Featured Total Inability in the Gospel of John

Never said that. You might be. I don't know you well enough to make that judgement. My guess is that you are pretty clever.

My point: In the past 15 years, I've come across 2 non-Calvinists who've understood Calvinism.

 

I'll admit that though I have "the Institutes", I have yet to stay awake more than 20 minutes a reading sitting.

HankD - Let them eat crumbs

 

Non Cals would claim that would be 2 more than how many calvinists understand really their theology!

 

Me too! It's been my New Years resolution for a few years to read Calvin's Institutes, but my attention span is that of a Mayfly, it seems.

 

]John 12:32 "I will draw ALL mankind to Me"
So while it is true that lost sinner without any work of God at all -- is not drawn... cannot repent or come to faith.

It is NOT true that God failed to draw all.
John 16 "The Holy Spirit convicts the WORLD of sin and righteousness and judgment"

The problem with Calvinism is that it insists that God is not doing what He says He is doing[

I insist on the obvious and apparent meaning for the text - which refutes Calvinism. And many Calvinist imagine that any text that refutes Calvinism must be wrong or misread. "By definition"

which prevents Calvinists from comprehending what is actually being said.

The last resort of Calvinism is to "redefine all' whenever it pleases them.

"ALL have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" Romans 3 -- ok the Calvinists will let "ALL" be "ALL" when it suits them.

 

You haven't addressed the texts in my post. You do that ALL the time.

 

I truly admired RC Sproul.

 

Why, might I ask?

 

A friend told me a funny story about just that.

He said that RC had a technique of pulling you past him as he shook hands with you, in order to keep the line moving.

 

On the contrary - you attempted to redefine the term "all"... and so I pointed out the obvious.


The last resort of Calvinism is to "redefine all' whenever it pleases them.

"ALL have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" Romans 3 -- ok the Calvinists will let "ALL" be "ALL" when it suits them.

The point was you are using a "pick-and-choose" with the rule "when the text refutes Calvinism then all does not mean all in that case - for sure"

You "feel" the urgent need to "redefine the term all" in the following examples... simply because not redefining it would be a train wreck for calvinism.

John 12:32 "I will draw ALL mankind to Me"
So while it is true that lost sinner without any work of God at all -- is not drawn... cannot repent or come to faith.

It is NOT true that God failed to draw all.
John 16 "The Holy Spirit convicts the WORLD of sin and righteousness and judgment"

The problem with Calvinism is that it insists that God is not doing what He says He is doing

I insist on the obvious and apparent meaning for the text - which refutes Calvinism. And many Calvinist imagine that any text that refutes Calvinism must be wrong or misread. "By definition"

which prevents Calvinists from comprehending what is actually being said.

The last resort of Calvinism is to "redefine all' whenever it pleases them.

 

his scholarship, his kind attitude to those who disagree

 

I simply pointed out the biblical examples of when the word does not mean, without exception. You ignored the evidence I provided, and common usage, as well.

All does not mean, without exception, most of the time it is used. World does not mean, every person without exception, most of the time it is used. I've shown you examples of both.

All people, without exception, are not drawn to Jesus. We know that because we know that billions have lived and died without ever hearing His name. Unless one intentionally has his head in the sand, that's impossible to ignore.

Are we to understand that we are not to love people, in the below verses?

“Do not love the world or the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him” (1 John 2:15)

“Adulterers and adulteresses! Do you not know that friendship with the world is enmity with God? Whoever therefore wants to be a friend of the world makes himself an enemy of God” (James 4:4)​

 

thatbrian said: ↑
You haven't addressed the texts in my post. You do that ALL the time.
them.[/QUOTE]

The last resort of Calvinism is to "redefine all' whenever it pleases them.

"ALL have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" Romans 3 -- ok the Calvinists will let "ALL" be "ALL" when it suits them.

The point was you are using a "pick-and-choose" that includes the rule "when the text refutes Calvinism then all does not mean all in that case - for sure"

You "feel" the urgent need to "redefine the term all" in the following examples... simply because not redefining it would be a train wreck for calvinism.

John 12:32 "I will draw ALL mankind to Me"
So while it is true that lost sinner without any work of God at all -- is not drawn... cannot repent or come to faith.

It is NOT true that God failed to draw all.
John 16 "The Holy Spirit convicts the WORLD of sin and righteousness and judgment"

The problem with Calvinism is that it insists that God is not doing what He says He is doing

I insist on the obvious and apparent meaning for the text - which refutes Calvinism. And many Calvinist imagine that any text that refutes Calvinism must be wrong or misread. "By definition"

which prevents Calvinists from comprehending what is actually being said.

The last resort of Calvinism is to "redefine all' whenever it pleases them.

You did that with both the redefinition of "World" and "All"

But then I showed you an example where you do not "wish to redefine all" and you did not refute it.

It means you use "pick-and-choose" instead of context. And included in your rule-of-choice is that when the apparent meaning of the text refutes Calvinism - you "redefine it".

Because it was random -- you simply use "pick and choose"

Here is an example for you using "world" that you cannot deny.

John 1
10 He was in the world, and the world was made through him, yet the world did not know him. 11 He came to his own, and his own people did not receive him.

Romans 3
19 Now we know that whatever the law says it speaks to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be stopped, and the whole world may be held accountable to God. 20 For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin.

"ALL have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" Romans 3 -- ok the Calvinists will let "ALL" be "ALL" when it suits them.

The point was you are using a "pick-and-choose" that includes the rule "when the text refutes Calvinism then all does not mean all in that case - for sure"

Another trick of Calvinism "redefining the term DRAW" - you have argued that God cannot be drawing without the person first knowing the name of Jesus as the Savior. Yet Christ says to Nicodemus that pre-cross mankind is DRAWN to the Gospel by the Holy Spirit even when they do not know all the details in the gospel story and Romans 2:13-16 argues this in the case of those with no Bible at all.

The "trick" in Calvinism is to defend calvinist-redefinition of "ALL mankind" in John 12:32 by using "Calvinist redefinition of DRAW".!!

It is like a habit they just can't shake and they use it with everything.


"God so Loved the WORLD that HE Gave" ... "yes really"

[/quote]

The Bible languages of Greek and Hebrew are "high context" languages. "Do not love the World" includes ALL the world's values and trinkets where all are evil. The Calvinist redefinition of the term inserts "arbitrary selection" between things that ARE the same ... choosing one but not the other. The bible never does that.

In Calvinism "God so loved the World" means "not all the lost - just some" -- inserting "arbitrary selection" between things that are equal.

In Calvinism "He i s the Atoning Sacrifice for OUR sins and not for our sins only but for the sins of the WHOLE WORLD" is downsized to mean "just those arbitrarily selected from among the lost" -- arbitrary selection between things that are equal.

 

Let's look at that verse in the version I use.........

46 Then Paul and Barnabas waxed bold, and said, It was necessary that the word of God should first have been spoken to you: but seeing ye put it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles.

47 For so hath the Lord commanded us, saying, I have set thee to be a light of the Gentiles, that thou shouldest be for salvation unto the ends of the earth.

48 And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed.

Sir, if it was God who decided, before the foundation of the world, that these particular Jews would not be saved, why does it say "Ye put it from you" and (you) "judge yourselves unworthy"? You don't have to answer that right now. We will focus on your verse.

#1 Where, in verse 48, or the context, does it say that it was God who "ordained" these Gentiles? Seems to me you would have to "presuppose" that.

 

First issue: "judge yourselves unworthy." The verb for judge in Greek is krinow and it means to condem or render final judgement, and there are other contextual nuances available. In essence, Paul is NOT saying they are making themselves unworthy; he is saying these Jews are showing themselves to be unworthy (an already-existing condition). We see this type of idiomatic construction all over the Old Testament. Certain prophets condemn the actions (usually the idolatrous actions) of the Israelites in the same manner. The clear and certain idea is that you are showing forth an existing condition--unbelief, in this case. A similar idea is seen in the Law when it says "Your blood shall be on your own heads."

Second issue: "...Ordained to eternal life..." The participle, in Greek, is passive, which--by definition--means the subject cannot act upon himself or herself and so must be acted upon. Who else can act upon someone to "ordain to eternal life" other than God? No one, of course. This passive is an example of what grammarians call "the Divine passive." It's called that because the action can only be ascribed to God.

The Archangel

 

You do realize, do you not, that words can and do have different meanings and different scopes of meaning based on context? Ultimately meaning is not found in the dictionary. Meaning is, rather, found in the dictionary and the author's usage.

Also, what you count as "redefinition" may actually be correction. There are many things in many translations that are not exactly the best way to translate things. The KJV, for instance, is 400 years old. There is 400 more years of manuscript evidence and work in the understanding of Koine Greek since then. What was thought to be the case in 1611 may have been proven to be quite different.

Even so, just because you like a particular definition because it supports your position does not make that definition so. Calvinists have this to worry about, too. This is why it is of the utmost importance for any of us that we seek to know how the word is used in a particular context in Scripture. Our work should be in Scripture with the help of the lexicon, not in the lexicon with the help of Scripture.

The Archangel

 

Would you mind posting the page where you found the definition of "krinow"? Thanks

 

Here is an example for you using "world" that you cannot deny.

John 1
10 He was in the world, and the world was made through him, yet the world did not know him. 11 He came to his own, and his own people did not receive him.

Romans 3
19 Now we know that whatever the law says it speaks to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be stopped, and the whole world may be held accountable to God. 20 For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin.



The Bible languages of Greek and Hebrew are "high context" languages. "Do not love the World" includes ALL the world's values and trinkets where all are evil. The Calvinist redefinition of the term inserts "arbitrary selection" between things that ARE the same ... choosing one but not the other. The bible never does that.

In Calvinism "God so loved the World" means "not all the lost - just some" -- inserting "arbitrary selection" between things that are equal.

In Calvinism "He i s the Atoning Sacrifice for OUR sins and not for our sins only but for the sins of the WHOLE WORLD" is downsized to mean "just those arbitrarily selected from among the lost" -- arbitrary selection between things that are equal.

Indeed - "based on context"


The Bible languages of Greek and Hebrew are "high context" languages. "Do not love the World" includes ALL the world's values and trinkets where all are evil. The Calvinist redefinition of the term inserts "arbitrary selection" between things that ARE the same ... choosing one but not the other. The bible never does that.

In Calvinism "God so loved the World" means "not all the lost - just some" -- inserting "arbitrary selection" between things that are equal.

In Calvinism "He i s the Atoning Sacrifice for OUR sins and not for our sins only but for the sins of the WHOLE WORLD" is downsized to mean "just those arbitrarily selected from among the lost" -- arbitrary selection between things that are equal.

Agreed. This is why I point to the specific "red flag" in the never-ending Calvinist "redefinitions" . They take "all" and "world" and redefine the term to slice out whatever "Calvinism needs" removed from "all" and World". And in those cases it is "arbitrary selection between equals".

I keep giving these two classic examples --

In Calvinism "God so loved the World" means "not all the lost - just some" -- inserting "arbitrary selection" between things that are equal.

In Calvinism "He i s the Atoning Sacrifice for OUR sins and not for our sins only but for the sins of the WHOLE WORLD" is downsized to mean "just those arbitrarily selected from among the lost" -- arbitrary selection between things that are equal.