Pastoral Thoughts on the Doctrine of Election

Theology
243

What do we do with:

  • 1 Cor 3:14
  • 1 Cor 11:27-32

In context, I Cor. 3:14 is addressed to pastors, not the common Christian. Paul says of Christian workers (Apollos and himself as examples) that the church is “God’s building,” and that the workers (pastors) who build, build upon the foundation of Christ as salvation. If the pastor teaches his congregation false doctrines, then that wood, hay, and straw will be burned up when he stands before God, but he might still be saved but only by the skin of his teeth. This verse does not address the congregation.

And to clarify, by “nothing more” I mean they received salvation, and sat on their spiritual couch like a couch potato and did not practice walking in obedience to God in loving on others, etc. The second reference has to do with taking Communion in an unworthy manner…I think that if a saved person was walking in obedience to God, but committed this sin, his obedience does not nullify contempt for the Body and Blood of Christ (Heb. 10:29).

I said…

Jesus fulfilled the old covenant the day He was baptized, and then He set out for three years teaching new covenant principles.

And then you asked:

Do you have scrpture that ends it there? For example Matt 5:17 is stated after His baptism. Hebrews explicitly associates the inauguration of the New Covenant with Christ’s death (Heb. 9:15–17; cf. Luke 22:20). Blessings.

Actually, Mat. 5:17-18 more accurately translated, says:

Matthew 5:17-18 “Do not think that I came to destroy the law or the prophets: I did not come to destroy, but to fulfill. Truthfully, I tell you, if heaven and earth perish, not one dot or the smallest stroke of the pen will pass away from the law without being fulfilled.”

This passage was fulfilled, the moment Jesus was baptized by John in Mat. 3:15; Jesus told John that “this is how we must fulfill all righteousness.” Jesus had walked in perfect obedience to the law and prophets all his life, He fulfilled them all. The “all righteousness” that He needed to make His obedience complete, was to receive water baptism as the God given ceremonial rite in inaugurating Him into His Messianic roles as King, High Priest, and the Living New Covenant of God. The moment He came up out of the water, the Spirit anointed Him for all these roles; He fulfilled and abrogated the law and parts of the prophets that pertain to all but Israel’s future history. This is why Jesus said later:

Luke 16:16 “The Law and the Prophets were until John; since then the good news of the kingdom of God is preached, and everyone forces his way into it.

What He is saying, is that the law and the prophets were in authority until an event that took place in the ministry of John the Baptist - that event was the baptism of Christ. Now the New Covenant is what we are to walk in obedience to, and the Prophet of that covenant is Christ Himself.

As to Luke 22:20, in the covenant-making process, there is the inauguration of the covenant, and then the ratification of the covenant, which takes place at what is called the “covenant meal.” Since it would take Jesus three years to teach the disciples the workings of the gospel, He started the process with the Sermon on the Mount in Mat. 5-7, and that process continued until the ratification of the covenant in this (and like passages) text.

Contrary to popular but erroneous beliefs, ANE covenants did not have to be inaugurated by blood: here, Jesus uses wine to symbolize His blood for the ratification of the New Covenant. Also contrary to popular but erroneous beliefs, the cross did not ratify the New Covenant, the cross was the fulfillment on God’s part of His obligation to us in the covenant, in providing for a perfect atonement.

As for Heb. 9:15-17…that is one of the more dastardly faux pas of practically every translation in English that I have seen. The Greeks had no concept of covenant, so the NT writers took the Greek word diatheke (meaning last will and testament) and filled it with the meaning of the Hebrew word for covenant (berit), only the translators were not theologians and did not understand this fact. So when they came to this passage, they read it only as a last will and testament - however, ANE covenants did NOT take affect after the physical death of the participants, they actually ended upon the death of one of the participants unless it was specifically written to include generational descendants.

When the English is fixed, here is what the passage actually says with covenant meaning:

Hebrews 9:16-17 “Because when a covenant is being upheld, it is done so through the necessity of the symbolic death of the participants; because a covenant is sure and certain in authority while the participants are dead to themselves and alive to the covenant obligations: it never has power while the participants are living for themselves.”

He states this more for us than for Christ, because it is we who are obligated to walk in obedience to our covenant obligations to God if we are abiding in Christ.

Blessings.

244

I have a feeling this may be a waste of time on your part @BlueDragon; however, at least for the reader’s sake, I cannot let it slide. To reach these conclusions, you have to rewrite Greek grammar, redefine the standard history of Hebrew-Greek translation, and ignore the explicit logic of Jesus’ words in the Gospels. So I will talk to them on your behalf.

Here is a breakdown of where your arguments fall apart from a mainstream, historic, and linguistic biblical standpoint:

The Timeline Failure on Matthew 5:17–18: Bluedragon claims Matthew 5 was fulfilled earlier in Matthew 3 during Jesus’ baptism. The Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5–7) happened after Jesus’ baptism (Matthew 3). It makes no sense for Jesus to say, “Do not think that I came to destroy the law… but to fulfill,” if He had already finished fulfilling and abrogating it two chapters earlier.

“Heaven and Earth”: Jesus explicitly states that not a dot or stroke will pass from the Law “until heaven and earth pass away” and “until all is accomplished.” Heaven and earth did not pass away at John’s baptism, nor was the Messiah’s redemptive work finished at the start of His ministry.

Misinterpretation of Luke 16:16: Luke 16:16 states: “The Law and the Prophets were until John; since then the good news of the kingdom of God is preached…”

Bluedragon uses this to claim the Law’s authority ended at Christ’s baptism. However, mainstream biblical scholarship sees this as a transition of dispensational eras, not an instant termination of moral or covenantal authority at the water’s edge. John the Baptist was the bridge. The last of the Old Testament-style prophets. Marking the arrival of the Kingdom of God. Pointing to John as the turning point of salvation history is entirely different from claiming the Mosaic law was instantly abolished the second Jesus stepped out of the Jordan River.

Redefining Covenant Ratification & Blood: Bluedragon claims Ancient Near Eastern (ANE) covenants did not require blood and that the Cross was not the ratification of the New Covenant.

The Old Testament Pattern: In ANE cultures and biblical theology, covenants were literally “cut” (the Hebrew verb for making a covenant is karat berit, meaning “to cut a covenant”). Blood was the essential binding agent (see Genesis 15, Exodus 24).

Jesus’ Own Words: At the Last Supper (Luke 22:20), Jesus explicitly states, “This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood.” The wine was not a substitute for blood; it was a prophetic, symbolic representation of the literal blood He was about to shed on the Cross hours later.

Hebrews 9:22: The text explicitly states, “Without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins.” Separating the ratification of the New Covenant from Christ’s actual physical death on the Cross strips the ANE covenant context of its core meaning.

Fabricating a Translation of Hebrews 9:16–17: Bluedragon’s re-translation of Hebrews 9:16–17 is entirely speculative and rejects standard Greek lexicography to fit their personal theory. The Original Text: In Greek, verses 16–17 refer to a diatheke (covenant/testament) requiring the thanatos (physical death) of the diathemenos (the one who made the covenant/will).

Bluedragon’s Invention: To rewrite “physical death” to mean “symbolic death” or “dead to themselves” (a concept from Pauline theology like Galatians 2:20, imported where it does not belong).

Historical Fact: While diatheke in secular Greek often meant a “last will and testament,” the Jewish translators of the Septuagint (LXX) had already adopted diatheke to translate the Hebrew berit centuries before the New Testament was written. The author of Hebrews relies on a well-understood play on words between a covenant ratified by a slain sacrifice and a last will that takes effect upon death. Overwriting this with modern “dead to self” jargon completely alters the author’s argument about Christ’s unique, once-for-all physical sacrifice.

The bottom line is this. Bluedragon is forcing a hyper-specific, home-brewed theological framework onto the text. To make their timeline work, they have to reorder the Gospels, re-translate clear Greek words to mean their opposites, and downplay the central role of the Cross in ratifying the New Covenant. His interpretation strays far from standard textual and historical analysis.

Be blessed, be a blessing, and Jesus is LORD!

Peter

1 Like
245

I have a feeling this may be a waste of time on your part @BlueDragon; however, at least for the reader’s sake, I cannot let it slide. To reach these conclusions, you have to rewrite Greek grammar, redefine the standard history of Hebrew-Greek translation, and ignore the explicit logic of Jesus’ words in the Gospels. So I will talk to them on your behalf.

Nice try again, Pete, but it won’t fly. I do not have to re-write Greek grammar the way you try to, what I do is keep myself up to date on Greek studies, which you either have not done, or reject what the mainline Greek scholars are telling us. That is your problem which you could rectify if you really wanted to, but seeing as how you allow your bias to rule your brain, I believe that you will not. “Redefine the standard history of Hebrew-Greek translation?” Again, you are speaking out of ignorance, which will be demonstrated below. The only one here that ignores the logic of what is said is you…because you do not know anything (apparently) about principles of Biblical interpretation, which you have demonstrated now since your first engagement.

The Timeline Failure on Matthew 5:17–18: Bluedragon claims Matthew 5 was fulfilled earlier in Matthew 3 during Jesus’ baptism. The Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5–7) happened after Jesus’ baptism (Matthew 3). It makes no sense for Jesus to say, “Do not think that I came to destroy the law… but to fulfill,” if He had already finished fulfilling and abrogating it two chapters earlier.

Lets try to expand your short-sightedness a little…

Matthew 17:10-12

And the disciples asked him, “Then why do the scribes say that first Elijah must come?” He answered, “Elijah does come, and he will restore all things. But I tell you that Elijah has already come, and they did not recognize him, but did to him whatever they pleased. So also the Son of Man will certainly suffer at their hands.”

Jesus talks about John the Baptist in the future tense, AFTER he already came and went, killed in chapter 14. Then, for His purposes here, He tells them that “Elijah has already come.” Jesus did the same thing in Mat. 5:18, as astute in Scripture as you put yourself out there as, you should know this…furthermore…

“Heaven and Earth”: Jesus explicitly states that not a dot or stroke will pass from the Law “until heaven and earth pass away” and “until all is accomplished.” Heaven and earth did not pass away at John’s baptism, nor was the Messiah’s redemptive work finished at the start of His ministry.

There you go again, reading your bias into the text, committing spiritual suicide in the process. No where in the context of this chapter even, is anything stated to give us any kind of idea that Jesus here intends His “redemptive work,” that is your assumption, and you know what happens when you assume…no wonder you cannot see truth.

When Jesus said, “thus it is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness,” it had nothing to do with His redemptive work, it had to do with fulfilling the law in perfect righteousness. You just cannot see past your own bias. He fulfilled all the law, and then abrogated it just like Scripture teaches:

Matthew 11:12-13

From the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven has suffered violence, and the violent take it by force. For all the Prophets and the Law prophesied until John,

Perhaps in your arrogance you have forgotten what “until” means…it means cessation, the end of something.

Ephesians 2:15

by abolishing the law of commandments expressed in ordinances,

The law of Moses was the covenant law of the old covenant, which cannot be abolished unless the covenant from where it came is abolished. The law was abolished because the old covenant that it came from was abolished.

Hebrews 7:18

Because on the one hand, the former law is abrogated because it was weak and useless,

Hebrews 8:13

In that He said a new covenant, He abrogates the first one, and it is abrogated and has become old, and vanishing away as we speak.

Hebrews 10:9

then He added, “Behold, I have come to do your will.” He does away with the first in order to establish the second.

The New Covenant could not be established until the old was done away with, which Christ did at His baptism. Since you only pretend to the people here to know what you are talking about, ask yourself why Jesus needed to be baptized. John’s baptism was for repentance (Mat. 3:11; Mark 1:4; Luke 3:3; Acts 19:4) and Jesus had never sinned, He had nothing to repent for. His baptism followed the ancient Jewish tradition for priests and kings performing the mikveh cleansing as the ritual they went through in entrance into their priestly and kingly offices.

Jesus said that “not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the LAW until all is accomplished,” it has nothing to do with Christs Messianic accomplishments, it only had to do with law. Please, stop thinking that you know it all and go educate yourself. And furthermore, it has nothing to do with heaven and earth passing away, it had to do with “until all is accomplished.” But nice try.

Part 2 coming up…

246

Part 2…

Misinterpretation of Luke 16:16: Luke 16:16 states: “The Law and the Prophets were until John; since then the good news of the kingdom of God is preached…”

Bluedragon uses this to claim the Law’s authority ended at Christ’s baptism. However, mainstream biblical scholarship sees this as a transition of dispensational eras, not an instant termination of moral or covenantal authority at the water’s edge.

Wrong again. What you call “mainstream biblical scholarship” is not mainstream, it is what Calvinism teaches regarding this, and has nothing to do with what actually happened. The law’s authority did end at His baptism, which is why no one can be justified by walking in obedience to a dead law…if it was not dead, then you can still attain to the righteousness of the law, like Paul, Zechariah, and Elizabeth did (Luke 1:5-6; Php. 3:6). Salvific covenants do NOT operate while another is still in force…another covenant point you are uneducated on. So…you are a dispensationalist? That explains a lot…

Luke 16:16 says it very succinctly; the law and the prophets were in authority “until John,” and since then the kingdom of God in Christ was here. He says the same thing in Mat. 11:13, “For all the prophets and the law prophesied UNTIL John,” meaning that there is an aspect of the prophets, and the whole law, that ceased in authority when John did something special – and that was baptizing Jesus into His Messianic works. He fulfilled all the old law at His baptism, because He fulfilled the purpose of the Mosaic Covenant and abrogated it.

There is a plethora of evidence that demonstrates this fact: for example, with the inauguration of the New Covenant, believers could now cast demons out of people, they could heal the sick, raise the dead, open blind eyes, unstop deaf ears – things that no one could do unless the New Covenant was in operation. Further, Jesus preached that the kingdom of God was now present, so people can enter therein, which they could not do under the old covenant. Eternal life was now available, which only came with the New Covenant. I could go on, but I am probably wasting my time since you think you know everything already.

Redefining Covenant Ratification & Blood: Bluedragon claims Ancient Near Eastern (ANE) covenants did not require blood and that the Cross was not the ratification of the New Covenant.

The Old Testament Pattern: In ANE cultures and biblical theology, covenants were literally “cut” (the Hebrew verb for making a covenant is karat berit, meaning “to cut a covenant”). Blood was the essential binding agent (see Genesis 15, Exodus 24).

You are once again getting hung up on words that you do not understand. You did not give your sources, and it is obvious that you get this nonsense from a Calvinist web site where the author does not know what he is talking about. Let us see what actual theologians educated on the matter have to say:

ANE covenants were not always made with sacrifices, and some covenant ceremonies included ablutions, libations, or “other manipulations of non-bloody liquids such as water, oil, or wine.” [1]

Here, some resources for you to educate yourself…

Gehman, Henry S.; The Covenant: The Old Testament Foundation of the Church; Theology Today, 1950

Gentry, Peter J.; Kingdom Through Covenant: Humanity as the Divine Image; Southern Baptist Journal of Theology; Spring 2008;

Hahn, Scott; Covenant in the Old and New Testaments: Some Current Research (1994 – 2004); Currents in Biblical Research, April 2005, Vol.3 No. 2, page 266

Mendenhall, G. E.; Covenant Forms in Israelite Tradition; The Biblical Archeologist, Vol. 17, No. 3, Sept. 1954

Mendenhall, George E.; Law and Covenant in Israel and the Ancient Near East; The Biblical Archaeologist, Vol. XVII, No. 2 (May 1954)

Trumbull, H. Clay; The Blood Covenant: A Primitive Rite and its Bearing on Scripture; Wattles & Co., 1893

Weinfeld, Moshe; Covenant Making in Anatolia and Mesopotamia; Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society, Vol. 22, 1993, pp 135-139, Jewish Theological Seminary.

The New Covenant, L. D. Pettegrew, TMSJ 10/2 (Fall 1999)

Jesus’ Own Words: At the Last Supper (Luke 22:20), Jesus explicitly states, “This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood.” The wine was not a substitute for blood; it was a prophetic, symbolic representation of the literal blood He was about to shed on the Cross hours later.

Wrong again, talking about things that you are ignorant of, which is why I gave you some references above to educate yourself a little. The wine was an ablution in place of His blood, it was not a “prophetic, symbolic representation” which is ludicrous, I have never heard anyone say anything like that before…you are just making claims that you cannot substantiate. You really need to stop doing that.

 **\[1\]** Beacham, *ANE Covenant Context,* pg. 14
247

Part 3…

Hebrews 9:22: The text explicitly states, “Without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins.” Separating the ratification of the New Covenant from Christ’s actual physical death on the Cross strips the ANE covenant context of its core meaning.

Wrong again, speaking out of ignorance. Yes, without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins, which is why Jesus went to the cross – you confuse the ratification of the new covenant with God’s obligation to immediately provide atonement, and your confusion is brought upon by your bias, not actual knowledge. Let me try to explain it to you as if you are a child; Jesus ratified the new covenant after He and His disciples ate the Passover meal – He took the cup and the bread, and ratified the covenant with the traditional “covenant meal.”

What’s more, this covenant meal was also the very covenantal rite which ratified the New Covenant. [1] At the conclusion of the covenant meal, the covenant was considered to be actuated and the covenant ceremony completed. This is because the sharing of the sacrifice (or its blood) produced the union of the lives of the covenanting parties. [2]

The blood He shed later that day was not the blood that ratified the covenant, that blood was spilled in response to the blood which ratified the covenant in the covenant meal, because once ratified, God became legally responsible to fulfill His obligations. That first obligation was in providing an eternal atonement for all humanity, for “whosoever will.” Covenants could be made without a sacrifice, [3] but even when they were, the actual sacrifice did not enact or ratify the covenant – that was not its purpose. The ritualistic use of the wine by Christ was wholly acceptable and common in ANE covenanting. [4] But when Christ stated that the wine was symbolic of His blood, there is no doubt that His disciples understood what He was doing. In making the wine symbolic of His blood, and in stating that by His blood He was enacting the New Covenant with them, He was bringing them into His life. [5]

Fabricating a Translation of Hebrews 9:16–17: Bluedragon’s re-translation of Hebrews 9:16–17 is entirely speculative and rejects standard Greek lexicography to fit their personal theory.

I fabricated nothing, and what I gave is not “entirely speculative” or rejects standard Greek lexicography…you are again making accusations out of your ignorance of the subject matter.

The Original Text: In Greek, verses 16–17 refer to a diatheke (covenant/testament) requiring the thanatos (physical death) of the diathemenos (the one who made the covenant/will).

Exactly…and as I stated that apparently completely went over your head, covenants are NOT inaugurated nor ratified by the death of the covenant partners. You are also confused in that you think Jesus is the one making the New Covenant with the disciples – He is not making it, although He is ratifying it into actuation; He cannot “make it” because He IS the New Covenant. Furthermore, please provide a single historical event where a man killed himself in order to establish his covenant that he just made with another person. You can’t, because that is not how covenants work.

As I stated, the writer of Hebrews took the Greek diatheke and redefined it according to the berit, a covenant does NOT work like a last will and testament. And in your zeal to try to prove me wrong, you have actually damaged your credibility to no end. You need to stop and think before you hit your post button…

Bluedragon’s Invention: To rewrite “physical death” to mean “symbolic death” or “dead to themselves” (a concept from Pauline theology like Galatians 2:20, imported where it does not belong).

Again, your arrogance in thinking that you know what you are talking about is truly astounding; apparently you have not read any authoritative works on covenanting. When the two partners walk between the cut animals in covenant making, they swear a precatory oath wherein they basically say that they live from now on not for themselves, but for the partner – you know(?) – they basically die to themselves in order to live for their covenant partner and fulfill their covenant obligations to one another. You really are making yourself look quite silly, and in public too…

Historical Fact: While diatheke in secular Greek often meant a “last will and testament,” the Jewish translators of the Septuagint (LXX) had already adopted diatheke to translate the Hebrew berit centuries before the New Testament was written. The author of Hebrews relies on a well-understood play on words between a covenant ratified by a slain sacrifice and a last will that takes effect upon death.

Yes…a play on words that evidently completely alludes you…otherwise you would have understood what I said. Instead, you went ape-crazy.

The bottom line, is that I would not listen to anything Pete says any longer, he has demonstrated now three different times that he says things off the top of his head that he is completely ignorant of, and then later tries to squirm out from under the weight of his false uneducated claims, and then when references demonstrate that he is wrong, he simply stops posting instead of humbling himself and confessing that he was wrong.

May God bless you with understanding, and the ability to set aside your bias.

 **\[1\]** Lawlor, *An Examination of Covenant Rites Toward Developing an increased awareness of the Eucharist*; University of Ottawa Doctorial Dissertation; 1969, pg. 50

 **\[2\]** Lawlor, *An Examination,* pg. 51

 **\[3\]** Beacham, *ANE Covenant Context,* pg. 14

 **\[4\]** Beacham, *ANE Covenant Context,* pg. 14

 **\[5\]** Lawlor, *An Examination,* pg. 219
248

I do understand what @BlueDragon is trying to do. It is not going to work. Anyone following along can decide who is the one in error. However, there is an honest question in the garbage he spewed out in this brain-dead three-part tirade, and that is this. “You did not give your sources.” This is not the first time someone has wondered what resources I use, so for this particular response, I used these.

Primary Word Study & Interlinear Tools

  • Blue Letter Bible

    A primary choice for in-depth word studies. By searching a verse and selecting the Interlinear tool, you can see the English text side-by-side with the original Hebrew or Greek, click on Strong’s numbers for root definitions, listen to audio pronunciations, and see every occurrence of a specific word throughout Scripture.

  • Bible Hub Interlinear

    Bible Hub provides word-by-word interlinear breakdowns for both the Hebrew Old Testament and Greek New Testament. Each word links directly to parsing information, Strong’s Concordance entries, and Greek/Hebrew lexicons (like Thayer’s or Brown-Driver-Briggs).

  • STEP Bible

    Developed by Tyndale House in Cambridge, STEP Bible (“Scripture Tools for Every Person”) offers advanced original language research designed for users without formal language training. Hovering over any word reveals detailed definitions, underlying grammar structures, and usage contexts.

2. Lexicons & Specialized Reference Sites

  • Perseus Digital Library (Tufts University)

    A standard academic resource for studying ancient Classical and Koine Greek texts, providing access to full lexicons (such as Liddell-Scott-Jones) and detailed morphological analysis tools.

  • 2LetterLookup

    A dictionary lookup tool designed for ancient languages. It allows you to search words based on their root characters in Hebrew, Aramaic, Classical Greek, Syriac, and Latin.

3. Desktop & Professional Software

  • Logos Bible Software

    Logos offers free basic web access and mobile apps alongside its paid desktop software, providing interconnected original-language dictionaries, morphological datasets, and original manuscript research tools.

For those who were wondering. As for the tirade, I will pass. I’m sure he will think he did something here; that is ok. I have no more time to waste on his nonsense.

Be blessed. Be a blessing. Jesus is LORD.

Peter

1 Like
249

That’s nice, even some of them have a scholarly background for language, but not scholarly insights from the field. Your sources are all locked into tradition…traditional translations that are void of the Spirit.

This is easy for someone to see if they set their bias aside. Knowing the grammar of the language is one thing, and the beginning; but it does not tell you the intended meaning of the text, it is only the starting point. And any real grammarian would know that.

Resources do not help a person when their bias keeps them blind to what the text actually states, particularly in the larger context of the WHOLE Word of God. I demonstrated that to you and you threw it out the window because your bias tells you otherwise.

If you want to know actual truth, I would suggest looking into non calvinistic theologians and scholars, otherwise you are only going to be looking at red through another layer of rose-colored glasses.

Have a nice weekend.

1 Like
250

Other way 'round @BlueDragon and getting kinda sick to my stomach re your hatred to anything Reformed, including Church History.

Man, you are something.

J.

251

Not really…like I said, I can demonstrate any doctrine that is false, by the Scriptures and the application of Biblical principles of interpretation.

And it is not so much reformed theology, it is ANY theology that does not line up with God’s Word.

Sorry you are feeling sick.

BTW, I may have missed it, but did you ever answer me about the circumstances of your “call” into pastoral ministry?

Blessings.

252

Yes, many here have demonstrated that your interpretation of certain scriptures is false. While attempting to correct you with Scripture, you simply reject, deflect, and change the subject. Oh, and you attack people personally, telling them that if they do not see YOUR view of Scripture, they are wrong, foolish, a false teacher, etc. Do you know what they say? Humble yourself, or God will humble you in the long run. Do not be so sure you are right and that all others who may disagree with you are wrong.

Be blessed, be a blessing. Jesus is LORD!

Peter

253

Yes…and we can also see that everything you have leveled here on me, you are just as culpable for. You have not demonstrated that I was wrong on anything but what I did admit to, but that did not, and does not, show the doctrine was wrong, only that a detail was wrong. But nice try, this isn’t anything that Calvinists have not said before.

The main problem here will continue…because you do not know (or refuse to apply) Biblical principles of interpretation. Ignorance in this case is bliss for the present, but will quickly fade in the future. But I do understand…when I first started learning these principles, they demonstrated some of the things I used to believe in were false, but instead of protecting my false biases, I amended them to fall in line with Scripture because I care more about truth than protecting false statements.

Just out of curiosity, are you also a democrat? Not trying to be political, just curious.

Blessings.

254

While having structured principles for biblical interpretation is valuable, Scripture itself teaches that applying technical rules without the proper spirit fails to achieve the righteousness God desires. This exchange highlights why formal hermeneutics alone cannot guarantee truth or constructive dialogue if the spirit of the interpreter contradicts the clear commands of Scripture.

Consider what the Bible says regarding how we are to engage in doctrine, debate, and personal conduct: Spiritual Pride vs. Biblical Humility. Claiming to be immune to false doctrine because of a methodology creates a dangerous spiritual blind spot.

“Pride goes before destruction, a haughty spirit before a fall.” Proverbs 16:18

“Knowledge puffs up, but love builds up. Those who think they know something do not yet know as they ought to know.” 1 Corinthians 8:1–2

“So, if you think you are standing firm, be careful that you don’t fall!” 1 Corinthians 10:12

Even when someone possesses sound doctrine, Scripture strictly regulates how that truth must be communicated. Dismissive or condescending language breaks clear biblical mandates.

“And the Lord’s servant must not be quarrelsome but must be kind to everyone, able to teach, not resentful. Opponents must be gently instructed, in the hope that God will grant them repentance leading them to a knowledge of the truth.” 2 Timothy 2:24–25

Ephesians 4:15: We are commanded to “speak the truth in love,” growing up into Christ—not using truth as a weapon to undermine others.

Deflection and Unrelated Labeling? Introducing personal assumptions or political labels (“are you also a democrat?”) into a theological discussion violates biblical principles regarding speech and fair judgment.

“But avoid foolish controversies and genealogies and arguments and quarrels about the law, because these are unprofitable and useless.” Titus 3:9

“Everyone should be quick to listen, slow to speak and slow to become angry, because human anger does not produce the righteousness that God desires.” James 1:19–20

Jesus established the ultimate test for evaluating teachers and doctrine. Not merely their analytical system, but the spiritual fruit produced in their life and speech.

“By their fruit you will recognize them… A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit.” Matthew 7:16–20

“Who is wise and understanding among you? Let them show it by their good life, by deeds done in the humility that comes from wisdom… But the wisdom that comes from heaven is first of all pure; then peace-loving, considerate, submissive, full of mercy and good fruit, impartial and sincere.” James 3:13–17

A truly biblical method of interpretation must produce biblical fruit: gentleness, humility, patient instruction, and love.

Be blessed,

Peter

255

First off, Pete, interpretation has nothing to do with Biblical fruit, once again you demonstrate that you do not understand spiritual principles. But we already knew that.

Secondly, you are also (apparently) incapable of understanding that everything you said above, you have done…its that arrogance that is encapsulated within calvinistic doctrine, the bias keeps one blind to truth.

Once again you are the pot calling the kettle black. So be it, apparently that will not change.

However, I demonstrated that the calvinistic doctrinal twist on election is false, it contradicts Scripture directly; God does not make salvation available to “all people” and “whoever” and then turns around and elects only a certain number for salvation and heaven.

I have demonstrated that fact, and yet you choose to reject those facts. Again, so be it…anyone who has eyes to see and ears to hear can see what you cling to, and how you act when you are proven in error with the facts of Scripture.

Revelation 22:11
Let the evildoer still do evil, and the filthy still be filthy, and the righteous still do right, and the holy still be holy.”

256

So…by your silence, I take it that you have no call from God to be a pastor. So, if you are filling the position and office of pastor at your church, since the title here is “Pastoral thoughts…”, but never received the call from God to be a pastor, then I would highly suggest that you re-think your place…if you are indeed another false pastor.

Good to know.

Anyone who has not received the call into any of the offices of the church, that are filling such an office, is a false whatever (false evangelist, false prophet, false teacher, false pastor, etc.) and will pay for their deception in the long run.

Blessings.

257

Something is seriously wrong with the way you are conducting yourself here. You are not merely disagreeing with people, you are repeatedly provoking, flooding the discussion, and behaving like a troll and a spammer. At some point, the moderators need to step in and deal with it.

You seem to have appointed yourself the final authority on every subject, where you alone are right and everyone else is supposedly wrong. That is not biblical humility, and it is certainly not how Christians are commanded to conduct themselves.

“Let nothing be done through strife or vainglory; but in lowliness of mind let each esteem other better than themselves” (Philippians 2:3).

You would also do well to remember, “For we know in part” (1 Corinthians 13:9). You do not possess perfect knowledge, and neither do the rest of us.

Proverbs 18:17 says, “He that is first in his own cause seemeth just; but his neighbour cometh and searcheth him.”

In other words, being convinced that you are right does not make you right.

So stop treating everyone who disagrees with you as though they are ignorant, dishonest, or incapable of understanding Scripture.

Make your case from the text, answer the arguments being made, and allow others to test your interpretation.

“Let all things be done unto edifying” (1 Corinthians 14:26).

If your contributions are continually producing contention rather than edification, perhaps the problem is not everyone else.

J.

1 Like