Predestination

[SovereignGrace]

You are fast becoming a real joy. I'm upfront about being a Calvinist, but if you decide the Bible teaches a different point of view, you will be just as saved.

I've been on both sides. There are others here who have also been in both camps.

This is one of the most important things.

Hebrews 12:1-2​

​

New American Standard Bible 1995​

​

​

12 Therefore, since we have so great a cloud of witnesses surrounding us, let us also lay aside every encumbrance and the sin which so easily entangles us, and let us run with endurance the race that is set before us, 2 fixing our eyes on Jesus, the author and perfecter of faith, who for the joy set before Him endured the cross, despising the shame, and has sat down at the right hand of the throne of God.

It's always about Jesus.

Here, here!!!!

 

[SovereignGrace]

Another poster brought up this verse can you tell me your view ?

In 1 John 4:7 is says that God is love.

Does that mean He is still love or no longer love and can you explain why . Thank you sethproton.

I don’t know if you know this, but if you put an @ right next to their username(no space in between) it tags them and gives them an alert.
@ Johnnybgood = no tag.
@Johnnybgood (I had no space between) = tag.

 

[Theo1689]

And as far as not being a mediator anymore? Why would we want that? A mediator helps two people (humans and God) come to an agreement about a covenant between them. Would you like to renegotiate the New Covenant?

Here is the proof that you don't engage in proper hermeneutics.
You don't care what the text ACTUALLY says.

You only want to find what you "would want".
Your theology is based one rationalization like the above, not on the testimony of Scripture.

 

[Sethproton]

Another poster brought up this verse can you tell me your view ?

In 1 John 4:7 is says that God is love.

Does that mean He is still love or no longer love and can you explain why . Thank you @Sethproton.

Yes, God is love. Something we all know but can continue to learn the depths of it.
The statement is not meant to be present tense statement. It is an equality. It is not JUST currently true. It is true timelessly.

 

[Sethproton]

Here is the proof that you don't engage in proper hermeneutics.
You don't care what the text ACTUALLY says.

You only want to find what you "would want".
Your theology is based one rationalization like the above, not on the testimony of Scripture.

ok

 

[Sethproton]

That is great and I agree it’s timeless and God is now love just as He was when the verse was written.

My question is this since Hebrews 8:6 used the exact same verb estin that says Jesus is our mediator why is God still love and Jesus is still not our mediator . This is my question .

here is the idea that makes sense based on the various verses, Just as God is love and always will be. When the Bible says God is love, it is an equality, not just something about what He currently does. If that was just meant to say that now, at this moment God is love, it would not express the truth as we understand it, if it just meant that at this time He is love. So the same for being mediator. Saying He is the mediator is not meant as something just in the present. While it is something He has done/acted on. It is more something He is.
The other part of that which no one seems to grasp is what the word "mediator" means. The court person who reconciles the plaintiff and defendant, or both civil parties, so they can approach the judge with an agreement. And from there what it means that He was a mediator using His own blood, and this He did once for all time. Christ only shed His blood once, it is not an ongoing sacrifice that He keeps making. With that one time sacrifice, the Bible says he mediated the new covenant once. There is no need to keep creating the covenant, it is in place.
Can you understand that? The need for a new covenant in His blood, which is now an eternal covenant between man and God mediated once in his blood?
some have confused the word mediator with intercessor or high priest. Now these two jesus does eternally. But these two are different offices

Please ask for clarification, or scripture if you wonder about anything specific

 

[Sethproton]

So here is what I’m having a hard time understanding. If mediator is passed because his sacrifice for sin is past then his role as priest would be over because of the same sacrifice in the past was a one time for all sacrifice. Do you see that as the same idea ?

The Bible specifically states that Jesus is a high priest forever and that He lives forever to make intercession.
The Bible does not state that He will forever die for us. He died once. And in that death, He mediated the new covenant,
Can you answer one question? Do you want Jesus to re-mediate the new covenant and create a new set of rules for the covenant

 

[Theo1689]

The Bible specifically states that Jesus is a high priest forever and that He lives forever to make intercession.
The Bible does not state that He will forever die for us. He died once. And in that death, He mediated the new covenant,
Can you answer one question? Do you want Jesus to re-mediate the new covenant and create a new set of rules for the covenant

First of all, why does what anyone "wants" relevant to ANYTHING?
Basing your beliefs on what you "want", rather than what the Bible TEACHES, is a one-way path to heresy.

And you don't seem to understand the difference between "continues to mediate" and "mediates again" (ie. iterative).

And NOBODY said anything about "a new set of rules".
You're talking nonsense.

 

[Beloved Daughter]

When you look up a word in a lexicon and you get the meaning, what more can you do than that as far as the definition? It is what it is. I did not make it up. It is available for anyone to read. But when posters do not want to accept what an authoritative lexicon says, you end up repeating yourself. So no, it was not that sometime i heard in some lexicon somewhere... That is the kind of rude comments I get all the time. I read it in a respected lexicon. Period.
You are writing as if you know some place in the New testament where the word is used and it refers to something other than a court mediator as a symbolic reference. What scripture are you referring to? There are exactly 6 times the word is used in the New Testament. which of those are you suggesting are referencing something other than a court mediator as a symbol of what Christ did?

And as far as not being a mediator anymore? Why would we want that? A mediator helps two people (humans and God) come to an agreement about a covenant between them. Would you like to renegotiate the New Covenant? Or are you doing as others have done and confusing mediator with other of Christ's offices, like intercessor and high priest. Each office is unique and has a purpose. Are you wanting to do as others do and blend them all together?

More and more I understand that you must be using the wrong lexicon or you can't properly use the lexicon you have.

 

[ReverendRV]

More and more I understand that you must be using the wrong lexicon or you can't properly use the lexicon you have.

I think it's more nefarious than that...

 

[Sethproton]

Why would I still need a priest if my past , present and future sins have been forgiven ? I don’t see any difference between them as a priest and mediator both work on behalf of the sinner to God. I believe both are necessary or both are not. I’m not seeing how we can split them up it doesn’t make any sense to me. I’m having trouble wrapping my head around that concept .

The trouble you are having is simple: vocabulary.
You do not care what the words mean and are just accepting vague general ideas about what the words mean.
Clarify the definitions and you will clarify how they are different

But as to why you still need a high priest, we need someone who can take us into the real holy of holies in Heaven

 

[Sethproton]

More and more I understand that you must be using the wrong lexicon or you can't properly use the lexicon you have.

That is doubtful that you have any idea what you are talking about and instead are just making an ungrounded opinion be what you rely on.
You do not seem to understand much about how language is used.
That is of course an exaggeration on my part, but just the fact that you have no idea what a court mediator is or what the metaphoric meaning of cuddle up is.

 

[Sethproton]

I think it's more nefarious than that...

Boy you turned from what you used to be, but then when lemons get squeezed, you get lemon juice

 

[Theo1689]

The trouble you are having is simple: vocabulary.

One of the problems is your constant condescending, "I'm right and everyone else is wrong" tone.

"The trouble you are having is...."

It begs the question. You simply ASSUME that anyone who disagrees with you is ALWAYS wrong.

She do not care what the words mean

"She do not care"?

Okay, you ARE an expert in English... I'm convinced....

 

[Sethproton]

First of all, why does what anyone "wants" relevant to ANYTHING?
Basing your beliefs on what you "want", rather than what the Bible TEACHES, is a one-way path to heresy.

And you don't seem to understand the difference between "continues to mediate" and "mediates again" (ie. iterative).

And NOBODY said anything about "a new set of rules".
You're talking nonsense.

ok

 

[Sethproton]

One of the problems is your constant condescending, "I'm right and everyone else is wrong" tone.

"The trouble you are having is...."

It begs the question. You simply ASSUME that anyone who disagrees with you is ALWAYS wrong.



"She do not care"?

Okay, you ARE an expert in English... I'm convinced....

ok

 

[SovereignGrace]

For, on the one hand, there is a setting aside of a former commandment because of its weakness and uselessness (for the Law made nothing perfect), and on the other hand there is a bringing in of a better hope, through which we draw near to God. And inasmuch as it was not without an oath (for they indeed became priests without an oath, but He with an oath through the One who said to Him,
“The Lord has sworn
And will not change His mind,
‘You are a priest forever’”); so much the more also Jesus has become the guarantee of a better covenant.[Heb. 7:18-22]

I can find no place recorded in God’s holy writ where Christ’s priesthood has ever ceased. No. Where.

 

[Sethproton]

I read this again but you are making a circular argument and not making an argument from the text . Both Hebrews 8:6 and 1 John 4:7 use the same verb estin and the syntax is the same. So from looking at both texts I don’t see how you can make an argument for one and not the other since they are constructed the same. I believe you are letting your ideas interfere with what is being said .

Jim is our Father
Johnny is our son
Jackie is my wife
Joanne in our grandmother

How can any of those people no longer be my present relatives ?

Another thing you have already been told about three times, but you are unable to grasp is the "to be" verbs and the way they are used.
I have presented this to you already, and like much of what i say, you simply ignore.
the same verb you are calling "estin" can have different usages, just like in English. You want the usage to be the same regardless of context, but language does not work that way. What that means is that you ignore context, and when you ignore context, you can miss the meaning

 

[Sethproton]

For, on the one hand, there is a setting aside of a former commandment because of its weakness and uselessness (for the Law made nothing perfect), and on the other hand there is a bringing in of a better hope, through which we draw near to God. And inasmuch as it was not without an oath (for they indeed became priests without an oath, but He with an oath through the One who said to Him,
“The Lord has sworn
And will not change His mind,
‘You are a priest forever’”); so much the more also Jesus has become the guarantee of a better covenant.[Heb. 7:18-22]

I can find no place recorded in God’s holy writ where Christ’s priesthood has ever ceased. No. Where.

isn't that something we all agree on? Christ is a high priest forever,

 

[Theo1689]

Another thing you have already been told about three times, but you are unable to grasp is the "to be" verbs and the way they are used.

Actually, Seth, based on YOUR statement of, ""She do not care" (link) it's pretty clear that YOU are the one who is "unable to grasp [how] the 'to be' verbs ... are used"

Case in point, where you wrote above:

"... you are unable to grasp is the ..."

We have already talked to you about predicate nominative, and the implied verb, "is".
YOU HAVE EVEN ADMITTED that the correct implied verb is "is", which is 3rd person present active indicative.

You simply don't have a leg to stand on.

So we can agree to disagree, if you refuse to accept the truth, but to accuse us of "not being able to grasp" is nothing but worthless rhetoric.

I have presented this to you already, and like much of what i say, you simply ignore.

You are wrong.
And since you refuse to accept correction, there is nothing for us to do but "ignore" your repeated false claims.

the same verb you are calling "estin" can have different usages, just like in English.

You have no clue how Greek works, since you have never studied Greek.

You want the usage to be the same regardless of context, but language does not work that way.

Why should anyone believe anything you say?



(And yes, I know.... You're going to respond to this with nothing but, "ok". I'm glad you're going to agree with me.... )