Featured Word-Study Fallacies/Words of Caution

You don't respond because you have no real argument against our argument.

The whole point of this thread is to justify redefining words. Calvinists constantly do this because the standard accepted definitions of words give you LOTS of problems, such as this definition of hamartia meaning "to miss the mark". That definition presents major problems for Calvinism, and students in the seminary recognize it. In fact this professor said that on the first or second day of class some student will invariably question him on this particular word.

This just shows that Calvinists themselves are troubled by this constant redefining of words. I know it would trouble me, in fact, I could never go along with such as system. Talk about red flags!

 

This thread has everything to do with defending Reformed theology ... Everything. Only by redefining words does the theology stand up.

Yeah, well we're not the ones redefining words, are we? So who are really the obsessed ones?

Not without redefining words, they don't. :laugh:

 

So does a Cal look at a non-Cal as non-elect?

 

Winman you are just wrong here, especially about the definition of sin. The Bible itself defines sin:

1 John 3:4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.
--This is the accepted definition of sin--breaking the law.
Even our judicial system is based on this definition. Have you ever had a speeding ticket? Why? Which law did you break?

Other Biblical passages confirm this definition:
James 2:10; Gal.3:10, and especially the Ten Commandments.
To break the law is sin, and always has been.

David wrote the 51st Psalm, a psalm of repentance because he had sinned against God. What was his sin?
He had broken God's law--adultery and murder.
This is not simply missing the mark. It is a clear violation of the Ten Commandments, breaking God's holy law.

"Breaking the law" is the standard definition of sin. What you have given is simply the etymology of the word, and in application from Romans 3:23 a nuance of the word. It is not a standard definition.

When we break the law, we sin; not necessarily miss the mark, but break the law.
Paul make it very clear here:
Galatians 3:10 For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.
--If salvation were to be attained through keeping the law, then from birth to death one would have to keep every law, every day of their lives without failure. This, of course, is an impossibility, for we all sin every day.
No man can keep the law. No man can go through life sinless.
For sin is breaking the law.

 

I have actually quoted this verse as the definition of sin on several occasions. Here is a post where I quoted this verse TO YOU several months ago.

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=2112189&postcount=51

You were paying attention. Good. :thumbsup:

This does not mean the word hamartia is not also a proper definition of sin.

Again, I quoted 1 John 3:4 to you several months ago, obviously you have forgotten.

But thanks for showing me I was correct. :thumbsup:

 

Your idea of a one word = one definition hermeneutic is a popular method of interpretation that the cults use. It is wrong.
Most words have a variety of meanings, and very few stick to the derivation of the word, such as "Sunday."

Ask the average person:
1. last day of the week-end.
2. first day of the week.
3. day that we go to church and worship.
4. a day set apart for the Lord.

Not many today will give you a definition of: the day I worship the sun.
That is the meaning it used to have. That is where the word came from, as did every other day of the week (Monday--worship of the moon).

Context determines meaning. Words have different meanings. Look in any dictionary or Lexicon. Context always determines what the meaning is.

"Judas repented." Did Judas repent in the Biblical sense of the term? Did he have a change of heart toward God, and turn from that specific sin of betrayal. No. In that context it means he was sorry for what he had done. It is an acceptable meaning of the word, but only to be used when the context allows it.

"I am going to the church." Never is the word "church" used in the sense of building as I just used it. Words have a variety of meanings. Context determines the meaning of the word--always.

 

Again, I have no problem with Sunday meaning "a day to worship the Sun". That is simply a name. Monday means "moon day" if I am not mistaken, so what?

All I am saying is that if hamartia means "to miss the mark" in ancient Greek, that is what it means. That is how Thayer's Greek Lexicon defines this word.
Live with it.

Reformed doesn't like that definition. Too bad.

And repent doesn't mean a change of heart toward God. The scriptures say God repented numerous times, is God a sinner?

Exo 32:14 And the LORD repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his people.

Is this verse saying God was going to sin but he repented? Nonsense. God has never sinned, but God has repented numerous times. To repent means to change one's mind or to change one's belief. It has nothing to do with sin.

1 Sam 15:35 And Samuel came no more to see Saul until the day of his death: nevertheless Samuel mourned for Saul: and the LORD repented that he had made Saul king over Israel.

Is this verse saying God repented of the sin of making Saul king of Israel? Nonsense. It is simply saying God regretted and changed his mind about making Saul king. Has nothing whatsoever to do with sin.

You are the one who's mind is full of presuppositions, not me.

 

I can live with these things. The question is: Can you? Be consistent!
On the one hand, when you sin, you "miss the mark."
On the other hand, on the days of the week, to be consistent, you must worship the sun and the moon and the other pagan deities.
Where is your consistency?

Reformed gave the proper definition of "breaking the law."
In a previous post you had no problem with that definition. Why should you have a problem with it now? It seems a bit hypocritical now doesn't it?

So give us your "one word = one definition" hermeneutic, and then apply that definition to God, and then to Judas, and then to David who also repented, and then to the command that God gave for all men everywhere to repent.
What does the word "repent" mean in these four different contexts?

Just give your definition.
How does God repent?
How did David repent?
How did Judas repent?
How do all men everywhere repent?

One definition for all--lets see it!

 

Folks, about six different Greek words are all translated as sin, yet the Greek words present differing aspects of failing to conform to God's perfect will for our lives. To violate God's know laws is one aspect, but not the only aspect, sometimes we drift off the righteous road due to error. Still missing the mark but not like the sin of Adam.

Any actual student of the bible will identify how each of the words translated as sin are used in every place they appear in scripture, whether translated as sin or some other word, i.e. trespass, violation or whatever.

When a source language word has a range of possible meanings, we use the context to identify the most likely meaning from the range of meanings, but we do not invent a new meaning to fit the "context" of Calvinism.

And to repeat, this thread attempts to disparage using the historical and grammatically indicated meanings of words, as some sort of fallacy. But the fallacy is the argument against using the historical and grammatically indicated meanings of words. For example, Calvinists claim you can translate "from" as meaning "before" without any historical or grammatical or theological support because Calvinism's man-made doctrines need to rewrite scripture. That is nonsense, hogwash, twaddle and absurd.

 

Does John 1:10 use Kosmos to mean the planet earth? That is what one Calvinist said.

But did Jesus really penetrate the ground and come into rocks or magma or iron core? Of course not. OTOH did Jesus come into the world of fallen mankind? Of course. This is again how John uses the word.

The lack of logic is amazing, they say because Paul did use the word in that way, i.e. sometimes referring to planet earth, then we can ignore the context of John 1:10 and jam that definition into the text.

John uses the word translated "world" to refer to either fallen mankind or the corrupt system of fallen mankind.

Calvinism must deny this obvious truth so they can claim world means elect here but not elect there. LOL

 

Actually, his points are all valid, as one MUST taken into account the contex and structure of the sentences, and also how the words have been used by same and different author in Bible, based uypon contex and other things!

Contex and scripture in totallity determines a meaning assigned to a word, in addition to the lexicon!

 

We are supposed to believe you are an expert on words?

That's a good one! :laugh:

 

Exactly. The whole point of this thread is to attempt to rationalize and justify the redefining of words by Calvinists.

Not buying it.

 

What aren't you buying? You can't have your cake and eat it too.
Here is what you previously said:

So what are you correct it??
Correct in being wrong?

 

I am not going to get into a 10 page argument with you. When it comes to being stubborn, you've got me beat by a million miles.

Life is waaaay too short to spend it arguing with the likes of you.

 

:laugh: :

http://www.ligonier.org/learn/devotionals/the-law-on-the-heart/

http://www.oldschoolbaptist.org/FD/DailyDevotionsFebruary.htm

http://www.founders.org/ss/life/082210.htm

 

My posts were to show that even the same word in different passages can have a different meaning or verbal flavor (nuance). Some words may be "throw back" words to their attic meaning or the same word may have fully inherited the contemporary koine nuance or simply have a different meaning and must be determined by the context.

e.g.
Luke 22:15 And he said unto them, With desire I have desired to eat this passover with you before I suffer:

1 Peter 4:3 For the time past of our life may suffice us to have wrought the will of the Gentiles, when we walked in lasciviousness, lusts, excess of wine, revellings, banquetings, and abominable idolatries:

The root word "desire" in Luke 22:15 is the same as the root word for "lust" in 1 Peter 4:3.

Obviously there is a big difference between the 2 passages given the contexts.

HankD

 

I am the Calvinist in question. I had said, that the word kosmos is translated world three times in this verse --each with a different sense.

What in the world are you talking about?

Part of the verse says the world was made through him. That means planet earth. That's plain to everyone but you Van.

 

At this time it seems appropriate to once again show the famous Calvinist dictionary;


All: The elect

Altar Call: An insult to God

Arminianism: Man centered theology

Assurance: hoping that you're elect

Augustine: The first church father.

Calvinism: The gospel

Call (effectual): to be irresistibly dragged

Call (general): God's justification to condemn the reprobate.

Catholicism: What Arminianism leads to.

Compatiblism: We are free to do whatever the Potter decrees us to do.

Contradiction: a mystery

Doctrines of Grace: Term that helps illustrate how God has given us Calvinists superior insight. Usage example: "I was an Arminian before being illuminated by the Doctrines of Grace."

Doris Day: Singer of truth

To Draw: To drag

Easy believism: The false idea that you can believe in Jesus Christ and be saved. Can a rotten corpse believe? Nope, neither can you.

Eisegesis: Any Arminian interpretation of a difficult passage (thanks Ben)

Emergent: Synonymous with "heretic", unless your name happens to be Mark Driscoll.

Esau: Someone God hated, not for any reason though.

Everyone: The elect

Exegesis: Any interpretation by James White, after all he's a Greek scholar.

faith (1): Something that the elect are zapped with after regeneration.

faith (2): A work that gives pride to Arminians.

Fatalism: Nothing to see here, move along.

Faux Pas: Coming to church with a Bible translation other than the ESV.

Finney, Charles: Wicked man who ravaged the evangelical movement. (Really)

To Foreknow: To decree or to love, absolutely nothing to do with knowing before.

Four Point Calvinist: An Arminian

Frankenstein: Cool story about a dead monster that got zapped with lightning and then became alive. Great parallel to the way we are regenerated.

Free Will: Something that can't exist because it would make God helpless if true.

Glory: Praise we give to God for anything wicked that has ever happened (except for the birth of Charles Finney).

God's secret will: To save a few and reprobate the rest (secret to Arminians but not to us)

God's revealed will: a mystery

Gospel of John: anything by John Piper

Hebrews: Skip this book and read the Gospel of John instead.

Hyper-Calvinists: Calvinists who care more about consistency than looking good.

Infralapsarianism: See "Four Point Calvinist".

Infant damnation: Something that brings God glory.

James: Book that Luther wanted thrown out of the canon.

Jesus Loves Me, This I Know: Misleading children's song.

Jesus Loves the Little Children: Another terrible song, obviously written by someone who didn't take the time to do a proper exegesis of scripture.

John 3:16: Enigmatic verse. One must be a scholar to properly understand this passage. James White's unbiased insights are recommended.

Kosmos: Greek word that means "elect".

The Living Bible: I hope you're joking.

Missions: A complete waste of time, see "altar call" for more info.

Mystery: The way God decrees sin but is not responsible for it.

NIV: Word for thought translation is heresy.

Paul: Author of Romans 9

Pelagian: Name to call Arminians, extra points if they don't know what it means.

Polemic Atheist: Another name to call Arminians, good diversionary tactic when appealing to John Owen doesn't work.

Preaching the Gospel: Something God commands, but the reason why is a mystery.

Pride: Something that works-based Arminians have in abundance, but we Calvinists don't after being chosen by God.

Regeneration: See "Frankenstein".

Reprobate: Those whom God justly damns to maximize His glory.

Rick Warren: worthless author, read something by John Gill instead.

The Road to Rome: Where synergism always leads to.

Robot: Don't say that word!

Servetus: A heretic who got what he deserved.

Shipwreck: Misleading term, because the "ship" wasn't really floating in the first place.

Sovereignty: meticulous micromanagement

Supralapsarianism: God orchestrated the fall for His glory, the central truth of scripture.

Wesley, John: A false apostle of free will (not kidding)

Whitefield, George: Wesley's superior

Whosoever: The elect

World: The elect