Reading theology into texts

[Theo1689]

Those beloved do not need to repent - they already did and they will never perish

So you're saying that they repented, even though they did not need to?

So Barnes, Calvin, JFB all reject your view

So YOU claim.
First of all, it is IRRELEVANT what they taught (assuming you understood them correctly, which is doubtful, since you are trying to interpret them contrary to their theology).

I'll believe they "reject [my] view" when THEY (not you) tell me, and not before.

But tell me... Should I believe "Calvin", or should I believe the BIBLE?
Here's the idiocy... Critics claim we're wrong by falsely claiming "we FOLLOW CALVIN" instead of the Bible, and then when we don't, you criticize us for NOT following Calvin.

So which is it?
You can't criticize us for both following AND not following Calvin (or anyone else).

And you can protest all you want about what books are in the bible

There is no book of Theo there either

And no book of "TomFL", either.

So let's stick to the BIBLE, shall we?

I'M not the one quoting "Calvin".
I'M not the one quoting "JFB".
I'M not the one quoting "Barnes".

You seem to want to RUN AWAY from the Bible.
No wonder your theology is so messed up.

and the absence of a need of the beloved to repent migrates again your view

I've NEVER claimed any "absence of a need to repent".
Bearing false witness is a sin, in case you weren't aware.

we can see your claim suffers from serious defects

<Chuckle>

You have yet to demonstrate that.

You keep making bogus and bankrupt CLAIMS, that I challenge you to PROVE, and you are never able to do so. So the only theology with "serious defects" is YOURS.

 

[Sethproton]

2 Pet. 3:9 —KJV
“¶ 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.”

God is long suffering only as long as man is permitted to freely resist or fail to repent

and there is the free will you deny

Again, this is a standard verse that is often presented to Calvinists. But try to get a Calvinist to explain why God is longsuffering or even what it means. You just get the regular run around for 20 posts and then they will start saying, "I posted it, go back and read what I wrote."

 

[Theo1689]

Again, this is a standard verse that is often presented to Calvinists. But try to get a Calvinist to explain why God is longsuffering or even what it means.

Seriously?!
If you don't even understand what "long-suffering" means, then why are you even here?

It means, "patient".

Webster's 1911 Dictionary:
Long′-suf′fer·ing, n. Bearing injuries or provocation for a long time; patient; not easily provoked.

BDAG:
μακροθυμέω
1. to remain tranquil while waiting, have patience, wait

2 Pet. 3:9 ... but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, ... (ESV)
2 Pet. 3:9 ... but is being patient toward you, because he does not wish ... (NET)
2 Pet. 3:9 ... but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish ... (NASB)
2 Pet. 3:9 ... but is patient with you, not wanting any to perish ... (HCSB)
2 Pet. 3:9 ... Instead he is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, ... (NIV)

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure this out.

Here's the deal... The Christians are being mocked by scoffers (2 Pet. 3:1-3), who are saying, "Where is he? Why hasn't he come yet? You're believing a false teaching!" But Peter responds that God's time frame is not our time frame ("a day is as a thousand years", v.8), and that while it may seem like God is taking too much time before He comes in human terms, the time frame is a drop in the bucket to God. He is being "patient", He's "waiting", he's waiting for all the "beloved" to (1) be born, and (2) come to Christ. If Christ had come again in Peter's day, then you and I wouldn't be part of that. But God is patient, and He is waiting until ALL of the elect are gathered up.

It's really not a difficult concept.

You just get the regular run around for 20 posts and then they will start saying, "I posted it, go back and read what I wrote."

<sigh>
Personal attack noted.

 

[TomFL]

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure this out.

Here's the deal... The Christians are being mocked by scoffers (2 Pet. 3:1-3), who are saying, "Where is he? Why hasn't he come yet? You're believing a false teaching!" But Peter responds that God's time frame is not our time frame ("a day is as a thousand years", v.8), and that while it may seem like God is taking too much time before He comes in human terms, the time frame is a drop in the bucket to God. He is being "patient", He's "waiting", he's waiting for all the "beloved" to (1) be born, and (2) come to Christ. If Christ had come again in Peter's day, then you and I wouldn't be part of that. But God is patient, and He is waiting until ALL of the elect are gathered up.

It's really not a difficult concept.

So Peter is writing to people who do not exist yet and states of them

2 Pet. 1:1–2 —KJV
Ҧ Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ:
Grace and peace be multiplied unto you through the knowledge of God, and of Jesus our Lord,”

 

[Theo1689]

So Paul is writing to people who do not exist yet and states of them

2 Pet. 1:1–2 —KJV
Ҧ Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ:
Grace and peace be multiplied unto you through the knowledge of God, and of Jesus our Lord,”

You actually think Paul wrote 2 Peter?!
You have NO IDEA what the Bible teaches, do you?

I believe that PETER is writing mainly to people who existed at the time, and by extension to those who come after. That is why you quote 2 Peter, is it not?

And I think 2 Peter is ABOUT "people who do not exist yet", at least in part.

 

[TomFL]

You actually think Paul wrote 2 Peter?!
You have NO IDEA what the Bible teaches, do you?

I believe that PETER is writing mainly to people who existed at the time, and by extension to those who come after. That is why you quote 2 Peter, is it not?

And I think 2 Peter is ABOUT "people who do not exist yet", at least in part.

• Today at 6:23 PM
• Add bookmark
• #24

Theo1689 said:
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure this out.

Here's the deal... The Christians are being mocked by scoffers (2 Pet. 3:1-3), who are saying, "Where is he? Why hasn't he come yet? You're believing a false teaching!" But Peter responds that God's time frame is not our time frame ("a day is as a thousand years", v.8), and that while it may seem like God is taking too much time before He comes in human terms, the time frame is a drop in the bucket to God. He is being "patient", He's "waiting", he's waiting for all the "beloved" to (1) be born, and (2) come to Christ. If Christ had come again in Peter's day, then you and I wouldn't be part of that. But God is patient, and He is waiting until ALL of the elect are gathered up.

It's really not a difficult concept.
Click to expand...

Look again

It was a typo which was caught

So Peter is writing to people who do not exist yet and states of them

2 Pet. 1:1–2 —KJV
Ҧ Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ:
Grace and peace be multiplied unto you through the knowledge of God, and of Jesus our Lord,”

and the non existent beloved you spoke of have obtained a like precious faith with us

So your claim makes no sense