Featured Word-Study Fallacies/Words of Caution

IMHO, 'kosmos' i.e. 'the arrangement', as used by John throughout the gospel can be defined by 18:20.

He was in the world, and the world was made through him, and the world knew him not. Jn 1:10

Jesus answered him, I have spoken openly to the world; I ever taught in synagogues, and in the temple, where all the Jews come together; and in secret spake I nothing. Jn 18:20

[add]

....and that includes 3:16....

 

Calvinists love to deny the obvious. John uses the word (kosmos) to refer to either mankind in its fallen state or the corrupt system of fallen mankind) in every usage. In John 1:10 we have:

Lets try Rippon's silly idea of exegesis, He was among the planet, and the planet was made through Him, and the planet did not know Him. No rational person would claim such a farce is sound. But let us try again: He was among mankind, and mankind was made through Him, and mankind did not know Him.

Planets do not know things, people do. This is the sort of hogwash Calvinism depends on to push mistaken doctrine.

Next we get the idea that a writer would use the same word in the same verse to mean different things. Again, no rational person would claim such a farce is sound.

 

Here we have another example of attemping to define John's usage of "kosmos" to refer to the Jews only, and not to all of mankind. But if mankind is in view, then when Jesus speaks to the Jews, He is speaking to mankind.

And lastly we have an attempt to say God loved "the Jews only" in this way.... But Jesus is the savior of all mankind, Jews and Gentiles, male and female, slave or free.

Often, Calvinism will present an interpretive issue as an "either/or" (one or the other) proposition, excluding the idea of both, i.e. Jesus died for the Jews and the Gentiles, all mankind.

If you study Calvinism, you may come to the same conclusion I came to, that Calvinism is a house of cards unable to stand up to truth.

 

...I was not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel. Mt 15:24

 

I will deal with only a few items for now

No Calvinist believes that;though would acknowledge that the Bishop of Hippo was the preeminent theologian of the early age of the Church --that is before the Middle Ages.

Name a Calvinist who belives that.

No, it's just that Roman Catholics are Arminian/semi-Pelagian as are most evangelicals --including a majority of Baptists.

No. Here's what J. I. Packer said in his book Evangelism and the Sovereignty of God:

"For the whole point of an antinomy --in theology, at any rate --is that it is not a real contraction,though it looks like one. It is an apparent incompatibility between two apparent truths. an antinomy exists when a pair of principles stand side by side, seemingly irreconcilable, yet both undeniable. There are cogent reasons for believing each of them; each rests on clear and solid evidence; but it is a mystery to you how they can be squared with each other. You see that each must be true on its own, but you do not see how they can both be true together." (p.26)

Nope.

No Calvinist believes that God hated for no reason.

He is excellent indeed, but not just because he is competent in Greek. Dr. White actually exegetes, not Hunt, Geisler and Co.

We don't believe in zapping or magical elements that many non-Cals charge us with.

Yes, really.

Nonsense.

So why have so many Calvinists written commentaries on it and preached so much from it?

You are infantile.

It is indeed both the most famous verse in the Bible and the most misunderstood at the same time. And though James White deserves a great deal of credit these days --John Owen and John Gill especially are some shoulders that we rest uon for their biblical scholarship dealing with this passage and many other parts of the canon.

Well, he was. I thought you were going to say John Calvin.

No, they have Pelagian tendencies. But Arminians lean more toward semi-Pelagainism.

Not worthless, but John Gill would certainly be a far better choice for mature believers.

Refer to Aaron for that one.

Though Wesley was about 10 years older than Whitefield --the latter began preaching outdoors a good bit earlier than Wesley. It's not a matter of superiority or inferiority. Of the two Whitefield was much more biblical.

The believing ones.

 

I like this one;

If you believe this, you will believe anything. This is a MUST for Calvinism.

 

RE: The Packer quote.

A few years ago this was in the news:

An orange farmer in southern CA said that after 20 years of raising oranges this year he produced more oranges than any other year.

The same farmer could also say that he produced fewer oranges this than any other year.

How can that be?
Anyone remember?

See next post.


HankD

 

In number he produced fewer oranges than any other because they were so huge.

But by weight he produced more oranges than any other year for the same reason, because they were so huge.

HankD

 

That's a negative Van.

What's the matter with you Van? Does plain English mystify you? The phrase I cited from John 1:9 in the NIV reads :the world was made through him. That means by his agency the world came into existence.

Are you challenged by the phrase in Colossians 1:16 also? all things have been created through him and for him.

Deal with reality Van. Look at John 1:10 from the NET -a Van-approved Bible translation:

"He was in the world, and the world was created by him, but the world did not recognize him."

The NIV and NET renderings: "the world was made through him" and "the world was created by him" mean the exact same thing.

Do you now comprehend?

 

Packer's quote is not wrong, he speaks of "apparent" contradictions. They are not contradictions at all, though they might appear that way at first glance.
This orange farmer quote is the same, it only appears as a contradiction, but in reality it is not.

There really is no such thing as a contradiction that is true. If you can make people believe a contradiction can be true, you can tell them anything after that, common sense and logic has been thrown out the window.

 

17 The multitude therefore that was with him when he called Lazarus out of the tomb, and raised him from the dead, bare witness.
18 For this cause also the multitude went and met him, for that they heard that he had done this sign.
19 The Pharisees therefore said among themselves, Behold how ye prevail nothing: lo, the world is gone after him. Jn 12

 

And that is a non-sequitur.

And that is simply yet another example of Van bashing, which is an ad hominem, a logical fallacy. Calvinism is defended time and again by the use of fallacy.

More disparagement, more logical fallacy, more twaddle.

The issue is not that the second person of the Trinity, the Word, did not create the physical universe including stars, and planets, and everything else, i.e. mankind. So more shuck and jive, more evasion of the issue.

But do planets know? Of course not. Does mankind? Yes. So John was using Kosmos to refer to mankind in its fallen state.

Yet another logical fallacy, piled up like cord-wood

Now Rippon is defining what John meant by his use of "kosmos" as world as meaning planet. Still claiming the physical planet i.e. rocks, should know Him. You have got to love them folks, they shuck and they jive till the sun goes down.

And once again, the issue is not that all modern translations render "Kosmos" as world, but kosmos has a range of meaning including mankind in its fallen state, and the corrupt system of mankind. And John uses kosmos to mean one or the other of these two in every single usage, bar none. John said the "kosmos" translated as world did not know Him. Thus this required that the intended meaning is mankind, and not rocks and magma and or other created things.

 

What is the original meaning of thief?

http://seekadoo.blogspot.com/2008/04/calvinist-dictionary.html

 

Yet another non-sequitur. The world in John 12:19 refers to the humanity in view by the speaker, with the idea being conveyed that "everybody" (hyperbole) is following Jesus. Thus once again mankind is in view and not just Jews or the planet.

The Calvinists can post verses from John till the cows come home, because in every usage, bar none, John was referring to mankind it is fallen state or the corrupt system of mankind, i.e. the world's value system.

Folks, do your own study, just start reading John 1:1 and following once you get through the first dozen or so uses, it will become obvious how John uses the work "Kosmos."

Notice John 1:29 where Jesus takes away the sin of the world. Now think hard, did Jesus take away the sin of the rocks and magma and so forth? Did He take away just the sin of the Jews? Or did Jesus purchase the right to take away the sin of the whole world? Did He become the propitiation or means of salvation for the whole world, Jew and Gentile, male and female, slave and free? Calvinism takes the same word as used by the same author in the same book and says he means planet here, Jew there, elect somewhere else and so forth to pour Calvinism into the text. Thus they attack word study, where the student determines from the grammar and historical word meanings, using the context (those that know) to conclude John had either mankind in his fallen state or the corrupt system of mankind everywhere he used the word kosmos.

Is God right now taking away the sin of the world, one sinner at a time?

 

Hi Winman, your Calvinist dictionary was great. Sovereignty= micromanagement = exhaustive determinism. God ordains (predestines) our every sin.

 

I didn't claim to be the author of that list. I have posted that list MANY times in the past, I believe I have given the link to that site on occasion. But I never tried to give even the impression I was the author of that list.

Here is that list from a post I made 3 years ago. Note that the first thing I say is I found this list ONLINE.

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1706185&postcount=30

What is telling is that folks mock Calvinism for redefining words, you are famous for it. Nobody else has to change the definitions of words the way Calvinism does to make it work. As soon as folks started telling me words don't mean what the stardard and accepted meaning is, I would walk out. Fast.

 

I will no more speak much with you, for the prince of the world cometh: and he hath nothing in me; Jn 14:30
Judas then, having received the band of soldiers, and officers from the chief priests and the Pharisees, cometh thither with lanterns and torches and weapons. Jn 18:3

 

Right, I never made any claims about this, just reminding everyone just what you have said, that some things which appear to be a contradiction are not given the explanation which no one has sufficiently ever given (IMO) concerning the "tension" between God's sovereignty and man's responsibility.

HankD

 

I look at God's sovereignty and man's free will sort of like a chess match against a master chess player.

As his opponent, you are truly moving where you choose to move under available options. You cannot just move anywhere you want, but you always have some option until you are checkmated. In this sense you are free.

At the same time, a master player can control the game from start to finish. No matter where you freely choose to move, he knows how to counter your move to keep the game in his complete control. In the end he is going to win the game.

Now, the one difference between this game of chess and God is that God already knows the moves you are going to make through foreknowledge. This does not mean your moves are determined, only foreknown. Knowing your moves ahead of time allows God to be in perfect control at all times.

At the same time, you are truly moving freely within your available options, God is not making your choices for you.

So, God can be in complete control, while we have freedom, and both can be true.