Is Calvinism Wrong?

[Faither]

You need to make up your mind as to whether you are trying to preach faith and belief, or whether you are about arguing against evidence that the word "believe" has the same range of meaning as the Greek word that you prefer. One is admirable, the other is less than that.

Do you accept the definition in the Strongs 4100 where it begins as " pisteuo means NOT just to believe "?

Do you accept the definition of pisteuo given in the Vines , where it states , pisteuo is " a personal surrender to Him and a life inspired by such surrender " ?

 

[Rosenritter]

Do you accept the definition in the Strongs 4100 where it begins as " pisteuo means NOT just to believe "?

Do you accept the definition of pisteuo given in the Vines , where it states , pisteuo is " a personal surrender to Him and a life inspired by such surrender " ?

Earlier when I said yes, as evidenced by a very similar definition I supplied on my own using the English scripture for proof, I thought you had the normal and sane understanding that "believe" means "believe" in addition to "not just to believe, but ..."

But given that you've shown that instead you mean exclusively to the exclusion of common sense and scriptural example the answer is no.

"Thou believest that there is one God, thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble" illustrates that the Greek word covers both extremes, just like the English. Accuracy and honesty first... would it kill you to acknowledge that although the focus of the New Testament is on the greater belief, that the Greek word also covers the lesser belief? Or are you so fixed on worship of the Greek that languages like Hebrew and English are attacked as being unworthy vessels?

 

[MennoSota]

Confirmed, again, with his/her "Do you believe your comments here are coming from the Holy Spirit?," as Calvinists determine who the alleged "elect to salvation" ones are, by what they say, according to, of course, their "holier than thou" judgment,as others'/their lifestyles tell them if they are saved, or not, one of the "elect." Calvinism is just "warmed over" Catholicism, Mormonism, i.e., "works based" "salvation."

MennoSota: I am a rat, but I'm not as dirty as my other fellow rats, as my comments do not always come from the Holy Spirit, but I have more comments from the Holy Spirit, than my fellow rats, as I'm better than them, in my lifestyle, what I display, my character,...........................................so I must be saved!!!

The apostle Paul: Grievous wolves...child of the devil....pervert the gospel of Christ..............................let him be accursed...................................


You: Do you believe your comments here are coming from the Holy Spirit, Paul?!!!! Stop it, Paul!!!!!!! You show your true character, Paul!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!LOL, such a Godly spirit you display, Paul!!!!!!Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!!


Deceiver.

You should stick at "I'm a rat." The fact that you compare yourself to others tells me that you harbor a belief that there is goodness in you that God is pleased with. That is false. Neither you nor I have one shred of personal goodness that our Holy God looks upon and is impressed. Whatever God is pleased with is solely Jesus and Jesus alone as we are immersed in Christ.
I read your vitriolic words and see you are just throwing accusations against the wall and hoping they stick. You have no understanding of Reformed theology.

 

[Faither]

Earlier when I said yes, as evidenced by a very similar definition I supplied on my own using the English scripture for proof, I thought you had the normal and sane understanding that "believe" means "believe" in addition to "not just to believe, but ..." But given that you've shown that instead you mean exclusively to the exclusion of common sense the answer is no.

I've always stated that the verb form of Faith , faithing or pisteuo is an act , based upon a belief , sustained by confidence . Believing is a part of the completed process of pisteuo . Taken on it own is error . It's not believing sometimes , and not believing other times .

When you and the others take believing on its own , you make the object of Faithing God's Word instead of God Himself .

And you do acknowledge your refusal to accept those Greek dictionary definitions is rejecting the authors of the Strongs and Vines , not me ?

 

[Rosenritter]

I've always stated that the verb form of Faith , faithing or pisteuo is an act , based upon a belief , sustained by confidence . Believing is a part of the completed process of pisteuo . Taken on it own is error . It's not believing sometimes , and not believing other times .

When you and the others take believing on its own , you make the object of Faithing God's Word instead of God Himself .

And you do acknowledge your refusal to accept those Greek dictionary definitions is rejecting the authors of the Strongs and Vines , not me ?

I do not worship Strong nor Vines and I really don't care what they say when there's a superior source available. When you evade the scripture proof and hide behind someone's third-party definition it's an indication that you are not proceeding in faith.

 

[genuineoriginal]

And I want you to know what true NT Faith and faithing are , so when you and your household stand before God , you'll have no excuses , one way or the other .

You can't do that by continuing to promote a false definition for pisteuo.

 

[Rosenritter]

You can't do that by continuing to promote a false definition for pisteuo.

Trust follows truth.

 

[Faither]

I do not worship Strong nor Vines and I really don't care what they say when there's a superior source available. When you evade the scripture proof and hide behind someone's third-party definition it's an indication that you are not proceeding in faith.

Your claiming the Scriptures are yours before your Faithing has been deemed genuine , tested , accepted , and then given the Spirit of Christ .

You don't accept what true NT Faith and faithing is , as the result , by your own admission , your still at the drawing of the Father phase of the Salvation process . God is waiting for you to make a genuine surrendered life and live a life inspired by such surrender .

 

[Faither]

You can't do that by continuing to promote a false definition for pisteuo.

What false definition ?

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Where have I spoke about context ? Your the first to even acknowledge what I was presenting Is accually in there .

Now could you clear up the Strongs for them also , where it begins the definition of pisteuo , 4100 it states " pisteuo means not just to believe " .
And 189 akoe , ( compare to a courtroom hearing )
I appreciate your honesty concerning the definitions .

First, go back and read what I wrote, especially:

Again if a personal surrender to Him and a life inspired by such surrender appears verbatim in Vines unabridged versions as you have written it, the later versions, as shown above, take better care to dissect the phrase.

In other words, the phrase above is your claim that it appears verbatim in the unabridged version. I have no idea if that is factual as I do not have the unabridged version. Even if I grant the factuality, the later editions of Vines render it as shown at the link I provided earlier. They clearly do not read in the verbatim way you have stated.

There are numerous Strong's concordances available online. But it is difficult to determine if they are taking shortcuts with published paper versions. So I used what I consider to be the definitive paper version of Strong's, one that corrects numerous misprints and errors in earlier versions, and one that all should be using for basic word studies, not as lexicons:
https://www.amazon.com/Strongest-Strongs-Exhaustive-Concordance-Larger/dp/0310246970/

In my paper copy, I looked up 4100 and it does not contain the phrase "pisteuo means not just to believe". Instead it contains what is shown here online:

1. Go to: http://www.godrules.net/library/kjvstrongs/kjvstrongsmat8.htm

2. Select Matthew 8:13

3. Select Strong's 4100 after the word "believed"

4. The following page will open: http://www.godrules.net/library/strongs2b/gre4100.htm

5. The content at that link agrees exactly with my paper copy of Strong's.​

For the word akoe (Strong's 189), the phrase "compare to a courtroom hearing" does not appear. Following the same method as above:

1. Go to: http://www.godrules.net/library/kjvstrongs/kjvstrongsmat4.htm

2. Select Matthew 4:24

3. Select Strong's 189 after the word "fame"

4. The following page will open: http://www.godrules.net/library/strongs2b/gre189.htm

5. The content at that link agrees exactly with my paper copy of Strong's.​

You will need to provide a camera photo of the Copyright information for the Strong's you are using in order to determine exactly what version you are using and getting these phrases from. In addition to my paper copy, I have searched quite a bit for a version of Strong's online that contains these two phrases from 4100 and 189 you are appealing to, yet have found none.

But once more, let's assume I grant you are stating what is found in your version of Strong's is factual. And to be clear, I am not asserting you are bearing falsehoods at all. I just do not know.

What I can state is that later revisions of Strong's are not showing these renderings. Hence you are appealing to obscurities and have not established that these later updates were made in the wrong direction by the publishers. You cannot persist to refuse the publisher's right to improve upon their owned content. You can only demonstrate by substantive argumentation that their "improvements" were made in error.

AMR

 

[Rosenritter]

Your claiming the Scriptures are yours before your Faithing has been deemed genuine , tested , accepted , and then given the Spirit of Christ .

You don't accept what true NT Faith and faithing is , as the result , by your own admission , your still at the drawing of the Father phase of the Salvation process . God is waiting for you to make a genuine surrendered life and live a life inspired by such surrender .

And the broken record continues. Welcome to the block list.

 

[Faither]

And the broken record continues. Welcome to the block list.

Your choice .

 

[genuineoriginal]

Which Bible? I'm honestly not meaning to be pedantic. I've noticed many using the text of the NKJV (which is site specific), I've largely used the text of the ESV, and others are engaging some disputation over various original language manuscript words and references. I'm hoping we can at least be clear in agreement on modern English equivalents. If so, then I'd also hope we're in agreement in both accepting the full veracity of the texts in use and appraising them with guidance from the Spirit of God systematically, contextually, and with all best practices of interpretation and illumination.

I usually use the KJV unless there are reasons to use a different version.

So, the verse you quote is in complete agreement with these verses I linked and now quote:

Ephesians 2:8-9
"For ^zby grace you have been saved ^athrough faith. And this is ^bnot your own doing; ^cit is the gift of God, ^dnot a result of works, ^eso that no one may boast."

z Eph 2:5
a 1 Pet 1:5; Rom. 4:16
b 2 Cor. 3:5
c Jn 4:10; Heb. 6:4
d 2 Tim. 1:9; Titus 3:5; Rom. 3:20, 28
e 1 Cor. 1:29; Judg. 7:2

Not quite.
I am in complete agreement with the actual meaning of the verse, but Calvinism redefines too many words in that verse for me to agree with the Calvinist revision.

The verses say (in plain modern English):

Salvation is a result of God being delighted to honor people that have merited it by pleasing Him through their faith.
Salvation is not given to you for your sake, but your salvation is a gift God gives to Himself.
Salvation is not a debt God is obligated to pay for your works, so you can't boast that it was your works that saved you.​

Specific to the OP, "Is Calvinism Wrong?", I'd also post that it prompts further clarity - that's the way of many such Knightly queries, and yes, this very topic has been vigorously engaged througout TOL's history and Christendom.

I don't think any child of God having read Calvin's writings would categorically and with sincere forthrightness dismiss them all as erroneous. If they would, then they'd deny the Scriptures themselves. Otherwise, John Calvin would be the first to assent and even champion that he was a human being frought with sin and all manner of "wrong". In fact, a conerstone of his theology was the blazing contrast of God's absolute holiness and our need of God's grace.

As summary however, I'm in agreement that Calvin's writings and theological legacy speaks to profound Biblicism and the Reform principle honouring and reformationally elevating the primacy of God's Holy Scripture as the sole infallible rule of faith and practice. It was a foundational doctrinal principle of the Protestant Reformation held by many of the Reformers including Calvin, over and against Roman Catholic abuses at that time. That anyone would belittle Calvin's honour of Holy Script belies the great reliance Calvin gave to Scripture above the dictates of men or the Church, and reliance upon the Holy Spirit in the life of each individual Christian above any Papal authority or denominational dictate.

Calvinism rejects the scriptural foundation of mankind's continual choices for righteousness or wickedness and substitutes the Augustinian heresy of "Original Sin" rephrased as "Total Depravity". Then Calvinism compounds that error by rejecting God's standard for who He will grant grace unto and claims that God chooses the elect for no reason at all (Unconditional Election).

 

[Faither]

And the broken record continues. Welcome to the block list.

First, go back and read what I wrote, especially:

Again if a personal surrender to Him and a life inspired by such surrender appears verbatim in Vines unabridged versions as you have written it, the later versions, as shown above, take better care to dissect the phrase.

In other words, the phrase above is your claim that it appears verbatim in the unabridged version. I have no idea if that is factual as I do not have the unabridged version. Even if I grant the factuality, the later editions of Vines render it as shown at the link I provided earlier. They clearly do not read in the verbatim way you have stated.

There are numerous Strong's concordances available online. But it is difficult to determine if they are taking shortcuts with published paper versions. So I used what I consider to be the definitive paper version of Strong's, one that all should be using for basic word studies, not as lexicons:
https://www.amazon.com/Strongest-Strongs-Exhaustive-Concordance-Larger/dp/0310246970/

I looked up 4100 and it does not contain the phrase "pisteuo means not just to believe". Instead it contains what is shown here online:

1. Go to: http://www.godrules.net/library/kjvstrongs/kjvstrongsmat8.htm

2. Select Matthew 8:13

3. Select Strong's 4100 after the word "believed"

4. The following page will open: http://www.godrules.net/library/strongs2b/gre4100.htm

5. The content at that link agrees exactly with my paper copy of Strong's.​

For the word akoe (Strong's 189), the phrase "compare to a courtroom hearing" does not appear. Following the same method as above:

1. Go to: http://www.godrules.net/library/kjvstrongs/kjvstrongsmat4.htm

2. Select Matthew 4:24

3. Select Strong's 189 after the word "fame"

4. The following page will open: http://www.godrules.net/library/strongs2b/gre189.htm

5. The content at that link agrees exactly with my paper copy of Strong's.​

You will need to provide a camera photo of the Copyright information for the Strong's you are using in order to determine exactly what version you are using and getting these phrases from. In addition to my paper copy, I have searched quite a bit for a version of Strong's online that contains these two phrases from 4100 and 189 you are appealing to, yet have found none.

But once more, let's assume I grant you are stating what is found in your version of Strong's is factual. And to be clear, I am not asserting you are bearing falsehoods at all. I just do not know.

What I can state is that later revisions of Strong's are not showing these renderings. Hence you are appealing to obscurities and have not established that these later updates were made in the wrong direction by the publishers. You cannot persist to refuse the publisher's right to improve upon their owned content. You can only demonstrate by substantive argumentation that their "improvements" were made in error.

AMR

Both definitions you can't seem to find as I've stated at least 3 other times , is from the " The New Strongs Expanded Dictionary of Bible Words . Copywrited in 2001. It also includes the best of the Vines.

 

[genuineoriginal]

What false definition ?

I copy/pasted the true definitions for pisteuo from both Strong's and Vines with links to the source.

You keep posting phrases that were given as an aside by the authors or editors that provide their own thoughts about the definitions.

aside 2 : a comment or discussion that does not relate directly to the main subject being discussed

​

The author's or editor's comments are not the definitions and should not be taken as such.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Both definitions you can't seem to find as I've stated at least 3 other times , is from the " The New Strongs Expanded Dictionary of Bible Words . Copywrited in 2001. It also includes the best of the Vines.

The dawn now comes up like thunder.

The problem is that you continue to appeal to Strong's yet you are actually using a version that uses Strong's numberings that have been enhanced by word studies drawn from other standard dictionaries such as Vine's, Thayer's, Brown-Driver-Briggs.

https://www.amazon.com/Strongs-Expanded-Dictionary-Bible-Words/dp/0785247165
https://www.lifeway.com/en/product/the-new-strong-s-expanded-dictionary-of-bible-words-P001157115

In other words, the issue we all are having is that you are not actually using Strong's own concordance, but a version that adds to the numbering system he devised by expanding the definitions from others that he originally used.

So you cannot say, "It is in Strong's!" without qualifying exactly what you mean. For as I have shown your phrases do not appear verbatim in actual Strong's concordances. They apparently only appear in enhancements made by others to Strong's concordance.

Problem solved.

AMR

 

[Faither]

And the broken record continues. Welcome to the block list.

I can assure you the definitions I'm presenting for pisteuo are legit .

What I can't be sure of and what I need to be sensitive too , is the possibility God doesn't want some to see them .

Just like Jesus spoke in parables so some could not hear and understand , and He would have to save them .

Todays backwards understanding of how Faith is applied has given birth to the false doctrine , that Jesus sits on the street corner like a beggar , hat in hand , with His little cup saying , " will you please accept me ? "

In truth , God more than likely spends much more time keeping people out , than begging for them to come in .

 

[Faither]

What is the chance that the most important word in the Greek texts , pisteuo , could not be translated into the English language ?

Who caused this ? Who allowed this ? Who is responsible for this stumbling block ?

This is God's Word we are talking about here . Does Satan have the power to do something like this ? Or has God put this here for a specific reason ?

 

[john w]

You should stick at "I'm a rat." The fact that you compare yourself to others tells me that you harbor a belief that there is goodness in you that God is pleased with. That is false. Neither you nor I have one shred of personal goodness that our Holy God looks upon and is impressed. Whatever God is pleased with is solely Jesus and Jesus alone as we are immersed in Christ.
I read your vitriolic words and see you are just throwing accusations against the wall and hoping they stick. You have no understanding of Reformed theology.

You missed it, wolf-This is you, not me, as you compare yourself to others....

MennoSota: I am a rat, but I'm not as dirty as my other fellow rats, as my comments do not always come from the Holy Spirit, but I have more comments from the Holy Spirit, than my fellow rats, as I'm better than them, in my lifestyle, what I display, my character,........................................ ...so I must be saved!!!


Sober up, you wicked wolf, and pay attention to the flow of the debate, you who attempts to "spiritually" rape/molest, respective members of the boc, the sheep.

You have no understanding of Reformed theology.

=the admitted closet Catholic's "Hail Mary" spam

Weighty.


Get saved, devil child.

You show your true character…..Do you believe your comments here are coming from the Holy Spirit?

=Wolf MennoSota:My character is better than my other fellow rats, and more of my comments are of the Holy Spirit, than others, as I am a cleaner rat, than my fellow rats, so I must be saved, as my life style tells me so!!!!


Get saved, "cleaner" rat.

 

[grit]

I usually use the KJV unless there are reasons to use a different version.


Not quite.
I am in complete agreement with the actual meaning of the verse, but Calvinism redefines too many words in that verse for me to agree with the Calvinist revision.

The verses say (in plain modern English):

Salvation is a result of God being delighted to honor people that have merited it by pleasing Him through their faith.
Salvation is not given to you for your sake, but your salvation is a gift God gives to Himself.
Salvation is not a debt God is obligated to pay for your works, so you can't boast that it was your works that saved you.​

Calvinism rejects the scriptural foundation of mankind's continual choices for righteousness or wickedness and substitutes the Augustinian heresy of "Original Sin" rephrased as "Total Depravity". Then Calvinism compounds that error by rejecting God's standard for who He will grant grace unto and claims that God chooses the elect for no reason at all (Unconditional Election).

Then we certainly are in disagreement, both on what we each think Calvinism teaches and what these verses of Holy Scripture convey. I hope you won't mind that I also differentiated two separate statements in green and blue. Perhaps you'll forgive me that I'm in some difficulty parsing what you've posted in those in any way in which they don't directly contradict each other, in my view; and I think maybe that's a large part of the issue here - a difference both in defining what constitutes works, as well as what we preceive Holy Scripture systematically delineates regarding the nature of God, the nature of man, the nature of sin and evil, and God's rescuing of us from our own willful disobedience. It happens, even among fellow God-loving Christians of well intent. I still persistently think there's more on which we agree than disagree.

As toward finding more in common that unites us rather than divides, I'd also hope we'd agree that, "now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as I am known" (KJV, 1 Cor. 13:12 (1 Cor. 13:8-13). I look forward to rejoicing together in unity and holy worship together for all eternity.