Revelation 22:19 Revisited - A Walktrough of One of Many Proofs against Predestination

Just as the Pythagorean Theorem has had at least a thousand alternative proofs to it since Pythagorus, so also have there been MANY VALID DISPROOFS of Predestination that even predate Calvin, going back to St. Irenaeus who wrote Polemics against Calvin's Predecessors and proponents of Predestination, the Gnostics. I add my disproof to the alredy long list of disproofs, though there are other implicit disproofs in my original Edited-Not Translated post [i.e. That Contrary Evidence would be Edited Out of the Bible of Volition]. Here's the scripture in question, from page 567 of the EOB:

19 If anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, may God take away his part from the tree of life, and out of the holy city, which are written in this book.

Let us suppose Predestination. If anyone would be Predestined, it would be William Whittington, John Calvin's Brother-in-Law that published the Geneva Bible. Let us further suppose that William Whittington expunged Revelation 22:19 from his Bible (as was shown in the original Edited-Not Translated post). This causes a Parodox in that William Whittington is both Predestined (SAVED) and Condemned for Violating Revelation 22:19 (LOST). Therefore William Whittington was both SAVED and LOST.

Of course, the only resolution for this Paradox is to put William Whittington in Purgatory. Since Orthodox and Protestants don't believe in Purgatory, Reduction to an Absurdity has been reached. [This is the Deductive Logic of the Mathematician and of Sherlock Holmes, where slowly, the possiblities considered and enumerated. As the possibilities are eliminated, that which remains must be the Truth. This is the opposite form of Inductive Logic of Hermeneutics, which I have been accused of ignoring.]

As per the comment that I have heard from Calvinists that "No One Predestined would ever remove this Verse from Scripture", I call their attention to William Whittington. Of course, since William Whittington was Totally Depraved like the rest of Humanity (ie., unable to advance the cause of his own Salvation in any way), his efforts in Bible Translation were DOOMED at the onset. Of course, how could he possibly be Illumined {Thanks, Matt!} if he expunged Revelation 22:19 from the Bible?

Another similar interesting Parodox is that of the Bodily Resurrection as it applies to Astronomer Clyde Tombaugh, who discovered the Planet Pluto, where his remains are being sent for his Eternal Rest. This reminds me of "When I soar to Worlds Unknown" in Rock of Ages. . . .

Edited-Not Translated, Part 3

Let us start out with the observation that the Bible is a balanced document. If there are two opposite ways of going wrong, the Bible will give the appropriate warning. The Bible would warn of opposite evils such as dehydration versus drowning in prorper context, should such context occur. A prime example of the Bible's balance is Ephesians 6. In verses 1-3, it says in the NAB:

1 Children, obey your parents (in the Lord), for this is right.

2)"Honor your father and mother." This is the first commandment with a promise,

3)"that it may go well with you and that you may have a long life on earth."

which sounds like an admonition to children. Because the Bible is balanced, it is always a good idea to read the next verse:

4) Fathers, do not provoke your children to anger, but bring them up with the training and instruction of the Lord.

which applies to parents. The same pattern repeats itself with Employees and Employers (actually the words "Slave" and "Master" are used) for verses 5-9. With this thought of Balance in mind, let us proceed to Deuteronomy 30:15-20, which is an example of Bible Balance, which unfortunately, the EDITED 1599 Geneva Study Bible sleights. To show that verses 15, 17, 18, and 20 have been omited, edited out, or replaced with footnotes, I will actually show from verse 14 to the copyright notice at the bottom of the page, including the blank space where verse 20 would have appeared. We note that the "fingerprints" of Theodore de Beza on this document:



Observing footnotes k & l, we note that verse 15 is absent; observing footnotes m & n, we note that verses 17 & 18 are gone; and finally, observing footnote o and the copyright information, we note that verse 30 is missing. We note the gloss of footnote o is an attempt to override the meaning of verse 30. Footnote o says "That is, love and obey God; which is not in man's power, but only God's Spirit works it in his elect.", even though verse 19 says "I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, [that] I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore {reference to footnote}o choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live".

When I compare Scripture with Scripture in the Old Testament, there is one Cardinal Rule I follow, which does not apply to the New Testament. I consult the Septuagint Version. The Septuagint is the product of 72 Jewish Scholars whose work was to compile the Torah. The Septuagint is the Definitive Source Bible of the Old Testament. Though occasionally there is some occasional haggling about the rarely dissenting Samaritan Septuagint, the Septuagint invariablty settles the issue. All other Old Testament Versions derrive from the Septuagint, and therefore there is no need to quote them. The Septuagint says:

15 Behold, I have set before thee this day life and death, good and evil.

16 If thou wilt hearken to the commands of the Lord thy God, which I command thee this day, to love the Lord thy God, to walk in all his ways, and to keep his ordinances, and his judgments; then ye shall live, and shall be many in number, and the Lord thy God shall bless thee in all the land into which thou goest to inherit it.

17 But if thy heart change, and thou wilt not hearken, and thou shalt go astray and worship other gods, and serve them,

18 I declare to you this day, that ye shall utterly perish, and ye shall by no means live long upon the land, into which ye go over Jordan to inherit it.

19 I call both heaven and earth to witness this day against you, I have set before you life and death, the blessing and the curse: choose thou life, that thou and thy seed may live;

20 to love the Lord thy God, to hearken to his voice, and cleave to him; for this is thy life, and the length of thy days, that thou shouldest dwell upon the land, which the Lord sware to thy fathers, Abraam, and Isaac, and Jacob, to give to them.

Clearly, verse 15 was edited out because God was using this language to frame a choice. Footnotes k & l are irrelevant to the issue. Verse 17, which says "If thy heart change", presupposes Free Will. Verse 18 tells of the consequences of making the wrong choice, again presuming the Children of Israel had a choice. Footnotes m & n obscure verses 17 & 18 by taking their place. Verse 20 clarifies verse 19 to mean that you should choose life so that your seed may live (from verse 19, but continuing into verse 20) to love the Lord Thy God, . . . etc. Footnote o is the most eggregious, as it is an actual attempt to override Scripture with a footnote:

(o) That is, love and obey God; which is not in man's power, but only God's Spirit works it in his elect.

De Beza had to get in that superfluous and gratuitous reference to "his elect" into his footnote.

In my earlier years, Deuteronomy 30 was a beakon to me, stating that my choices mattered and that my existence was not necessarly predetermined. Looking back, I felt that the "religious" leaders with whom I grew up under were unimportant little men who overemphasized their importance, that God was in their pocket, and there wasn't anything I could do about it. Deuteronomy 30 showed me that God was NOT in their pocket, and that my choices really mattered to God, though I a tool in God's hands be. Having actually met a Bishop, a truly Important Christain Leader and not a Self-Important one, I can say that I notice the difference. By Their Works You shall Know Them.

I wish to convey special thanks to Pizza Man for inspiring this post.

How many points of TULIP do I agree with?

The 5 points of the Calvinist Agenda are as follows:

1) Total Depravity - this Doctrine was refuted by Doctrinal Pardoxes, and in part Chapter XXXI of the Westminster Confession: A Trojan Horse. However, Total Depravity does exist, as is demonstrated in By Their Works You Shall Know Them and The Significance of the Desecration of the Tomb of St. Irenaeus by the Huguenauts.

2)Unconditional Election - this was refuted by Edited-Not Translated and Edited-Not Translated- Part 2 .

3)Limited Attonement - also refuted by Edited-Not Translated and Edited-Not Translated- Part 2.

4)Irresistable Grace- also refuted by Edited-Not Translated and Edited-Not Translated- Part 2. If you ask me, there are three abominable examples of Grace being resisted in Calvinist History: By Their Works You Shall Know Them, The Significance of the Desecration of the Tomb of St. Irenaeus, and Dordt and Ephesus II: A Tale of Two Robber Synods. Shame! Shame! Shame!

5)Perseverance of the Saints (aka Predestination) - this was refuted by Edited-Not Translated, Edited-Not Translated-Part 2 and in part Doctrnal Lineages and The Significance of the Desecration of the Tomb of St. Irenaeus.

It looks like I don't agree with a Single Point of the Calvinist Agenda! I have even challenged the legitimacy of Calvinism witn Doctrinal Lineages, Dordt and Ephesus: A Tale of two Robber Synods, and Chapter XXXI of the Westminster Confession: A Trojan Horse. That makes me a ZERO POINT CALVINIST !!!

Yet, I feel that the number ZERO is to large a number to count the number of points I agree with on Calvinism. For example, I believe, unlike the Calvinists, in the Necessity of Apostolic Succession. I feel that Calvinism is Agenda-Based, not Bible-Based, Theology; this being the point of the two Edited-Not Translated posts, many more of which I expect will follow.

However, it does sound strange to call myself a "Negative One" or "Negative Two" Point Calvinist. At least ZERO is a Round Number. I'll settle for ZERO POINT CALVINIST for now.

The Significance of the Desecration of the Tomb of St. Irenaeus by the Huguenauts

St. Irenaeus of Lyons, whom we have previously discussed, was a Greek (or Asian) and knew St. Polycarp. As a Priest in Lyons, he succceded the martyred Saint Pothinus as Bishop of Lyons. He was consulted by other Churchmen of his era about the refutation of the competing cults, such as the Gnostics and the Arians. His book, Against Heresies, was the result which was a taxonomy of the Gnostic Cults at the time. Though Against Heresies was a very necessary but tedious book, his work ultimately led to the Council of Carthage of 397, which selected the Books of the New Testament and discarded, once and for all, the Gnostic Gospels from the Scripture. An ardent proponent of Free Will, it is no accident that his remains were desecrated and totally destroyed by the Huguenot Calvinists in 1562 (two years before John Calvin's death in 1564, which makes Calvin at least an accomplice to this crime!), making the motive retaliation. Related to this Vandalism, I note in passing this fiery quote from A Church in Fort Colins in Colorado:

Dear Calvinist, do you think Romans 9 and other passages support predestination? The Gnostics did the same! This means that if your view of election and God's sovereignty is correct, then you have to be willing to admit that the early Christians -- those who gave you the Bible -- were all wrong about a major theological doctrine, and the Gnostics -- whom John rebukes as antichrists (2 John 1:7) -- were correct! Are you willing to admit this?

The "Theology" behind this Iconoclasm as summarized in The Epitome of the Definition of the Iconoclastic Conciliabulum held in 754 [which] declared:
Supported by the Holy Scriptures and the Fathers, we declare unanimously, in the name of the Holy Trinity, that there shall be rejected and removed and cursed one of the Christian Church every likeness which is made out of any material and colour whatever by the evil art of painters.... If anyone ventures to represent the divine image (χαρακτήρ, charaktēr) of the Word after the Incarnation with material colours, let him be anathema! .... If anyone shall endeavour to represent the forms of the Saints in lifeless pictures with material colours which are of no value (for this notion is vain and introduced by the devil), and does not rather represent their virtues as living images in himself, let him be anathema!

Iconoclasts, for Students of Byzantinology, were those who destroyed Icons for both Political (an appeal to the Freeholders of Asia Minor to join the Byzantine Army by catering to their religious inclinations) and Religious (retaliation from residual Manichaeans, Gnostics, Arians, and Monophysites left ofer from previous religious controversies) reasons. The Seventh Ecumenical Council of 787 in Nicea settled the issue once and for all, though some critics such as John Calvin did not accept it, as Calvin certainly condemned Icons. Naturally, this stand aligns John Calvin with the Iconoclasts, and along with them, the Manicheans and Gnostics.

On a personal note, I have purchased Archbishop Robert Dmitri Royster's Commentary on Epistle to the Romans. A quick perusal of this work tells me that this is going to be very deep reading, and I shall make reports on each chapter as I read it (That should take a year!). Second, as I scanned the critical passages in Romans 9, I noticed that St, Irenaeus was heavily quoted, along with St. John Chrysostom and Origen. Archbishop Dmitri, though a fair man, apparantly has no sympathy for the Calvinist interpretation of Romans. I've waited a lifetime for a work such as this, and I hope that I can finish it within my lifetime. I feel that I have had to prepare for this book for a lifetime.

Am I an Armenian?

I've been dialogueing with the Classical Armeian lately. He suggested that I visit the blog of the Society of Evangelical Armenians. Since I am an Apostolic, there may be a problem with the "Evangelical" part. Arminians, especially Wesley, have borrowed from the Orthodox. So today, I'm taking a break to take the Survey: "Are You an Arminian and Don't Even Know It?". Here are my results:

1. Do you believe that Jesus died for every human being? Yes

2. Do you believe that a person can resist the convicting power of God’s grace? Yes

3. Do you believe that humans are so depraved that they can do nothing to earn salvation and that they cannot choose to believe in Jesus without the intervention of God’s grace?

To me, this is an irrelevant hypothetical question because God’s Grace is Universal

4. Do you believe in election?

If you mean that Faith self-elects, Yes.

5. Do you believe in predestination? #¥ØƏΏЩצ*!!! NO!!!

6. Do you believe in eternal security? No

7. Do you believe in the penal satisfaction view of the atonement? Yes

8. Do you believe that God exhaustively knows the future? Yes

9. Do you believe in the sovereignty of God?

Yes, but God isn't required to exercise it. He can allow choice.

10. Do you believe that you are born again when you put your faith in Jesus?

The correct term is “Begat from above”. Otherwise, Yes.


The Results are in, I am . . .
.
.
.
An Orthodox!!!!