Why I am not a Calvinist.. the ACTUAL topic of this thread

but according to their own theology

 

As if you don’t understand the same verses according to your own theology?

The Archangel


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

So the Hebrew and Greek scholars, whose works are the standard for millions of Bible students around the world, which you probably used, are wrong, and you right? You think too much of yourself, which is a very dangerous position for any true Christian.

 

Some people let the Bible dictate what that theology will be based on what it declares and what it reveals. Everyone makes that claim but not everyone follows through in the answers to all the verses

 

Do we not have a similar saying "everyone"? Give my regards to everyone, meaning only those in the household, church etc,

The French have a similar saying. "Toute le Monde", all the world. They would say "give my regards to all the world." not meaning the entire world.

 

Tc and Archangel have made short work of your attempted greek...Their posts can be verified in many places...why do you go on the attack rather than allow for correction?

 

Attempted Greek? do you know the language yourself? They are both very wrong as the people who know, do not agree with what they say. Instead of useless remarks, simply prove what I have said to be wrong, citing Scripture evidence. Give examples of where my Hebrew and Greek are wrong.

 

Friend it has become obvious you are struggling in the English much less the Greek.
You do not understand the biblical themes,propitiation,redemption,reconciliation,are actual ....not potential.
You do not understand that if someone is ...saved....they cannot be lost.
Start there then progress can happen.

 

These are terms that have been defined by mans understanding, and what a Reformed person takes them to mean, does not mean the same to others. I have used the definitions from the standard lexicons, and if you think they are not right, then it is you who has the problem. "propitiation", has been defined as being "atonement" by the leading Hebrew and Greek scholars, just because some do not like this theologically, they dismiss it. You say I am struggling with my English and Greek, this is very arrogant, especially from someone who is supposed to be a Christian. Check out my personal website and show me the faults with my English and Greek, STUDIES ON THE HOLY TRINITY

 

I have made no such "error." You seemed to have missed the point that I am arguing for exactly what you've described here. Perhaps I wasn't clear enough, and that's certainly possible. Words, their lexical meanings, are not without nuance, etc. given by the context in which they are used. To hold to the meaning of a word without considering the context is to commit the so-called lexical fallacy. What is more, especially in Greek, the meaning of certain words are affected greatly by the construction of the sentence, etc., and certain words when used with other words (ie. prepositions) can over-rule the meaning of other words. So, as they say, context is king.

Hmmm... Let's look at that below.

First. The construction of 1 John 2:2 and 1 John 5:19 is different. Here are the verses in the Greek with the relevant portions underlined:

1 John 2:2: καὶ αὐτὸς ἱλασμός ἐστιν περὶ τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν ἡμῶν, οὐ περὶ τῶν ἡμετέρων δὲ μόνον ἀλλὰ καὶ περὶ ὅλου τοῦ κόσμου

1 John 5:19: οἴδαμεν ὅτι ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ ἐσμεν καὶ ὁ κόσμος ὅλος ἐν τῷ πονηρῷ κεῖται.​

The 1 John 5 passage has the phrase as a typical idiom--"the whole world." The 1 John 2, passage, on the other hand, has a different construction. The "whole world" of 1 John 2 is set apart by the use of ἀλλὰ as a clarifying comment. The comment-clause has the preposition περὶ occurring before ὅλου τοῦ κόσμου. Since περὶ is present (it is "governing" the genitive in this case), it affects the meaning ὅλου τοῦ κόσμου.

The preposition περὶ, if memory serves, is used 333 times in the New Testament and it has a wide range of meaning depending on what it is "governing." In this case, περὶ has the sense "because of." So, John is not saying all the sins of the world have been atoned for (otherwise universalism would be real because of the meaning of "Propitiation").

I. Howard Marshall is helpful here:

With one of his typical afterthoughts John adds that the efficacy of this sacrifice is not confined to the sins of his particular group of readers. It reaches out to all mankind. The universal provision implies that all men have need of it. There is no way to fellowship with God except as our sins are forgiven by virtue of the sacrifice of Jesus. At the same time John rules out the thought that the death of Jesus is of limited efficacy; the possibility of forgiveness is cosmic and universal.

I. Howard Marshall, The Epistles of John, The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1978), 119.
​

The idea Marshall shows in the text is that "world" has more the connotation of "all mankind" because "all mankind has need of it."

What is more, if propitiation means the removal of wrath and the changing of God's disposition toward you from disfavor to favor (which it means), then to take "the whole world" as "everyone without exception" gives you an ipso facto universal salvation.

John's usage of "world" is quite varried, but the meaing rarely can be pinned to mean "everyone without exception," so to do so here may demonstrate a bias against a whole-Bible theology.

The Archangel

 

You reasoning neither shows or proves anything, as you have completely missed what I am saying. You quote from IHM, who was a Calvinist, which means that he has a certain slant on what he says.

Let me make myself very clear, and then respond and show where I am in error. the construction of the Greek grammar in both places, in no way makes the slightest bit of difference to the meaning of the two passages. In the first case, 1 John 2:2, we have, "OUR sins...the whole world"; and the second case, 1 John 5:19, we have, "WE are of God...the whole world". the contrasts in either case are with ALL believers (OUR, WE), and the rest of mankind (whole world). Without any theological bias involved, this is the ONLY way these two texts can be read.

The commentators, Jamieson, Faussett and Brown, were "Reformed" in their theology, and this is what they write on the first text:

"Also for the sins of the whole world. Christ's advocacy is limited to believers (1Jn_2:1; 1Jn_1:7): His propitiation extends as widely as sin: note, 2Pe_2:1, "the whole world" cannot be restricted to the believing portion (cf. 1Jn_4:14 and 1Jn_5:19). 'Thou, too, art part of the world: thine heart cannot think, The Lord died for Peter and Paul, but not for me' (Luther)"

Then we also have the Greek scholar, Dr A T Robertson:

"For the whole world (peri holou tou kosmou). It is possible to supply the ellipsis here of tôn hamartiôn (the sins of) as we have it in Heb 7:27, but a simpler way is just to regard "the whole world" as a mass of sin (1Jo 5:19). At any rate, the propitiation by Christ provides for salvation for all (Heb 2:9) if they will only be reconciled with God (2Co 5:19-21). "

Prove this to be wrong.

 

The Holy Spirit has to enable/quicken them to be able to respond, as they will reject in their sin natures without Him doing that for them.

 

Sinners apart from God saving them directly will always prefer to walk in sin and darkness!

 

Does He change our nature so we can respond?

 

Not what the Lord Jesus taught in John 5:39-40, where He says that the CHOOSE to reject Him, which means they could have CHOOSEN to accept Him. No where in the Bible, apart from Reformed "theology", does it say that a sinner is first "enabled" by the Holy Spirit, and then they can call. This is through His CONVICTING power.

 

I think it to be funny, and a wee bit sad, that you have chosen to respond as you have. You engaged with nothing of what I wrote concerning the Greek. Your resorting to quoting people was not at all surprising, and yet it is still the fallacy of moving the goalposts. If you want to have a serious discussion about the Greek in 1 John 2 and 5, that's one thing. That you didn't respond to what I wrote by engaging in a discussion of the merits or lack thereof of my arguments, suggests that you have no real facility with the language, choosing rather to let others (even "great" others) argue your points for you. The problem here is that you have no possible way to adjudicate what a Luther, Marshall, or Robertson says. You simply have to accept it at face value without any evaluation due to lack of facility.

What is more, you say asinine things like, "You quote from IHM, who was a Calvinist, which means that he has a certain slant on what he says" (by which you seem to be saying, "Use an arminian to refute arminianism.") and, "Without any theological bias involved, this is the ONLY way these two texts can be read" (by which you seem to be saying, "I have no theological biases myself.").

You have yet to prove your assertion(s), while demanding others to prove "you" or, rather, those whom you quote wrong. This is still the logical fallacy of reversing the burden of proof. You're begging the question (another fallacy) by assuming your reading is right without proving it to be so. Sure, you quote people, but, it would seem, you cannot--for the life of you--express why they are right as they reference the Greek.

I had hoped to have a good and profitable discussion about the Greek text, but it seems you are unable. Besides that, your ability to discuss things in a logically consistent manor and your demeanor leaves much to be desired, and as such, it is not worth my time.

The Archangel