar. In fact, I am very familiar with them. In this whole discussion I have not had to open my Bible (with the exception of 1 Thess 4:3) because I know the verses. I call the references off the top of my head. I have been through thsi so many times it is easy. You repeat the same old stuff that has been said before. You generally repeat it with less argumentation, but it is not new. I make a mistake now and then; who doesn't (Does "pronound" ring a bell to you?????) But who cares?? Why do we focus on non-essentials??

I have never pretended there are no groups in Scripture. That is yet again a twisting of my words, an unethical and unChristian attempt by you to make me say something I never said. That is a shame.

[qutoe] There are none so blind as the willingly so, and that you are. [/QUOTE]It is a shame that someone who claims to know as much as you can't even challenge me to think. You haven't presented anything new. You call me blind because I disagree with you, not because I can't see. This is a baseless and unnecessary attack and, as I said, this will be the last time it will be tolerated. You can focus on the issues or you can not post. Those are your options.

 

Pastor Larry,

Keep contending for the faith. I was going to post on this thread, but there is no point because there are no arguments being presented here, only absurd statements.

Your unworthy brother in Christ...

 

?? Care to diagram whichever Biblical sentence it is you are speaking of in that statement?

You are the one who is not posting any passages. You have even yet to reference a passage that has as its subject an individual. I have done my homework. Several days ago I looked up the definitions of "individual" as well as "group," "corporation," and "body." You might try it sometime, because English grammar specialists certainly are in disagreement with you. What I found is that individuals are single, not plural. What I found is that an individual is a distinct and separate entity and distinctive. I found that a group is a number of individuals assembled together because of similarities or having something in common.

Now, I have a question or two that may size this matter up for you. Is there any Christian that will NOT be conformed to the image of Christ? I mean, if they are individuals that are being talked about, then their conformity is unique to them as an individual, right? I personally find the answer is no. Conforming to Christ is a shared consequence of all Christians, thus making us a group. Your pursuit of individuality is an attempt to make it unique. It is not unique to the individual, but it is a unique aspect of the GROUP known as Christians.

I also found something interesting. A Collective noun can be followed by either a singular or plural verb. The verb usage is determined by the intent of the collective. If it is intended individually and divisible, you would say, "The group were in disagreement." On the otherhand, if you intend it to be collective, it takes a singular verb, such as "This group is in disagreement with that group." (See the American Heritage Dictionary entry for group concerning usage) This contradicts your attempt at appealing to grammar.

Correct! Therefore we have a common bond as a collective group called "Christians." Now, if you can find an exception, you can then claim to be dealing with individuals who are unique.

And just when is that?? It does not give a time. It gives a standard of spiritual maturity.</font>[/QUOTE]

Yes, it does give a time. "Till we all come in the unity of the faith." You believe that we can individually do that? We individually can come all in unity of the faith? Two words force the conclusion I reached that we arrive together at that place. They are "all" and "unity". You might want to open your Bible sometime and look at the context of Eph 4:13 I quoted above. It is collective. The last phrases of 4:12 is "of the body of Christ." THE body? Is that a bunch of individuals, or functioning as a unit? v. 16 says, "from whom the whole body fitly joined together and compacted ..." I will be interested in hearing how you turn THAT into individuals functioning independently.

Christian growth in grace is an individual issue. But one day we will all be as sanctified as Paul, as well as Peter, James, John, etc. When? When Christ comes back and we are all as a group made like Him. You are the one in this matter interchanging ideas. The passages are not speaking of present growth in grace, and you know it. Romans 8:30 even mentions our glorification.

btw, did you know that the word "conformed" in Romans 8:29 is the Greek word "summorphos"? Literally, this means "jointly formed." It is used one other time in the NT. That is in Philippians 3:21

Are our bodies being fashioned like unto His glorified one day by day, now? Or does Phil 3:21 and Romans 8:29 speak of our future "jointly formed" body?

It does? Could you maybe hint at what verse in 1 Cor. 3 you are speaking of? I would like to examine the specific statement a little more closely. Let me know if you find it.

Which I believe I mentioned already. Did you notice v. 3??? "EVeryone who has this hopes purifies himself just as he is pure." Once again, the context shows my point. In this life, we are to be becoming pure just as he is pure, becuase of our hope of final deliverance. Becoming pure as he is pure is being conformed to his image.</font>[/QUOTE]

What a shame you did not repost the verse. Let's look at the whole passage, shall we?

Now, I find this tells me that we do not yet know what we are going to be one day , but that we will find that out when He appears. on that day we shall be like Him for we shall see him as he is. Now, verse 3 you claim is being conformed to His image? But verse 3 says that it is every man that has this hope in him that purifies himself. Sounds like a limitation to me? Is it only every man that has the hope of the return of Christ that is conformed to His image, or is it every Christian regardless?

Besides, Pastor Larry, as I have pointed out, the word translated "conformed" in Romans 8:29 is used in the context of the coming of Christ, not in present sanctification.

Who is being wrong and unethical, here? I cited 1 John 3:2 which strongly supports my contention that we are conformed to the image of Christ as a group at His coming, all at one time. You ignore it and attempt to alter that by emphasizing verse 3, which speaks of only those who have the hope to see Christ and therefore purify themselves in light of His coming. Not all Christians are looking forward to His coming. Some will be ashamed before Him at His coming. (1 John 2:28)

But will there ever be a time that we will be perfect and be perfectly conformed to His image and be like Him? I am not the one confusing those ideas. I'm wanting you to see it. There is a Divine Appointment (Predestination) that all Christians have to one day be perfected. This will happen to us as a unified body. It does not happen individually at different times, but to each of us in the same way, at the same time.

Yes, *I* was. I am talking about us being conformed to the image of Christ at His coming, which is what Romans 8:29 is speaking of. This happens as a collective group, the corporate body of all believers. By context it is not talking about present individual sanctification and holiness, which you are attempting to force upon the text, anymore than our glorification (Romans 8:30) can be said to be happening now.

Really??? Sin is a corporate issue??? So your sin is my sin??? That doesn't even make sense. Scripture plainly recognizes that not all individuals are equally holy in their practice.</font>[/QUOTE]

Oh, come on! Look at the context of my remarks. Do you know any individual man other than Christ that is perfect and sinless? I was not talking about my sin being your sin, and you KNOW it! By the way, the answer is yes, sin is a corporate issue in that it affects the rest of the body. No, my sin is not necessarily your sin, but my sin can affect your life, and a church that tolerates it in their midst is corporately guilty (see 1 Cor. 5).

Then why did Peter give the command to "Be holy"? If they were already holy, then that is a wasted command. Scripture is full of commands to be holy, therefore showing that positional holiness (which we have) is not the same as practical holiness (which we as individuals are commanded to have). You are confusing positional truth with living truth.</font>[/QUOTE]

No, you seem to be the one who is confusing the two. Are you saying in opposition to Eph. 5 that the church is not subject to Christ? The command in Peter was not addressed to the church as a body, but to individuals. But are we discussing 1 Peter or the passages you claim show individual election? Election is only rarely used for an individual (1 time I can think of), and is mostly used nationally or corporately in the Scripture.

For the 1 Peter passage, properly quoted, it is "be ye holy, as I am holy" and is a quote of an OT passage addressed to Israel. Eph 5 is speaking of the church as a body, which is not an individual. Romans 8:29 is speaking of the same. Eph. 1:4 is speaking of the same. There are no exceptions, all Christians will be changed into a body like Christ's, all Christians will be adopted, all Christians have been blessed with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ, and so on. Or are you denying that we are connected together as a body?

Open your Bible and look at Romans 8:29&30, and you will find that I am talking about glorification. Then open it to Eph. 1:3&4 and you will find that I am talking about our adoption. What seems lost on you through this conversation is that we don't arrive individually, we arrive at these places corporately through the election of God.

A group would not have a plural pronoun. A group is singular. There are so many cases that make your argument an absolute hilarity to try to argue for. </font>[/QUOTE]You just said that a group is singular and would not have a plural pronoun? You mean, if it were a group, it should have said, "Moreover whom he did predestinate, &lt;him&gt; he also called: and whom he called, &lt;him&gt; he also justified: and whom he justified, &lt;him&gt; he also glorified."? How does that make sense? Changing "Them" to the singular "Him" makes it say what you want it to. Do you see how a practical application of what you just claimed does not work? Ok, we can all laugh now.

What is a pronound?? Is that a new part of speech you made up???? </font>[/QUOTE]

Point, Pastor Larry!

Yeah -- I've noticed!

Just a gentle reminder to you -- "theological position plays no part in the moderating process." Don't re-burn poor Servetus in a display of Calvinist' superior fire power, and don't perform operations on eyespecks while blinded by a 2x4.

 

There are thousands..... you just won't find them in the BIBLE. Read the Koran, the Book of Mormon, or the Bagavagita
{big wink}
G4G