Romans 3:23 δοξης often means “expectation” in secular Greek, and obviously does here too

“for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,” (Standard Protestant Translation)

“for all have sinned and fall short of the expectation of God,” (Sensible Translation)

According to Liddell and Scott’s Intermediate Greek Lexicon (also called Middle Liddell) the word δόξα or δοξης  can mean: expectation, an opinion, judgment, the opinion which others have of one, estimation, reputation, credit, honour, glory.  (Its a secular lexicon, which is why its honest on this.)

See for yourself. Click the link, then in the first entry, click “Middle Liddell.”

So the sin is not in failing to be as glorious as God, but in failing to meet up to God’s expectations for weak human beings.

If Christ died for all, then why is it that some people will go to hell?

Today a Calvinist asked me their favorite stupid question:
“If Christ died for all, then why is it that some people will go to hell?”

Because Jesus’ sacrifice was a sacrifice.  Seriously, why is it that Calvinists have no clue what a sacrifice is?  A sacrifice is not a direct execution swap.

Its not like the punishment we deserved was to be crucified, so that as soon as Jesus was crucified our exact punishment was taken and now we are the untouchables and can go on sinning, giving God a raspberry and saying “Na na na boo boo, you can’t touch me!”   Although this is what Calvinism teaches.

A sacrifice, rather, comes in stages.

Stage 1: The slaying of the victim, done normally by a layman.  And Jesus was a layman while on earth, per Hebrews.  “For if He were on earth, He would not be a priest, since there are priests who offer the gifts according to the law;” (Heb 8:4)  “For He of whom these things are spoken belongs to another tribe, from which no man has officiated at the altar. For it is evident that our Lord arose from Judah, of which tribe Moses spoke nothing concerning priesthood.” (Heb 7:13-14)

Stage 2: The priest dashed the blood on the altar, or in the case of the Day of Atonement, presents it in the Holy of Holies. After quoting in Heb 5:6 the passage “You are a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek” the author shows this only applies to Christ after the resurrection, for he says “who, in the days of His flesh, when He had offered up prayers and supplications, with vehement cries and tears to Him who was able to save Him from death, and was heard because of His godly fear, 8 though He was a Son, yet He learned obedience by the things which He suffered. 9 And having been perfected, He became the author of eternal salvation to all who obey Him, 10 called by God as High Priest ‘according to the order of Melchizedek,’ 11 of whom we have much to say, and hard to explain, since you have become dull of hearing.” (Heb 5:7-11) “For Christ has not entered the holy places made with hands, which are copies of the true, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us; 25 not that He should offer Himself often, …but now, once at the end of the ages, He has appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself.” (Heb 9:24-26)

Stage 3: The sacrifice must be applied.  Even when the sacrifice is made, someone must come to God by it.  “Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them.” (Heb 7:25)  And typically in the Law, when one offers a sacrifice and does not subsequently eat a certain portion of the meat by a certain time, the sacrifice becomes invalid. “And the flesh of the sacrifice of his peace offerings for thanksgiving shall be eaten the same day that it is offered; he shall not leave any of it until the morning.” (Lev 7:15)  This sheds light on “We have an altar, whereof they have no right to eat which serve the tabernacle.” (Heb 13:10)

So then, scripture shows the Calvinist doctrine of atonement, that as soon as Jesus gave up the ghost the few, the brave, the marines, were all saved, is a gross oversimplification and false doctrine.  The application of the atonement is conditional upon faith and repentance at least, if not also baptism and (if one lives long enough afterwards) observing the Lord’s Supper.

“With God all things are possible” means “When you’re with God all things (necessary to salvation or sanctification) are possible to you.”

The phrase “with God all things are possible” (Matt 19:26) is in Greek:

παρα δε θεω δυνατα παντα

3844 (pará) an emphatic “from,” means “from close beside” (“alongside”). It stresses nearness (closeness) which is often not conveyed in translation. 3844 (pará) is typically theologically significant, even when used as a prefix (i.e. in composition). 3844 (pará) usually adds the overtone, “from close beside” (implying intimate participation) and can be followed by the genitive, dative, or accusative case – each one conveying a distinct nuance.

Meaning “close to God all things are possible,” i.e. “with God” as in, when you’re with God all things are possible to you.

“WITH God all things are possible.”

WITH not TO.

Not “to God all things are possible.” But “with God all things are possible.”

That is, it is possible for you to do all things necessary to salvation with God’s help: “I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me.” (Philippians 4:13)

This is not affirming that God can do all things but that YOU can do all things with God on your side. Like in Philippians 2:12-13 “Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling for God works with you both in willing and doing.” Calvinists through mistranslation, monkeying, and just in general bad interpretation have made the 2nd verse there a reason NOT to work out your own salvation whereas Paul gave it as a reason to do so: You can’t say “No, Paul, I can’t work out my own salvation: that’s not possible. I’m just a weak human…blah blah blah, Calvin said…” because Paul says right there God is helping you, so shut up and work out your own salvation already. Sheesh.

Rest in Peace Google

Google shut down in May.  It now just redirects to normal google websearch.  Google will undoubtedly begin to lose market share when this is realized by bloggers and blog users.  I am completely disappointed, in that I used it frequently to find new blogs.  Since regular search is full of crap websites and things and its not possible to filter them out and get blogs only, google is now as useless as Bing.  I might as well switch now.  This will also eventually spell the downfall of blogging, I suppose, since it will make it all the more unlikely any new users will ever land on your blog.  The age of the free internet press is over. 

The Calvinist robot-slave-god that lives in Calvin’s broom-closet

A Calvinist said to me that non-Calvinists “like a push-button god” and this was my response:

Seems to me Calvinists are the ones who are always telling God what he can and can’t do. Calvinists are always attempting to control God. 

“What’s that you’re doing there God? Giving humans freewill?  No, no, no, you can’t do that. Then you wouldn’t be sovereign anymore. You’re too stupid to make beings with freewill without losing your sovereignty, so here, let me show you how its done [Calvinist shows God a diagram of how to build a robot]. See, God, isn’t that much better?” 

“Wait, what’s that you’re doing God? Sending Jesus to die for all humanity?  No, no, no, that just won’t do. Don’t you know that that would be wasteful? You’d be wasting drops of Jesus’ blood.  See, God, you idiot, don’t you know that each drop of Jesus’ blood LITERALLY washes away one person’s sin only? So if you have Jesus die for all he’d shed too many drops of blood, that would be a waste, kind of like pouring expensive oil on Jesus’ head when it could have been sold for 500 bucks. So WE, the few, the brave, the Calvinists, can’t let you do that God.  Now, sit your butt down and listen to Calvin’s sermon. If you roll your eyes even once, he’ll have the magistrate perforate your tongue, God, so sit still and behave.”

Is Paul quoting the “Apocrypha” in Colossians 1:17?

Sirach 43:26 (KJV) “By him the end of them hath prosperous success, and by his word all things consist.”

Colossians 1:17 (KJV) “And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.”

The suggestion comes from  Sirach 43:26 as the background of Colossians 1:17.

The author there attributes the quoted translation of Sirach to Brenton’s LXX, which is true but not the full truth. Brenton’s LXX used the KJV for the English translation of the Apocrypha (except for 3rd and 4th Macabees which Brenton translated himself, or he at least found a translation of those other than the KJV, since the KJV did not include those two books of the “Apocrypha”).

Rachovian Catechism….will force you to turn your brain on next time you read the Bible

Recently I began reading the Rachovian Catechism, which is basically the full statement of the doctrinal system of the Socinians. That is, its a systematic theology from the Reformation time-period that is the exact opposite of Calvin’s Institutes. I just searched “Rachovian Catechism” on google books, clicked on the book, and when it opened, clicked the down arrow next to “Get this book in print” and ordered a hardcopy from one of the universities listed. Been reading a bit every day for the past week. Very interesting. Even their anti-Trinitarian views are more interesting than I would have thought since they go through literally every verse that touches on either the the subject of the deity of Christ or the trinity, giving first the Catholic/Calvinist position, and then their own interpretation(s), so that you can use this to get up to speed on BOTH systems. Calvinists would never create such a tool that will show you what their opponents think. Furthermore, it doesn’t stop with the THEORETICAL aspects of Christianity but gives you an indepth analysis of the MORAL teachings of Christianity. Its no wonder the Socinians are always so bad mouthed. Reading this thing would force you to start reading the Bible with your brain turned on for a change.

For a little sample, here is a bit from the beginning of Chapter X. Of Free Will:

Q. Is it in our power to obey God in the way you have stated?
A. It is, when strengthened by the divine aide, and by that filial spirit of which I have spoken. For it is certain that the first man was so created by God as to be endowed with free will; and there was no reason why God should deprive him of it after his fall.  And the equity and justice or rectitude of God will not allow that he should deprive man of the will and power of acting rightly; especially since, subsequently to that period, he requires, under a threat of punishment, that he should will and act rightly (Deut xxx. 19). Nor is there any mention of a punishment of this kind among the penalties with which God punished the sin of Adam.
Q. Is not this free will depraved by original sin?
A. It is not yet agreed among its advocates themselves, what original sin is. [Zing!] This is certain, that by the fall of Adam the nature of man is by no means so depraved as that he is deprived of the liberty and power of obeying or not obeying God in those things which he required of him under the thread of punishment or the promise of reward. Nor can it otherwise be shown, from any testimony of Scripture, that it has this effect; while the declarations are innumerable which demontrate the contrary clearer than the sun. And the fall of Adam, as it was but one act, could not have power to deprave his own nature, much less that of his posterity. That this was not inflicted upon him by God as punishment I have just shown. I do not deny, however, that, by the habit of sinning, the nature of man is infected with a certain stain, and a very strong disposition to wickedness; but I do deny both that this of itself is a sin, and that it is of such a nature that a man,after he has imbibed the divine spirit, cannot create for himself the power of obeying God as far as He, in his infite goodness and equity, requires….[a consideration of the verses used by Catholics/Calvinists to establish original sin follows]

Baptism, the Rio Grande, Worksism, and Faith-alonism

The thing is that faith alone tends towards a worksist life while “worksism” (as Evangelicals would label it) tends towards rest in Jesus. What I mean is simple:

Evangelicals say if you teach baptism is essential to salvation, that’s “worksism.” Ok, well the people who teach that get dunked, are secure in the knowledge that they’re saved, and move on to live a good Christian life but without the constant refrain of “better, stronger, faster” that Evangelicalism pushes down your throat. Like someone crossing from Mexico to Texas knows they’ve arrived in Texas because they crossed the Rio Grande, so they know they’ve passed from death to life because not only did they believe or pray the sinner’s prayer or cross any other imaginary line, but they crossed a definite landmark, a body of water, in baptism.

Meanwhile, Evangelicals who’ve rejected baptism as the point of salvation are never secure in their salvation, never sure they’ve crossed the imaginary (for in their system its imaginary) line between death and life, and so keep having to invite Jesus into their hearts at the altar call OVER and OVER and OVER, and as John Piper would have it, preach the gospel to themselves every day…rebelieve the same gospel of faith alone in faith alone that they believe (or do they) saved them, because they can never be sure they believed it enough, or rather that their belief came from a supernatural source rather than mere free will which wouldn’t count, so they must do it again and again to be sure its perfect belief, because its got to be perfect. And they must make sure to always be more pius, better, stronger, faster, always perfectly devoted, lest they forget to put FULL assurance in Christ’s work alone. They must work hard to make sure they believed PERFECTLY and put FULL assurance in Christ….and good gracious that’s hard works! Harder than keeping the whole Talmud, in fact.

Did the cross complete the sacrifice or were the resurrection and ascension neccessary parts thereof?

The solution to the worship of death in Christianity is the recognition that on the Day of Atonement the slaying of the victim was not in and of itself the sacrificial act, but rather the sprinkling of the blood on the mercy seat in the Holy of Holies was.  This truth was noticed by a certain ‘heretic’ during the Reformation while reading Hebrews. He noticed that Hebrews says that while on earth “he could not be a priest” and “it is evident that our Lord sprang from Judah, not Levi” meaning the sacrifice could not be completed on earth, and that Hebrews places the time of Jesus’ priesthood as his entrance into heaven and puts a great deal of emphasis on his entrance into the true Holy of Holies and the blood of sprinkling which he sprinkled there “purifying the heavens.” And due to opposition to his views, mention of this interpretation made it into many Calvinistic commentaries where they seek (in vain) to disprove it.

For an examaple, see: A Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews, By Philip Edgcumbe Hughes, page 341 commenting on Heb 9:12):

If the sacrifice was not completed merely by a death, but if the resurrection and ascension were necessary even to complete the sacrifice because the culminating act is the sprinkling of blood in the heavenly Holy of Holies, does this not mitigate the worship of death to some extent?   For now the resurrection and ascension are actually involved in our salvation rather than just cool extras!!!!!!


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.