Featured Word-Study Fallacies/Words of Caution

That sets up a real fallacy of Dr. Cara's making. Such a ridiculous statement allows him to redefine a word to his satisfaction, whereas true-to-scholarship form etymology requires the historical use of the word to define its meaning. I'm not sure if "professor of New Testament" mean he teaches New Testament literature and theology or what, but it is clear from his statement that he is not a Greek scholar -- or a lingual scholar of any sort.

In fact, his "redefinition" violates the actual definition of the word etymology: "The etymology of a word refers to its origin and historical development: that is, its earliest known use, its transmission from one language to another, and its changes in form and meaning. Etymology is also the term for the branch of linguistics that studies word histories."

The "good doctor" needs to keep to his own discipline and not try to define others so as to corrupt Scripture.

 

I do not believe that is what she meant.

 

If Sunday means "a day to worship the Sun" then that is what it means. I don't have a problem with that definition, that doesn't cause me to worship the Sun.

And if ekklesia means "to call out" that is what it means. Christians are called out.

And if harmartia means "to miss the mark" that is what it means.

You can't go around redefining words simply because they disagree with your view.

 

Winman just because you don't agree with a person's doctrine does not mean they are always wrong. Anyone who reads the Bible and believes that the word sin against God means missing the mark is "foolish"! Consider the passage:

John 1:29 The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.

Can you honestly say that you believe that Jesus Christ died for "missing the mark" of the world?

 

Sounds like the recently returned one is confusing sin with the game of horseshoes.

 

Yet another thread where complete hogwash is peddled as if truth.

When a person does a word study, they look at how the word is used in every place it appears in scripture. And they note how some writers use the word this way but others in some other way. Usually the same writer does use the same word in the same way in the same book.

For example, Paul uses "kosmos" some of the time to refer to the planet earth, but John does does not.

What Calvinism does is seek to find a meaning within the word's range of meanings that fits with Calvinism, and claim that is the meaning. To justify this redefinition of word meanings, they attack, as in this thread, the historical word meanings. These are the folks that claim you can translate "from" (apo) as "before."

Pay no attention to this nonsense.

And just as often, when a word can be used for a narrow meaning, it can also be used to convey something close to the totality of its uses. To advocate the totality view is always wrong and the narrow view is always right again is nonsense.

Final point, the word sin, is not just a translation of one Greek word, but about six different words. So to miss the mark with God's perfect will for you as the mark is indeed sin. Anyone telling you sin always in every verse it appears means a violation of God's Law as put forth in scripture is again presenting hogwash.

 

I never said if you disagree with me you are wrong, show where I said such a thing.

You said you have heard preachers say sin is "missing the mark" and that you think that is ridiculous. I said the professor from RTS felt the same way and so he redefined the word hamartia. That seems to be the major intent of this thread, to redefine the word hamartia.

All I am saying is that perhaps hamartia means "missing the mark". If so, this shows the scriptures imply men do "attempt" to obey God and fail.

I believe this is exactly what Paul is saying in Romans chapter 7. Folks claim he is speaking from the perspective of a regenerate man in verses 14-25, but I believe I can PROVE from this passage alone that Paul was speaking from the perspective of a lost sinner trying to obey the law, but failing.

Verses 14-25 are simply answering the question Paul asks in verse 13 where we KNOW he is lost, dead in sin. Look and see;

Rom 7:9 For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died.
10 And the commandment, which was ordained to life, I found to be unto death.
11 For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it slew me.
12 Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good.
13 Was then that which is good made death unto me? God forbid. But sin, that it might appear sin, working death in me by that which is good; that sin by the commandment might become exceeding sinful.

In verse 9 Paul says he was alive without the law once, but when the commandment came, sin revived and he DIED. He reinforces this in vss. 10 and 11.

So Paul is telling us here that he is SPIRITUALLY DEAD. He cannot possibly be telling us he is physically dead, that would be nonsense.

But now, NOTE vs. 13. Paul asks a question here, he asks if what was good was made death unto him, then he denies that and says "God forbid" but sin, working death by that which is good (the law) that sin by the law might become exceedingly sinful.

What does this have to do with verses 14-25 you might ask?? EVERYTHING.

Note the word "For" that verses 14 and 15 especially begin with;

14 For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin.
15 For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I.
16 If then I do that which I would not, I consent unto the law that it is good.
17 Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.
18 For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not.
19 For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do.
20 Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.
21 I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me.
22 For I delight in the law of God after the inward man:
23 But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members.
24 O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?
25 I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.

The word "For" that begins both verses 14 and 15 points right back to verse 13. Paul is simply going into finer detail and answering the question he asked in verse 13 whether the law that is good has been made evil to him.

So, Paul is not speaking from some new perspective, he is still speaking from the perspective of a man who is SPIRITUALLY DEAD.

This is further reinforced in vs. 14 where Paul says he is "carnal, sold under sin". Paul had already explained in chapter 6 that he has been made free from sin, sin no longer owns him as a master and has no dominion over him. No born again regenerate man is "sold under sin". Paul is speaking from the perspective of a lost man here.

What does all this have to do with hamartia? Romans 7 clearly shows a man attempting to obey the law. Paul says he delighted in the law in his inner man, and consented unto the law that it was good, but could not find a way to perform it.

And before someone says unregenerate men do not delight in God's law, the scriptures say otherwise.

Isa 58:1 Cry aloud, spare not, lift up thy voice like a trumpet, and shew my people their transgression, and the house of Jacob their sins.
2 Yet they seek me daily, and delight to know my ways, as a nation that did righteousness, and forsook not the ordinance of their God: they ask of me the ordinances of justice; they take delight in approaching to God.

I bet you never hear Isaiah 58:2 in Reformed churches on Sunday.

So, you have to look at ALL the scriptures, and not just quote a verse here, and a verse there that supports your view, ignoring any scripture that disagrees with you.

So, the word hamartia meaning "to miss the mark" is a very accurate description of sin after all. :thumbsup:

 

Nice post Winman! Calvinism depends on picking some verses out of context, redefining the meanings of words, and adding other words in order to make scripture to no effect.

 

Thank God I am not a Calvinist so I can ignore the fusillade of barbs, arrows, and insults from Van!

 

Now will Rippon post and chastize Old Regular for going off topic with a bogus, slanderous, and laughable post. Do not hold your breath.

Words have meanings, and liberals redefine words to change the law, skate the law, and make the law to no effect. Calvinists attack the historical range of word meanings, claiming their cherry-pick hermeneutic is sound. What a joke.
Not to mention they ignore the grammar and syntax in order to alter the text just enough to pour Calvinism into the text.

Bottom line, pay no attention when a Calvinist attempts to teach how to study God's word, if they knew how, they would not be Calvinists.

 

True, true.

It would be impossible for me to be a Calvinst. The first thing I would notice is that they are always debating the standard and accepted definitions of words.

Non-Cals and Arminians do not debate the standard accepted definitions of words, they fit their theology just fine as they are.

But Calvinism is constantly debating the definitions of words with others, this thread is a perfect example. Why? because the standard and accepted definitions of words does not agree with Calvinism but refutes it.

I just wouldn't be able to go along with something like that. My parents did not raise a fool.

 

I am in agreement with Winman.

IMO, the koine Greek words have a historic foundational meaning as well as a NT contemporary nuance (which may be difficult to discern) meaning and both must be known to encompass the full scope of the word meaning. Often times our own modern nuance meaning simply confuses the issue.

e.g. "Repentance" - metanoia - a change of mind.

If one wishes to study the historical development of NT words, Kittel's Theological Dictionary of the New Testament is good, covering pre-attic Greek, Koine and beyond. While the contributing authors have varying theological views the historic development of words is well covered (IMO).

As an addendum to this post: I came from a Roman Catholic background in which great amounts of time and energy were and are spent attempting to obey God, the 10 commandments, etc. So also with many other religions such as Mormons, JW's (even some Baptists no doubt) who attempt to please God without the requirement of regeneration.

Then there is Cain who murdered Abel.
Unregenerate Cain even prayed to God for mercy (in this life) and God answered him.

HankD

 

Boy, you really go for the jugular each time. You just give a knee-jerk reaction and don't care to process anything. That's not very classy Van.

That's absurd. Right in John 1:10 the Beloved one uses kosmos three times. The second time he says :"and though the world [ho kosmos]was made through him..."

That is indeed referencing planet earth. Have you actually done a word study on this? You act so high and mighty but you fail so plainly. According to what I have found there are 57 verses in the NASB (your fav) with world in thoser passages. Report back to me with your findings.

I think people will pay no attention alright...to your nonsensical ravings.

 

Sadly Van, you prove my point. There was nothing bogus or slanderous about what I said {shown below} yet you use it to belittle Rippon.

 

Does Scripture really say that Cain was not regenerate?

 

To Van and the W-man: This thread has nothing to do with Calvinism. You people are obsessed. Get a grip.

If you have any objections to the Dr. Cara quotes go for it. Take it line by line if you have to. However, this is not a C vs. A debate. R-E-A-D the OP.

 

Not in those exact words - sorry.

But...
1 John 3:12 Not as Cain, who was of that wicked one, and slew his brother. And wherefore slew he him? Because his own works were evil, and his brother's righteous.

HankD

 

Yeah, just a coincidence that he is a professor at a Reformed seminary. Right. :laugh: