Calvinism: God is waiting on God to finish saving sinners before moving forward

marke

Well-known member
God is not willing that any should perish. Calvinists believe God is longsuffering, waiting for God to save whomever He is going to save because God is not willing that any should perish.

2 Peter 3

5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:

6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:

7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.

8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

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.
 

buenviajeworn

BANNED
Banned
Well, for me, Calvinism is not an accurate idealogy. Last year, too many alternate churches and opinions about how to understand God's will appeared. I think Judgement day is pretty near, and we must prepare for it. Every year the situation on our planet worsens, starting with covid-19, the war in the middle of Europe, and now the global economic crisis. In my opinion, soon, we will see more signs of his will in the media, and fake Jesus will appear so that it will be a sign to all Christian people. Today is a good time to go to church, like this one firstchurchlove.com, before it is too late.
 
Last edited:

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
Well, for me, Calvinism is not an accurate ideology.
You should have left out the phrase, "for me". Calvinism is either true or its false. It isn't a matter of personal opinion.

Last year, too many alternate churches and opinions about how to understand God's will appeared.
Last year? Do you mean because of COVID?

Clete

Welcome to TOL, by the way!
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
God is not willing that any should perish. Calvinists believe God is longsuffering, waiting for God to save whomever He is going to save because God is not willing that any should perish.

2 Peter 3

5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:

6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:

7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.

8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

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.
Completely brilliant point!

Incidentally, you should consider switching to the NKJV. Forty three year old English is easier to read and understand than 411 year old English.
 

ttruscott

Well-known member
Well, for me, Calvinism is not an accurate idealogy. Last year, too many alternate churches and opinions about how to understand God's will appeared.
Calvinism seems to be the newest voice for the 'God who creates evil'...The Gnostics taught the first Christian version of the idea that God creates evil while the Eastern mystical and pagan religions have always worshipped God as the creator of evil.

Most Christians of course repudiate the God who creates evil worshipping the GOD who only created the possibility of evil by giving HIS creation a free will and it was some of these created beings who created, chose, evil by their free will against GOD's wishes.
 

ttruscott

Well-known member
God is not willing that any should perish. Calvinists believe God is longsuffering, waiting for God to save whomever He is going to save because God is not willing that any should perish.
GOD is not waiting for GOD to do anything...GOD has given HIS sinful but legitimate children perfect lives to bring them to redemption and sanctification ACCORDING TO OUR NEEDS AS STUBBORN AND REBELLIOUS in our fragility.

Becoming holy and only choosing righteousness is a prerequisite for the day of judgement, Matt 13:27-30 and as godly living speeds up the coming of this day, 2 Peter 3:11-12 so it is slowed down by our refusal to quit choosing to indulge in the flesh by using our freedom in the Spirit to choose to serve humbly in love: Galatians 5:13 You, my brothers and sisters, were called to be free. But do not use your freedom to indulge the flesh; rather, serve one another humbly in love.

This stubborness is also the reason we face harsh, painful discipline in our being trained in righteousness: Heb 12:5-11, so DON'T BLAME GOD if this process takes too long!
 

marke

Well-known member
GOD is not waiting for GOD to do anything...GOD has given HIS sinful but legitimate children perfect lives to bring them to redemption and sanctification ACCORDING TO OUR NEEDS AS STUBBORN AND REBELLIOUS in our fragility.

Becoming holy and only choosing righteousness is a prerequisite for the day of judgement, Matt 13:27-30 and as godly living speeds up the coming of this day, 2 Peter 3:11-12 so it is slowed down by our refusal to quit choosing to indulge in the flesh by using our freedom in the Spirit to choose to serve humbly in love: Galatians 5:13 You, my brothers and sisters, were called to be free. But do not use your freedom to indulge the flesh; rather, serve one another humbly in love.

This stubborness is also the reason we face harsh, painful discipline in our being trained in righteousness: Heb 12:5-11, so DON'T BLAME GOD if this process takes too long!
Poor students of the Bible erroneously think God makes sinners to be destroyed and Christians to be saved from clay that has nothing whatsoever to do with what God foreordains to make them. They think it is a waste of time for sinners to seek to be saved if God never intended from before their birth for them to be saved.
 

marke

Well-known member
Completely brilliant point!

Incidentally, you should consider switching to the NKJV. Forty three year old English is easier to read and understand than 411 year old English.
I believe the Westcott-Hort Greek is seriously flawed and because the NKJV honors that flawed Greek based upon the phony Sinaiticus manuscript I do not trust it.
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
I believe the Westcott-Hort Greek is seriously flawed and because the NKJV honors that flawed Greek based upon the phony Sinaiticus manuscript I do not trust it.
Its called the New King James for a reason. It is translated from the same texts that the King James was translated from. The rare and slight deviations from the King James are insignificant in comparison to the degree to which modern English has departed from late 16th and early 17th century English. It is a superior English translation by any reasonable standard, especially for common everyday usage. If you're doing serious bible study then the differences are even less significant given the fact that anyone doing such serious study should be referencing the original languages anyway.
 

Right Divider

Body part
Completely brilliant point!

Incidentally, you should consider switching to the NKJV. Forty three year old English is easier to read and understand than 411 year old English.
I don't have any problem understanding the English in the KJV. Do you?
The NKJV has some problems, much like other "modern" translations. Like its incorrect rendering of Acts 12:4.
 

Right Divider

Body part
Its called the New King James for a reason. It is translated from the same texts that the King James was translated from. The rare and slight deviations from the King James are insignificant in comparison to the degree to which modern English has departed from late 16th and early 17th century English. It is a superior English translation by any reasonable standard, especially for common everyday usage. If you're doing serious bible study then the differences are even less significant given the fact that anyone doing such serious study should be referencing the original languages anyway.
What if a Greek word can be translated into two different English words and a translation picks the wrong one? Acts 12:4
 

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
I don't have any problem understanding the English in the KJV. Do you?
The NKJV has some problems, much like other "modern" translations. Like its incorrect rendering of Acts 12:4.

Which part is rendered incorrectly?
 

marke

Well-known member
Its called the New King James for a reason. It is translated from the same texts that the King James was translated from. The rare and slight deviations from the King James are insignificant in comparison to the degree to which modern English has departed from late 16th and early 17th century English. It is a superior English translation by any reasonable standard, especially for common everyday usage. If you're doing serious bible study then the differences are even less significant given the fact that anyone doing such serious study should be referencing the original languages anyway.
Marginal notes in the NKJV lend support to the flawed Greek that has its origin in the unsound Sinaiticus.
 

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
The correct word is Easter and not Passover.

Are you sure it's the NKJV that's incorrect and not the KJV?

Strong's Concordance shows the following for the word used:


Strong's g3957

- Lexical: πάσχα
- Transliteration: pascha
- Part of Speech: Aramaic Transliterated Word (Indeclinable)
- Phonetic Spelling: pas'-khah
- Definition: the Passover, the Passover supper or lamb.
- Origin: Of Chaldee origin (compare pecach); the Passover (the meal, the day, the festival or the special sacrifices connected with it).
- Usage: Easter, Passover.
- Translated as (count): Passover (26), Passover lamb (3).



The KJV uses Easter, while the NKJV uses Passover.

Also, does the usage of either change the fact that Herod had captured Peter, and handed him over to four tetrads of soldiers, and was waiting until after a holiday to bring him before the people?

In other words, does the story break if one is used over the other?
 

Right Divider

Body part
Are you sure it's the NKJV that's incorrect and not the KJV?

Strong's Concordance shows the following for the word used:


Strong's g3957

- Lexical: πάσχα
- Transliteration: pascha
- Part of Speech: Aramaic Transliterated Word (Indeclinable)
- Phonetic Spelling: pas'-khah
- Definition: the Passover, the Passover supper or lamb.
- Origin: Of Chaldee origin (compare pecach); the Passover (the meal, the day, the festival or the special sacrifices connected with it).
- Usage: Easter, Passover.
- Translated as (count): Passover (26), Passover lamb (3).

This is the problem with wooden literal word for word translations.
Notice that the "Usage" shows two possible choices.
The KJV uses Easter, while the NKJV uses Passover.

Also, does the usage of either change the fact that Herod had captured Peter, and handed him over to four tetrads of soldiers, and was waiting until after a holiday to bring him before the people?

In other words, does the story break if one is used over the other?
Passover was already past at that time. So that makes no sense.

Acts 12:3-4 (AKJV/PCE)
(12:3) And because he saw it pleased the Jews, he proceeded further to take Peter also. (Then were the days of unleavened bread.) (12:4) And when he had apprehended him, he put [him] in prison, and delivered [him] to four quaternions of soldiers to keep him; intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people.

The "days of unleavened bread" come after Passover. So was Herod going to wait an entire year? I don't think so.
 

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
This is the problem with wooden literal word for word translations.
Notice that the "Usage" shows two possible choices.

"Usage" is just a record of how it's been used.

Passover was already past at that time. So that makes no sense.

That's fair...

Acts 12:3-4 (AKJV/PCE)
(12:3) And because he saw it pleased the Jews, he proceeded further to take Peter also. (Then were the days of unleavened bread.) (12:4) And when he had apprehended him, he put [him] in prison, and delivered [him] to four quaternions of soldiers to keep him; intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people.

The "days of unleavened bread" come after Passover. So was Herod going to wait an entire year? I don't think so.

I mean, to me, Herod imprisoning someone for over a year who was the friend of someone he just killed sounds like a very Herod thing to do.

However, I did do a little more research on this just now, and it does not seem like there's enough time between Herod beheading James, and Herod dying in the same chapter, so I will concede this discussion.

:)
 

Right Divider

Body part
I mean, to me, Herod imprisoning someone for over a year who was the friend of someone he just killed sounds like a very Herod thing to do.
It's far more likely that Herod was waiting for the Jewish festival to be over.
I don't think that "intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people" makes much sense to delay for an entire year.
However, I did do a little more research on this just now, and it does not seem like there's enough time between Herod beheading James, and Herod dying in the same chapter, so I will concede this discussion.

:)
I don't think that Herod knew that his death was going to be so soon...
 
Last edited:

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
I don't have any problem understanding the English in the KJV. Do you?
Problem? No, not really a "problem" as though I can't understand it but that doesn't mean it doesn't sound foreign or that it isn't more difficult than it needs to be, especially when trying to read longer passages. Also, for the uninitiated, the King James can be quite difficult indeed.

The NKJV has some problems, much like other "modern" translations. Like its incorrect rendering of Acts 12:4.
The KJV has some problems, much like ANY translation. Like the fact that the entire thing is translated into 16th century English, where there's not just individual words but whole phrases that are no longer used at all and/or the usage and meaning of which have changed significantly.

Also I don't understand why you'd have a problem with something as mundane as Acts 12:4 where doctrine isn't effected. What's so wrong with it anyway....

(KJV) Acts 12:4 And when he had apprehended him, he put him in prison, and delivered him to four quaternions of soldiers to keep him; intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people.​
(NKJV) Acts 12:4 So when he had arrested him, he put him in prison, and delivered him to four squads of soldiers to keep him, intending to bring him before the people after Passover.​

The NKJV seems better to me! The two rendering are very nearly the same except that there was no such thing as "Easter" when Acts was written and and so the use of "Easter" was wrong from the start*, and I know intuitively what "four squads of soldiers" means but I've never heard the word "quaternions" used ever in my whole life except in this passage of the King James Bible and neither has anyone else. Even the KJV only uses that word one single time and so it was obscure even in 1611.

Regardless, at the end of the day, a passage like Acts 12:4 is trivial. No one bases any doctrine on that passage. No one does anything at all based on that passage. How about looking at something more important like in the Ten Commandments...

(KJV) Exodus 20:13 Thou shalt not kill.​
(NKJV) Exodus 20:13 You shall not murder.​

How many hundreds of thousands of people protest the death penalty based on that single verse? How many millions of people have seen the television footage of someone holding up a sign at these protests with the King James version of that verse plastered on it for the world to see?
Does Acts 10:13 contradict Exodus 20:13 or is one of them translated poorly? (Rhetorical question.)


So, two thing...

First, I indulged this line of thinking just to demonstrate that it can go both ways. The real fact of the matter is, however, that there isn't anything wrong with the NKJV that can hold a candle to the fact that the KJV is translated into a form of English that is no longer being used. Not only that, but, since the advent of the internet, the English language has been evolving further and further away from it at an accelerated rate to the point that you often need to literally translate a passage from the KJV into modern English for larger and larger portions of the audience to understand what is being said.

Secondly, it wasn't my intention to derail the thread with this topic and so if we want to continue we should probably move it to another thread.

Clete

*The passage is NOT referring to the ancient fully pagan version of Easter. The KJV was making reference to the Christianized version that is celebrated to this day. The KJV itself renders the Greek here as "Passover" 28 times and "Easter" only once. "Passover" is definitely the correct translation.
 
Last edited:

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
What if a Greek word can be translated into two different English words and a translation picks the wrong one? Acts 12:4
I'll answer twice....

1. What if EVERY SINGLE Greek (and Hebrew) word in the entire bible was translated into a version of the English language that is no longer being used?

2. Errors are obviously possible and we can hope for a perfect translation but at the end of the day, its a translation and so it can't be perfect, by definition. Not only that, and more importantly, the bible is a really big book and so a small number of relatively trivial translation errors are overcome by the bible's sheer volume. In other words, individual mistakes aren't going to destroy the message and any serious bible scholar is going to be making regular referrence to the original language anyway.
 
Top