Search results

When it's a matter of grammar, it's only debateable as a matter of Greek syntax, and not "understanding" which after all, is always seeking to exalt itself. However, our understanding must be subject to rigorous academic discipline, otherwise it may develop along gnostic lines. I haven't come...

Yes it is, in the narrow point of correctly translating Gal 2:20, which is not translated "faith of the Son of God." HELPS WORD STUDIES (arxēgós) does not strictly mean "author," but rather "a person who is originator or founder of a movement and continues as the leader – i.e. 'pioneer leader...

This is the wrong interpretation. You need to distinguish the subjective genitive from the objective genitive in Greek. In Gal 2:20, we have what is called a genitive of the object, which occurs after substantives which denote an internal or external activity,—a feeling, expression, action...

Law doesn't ordinarily allow for the vicarious infliction of punishment; and the law of Moses was no exception, except in the specific case of sureties. It is only pursuant to a covenant (a law of sureties) that sureties are allowed. Christ's sacrifice relates specifically to the New Covanent...

What you do continuously. And your question makes no sense, as "If the son sets you free, you will be free indeed" is plainly based on the premise that a person has that ability to listen to the son even whilst not free, unless called to judgement by God ahead of time because of sin, as were...

The question makes no sense, as free will proper only comes with faith. So I think you mean, 'freedom to hear God'; as to which Paul heard the voice of Christ whilst still in his sins. Drawing comes with hearing, and hearing comes with listening to God's voice, which depends partly on us but...

Not sure what spirit you are of, given that I conceded faith comes by the Spirit.

Faith is of the "heart" (Rom 10:10) where I read that heart is "the entire inner person, encompassing the mind, will, and emotions—it's the spiritual and moral center from which all decisions, thoughts, and desires originate." As to faith, I take it "heart" principally infers "mind + will,"...

The ability to come to Christ depends on one's willingness to hear the Father. "Free will" as such is not given until faith comes and "the Son has set a person free," and is what is confusing you. The issue of coming to Christ doesn't depend on free will, so much as willingness to hear the...

The condition for the Father drawing is given in Jn 6:45. If one is willing to listen to the Father, then he will draw you to Christ. Jn 6:45 "It is written in the Prophets: ‘They will all be taught by God.’Everyone who has heard the Father and learned from him comes to me." Seems simple...

You're reading too much into John 6:44-45. Jesus is stating the purpose of coming to Jesus, why God ordains it, that the Father enables it, as well as the conditions for coming to Jesus in v. 45. Jesus doesn't say that "every person drawn will be raised on the last day:" see the parables of...

Not in my view. The text does not say so. The verb tense of δύναμαι (is able) is present. The present is therefore inferred. I am talking about what the prophets said. Did they get it wrong? I think not. Present is present. Psalm demonstrates why the elect are elect, as opposed to other men...

And it's not in dispute. What's in dispute is your Calvinistic conclusion denying free will. Au contraire: Christ's statement is predicated on the exercise of free will by men, which you repudiate. For it is you who charge God with not showing mercy, independently of the exercise of free will by...

That's right. No-one cares. Even "The Bolsec Controversy on Predestination, From 1551 to 1555: The Statements of Jerome Bolsec, and the Responses of John Calvin, Theodore Beza, and Other Reformed Theologians. Edited by Philip C. Holtrop. 2 vols. Lewiston, N.Y: Edwin Mellen Press, 1993. $199.95"...

Yours is a human interpretation with a Calvinist slant, in the sense that it is rooting Christ's words as applying to God's design and supervening purposes before the foundation of the world, whereas the more natural context to John 6:44 is the temporal God<->human dynamic in the here and now...

Your proposition: 1. "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them" reworded as "If a man comes to Christ (P), the Father has drawn him." 2. The pharisees didn't come to Christ (not P). ==>3. The Father "never" drew the pharisees to Christ. (Q) is false, involving a logical...

Unbelief is here being posited as a form of wrath, not as a teaching in regard to eternal predestination. As Paul says in Rom 9, God's callling is irrevocable, even though some of the Jews had "exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator...

Gibberish; and I can do without your incurable condescension, which suggests to me that you are past any possibility of reconciliation with biblical theology, as Calvin himself was. Not for nothing was he, even in his own lifetime, labelled "antichrist."

I think I posted not long ago that men are born into the grace of God. If they respond to that grace, they get given more grace. Such was Noah, Abraham and their lineage. The teachings of Christ and his parables encapsulate the biblical doctrine of grace, culminating in "For whoever has, to him...

Quite the opposite. With the advent of the law of Moses came ability of all Jews to put their faith in God. The words of Moses were spoken to the entire Jewish community - all those that had passed through the Yam Suph. In Deut. 30, "choice" was formally given by God back to men, who declared...