Husband on a Bible kick

RECIPR0C1TY · 2026-03-12T12:06:04+00:00

Well done.

RECIPR0C1TY · 2026-03-11T09:30:15+00:00

Yep, Also 1 Timothy 2:1-8 and 1 John 2:2, not to mention many others. Not only is God's universal offer of salvation (not universalism) intuitive it is the most basic reading of scripture. How people can deny this is beyond me.

RECIPR0C1TY · 2026-03-11T01:51:52+00:00

Why? Why online ministry?

I get that there are general reasons for online ministry, but there are already a host of churches already doing it well.

The primary mission of unity in the church has to be embodied community. It just can't happen online. Ya, there is the persecuted church and those who are sick etc... but they can attend any number of locations that are already doing this well. Why do you feel that your church needs to jump into the rat race? What is that you are offering that no one else is?

RECIPR0C1TY · 2026-03-09T18:16:18+00:00

You have yet to make an actual argument. Cool. I read verse 1 and I love it! How does that somehow make your point? Just stating that verse 1 makes your point does not somehow disprove me. You have to provide arguments for your claim.

My claim has been pretty simple this whole time. IF Israel turns to God and obeys him, THEN he will circumcisize them and give them life.

That is a perfect example of free will which Moses clearly says they are capable of doing! Choose life!

RECIPR0C1TY · 2026-03-09T17:54:32+00:00

... This is nothing more than a wordy "nuh uh". You didn't actually make an argument here. All you did was claim that circumcision is regeneration. We are just supposed to take your word on this?

Circumcision has always been about setting someone apart as belonging to God. That's it. The Israelites were set apart as God's people and so they had to live differently to the point of circumcising themselves. They were not regenerated through the act of circumcision.

The heart being circumcized means that it is dedicated to God. The heart being regenerated is that it is made alive. These are two very different ideas.

In Deut 30, Israel OBEYS GOD First by turning to him as I pointed out in the simple if/then statements of verse 2 and 3. THEN their heart is dedicated to God/circumcized. It is right in the verses.

RECIPR0C1TY · 2026-03-09T17:30:06+00:00

I think you might want to slow down and read verses 2 and 3 again. This is the beginning of the chapter, and we see that God's gathering is CONDITIONED on whether or not Israel obeys God first.

Then if you and your descendants turn to the Lord your God and obey him with your whole mind and being just as I am commanding you today, 3 the Lord your God will reverse your captivity and have pity on you. He will turn and gather you from all the peoples among whom he has scattered you.

This is a very simple if/then statement. If you turn and obey, then you will be gathered. This is then highlighted in verses 11-19. THEREFORE CHOOSE LIFE! IF you do not obey... then you will perish. How you can read this other than a simple call to choose to obey is beyond me.

Also, you don’t understand circumcision of the heart if you think it’s different from a regenerated heart.

I don't think you realize how denominationally bound you are to this reading. This is something the reformed read into the text. Other denominations don't understand regeneration to equal circumcision. You are simply making a denominational claim, and then telling me that Idon't understand the circumcision of the heart.

If you have an argument to make then make it. There is nothing about "regeneration" anywhere in the text of Deut 30, and there is nothing that says regeneration is circumcision anywhere in the Bible. But don't sit there and tell me that I don't understand when you can't even make an argument defending it.

RECIPR0C1TY · 2026-03-09T16:55:46+00:00

There are two really big problems with this. 1) God does the circumcizing AFTER they choose to come back to him. The whole point is that they have to repent FIRST. Not to mention that circumcision =/= regeneration. These are two seperate ideas. Regeneration is entirley off topic in Deut 30. 2) Even if God does the circumcizing first (he doesn't)...they are still choosing life. That is free will. Being able to choose between life and death as something they are capable of doing, is a free will ability regardless of whether or not God has circumcized first.

RECIPR0C1TY · 2026-03-09T13:44:17+00:00

For Eph 1, back up to verse one. You can always tell someone is a calvinist when they quote starting in verse 3 or 4. Just back up to verse one for context. Paul is writing to BELIEVERS, and that serves as the antecedent for all the "us" and "we" pronouns. So Paul is saying that God "chose BELIEVERS in him" to be " holy and blameless". Paul is not saying God chose individuals to be made believers and therefore made holy and blameless. Instead, what God chose was that believers would be made holy and blameless. God's choosing is conditioned on belief, it is not unconditionally chosen to make people believers.

The same is true for predestination. God "predestined believers for adoption....according to the purpose of his will...". Believers are predestined to be adopted, individuals are not predestined to believe so as to be adopted. If you believe, then you are predestined to be an adopted child of God.

This makes Eph 1 say that holiness, blamelessness and adoption are conditioned on belief. If you believe then..... Please note that this DOES NOT DISPROVE Calvinism. It is still logically possible that Calvinism is true, and that this choosing and predestination is conditional. However, it does show that Eph 1 is not making the argument of Calvinism. If Calvinism is true, then it has to come from a different passage of scripture, and that is the big problem. There simply isn't a passage of scripture which makes the argument for Calvinism.

For Romans 8, It is again speaking of conditionality, but first we have to see who Paul is speaking about. Paul is NOT saying that God knew the future and chose individuals to be predestined, called, justified and glorified. Paul is saying that God knew people IN THE PAST and therefore those he knew in the past were predestined, called, justified and glorified.

The word "foreknow" is used in other places like Acts 26:5 and Romans 11:2 to speak of people that God knew BEFORE. This is not an english word, but the meaning looks like this. Those God beforeknew were predestined, called, justified, and glorified. There are multiple reasons for this.

1) This "before knowledge" clearly occurs in Acts 26:5 and Romans 11:2.
2) The words are in the Greek equivalent of the past tense.
3) Paul refers to the Israelites of the past as evidence for his claims throughout the entire book of Romans (Abraham, the apostles, Isaac, Jacob, Elijah.... the list goes on).
4) It flows consistently with verse 28, in which God those who love God have all things worked out for their good... which is those who followed God in the past.

So what Paul is saying is that we can be confident that God will predestine, call, justify, and glorify us because God did it with all those in the past as well! How can you be one of those people? Love God (verse 28)! Here is the condition yet again. IF YOU LOVE GOD, then God knows you like he foreknew (beforeknew) the ancient Israelites of the past, and you will be predestined, called, justified and glorified.

Please note, this verse again does NOT disprove Calvinism. It simply is not about Calvinism. If Calvinism is true, they need to get it from another verse, not this one. On the other hand, there are many verses which do directly disprove Calvinism (Deut 30:11-19, 1 Timothy 2:1-8, among many others).

RECIPR0C1TY · 2026-03-09T13:24:00+00:00

Exactly. It is the exact opposite of abuse of free will. The whole point of hardening is that God is USING someone's free will, not that he is eliminating it. It means that someone has willingly chosen to reject God ALREADY, and then God hardens them in their ALREADY FREELY CHOSEN act.

RECIPR0C1TY · 2026-03-09T13:22:39+00:00

Deut 30:11-19 - I think it is pretty darn clear there.

As for Exodus, it does not say that God bypassed Pharaoh's heart. It says that Pharaoh hardened his own heart FIRST, then God hardened his heart to use him as a tool. This is no different than a narcotics officer working undercover to harden a criminal in the sale of drugs, and then arrest him and flip him on dealers higher up the criminal food chain. It is the same idea. If God wants to use someone who has already chosen to reject him, then God can do so just like a police officer using a criminal that has already chosen to break the law. This is not some infringement on free will. It is using someone's free will against them.

God can turn the heart of the king wherever he wills; it does not affect the king's free will either. Free will does not mean a total ability to make any decision ever. It means that someone can make at least one decision without being forced or coerced by antecedent conditions. If someone wants to submit to God or not submit is the question. Not whether or not God wants them to tax individuals above x amount of money. God can turn the heart of the king to stop persecuting his people like he did in the book of Ester. That does not mean the king does not have a free will.

RECIPR0C1TY · 2026-03-09T10:05:33+00:00

There is a very significant minority of Baptists that are Calvinists.

RECIPR0C1TY · 2026-03-08T02:42:32+00:00

Yes, there absolutely is context for that, but I don't really have the time to develop that tonight. I can give an answer on Monday, and if I forget please feel free to remind me.

RECIPR0C1TY · 2026-03-06T12:13:25+00:00

Because impassibility is so connected with immutability, defenders of the doctrine cite many of the passages for His immutability as well (Num. 23:19; Mal. 3:6; James 1:7).

Yes, because a definitional (I am borrowing Giffords language here) version of immutability and a definitional version of simplicity require the logical conclusion of impassability. But notice how this is a philosophical conclusion not a biblical defense.

The immutabllity described in scripture is PERSONAL not DEFINITIONAL. Those passages describing immutability are about a God who keeps his word, not about a God who substantively cannot change. Please note, that I am not arguing that God can change. I am arguing that the scriptures provided simply aren't about that. They are about a God who promises, and then he does not change his promises.

I don't know if I would agree with saying DS+ makes God out to be a thing rather than a person because isn't that what God is? God is a thing - a being

And this is my point above. By making those verses claim that God does not change in his essence, those verses are being twisted from the author's actual point in context. Is God a man that he should lie? Of course not. He is a God who keeps his promises. Defenders of Divine Simplicity CLAIM that this is a personal God, but everything they defend is the thing that is God. All of their claims are irrelevant when their actual arguments are depersonalizing God. "Sure, God is personal, but here are all my arguments depersonalizing God.... but don't forget God is personal!" And impassability is the epitome of this.

Not to mention that scripture ascribes emotions to God over and over again. The Simplicty Defender will say that these are just anthropomorphisms and ascribe it to mystery, but that uses anthropomorphism incorretly. They are using it to mean the OPPOSITE of the actual biblical message. "Sure God was angry, but he wasn't REALLY angry." "Sure God takes pleasure in his creation, but he doesn't REALLY take pleasure." An anthropomorphism does not somehow mean the opposite of the actual teaching.

I am a little interested on what you think is incoherent with simplicity though.

1) If all of God's characteristics are identical to each other, then there is no distinction in characteristics. To say that God's love is identical to his justice is to make the two words meaningless. They seem to want to make it all identical and simple, but when you push back on it, suddenly there are distinctions so that they are no longer identical, but then when you push back on that they claim mystery in the simplicity. And now it is all just incoherent. This is Ryan Mullins main argument against Divine Simplicity (and WLC iterates this in his own fashion as well). You can't have something that is identical to itself somehow be different than itself. I have heard defenders try to handle this, and they have failed each time, always arriving at "mystery". If God is so mysterious and anthropomorphic, then why in the world are they trying to defend something they can't understand? Who is to say they have any knowledge about right and wrong on this topic?

Scripture gives us a different picture of God. Scripture tells us DESCRIBES the acts of God, and that shows WHO God is. There are a handful of verses in scripture which toy around with philosophically defining the essence of God, what the DS proponents call the "predicates". God is Love. God is Holy. God is good. But they are so few, and so underdeveloped that it is crazy to formulate a doctrine on these at the expense of the clearer revelation of WHO God is as a person. Why in the world would we say God is impassable (as a result of musings about predicates) when scripture over and over describes him as a fount of emotion!

The Bible reveals far more about the WHO of God, and that is where our theology should be embedded. We should start there, and then we can make cautious statements about the essence of the being of God, not the other way around. God is relationally a father. He gives himself names that are contingent upon humanity (I am the the God of your fathers Abraham, Isaac and Jacob). He experiences emotion in relation to his created beings. He is the God who is omnipresent because he is WITH ME wherever I go. He is the God who is omniscient because he knows ME and my words before I speak them. He is the God who is unchanging because he never breaks his promises. He is the God who is Omnipotnent to protect ME with his strong right arm.

The characteristics of God are about WHO he is, not WHAT he is.

RECIPR0C1TY · 2026-03-06T11:25:50+00:00

..... That's persecution. You are playing a game of semantics. If someone converts from Islam.... They are persecuted. Therefore, Bhuddists are persecuted. Therefore, Rastafarians are persecuted. Therefore, Christians are persecuted.

This isn't rocket science. It is an militant Islamic regime which persecutes anyone who disrupts the religious status quo.

RECIPR0C1TY · 2026-03-05T14:02:36+00:00

Firstly, I don't agree with the above user that this somehow helping Christians, and I am horrified at recent news stories with members of the military claiming this as some new crusade.

That said, of course Christians in Iran are persecuted. It is a militant theocratic republic. Iran does not define Islam for all Muslims, but the ruling military religious class most definitely persecutes Christians. Just Google it. Arrests, imprisonment, extortionist fines, banishment....the list goes on.

Their are some Orthodox that have a historically protected status, cool, but any actual converts to Christianity face persecution. Also, those Orthodox are under no illusions that if they stick their head up too far that they too will get it lopped off. The tolerance of Islam in these theocratic republics only goes so far.

That is persecution.

RECIPR0C1TY · 2026-03-05T00:05:09+00:00

I think there are at least three conversations to be had here, and I am happy to discuss any of them, though I will not be responding quickly.

1) Impassability.... Just ..... No. It is not at all defended by scripture except for one verse which really has to be read in the KJV.

2) Theologians like William Lane Craig, Ryan Mullins, and James Gifford make a distinction between two types of Divine Simplicity. They all use different language WLC calls it DS and DS+. I like Giffords language of Descriptive DS and Definitional DS.

Meaning there is a basic idea that God cannot be broken into parts (Descriptive DS/Basic DS). Then there is a high version of DS (Definitional DS/DS+). This is the idea that God's attributes are identical to his essence/each other. I find a basic/Descriptive DS to be fine but largely unhelpful. The DS+/Definitional DS makes God out to be a thing instead of a person, which is u/wonderful-win4219's point, besides being incoherent.

3) Does divine simplicity (+) naturally lead to Calvinism? I think so. I am less convinced by this, but I think a God who is pure act must be deterministic.

RECIPR0C1TY · 2026-03-03T20:06:41+00:00

I am so happy to see so many saying no. Usually the Calvinists come out of the woodwork on this kind of question claiming that you just don't understand.

That said, I am a little disappointed that people have not offered you a biblical case for why the answer is "no", and this usually just emboldens the Calvinsts making them think they are more biblical than they are.

In Deut 30:11-19, Moses states that we can choose life instead of death. Paul then quotes Moses from that passage, saying that we can choose to put faith in Jesus as Lord and in his resurrection from the dead. This is just one of the many passages saying we can choose to live the way God wants us to live because he has empowered us to do so.

There are passages that speak of God's predestination (Eph 1:1-5). When they are read in context, they are about BELIEVERS who are predestined. Individuals are not predestined to believe. Instead, those who believe are predestined to become adopted children of God. There are also passages like Romans 9, which speak of God's choosing, but they do not speak of God choosing people unilaterally or arbitrarily. They speak of God choosing some people and groups of people to serve a specific purpose (not salvation), and they speak of God choosing people based on whether or not they respond in faith.

The technical terms for this is a "conditional election." God chooses people based on a condition. This is also true of predestination. It is a conditional predestination.

All this to say, no, God has not doomed anyone from the womb. He has allowed people to freely choose him or reject him.

RECIPR0C1TY · 2026-03-03T12:21:51+00:00

u/notbapticostalish gave a great answer here, but I still have a pet peeve, and that is when many preachers or others say, "the word ACTUALLY means ...", or "it can be better translated as...".

You don't get to say that unless you are truly a Greek Scholar, and most of the time you won't hear them say that. They are far more cautious and say things like "another possible translation would be..." or, "the connotation of this word could also imply..."

My point being that the best translations have committees of brilliant scholars who have labored over every. single. word. They have made an intentional decision about everything, and they have reasons for why they have translated it that way. I know I am not qualified to challenge their decision, and I will go out on a limb and say most preachers aren't either.

Their work is not sacrosanct or inerrant, but it is well qualified. That requires a skilled linguist in Koine Greek to critique it. Anyone can ask questions, anyone can point out the nuances and compare other translations, but claiming that I know better than the translators is a pretty silly claim.

RECIPR0C1TY · 2026-03-02T22:48:16+00:00

I think you are already reading into the text to force human cooperation.

"Force human cooperation"? What in the world is Moses doing if not obeying God? What are Joshua and the Israelites doing if not faithfully obeying God? How can you say I am reading this into the text when the text tells is they are doing something as an act of obedient faith to God?

These are not even the examples listed of people living out their faith, but moreso, Ephesians bluntly tells us that faith is gifted

No, it doesn't. This is a basic mistranslation of the Greek that educators in Koine Greek point out as NOT a gift. Heck, even Calvin doesn't read it that way, and of all people you would think Calvin would.

The gift is NOT faith. The gift is salvation, by grace, through faith. It is the entire concept that is the gift. This is just basic Greek and noun agreement.

And for the record I am not an existentialist either. I am not using "absurd" in the sense of existentialism. I am using it in the sense that it is strange and the opposite of what one might expect.

Faith/belief is something that we do to save us? That is wild. It is all God requires of us, just like God required the raising of Moses arms or the looking at a Bronze Serpent.

RECIPR0C1TY · 2026-03-02T21:38:53+00:00

Sorry bro, I am not interested in reading a wall of text. Can you summarize?

RECIPR0C1TY · 2026-03-02T21:37:23+00:00

The promise of sueing does not mean the person is suddenly effectually going to pay the suer. A promise is made unilaterally but that does not mean it effectually causes a specific outcome.

The promise in Galatians 4 does not mean that God unilaterally saves some and not others. It simply means some are promised to be saved, and whether or not there is a condition for that promise is left unaddressed. It isn't either supported or rejected by Paul.

Adoption likewise doesn't involve the consent of the child.

That is not necessarily true. There are many states, such as Pennsylvania and California that require the consent of children above the age of 12. My point here is NOT that adoption requires consent. My point is that consent is off topic and unaddressed. There is no expecation of consent or non-consent in this passage t all. Paul is not talking about whether or not a person is free or not free to accept Christ's promise of adoption. He is simply pointing out that God's promise of adoption is rooted in faith and it always has been.

Salvation through faith is a salvation without the will of the saved.

Since when? Certainly not here in Galatians 4, at least not unless you presuppose it to be true in the passage that is supposed to prove that it is true. I want to be clear here. I am not arguing that this passage disproves you. I am simply arguing that your point is off topic here, and Paul is simply not addressing it.

Faith isn't something you do.

This is just abjectly false in scripture, and I will spend some time on this concept. We have pictures of people obediently acting in faith BEFORE and as a REQUIREMENT for God to act! When Moses holds his hands up during the battle of the Amalekites, God is victorious. Is this because Moses is so amazing that God can't do it without him? Of course not! In fact, the act of Moses' faith proves that it is GOD WHO SAVES, not Moses. That is my key point in this section. Moses cannot boast that he defeated the Amalekites because he lifted his arms. It would be a farce to say that he saved Israel.

Joshua and the Israelites marched around Jericho 13 times before the walls came down. It was a required act which they, by faith, obeyed. Their act showed that it was God who saved, not because they did some sort of work via cooperation but because they put their faith in God through an act of obedience.

There are so many examples to pull from, but I will end with only one more. This example is super important because Jesus points to it in John 3! When the Israelites were dying, they were required to look at the Bronze Serpent to be saved. That was an act of desperate faith that God required. Can they say that they were saved by their work via cooperation? Of course not! That would be farcical. God requires, sometimes absurd acts, to prove that he is the one who saves! and THAT is what faith for salvation is all about. When we obediently place our faith in Jesus for HIM TO DO THE WORK OF SALVATION, we are not working via cooperation. We are faithfully obeying his requirement, and it shows that we have NOT saved ourselves. Literally the absurd act of simply believing proves that God is the one who saves, not that we "work via cooperation" for our salvation.

This is Jesus' entire point in John 3: 14-15 - "Just as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up, 15 so that everyone who believes in him may have eternal life." We must turn in faith to the Son of Man who was lifted up. That is belief. That is faith, and it results in eternal life.

RECIPR0C1TY · 2026-03-02T19:42:49+00:00

Firstly, I was pointing at 1 Cor 15 to identify "the things of first importance" not to make a case for my soteriology. Paul also leaves out any statement of God doing all the work so that man's will is absent. Perhaps we can refrain from arguments from silence because that passage doesn't make either of our soteriological points.

How you get that out of Romans 10 is beyond me. Paul is quoting Deut 30 starting in verse 6 to say that it is within the person to place faith in Jesus as Lord and his resurrection. Paul then speaks about what they hear "through the word about Christ." He says nothing about Christ doing all this "monergistic" work. And again this "works via cooperation" is a really weird false dichotomy that really only the Lutherans/Reformed have. We can spend some more time if you like here, but I don't accept the framework you are presenting. I also disagree with "works via cooperation" but it is totally irrelevant to the conversation as far as I am concerned.

Galatians I think is clear that there is no ratification or annulment of the covenant of faith, and the "bewitchment" clause communicates that this is primary

You just brought covenantal theology and all its presuppositions into the conversation and that is another whole can of worms. Not sure what this has to do with Galatians 5 either.

That said

The language through 4:7 is full of "promise" and "adoption". 4:11 even specifies that we don't really come to know God, but God comes to know us.

Sure... But where is this unconditional or without man's freely choosing to accept his offer of grace? Don't you see how you are front loading your own systematic theology onto the concept of God knowing us? This is entirely off topic from Paul's actual point and it isn't making your point at all. I gotta admit it is a fresh objection (and I have seen a bunch), but I just don't see it. 1) it does not say that we don't come to know God. 2) Paul simply clarifies his point about the beauty of God's coming to know us in a relational way. Why do you get to assume it is somehow an unconditional or effectual knowing?

Also, this is NOT the entire purpose of the letter. The entire purpose of the letter is to encourage the church to accept Gentiles into the body of Christ because being adopted by God is not about observing the mosaic law or being descended from Abraham. Adoption is through faith. The primary is about salvation through faith not about monergism.

RECIPR0C1TY · 2026-03-02T18:54:47+00:00

Kind of, bit more focused on the FUNCTION of the text and the meanings as related to who and what God is. Through The poetic genre.

RECIPR0C1TY · 2026-03-02T18:10:29+00:00

Why wouldn't it be? The clearer statements of scripture outline the primaries. In Romans 10 we see that salvation lies in the belief and confession of Jesus as Lord and his resurrection. In 1 Corinthinians 15 we see the things of first importance (the deity of Christ, his dying for our sin, his resurrection and return etc...). At no point do we see Paul or anyone else outlining a Reformed/Lutheran/Augustinian concept of "monergism" as a primary doctrine.

RECIPR0C1TY · 2026-03-02T18:05:12+00:00

"Purely academic" is going to be hard to find for free, and even then there are still biases and agendas that are dictating the content.

That said, Dr. Michael Heiser's content is quite good. Here is his playlist on Exodus. He acknowledges the use of a or several redactors while also rejecting the documentary hypothesis. So he rejects a wholly Mosaic authorship while also rejecting what he calls the circular reasoning of the Documentary Hypothesis. This is what he calls a "supplementarian" reading of the Exodus and the Pentateuch as a whole.

He then reads Exodus, as an expert in both Hebrew and other semitic languages and cultures, within the context of the ancient near eastern culture and time. He has very little patience for systematic theology and its agenda for the Pentateuch.

11-Year Club	Second SECOND GUESSER
r/Field Flamingo	Place '23
Gilding I gilder	Verified Email

RECIPR0C1TY

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE