I can get my Greek scholars who refute yours and vice versa…what gives? I stick to my OP with my reasons against UR until someone can show me without taking scripture out of context that they are wrong. God bless.
What gives is: 1) Secular etymologists have far less bias than religious etymologists and therefore have a far accurate understanding of the grammar and syntax of the language. 2) People have been giving you Scripture, you are the only one saying it is out of context.
If in doubt, apply the CRAAP test. “http://www.csuchico.edu/lins/handouts/eval_websites.pdf”
I have a high view of scripture because (and insamuch as) it reveals a God worth loving. Do you have a better criteria for judging which holy book to trust? If so, I’d like to hear it. Bluntly, if some book (be it ever so revered) reveals a God who is unworthy of your love, I trust you will reject both that God and that book.
I reject the Calvinist God because he picks and chooses arbitrarily. Both his love and his mercy fail. I reject the Arminian God also. Needing nothing, he nonetheless creates, knowing this act will lead to the damnation of multitudes. Again, his love and mercy fail. Open theology fares no better. Needing nothing, ignorant of the future, God plays Russian roulette with the cosmos. The only God whose love and mercy do not fail is the one who creates knowing he can (and will) reconcile all things to himself and bring the entire creation into the joy of the Lord. No other God can be morally justified for making the world.
This isn’t mere sentiment. It’s wisdom, insight and right judgment.
“For from him and through him and to him are all things.” ie. All things that have come from God through Christ will return to God through Christ.
What follows this revelation of the universal scope of God’s redemption in Christ?
“To him be the glory forever! Amen.” A heartfelt out-pouring of praise and worship.
Revival,
Over and over you request scriptual proof but if you can’t understand that until you can make a defense for the opposition, you’ll never be able to either understand it or deny it fairly.
Every single person here can make a defense from scripture for ECT. We know the text.
But we also know of Col 1 where God creates ALL THINGS and ALL THINGS are reconciled. We KNOW of text which state God does not cast off men forever. We KNOW of text which state he will restore Sodom to what she was before. We know of Text which state that WHILE WERE WERE ENEMIES we were reconciled to him by the death of his son, and ALL RECONCILED WILL BE SAVED. We Know of the text that IN HIM ALL WILL BE MADE ALIVE.
The point is that you first start with the conclusion and work your way to the front.
We start with the front, a loving God, and work our way to the conclusion - ALL WILL PRAISE GOD.
And if you don’t know the scripture for these, then you really should study.
Also you stated,
I thought you said you knew Calvinism? We need not quote the plethora of scriptures which dictate how flase your claim is.
a) Mens hearts are as waters which God makes go wherever he wishes.
b) God hardens whom he wants
No where in Gen 1 does it speak about man being sov. over his own destiny. That’s just your “free-will” theodicy speaking because if free will is not so - then you’d be a Calvinist and if Calvinim’s God really makes men reject him then you’ll reject Calvinism leaving only 1 left - The one that says God is sov and can save all IF HE DESIRES TO SAVE ALL.
The interesting thing is that
HE DIED FOR ALL.
HE RECONCILED ALL.
ALL RECONCILED SHALL BE SAVED.
HE RAISED FOR ALL.
ALL SHALL BE MADE ALIVE.
Agian, if you don’t know these scriptures, then rather than debating the issue, first learn the position because you obviously do not know the position or the scriptures used to build the case. And if you cannot frame your opponents views the way you would then you should not debate it with them. Instead you should ask what we believe.
Aug
Gene
First, I’m aware of most scripture used to support UR. I know your defense.
Second, all the unreferenced scipture you use when left in context to the subject of the chapter doesn’t say what you are making them to say.
Third, Gen 1:26-28 and Psalm 8:1-9 do indeed give man authority and dominion over the earth.
Fourth, I do know Calvinism…I know it as false doctrine not supported by scripture.
Fifth, I would never be a Calvinist due to it being false.
Sixth, again referencing scripture helps to put it back in its setting in the chapter to see what it really is saying. When you unreference them and group them all together in the order what you want them to say…well anyone can do that.
Last but not least, anyone can KNOW scripture but leaving scripture in context and UNDERSTANDING them is a whole different story. That is why God gave us His standard to follow to interpret scripture in Isaiah 28:9-11. God bless.
Hi Aaron
-you have referenced Isaiah 28 as God’s standard in order to interpret scripture correctly (ie not mis-interpret it).
This is not what God says in Isaiah 28. And that proves the point! You need a more-correct ‘standard’ in order that you don’t mis-interpret Isaiah 28!
There IS a way, and it is entirely scriptural, but having shown your ignorance of it (no disrespect intended), then i’s hardly surprising that you reach different conclusions to others.
I raise topic because I believe that it is the bedrock from which you and we come to very different conclusions, however, it can be regarded as ‘off topic’ in this particular thread, therefore it is best if I refrain from any further ‘derailment’ of this thread.
If you wish to pursue this point further, I will be happy to oblige on a new thread.
God bless
Pilgrim,
You nailed it. Yes Isa 28 is not even about HOW TO INTERPRET. Like Gen 1 and Psalm 8, Aaron has to strip these prophetic statement of the Christ and try to apply them so that man is a free will soverign whom God restrains his will.
Thus God does not cause Babylonians to invade Israel to punish Israel.
God does not harden the Pharaoh that his power might be displayed.
God does not harden Israel that the messiah mercy might come to the gentiles…
This is all mans doing.
I resepect Calvinists for this much, their God doesn’t play dice like the libertarians.
Aaron,
Concerning your OP,I think you’d be better off to note at the beginning of each statement, “In my opinion…” or “Based on my limited understanding and knowledge I think…” unless of course you presume to speak as the authority in these matters. Concerning each of your statements, well, I think differently. For example, to me the nations and kings worshiping God after the lake of the fire and the burning brimstone shows that they’ve repented and turned from aligning themselves with the beast. Also, Jesus and the Bride standing and saying come to those outside the gates with the gates being open indicates that the invitation continues and I trust it is not ineffective. That’s of course “IF” one interprets Revelation futuristically! But of course Revelation can also be interpreted historically, preteristically, and spiritually. And of course being it’s apocalyptic literature it’s possible, even probable that it should be interpreted metaphorically, not literally, artistically, not systematically.
Of course, I recognize that I’m likely 20%-40% wrong in what I believe/think; the problem is I don’t know which 20%-40%.
Sherman said: Of course, I recognize that I’m likely 20%-40% wrong in what I believe/think; the problem is I don’t know which 20%-40%.
Love it 
So true.
Hi Sherman
Don’t know what % in what i believe is wrong but the OP gives you a hint what I believe to be apart of your 20-40% 
Aug
Pick one of the 11 reasons against UR and lets talk about it.
That’s a gem! I wouldn’t have believed it if I hadn’t read it with my own eyes. You have not even applied your own standard (or ‘God’s’ as you would say) to your interpretation of Isaiah 28 ! I love it!
And then you totally ignore what auggybendoggy wrote.
He’s good at doing this type of thing.
He simply declares Man is sov.
Man is free.
God gives man what he wants
God damns them forever.
Nevermind wrestling with the massive amounts of information that say otherwise and CLEARLY state otherwise.
It’s the same ol - PICK YOUR VERSE, ILL PICK MINE - then I’ll say your wrong and quoting out of context.
Oh well. After a year you’d think he’d be able to address things more appropriately.
Pilgrim
Its your decision not to accept what I gave you but that doesn’t mean its wrong. I’m not going to go on rabbit trails on Calvinism or what Auggy believes about the sovereignty of God. (already touched on that with a response) If auggy doesn’t accept what I wrote, OK…no big deal. I will gladly discuss any of the 11 reasons against UR and stick to the OP. God bless.
Auggy
Maybe I should address you by picking out unreferenced scripture bundling them all up in order I see fit, and make them say what I want them to say and tell you thats truth. I welcome any discussion you may bring on any of the 11 reasons I gave against UR. God bless
Aaron
Twice you have now shown that you do not apply your own rules to yourself. You have also repeatedly shown that you are unwilling to engage in discussion when a flaw in your ‘logic’ is clearly pointed out.
I will not waste any more of my time with someone who has not shown a sincere desire to engage.
May God bless you.
I find this immensely ironic that you quote this verse to defend context! If this verse had been read in context, you would have known that Isaiah is actually warning the Jews of following this hermeneutic — issues indeed!
In chapter twenty-eight, Isaiah begins proclaiming misfortune upon the “proud crown of the drunkards of Ephraim” who had previously been glorious in their sobriety (28:1). For these priests and prophets of Ephraim “reel with wine and stagger from strong drink”, they “reel while having visions, they totter when rendering judgment” (28:7) their tables are soaked in drunken vomit and filth (28:8). Yahweh would be sending “a strong and might agent; as a storm of hail, a tempest of destruction” (28:2) that would trod them under foot (28:3) for He refuses to teach knowledge to these spiritual infants (28:9). He will instead speak to these men with “stammering lips and a foreign tongue” (28:11). This “stammering lips [mocking babble] and a foreign tongue [another language]” is the satan [the Assyrians] who would enslave them and teach them all sorts of hellish doctrines They would advise Ephraim with the nonsensical “precept upon precept…” (28:10,13) — advice received from the satan and a mockery of Torah. “Ṣaw lā·ṣāw ṣaw lā·ṣāw qaw lā·qāw qaw lā·qāw, zə·‘êr šām zə·‘êr šām” should be rendered nonsensical, because it is entirely nonsensical. I fear your revered KJV has led you astray with an unfortunate mistranslation of this phrase. (This shouldn’t surprise anyone, the KJV is a rather useless translation in general — full of distortions, biases and poor scholarship.) But returning to our biblical text, we see that although Yahweh had before offered rest and repose (28:12), He now offers them false teachings that they “may go and stumble backward, be broken, snared and taken captive” (28:13) and finally exhorts them to return to Torah (28:14-15)
Of course, we shouldn’t finish too prematurely because despite Ephraim’s constant adultery with Babylon, we know that Yahweh will restore all of the tribes of Israel (11:12,13; Romans 11). Yahweh allows us all to “stumble backward, be broken, snared and taken captive” that “He might have mercy on all” (Romans 11:32). For Yahweh, “Who has made His counsel wonderful and His wisdom great”, does not thresh forever (as per ECT) and nor does he destroy the harvest (as per Annihilationism; see Isaiah 28:27-29).
The only eternal, never-standing standard for studying all scripture is to not be seduced by nonsensical and foreign doctrines. But we certainly don’t find it in Isaiah 28:10,13.
Ok, no problem, but before you go can you answer a question for me? If Isaiah 28:9-11 has nothing to do with the method of how to interpret scripture…why did the Apostle Paul make reference to this passage when he wrote about prophecy, edification and teaching in 1 Corinthians 14. (1Cor 14:21)? God bless.
Appreciate the response.
I believe the stammering lips and a foreign language are referring to the ability to pray or speak in tongues or pray in the Holy Spirit. Why did the Apostle Paul make reference to this passage when he wrote about prophecy, edification and teaching in 1 Corinthians 14. (1Cor 14:21) if it has nothing to do with how to study scripture? God bless.