Word-Study Fallacies/Words of Caution

[kyredneck]

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......

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....

 

[Van]

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.

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:

He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, and the world did not know Him.

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.

 

[Van]

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

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....

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.

 

[kyredneck]

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

 

[Rippon]

I will deal with only a few items for now

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

Augustine: The first church father.

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.

Call (effectual): to be irresistibly dragged

Name a Calvinist who belives that.

Catholicism: What Arminianism leads to.

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

Contradiction: a mystery

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)

To Draw: To drag

Nope.

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

No Calvinist believes that God hated for no reason.

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

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

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

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

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

Yes, really.

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

Nonsense.

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

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

Infant damnation: Something that brings God glory.

You are infantile.

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

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.

Paul: Author of Romans 9

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

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

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

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

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

Servetus: A heretic who got what he deserved.

Refer to Aaron for that one.

Whitefield, George: Wesley's superior

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.

Whosoever: The elect

The believing ones.

 

[Winman]

I like this one;

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)

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

 

[HankD]

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

 

[HankD]

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?

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

 

[Rippon]

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.

That's a negative Van.

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.

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

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?

 

[Winman]

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

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.

 

[kyredneck]

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

 

[Van]

That's a negative Van.

And that is a non-sequitur.

What's the matter with you Van?

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.

Does plain English mystify you?

More disparagement, more logical fallacy, more twaddle.

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.

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.

Deal with reality Van.

Yet another logical fallacy, piled up like cord-wood

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."

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.

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?

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.

 

[Grasshopper]

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

What is the original meaning of thief?

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

 

[Van]

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

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?

 

[Van]

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

 

[Reformed]

The etymological fallacy is to assume that the origin of a word is its true meaning. No, the true meaning of a word is its current usage.

There are some participants in this thread that are obviously having a difficult time understanding the purpose of this thread. That lack of understanding has lead them to employ more fallacies than I thought could possibly be contained in a thread.

In the above quote, Dr. Cara is not minimizing the impact of the original biblical languages. He is emphasizing something completely different. Let's take a moment and dissect his words:

"The etymological fallacy" = Dr. Cara is presupposing their such a thing as an etymological fallacy and he is about to tell us what it is.

"is to assume that the origin of a word is its true meaning" = Here is the substance of the fallacy in Dr. Cara's opinion. He believes that to believe the origin of a word is its true meaning. He does make the distinction between definition and meaning, which would have been helpful. I will deal with that difference shortly.

"No, the true meaning of a word is its current usage" = Dr. Cara is stating the the true meaning of a word is in its contemporary usage, i.e. how it is most used and understood today.

"Definition" explains what a word is.

"Meaning" is the idea represented by a word.

The two are not necessarily in congruence.

One of the koine Greek phrases for "not" in the New Testament is mei. Here is a diagram of the word:

It is used 1022 times in the Bible. It is a marker of a negative proposition that accompanies it. The definition is quite simple:

This word implies a dependent and conditional neg., i.e., depending on the idea, concept or thought of some subject, and, thus, subjective. However the other neg. particle, ou (3756), not, expresses the direct and full negation independently and in an absolute sense and is therefore obj. Thus mḗ is the neg. of will, wish, doubt, while ou denies the fact. Mḗ implies that one conceives or supposes a thing not to exist, while ou expresses that it actually does not exist. The same distinction holds true in all the comp. of mḗ and ou.

Zodhiates, S. (2000). The complete word study dictionary: New Testament. Chattanooga, TN: AMG Publishers.

But if the English vernacular has changed to such a degree that the form of 'not' being used needs to be clarified? In that case the strict definition of a word is not necessarily its meaning because the English vernacular does adequately explain the thought and purpose contained in the original language. It then becomes necessary to render the word in a way that is commonly used and is faithful to authorial intent.

 

[Winman]

What is the original meaning of thief?

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

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.

 

[kyredneck]

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

 

[HankD]

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.

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

 

[Winman]

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.