[Colossians]

THIS OP AND THREAD HAVE BEEN REPLACED BY ALTERNATE THREAD: "SHOWING HOW 2 PETER 3:9 ACCORDS WITH CALVINISM".

PLEASE REFER TO THAT THREAD.

THANK YOU.

COLOSSIANS.

[Colossians]

Edit

[Colossians]

There are no changes to the text, except to the title of one of the "Complementary threads" listed at the end of the document, that title having also been reproduced of late under an alternate name.

[themuzicman]

Oh, where to start....

Collosians is bitten by the fact that he doesn't know Greek, and that the KJV actually uses a poor variant from the TR, which has been corrected in later texts, including the NASB and ESV.

Originally Posted by Colossians

Forward

2 Peter 3:9 is one of the most-commonly quoted bible verses in the church.

It is also usually misrendered.

The misrendering is the product of ‘promise-box Christianity’: whether literally or metaphorically, one plucks out with tweesers a scrolled-up bible verse from amongst hundreds of others nestled tightly together in a rectangular container, for encouragement for the day.

This is actually kinda funny, as Collosians "tweesers" the use of "us" from Romans 8 and tries to import that meaning to 2 Peter 3, forgetting the context defines meaning, and this is a fallacy.

DEFENDING CALVINISM IN 2 PETER 3:9

“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.” 2 Pe 3:9

The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance. (NASB)

“us-ward”

I've bolded the word "you" in the NASB translation because, well, that's the word from the original text. The KJV and TR are actually in error, here. So, this whole section arguing about what "us" means.

So, due to a lack of diligence on Collosian's part to look into what the correct translation really is, the entire section on "us-ward" is moot.

The reader is invited to study the following passage from Romans 8, and to pay particular attention to the 6 occurrences of the pronoun “us”, which we have underlined:

[30] “Moreover whom He did predestinate, them He also called: and whom He called, them He also justified: and whom He justified, them He also glorified.
[31] What shall we then say to these things? If God be for us, who can be against us?
[32] He that spared not His own Son, but delivered Him up for us all, how shall He not with Him also freely give us all things?
[33] Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God's elect? It is God that justifieth.
[34] Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died, yea rather, that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us.
[35] Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword?”

This is the part where Collosians "tweesers" Romans 8 to look for an "us" that means what he wants it to mean, and attempts to import that into the 2 Peter context. That's a fallacy...

______________

“longsuffering”

Please note that any of this argument that is based in the "us" argument above is invalid, as well.

We now consider the following prototypical rendering of the promise-box theologian with regard to the longsuffering Peter mentions at 3:9:

“The Lord is not slack with regard to His return: it’s just that He’s waiting for as many as possible to come in to the fold.”

Notice, again, the straw man argument, whereby Collosians doesn't actually quote anyone who actually says this. He simply asserts that this mythical "promise-box theologian" says this.

So another fallacy, which voids this section of the argument, as Collosians tilts at windmills.

_________________________________

“that all should come to repentance”

Our final phrase is perhaps the most-readily misrendered of the three under analysis.

This is largely due to the superficiality often present in the evangelical message of the church, which superficiality is then naturally and unfortunately carried forward into the lives of those who are said to have ‘made a decision for Jesus’.

Again, no citation of any individual or church who says this, so he's building another straw man. It is interesting, as he admits that he is not in the USA, that he somehow has knowledge of how all American Evangelical churches operate. I suspect he has created a caricature, a straw man, and simply wishes to make himself seem smart by attacking it.

Specifically, the very prevalent omission today in the evangelically-centred churches, is holiness: Jesus Christ is often presented as Saviour, but not too often as Lord.

In line with our having shown by context, nuance, and logic, that the phrases “us” and “longsuffering” pertain not to the people of the world but the people of God, it is not primarily first-stage/evangelical repentance to which Peter here refers (though such is necessarily included in that the elect of God must of necessity come to Christ in the first place), but rather, the necessary Lordship of Jesus Christ:

Keep in mind that any argument based upon the "us" section is still going to be invalid because of the issues there.

And so Peter subsequently declares:

“Wherefore, beloved….be diligent that ye may be found of Him in peace, without spot, and blameless.” 2 Pe 3:18

And no wonder, for only a little further again he declares that the righteous are “scarcely saved”: a sobering thought indeed.

In fact Peter’s admonishment at 3:9 that we are to repent, being immediately followed by his declaration at 3:10 that the Lord will come as a thief in the night, shadows Christ’s adjuration to the ‘church at Sardis’:

“Be watchful, and strengthen the things which remain, that are ready to die: for I have not found thy works perfect before God. Remember therefore how thou hast received and heard, and hold fast, and repent. If therefore thou shalt not watch, I will come on thee as a thief, and thou shalt not know what hour I will come upon thee.” Rev 3:2,3

And we note that he does the same in his first epistle with regard to the exact same subject, only this time shadowing Christ’s words to the ‘church at Laodicea’:

Peter:

“That the trial of your faith, being much more precious than of gold that perisheth, though it be tried with fire, might be found unto praise and honour and glory at the appearing of Jesus Christ…. Receiving the end of your faith, even the salvation of your souls.” 1 Pe 1:7,9

The Lord:

“I counsel thee to buy of me gold tried in the fire, that thou mayest be rich; and white raiment, that thou mayest be clothed, and that the shame of thy nakedness do not appear; and anoint thine eyes with eyesalve, that thou mayest see. As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten: be zealous therefore, and repent.” Rev 3:18,19

in which words of the Lord we note that, in line with what we have shown in this exposition, it is only those whom God loves whom He also chastens unto repentance.

And so Paul:

“And if any man obey not our word by this epistle, note that man, and have no company with him, that he may be ashamed. Yet count him not as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother.” 2 Thes 3:14,15

And again:

“For though I made you sorry with a letter…….. Now I rejoice, not that ye were made sorry, but that ye sorrowed to repentance: for ye were made sorry after a godly manner, that ye might receive damage by us in nothing. For godly sorrow worketh repentance to salvation not to be repented of: but the sorrow of the world worketh death.” 2 Cor 7:8-10

The reader should note that Collosians has given no reason to connect any of these verses together, but wishes for the reader to make this magical and unwarranted leap with him, somehow saying that Peter had was John wouldn't write for another 10-30 years in mind when he wrote it..

Err....

So, again, we have Collosians importing different contexts, authors, intents, epistles into a verse that he desperately needs to push away from a good, conservative, local exegesis, because that exegesis stands against his theology.

_______________

The sum of it all

We mentioned at the early part of this discourse that the generalising of Christianity has fuzzied the line of demarcation between those born again and those living beside them who are not.

And so we pointed out that, as a result of this, the pronoun “us” in 2 Pe 3:9 is errantly generalised by the church at large to mean “everyone in the world”, when in fact it refers to the people of God.

Major error in that the word isn't actually "us" in the original text.

He then engages in the straw man fallacy in attacking a position that he states for some mysterious opponent. Twice.

And finally he imports verses that wouldn't be written for a decade or more to change the exegesis of Peter's words as they exist in their local context.

The reader should not however, be surprised, given Collosian's previous work.

[Colossians]

Edit

[Colossians]

Our resident confidence man and pseudo-academic has once again graced our pages with his usual attempt to trash scholarly work with (ostensible) rebuttal which seeks to skew the argument by promoting certain aspects to a level above their relevance and importance and then shoot them down (a form of straw man argumentation).

In tandem with this, he engages in his usual trick where he demands proof for what is self-evident (essentially requesting proof of proof), which is an old trick where one dismisses primary evidence as inadmissible and instead demands some lesser convincing form of evidence in its place, as though such secondary evidence might in fact be a better argument: an old debater's trick which is simply a form of denial.

In line with this, we witness once again Mr Muzic's persistent attempts to discredit sober and reasonable interlinking of scripture based on similarity of concepts, simply because such interlinking forms part of an argument or arguments subsidiary to an overall argument he doesn't like. And yet his attempts are indeed merely (unsuccessful) attempts, for all he does is, upon recognising the reasonableness of such interlinking and that he has no refutation for it, demand proof of its validity. That is, he engages in his usual ploy wherein he implies the onus is on the initial asserter to prove his point, rather than on the responder to refute it. The onus is always on the responder, especially given that the things of theology are axiomatic: one can no more be required to prove an initially declared priniciple, than one can be required to prove the First Law of Thermodynamics. Axioms cannot be proven, only disproven. And so Mr Muzic simply hopes his audience is uneducated.

And as if these two tricks weren't enough, they are overall glued together by his humanist hermeneutic where he considers the scriptures essentially as a collection of independent books, rather than the seamless Holy Spirit authored fabric they are: in his mind the eye and the ear are not only separate in function, but not even attached to the same body.

Finally, and what is perhaps his cheapest trick, is his love of the quote button: He is aware of the fact that the facility actually makes it look as though he is saying a lot and has done a lot of work, when in fact if we put the actual text of the responses together, there is almost nothing there. This is his way of attempting to draw his opponent into expending an inordinate amount of energy on one thread, while allowing him to in fact handle about 6 threads at once by flying in and flying out in a whirlwind of quoting and rappid-fire, off the cuff but ostensibly well-thought-out, responses.

And so as generous as it might be, we won't be taking Mr Muzic up on his offer to play Trivial Pursuit.

The OP is highly structured and responsible, so the readers will find it self-verifying. We need not follow our impish provocateur down the garden path.

Questions and comments from any real scholars and sincere inquirers, are of course welcome.

[Colossians]

bump

[Jordan Fontenot]

I'm going to deal with the entire chapter so that everything stays in context:

Dear friends, this is now my second letter to you. I have written both of them as reminders to stimulate you to wholesome thinking. 2 I want you to recall the words spoken in the past by the holy prophets and the command given by our Lord and Savior through your apostles.

3 First of all, you must understand that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires. 4 They will say, “Where is this ‘coming’ he promised? Ever since our fathers died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation.” 5 But they deliberately forget that long ago by God’s word the heavens existed and the earth was formed out of water and by water. 6 By these waters also the world of that time was deluged and destroyed. 7 By the same word the present heavens and earth are reserved for fire, being kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men.

8 But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day. 9 The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.

10 But the day of the Lord will come like a thief. The heavens will disappear with a roar; the elements will be destroyed by fire, and the earth and everything in it will be laid bare. (Here is what they are waiting for)

11 Since everything will be destroyed in this way, what kind of people ought you to be? You ought to live holy and godly lives 12 as you look forward to the day of God and speed its coming. That day will bring about the destruction of the heavens by fire, and the elements will melt in the heat. 13 But in keeping with his promise we are looking forward to a new heaven and a new earth, the home of righteousness (Here is their promise).

14 So then, dear friends, since you are looking forward to this, make every effort to be found spotless, blameless and at peace with him (Tell me Calvinists have no problems here). 15 Bear in mind that our Lord’s patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. 16 He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction (Huge problem on TOL).

17 Therefore, dear friends, since you already know this, be on your guard so that you may not be carried away by the error of lawless men and fall from your secure position (I believe Calvin spelled "tulip" with a "p"). 18 But grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To him be glory both now and forever! Amen.

I don't think anything is taken out of context to say that Calvinists have a hard time with this passage due to its many warnings to stay right with the Lord so that they are not destroyed on the day of the Lord.

[Colossians]

Now read the OP, and don't come back until you do.

And get a proper bible like the KJV. Mickey Mouse versions don't count.

[themuzicman]

Even the Mickey Mouse version would be based upon a better manuscript than the KJV. Maybe you should get into the current century with biblical scholarship. That might correct several of your errors.

[Jordan Fontenot]

Originally Posted by Colossians

Now read the OP, and don't come back until you do.

And get a proper bible like the KJV. Mickey Mouse versions don't count.

Your "proper Bible" is to this day one of the most inaccurate translations out there, any scholar will tell you that. It was based on recent manuscripts that were full of all sorts of errors and translated by people who did not fully understand Greek. Needless to say it's a rough translation.

I posted the chapter and you have a problem with it. though I did add minimal commentary where was I wrong. My Mickey Mouse translation will serve just fine thank you very much.

[Colossians]

Your "proper Bible" is to this day one of the most inaccurate translations out there, any scholar will tell you that.
I'm a scholar, and I'll tell you you don't know what you are talking about. The KJV is the most accurate bible in existence.

The fact that all the other versions keep on being amended, tells you they can't make up their minds: they keep on testifying to the fact that they were previously incorrect.

And your idea presumes God is impotent: a God who gave us an unchallenged bible for centuries, who was sitting up in heaven thinking "Oh my....if only they had a better version".

So your idea is humanist. It is simply stupid to think that God gave us the KJV for hundreds of years, and it was errant.





I posted the chapter and you have a problem with it.
Let me educate you how a forum like this works.

You see a thread, and you read the Opening Post, and respond to that Opening Post. The thread and the OP are essentially synonymous.

So the thread is 'owned' by the writer of the OP.

You don't do what you have done: see the title and post your own OP. You respond to the existing OP. If you want to start a thread with your own OP, by all means do so. But whilst you are on my thread, you will respond to and constrain your dialogue around my Opening Post.

So as I said, and as you didn't do: off you go and read the OP, and don't come back until you have done so. If you don't want to, that is fine: just stay off the thread then.

[Jordan Fontenot]

Originally Posted by Colossians

Your "proper Bible" is to this day one of the most inaccurate translations out there, any scholar will tell you that.
I'm a scholar, and I'll tell you you don't know what you are talking about. The KJV is the most accurate bible in existence.

The fact that all the other versions keep on being amended, tells you they can't make up their minds: they keep on testifying to the fact that they were previously incorrect.

And your idea presumes God is impotent: a God who gave us an unchallenged bible for centuries, who was sitting up in heaven thinking "Oh my....if only they had a better version".

So your idea is humanist. It is simply stupid to think that God gave us the KJV for hundreds of years, and it was errant.

I suppose what they had before the KJV was perfect as well? Wycliffe?

I posted the chapter and you have a problem with it.
Let me educate you how a forum like this works.

You see a thread, and you read the Opening Post, and respond to that Opening Post. The thread and the OP are essentially synonymous.

So the thread is 'owned' by the writer of the OP.

You don't do what you have done: see the title and post your own OP. You respond to the existing OP. If you want to start a thread with your own OP, by all means do so. But whilst you are on my thread, you will respond to and constrain your dialogue around my Opening Post.

So as I said, and as you didn't do: off you go and read the OP, and don't come back until you have done so. If you don't want to, that is fine: just stay off the thread then.

I read the "OP" I saw the point you made, it was invalid. I merely RESPONDED by posting the chapter and making short points about the passage within the chapter. If you would like to RESPOND to the points I made, be my guest, but trying to discredit me, or trying to beat me out of here with a dozen lashes of poorly conceived theological beatings. I don't know where your "Scholar"ship was done but I'd sure be interested to know if it was anywhere but a Calvinist seminary.