Quote
SpiritualLiberty
[i:7f9873629d]PROOF TEXTS are vital, to them and to me. Bible IS proof text, Heb4:12, 1Jn4:1-6. Oh, I'm citing again, as I'm required to do in order to demonstrate [b:7f9873629d]the location of a doctrine[/b:7f9873629d]. Sorry.[/i:7f9873629d]
brainout,
In your response, you ignored the second half of my sentence: “Much like Galiban, you like to make statements followed by a string of ‘prooftexts,’ but [b:7f9873629d]you do nothing to [u:7f9873629d]show that those scriptures actually support your statement[/u:7f9873629d][/b:7f9873629d].” Anyone can rattle off a list of scripture references as the alleged “location” of their doctrine (including Catholics, Pentecostals, Hyper-Calvinists, et al), but this by itself proves nothing. You have to demonstrate that those verses actually teach “Confess your sins to be filled with the Spirit.” Otherwise all your Scripture quoting is meaningless. I could make a statement that “Pigs can fly” and throw in a list of verses after it. But my statement, like yours, is meaningless until I can show that those “prooftexts” actually support my statement.
[i:7f9873629d][b:7f9873629d]IT'S IN THE GREEK,[/b:7f9873629d] using a very famous LXX Temple-purifying verb, "katharizw", and 1Jn uses the term in parallelism.
Greek verb katharizw is used for purifying the OT Temple so the Spirit could fill it[/i:7f9873629d] [where do you find the Spirit filling the Temple?][i:7f9873629d], all over the LXX (94 occurrences, search on the root). So 1Jn1:7 uses katharizw and parallels that to the Cross[/i:7f9873629d] [the Cross accomplished [b:7f9873629d]salvation[/b:7f9873629d], not the filling of the Spirit; the filling of the Spirit is part of the spiritual life [b:7f9873629d]after [/b:7f9873629d]salvation][i:7f9873629d], as does Isa53:10 in the LXX; so 1Jn1:9 demonstrates filling in the Temple of the Believer (so to speak) using the same keyword.[/i:7f9873629d]
So this is what it takes to figure out “rebound.” First, you have to get your hands on a copy of the Septuagint—nearly impossible for 99.9% of Christians throughout church history (and apparently we not only need a Hebrew Old Testament, now we also need a Greek OT). Then you have to learn koine Greek (again, nearly impossible for 99.9% of Christians throughout church history). Then you have to find [i:7f9873629d]katharizw [/i:7f9873629d]in the OT. Then you have to [i:7f9873629d]assume [/i:7f9873629d]that it was related to some kind of “filling of the Temple” (?) by the Holy Spirit. (The Shekinah Glory, by the way, was specifically the Lord Jesus Christ, the revealed member of the Godhead.) You then have to assume that katharizw in 1 John 1:9 carries this same alleged reference to a “filling of the Temple” by the Holy Spirit, even though John mentions nothing of the kind. And not only that, you also have to assume that the use of katharizw here is completely different from every other reference to cleansing from sins and unrighteousness in the NT. In that case, it would have been impossible for God’s people throughout church history to ever discover “rebound.” Koine Greek died out rapidly after the apostolic era, and by the third century the dominant Bible was the Old Latin, a.k.a. the [i:7f9873629d]Old Italic[/i:7f9873629d]. (Ephesians confuses this with the Catholic Latin Vulgate in his mistaken reference to 1 John 5:7, but I’ll get to that in another post.) 99.9% of Christians have never had access to the koine Greek. If knowing Greek was so essential to our Bible study, then couldn’t God have done a better job of preserving this language? And wouldn’t He have told us at least once in the Bible itself that we have to know the languages His Word was originally written in? Wouldn’t He have to make this language accessibl e to His people throughout history? Wouldn’t He be failing them if He didn’t? God has certainly failed His people if He has made it impossible for 99.9% of them to find this doctrine that is so vital to their spiritual life (and then start killing them because they didn’t practice it). But it’s a pretty safe bet that you won’t respond to my points, given your aversion to answering questions...
[i:7f9873629d]So to the other issues you raise, I cannot reply, since we aren't supposed to be talking doctrines, rats![/i:7f9873629d]
Did you not notice that there is a link to email me on each of my posts? And that I already offered to correspond with ephesians outside this forum?
[i:7f9873629d]IT’S IN THE GREEK...[/i:7f9873629d]
You remind me so much of the Calvinist ministers I know (having been raised Presbyterian). They would go to absurd lengths to try to make the Bible say, “Christ only died for the elect.” This kind of statement would typically be followed by a string of “prooftexts.” And I have asked Calvinists very simple, direct questions like the questions I’ve presented to you, ephesians, and Galiban. Questions like these:
• Why is there not one scripture in the entire Bible that simply states that Christ did not die for unbelievers?
• Why does the Bible declare so often that He died for “the world” and “all men,” without giving any
exceptions?
• If the “non-elect” are incapable of believing in Christ, then why does God still command them to believe?
Of course, they have never been able demonstrate how their “prooftexts” actually support their fatalistic Calvinist philosophy. And when it comes to answering my questions, their responses have been very similar to yours. They’ll rattle off their “prooftexts” (sometimes straight out of the Westminster Confession of Faith). They will then appeal to a big pi l e of meaningless technical terms like “radical corruption,” “particular redemption,” etc. And, when all else fails, they resort to the biggest cop-out of all: “WELL, IT’S IN THE GREEK!” They love their “corrected translations” just as much as you do. Now they can make basic, everyday words like “world” mean something totally different. Now they can re-translate the Bible at their own whim and make the Bible say anything they want. Like you, there are probably some of my Calvinist brethren who wish I would stop asking questions. But I will continue to challenge both you and them until I get some straight answers.
[i:7f9873629d]If you all don't want to see the BIBLE, then [b:7f9873629d]please stop asking questions [/b:7f9873629d]because in Christianity, we need to cite the BIBLE to back up something, and it was not written in English.[/i:7f9873629d]
This is just a weak attempt at dodging the issue, brainout. Anyone can accuse their opponents of “not seeing the Bible,” and tell them to stop asking questions. But giving direct answers to challenging theological questions isn’t so easy. By the way, the pope and the Catholic clergy tell the people the same thing when they start to question the Catholic Church: [i:7f9873629d]"Stop asking questions." [/i:7f9873629d]Because they know they cannot defend their pagan, apostate theology from the Bible.
Also, I don’t see how you can possibly get “Confess your sins to be filled with the Spirit” out of Isa 53:12, or any passage in Isaiah. And since you don’t want to talk about it anymore, we may never know.
Here’s something else for you to consider, brainout, even if you don’t want to talk about it. I have challenged all the Thieme followers on this forum repeatedly concerning Thieme’s denial of the forgiveness of sins at the Cross. And still none of you have been willing to address it. And this is a relatively recent doctrine of Thieme’s. Why the change? Why suddenly deny one of the fundamental truths of Christianity after several decades of teaching?
This issue seems to be causing some confusion among you Thieme followers. For example, Galiban claims to believe in the forgiveness of sins at the Cross, although he contradicts himself by saying that we need to keep getting forgiven and that our forgiveness will not be fully accomplished until eternity. (And, like you and ephesians, he has not answered the questions I’ve challenged him with.)
[u:7f9873629d]Galiban said:[/u:7f9873629d]
[i:7f9873629d]...now we have the “Completed work of the Cross” This is not an inaccurate doctrine. [b:7f9873629d]We were completely [u:7f9873629d]forgiven[/u:7f9873629d] for our sins. [/b:7f9873629d]True! [/i:7f9873629d](RickRoss C.E.F. post; 02/22/07; emphasis mine)
[u:7f9873629d]Thieme said:[/u:7f9873629d]
[i:7f9873629d]The Bible teaches that your sins were [b:7f9873629d]not [/b:7f9873629d]forgiven at the cross.[/i:7f9873629d] (http://www.rbthieme.org/selected.htm; Series No. 376, Spiritual Dynamics, lessons 1385 to 1395; emphasis his)
Since Galiban, ephesians, and GeneZ won’t answer me, could you please tell me which one is right? (Or are you still afraid to answer my questions?) I would greatly appreciate it.
Thanks,
Liberty
Very good post Liberty. You are absolutely on the mark with your comments about about the Greek, Septuagint, and Hyper-Calvinists.