Arminian Weaknesses reflect Calvinism

[The Archangel]

Then we get the write that foreknow means to be individually chosen. How convenient.
Folks, words have meanings and foreknow simply refers to something or someone known beforehand. Paul was "foreknown" by those who knew him when he was growing up. When a plan formulated in the past, including before the foundation of the world, is being carried out according to the foreknowledge of God.

Calvinism is built on rewriting the meanings of words to pour their doctrine into scripture.

Does foreknow only mean to choose individuals? Nope. Does foreknowledge only refer to chosen individuals? Nope.

Can foreknow refer to corporately elected individuals after they have been individually chosen and placed in Christ? Yes

Can foreknow refer to the aspect of being corporately elected, rather than individually elected? Yes.

Words have meanings, and we should stick with the meanings intended by the author rather than pour in our own to change the message to conform to our man-made doctrine.

Yes, now that you mention it, words do have meaning. Let's take "Foreknew," for example.

The word is προγινώσκω. In the entire Pauline corpus, this word is used only twice. In the entirety of the New Testament, it is used a total of five times.

Now, you may be committing what is called "the root fallacy" where you think the lexical definition is what give a particular word an immutable definition. As it is well known, the lexical definition is not the final arbiter of meaning, the usage is.

For example, I used the word "gerrymandering" while discussing your mishandling of the grammar of 2 Thessalonians 2:13. In using the word I raised the possibility that you were intending to misrepresent the grammar intentionally. Now, I don't think that to be the case; I think you are mistaken or (perhaps) unlearned in your grammar. Neither of these things rises to the level of deception...but I digress.

"Gerrymandering" is a word that refers to the re-drawing of congressional districts for political gain. Now, did my use of the word intend that exact meaning? No. I in no way, shape, or form think you are trying perpetrate a crime against the People of the United States. I merely raised the possibility that you were, either knowingly or unknowingly, tinkering with the grammar to support your errant opinion.

So, as this example shows, the lexical meaning is not the final authority on exact meaning, usage is. As they say, "Context is king."

It is the same situation with Paul's use of προγινώσκω. Paul's two uses are Romans 8:29 and Romans 11:2. Both uses are the same inflected form--Aorist Active Indicative, 3rd person Singular. I'll list the verses with the word προγινώσκω is in bold type:

For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers (Romans 8:29 ESV)

God has not rejected his people whom he foreknew...(Romans 11:2)
​

Now, Paul's usage of the exact same word in Romans 11 is quite instructive. He is talking about Israel and he uses the word προγινώσκω as an antonym (meaning an opposite) to the word "rejected" (ἀπωθέομαι). Clearly ἀπωθέομαι means "reject" and προγινώσκω is clearly used here as an antonym to that word. Therefore, προγινώσκω means "chose."

Why, you might ask? Because God did not merely know Israel before hand; He chose them. The Old Testament is replete with reference after reference to God's actively choosing Israel (and not for any preceding thing they had done, by the way).

So, Paul's usage is quite clear: προγινώσκω means "chose."

The other three uses of this word occur twice in the Petrine letters and once in the Book of Acts. Now, is it possible that Peter intended a different meaning? Is it possible that Luke meant to convey something other than "chose?" Sure, though it is highly unlikely. But, when dealing with the Pauline writings, especially Romans (since it is the only place the word exists in the Pauline corpus), Paul intends to convey the meaning "chose."

Words do have meanings, but those meanings are ultimately determined by the authors. Paul, in his use of this word, is quite clear that he intends it to mean "chose."

The Archangel

 

[Skandelon]

I didn't ask you if you loved your brother and best friend. Please answer the question or decline to do so.

I believe my response along with the quote from Piper did answer your question. I'm not sure how it doesn't answer your question. I consider my Calvinistic friends brethren in the faith and I treat them as such. As I said, we just disagree on this subject.

I am not making a personal attack on you. If you think so, as you think so often, then I suggest you examine yourself as to why.

Hmmm, how could I have come to that conclusion? You say my posts make you sick. You accuse me of being obsessed. You call my arguments "half-cocked." Sorry, I just must have misinterpreted your intent, those just sounded like personal attacks to me. I guess I interpret your posts like I interpret the scriptures. Maybe you could give me the "right" interpretation of such statements?

Your words and actions on this board are the only impression people will get from you outside of knowing you personally. And I am suggesting that what you are doing on these boards is actually harming your testimony

Only if I'm wrong, which obviously I don't believe I am. If I'm correct, then my actions on this board in properly interpreting the Calvinistic proof texts and revealing the false arguments is quite noble. The same reasons you have engaged me in this thread, I presume.

You do seem preoccupied with controversy.

I'm preoccupied with truth, the controversy is caused by those who reject the truth. To presume you hold the truth is question begging.

 

[The Archangel]

Only if I'm wrong, which obviously I don't believe I am. If I'm correct, then my actions on this board in properly interpreting the Calvinistic proof texts and revealing the false arguments is quite noble. The same reasons you have engaged me in this thread, I presume.

I'm preoccupied with truth, the controversy is caused by those who reject the truth. To presume you hold the truth is question begging.

Yet, you presume you hold the truth when, in fact, you could be quite wrong. You, sir, are also "begging the question."

The Archangel

 

[ReformedBaptist]

I believe my response along with the quote from Piper did answer your question. I'm not sure how it doesn't answer your question. I consider my Calvinistic friends brethren in the faith and I treat them as such. As I said, we just disagree on this subject.

Hmmm, how could I have come to that conclusion? You say my posts make you sick. You accuse me of being obsessed. You call my arguments "half-cocked." Sorry, I just must have misinterpreted your intent, those just sounded like personal attacks to me. I guess I interpret your posts like I interpret the scriptures. Maybe you could give me the "right" interpretation of such statements?

Only if I'm wrong, which obviously I don't believe I am. If I'm correct, then my actions on this board in properly interpreting the Calvinistic proof texts and revealing the false arguments is quite noble. The same reasons you have engaged me in this thread, I presume.


I'm preoccupied with truth, the controversy is caused by those who reject the truth. To presume you hold the truth is question begging.

Communication is a two-way street. Messages are sent, returned, interpreted, misinterpreted. It is wise to reserve judgment until meaning has been negotiated.

That statement, btw, is the basic definition of communication.

I tend to allow the other person to define their meaning, not define it for them. So, if you tell me you don't mean such and such by what you said, I accept that. Can you do the same?

Hopefully you have read some parts or the whole of Pilgrims Progress. Wouldn't you agree that we do not want to be like Valiant for Truth? Do I love the truth and have interest in it being defended? Yes, of course. But when I am talking wtih someone in person, or via a discussion board, I am far more interested in the person. In fact, I am more intersted in their walk with Christ than I am in winning any kind of debate with them.

Those of us who have some educational pedigrees ought to use our education to serve our brethren. And we ought to regard the least educated (in such formal ways) as better than ourselves, and certainly not regard them as deficient. Rather, those who seem to be "nothing' we ought to give more honor. Do they not have the Holy Spirit the same as we do?

Just some thoughts.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Id prefer to be preoccupied with Christ.

 

[webdog]

Yes, now that you mention it, words do have meaning. Let's take "Foreknew," for example.

The word is προγινώσκω. In the entire Pauline corpus, this word is used only twice. In the entirety of the New Testament, it is used a total of five times.

Now, you may be committing what is called "the root fallacy" where you think the lexical definition is what give a particular word an immutable definition. As it is well known, the lexical definition is not the final arbiter of meaning, the usage is.

For example, I used the word "gerrymandering" while discussing your mishandling of the grammar of 2 Thessalonians 2:13. In using the word I raised the possibility that you were intending to misrepresent the grammar intentionally. Now, I don't think that to be the case; I think you are mistaken or (perhaps) unlearned in your grammar. Neither of these things rises to the level of deception...but I digress.

"Gerrymandering" is a word that refers to the re-drawing of congressional districts for political gain. Now, did my use of the word intend that exact meaning? No. I in no way, shape, or form think you are trying perpetrate a crime against the People of the United States. I merely raised the possibility that you were, either knowingly or unknowingly, tinkering with the grammar to support your errant opinion.

So, as this example shows, the lexical meaning is not the final authority on exact meaning, usage is. As they say, "Context is king."

It is the same situation with Paul's use of προγινώσκω. Paul's two uses are Romans 8:29 and Romans 11:2. Both uses are the same inflected form--Aorist Active Indicative, 3rd person Singular. I'll list the verses with the word προγινώσκω is in bold type:

For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers (Romans 8:29 ESV)

God has not rejected his people whom he foreknew...(Romans 11:2)
​

Now, Paul's usage of the exact same word in Romans 11 is quite instructive. He is talking about Israel and he uses the word προγινώσκω as an antonym (meaning an opposite) to the word "rejected" (ἀπωθέομαι). Clearly ἀπωθέομαι means "reject" and προγινώσκω is clearly used here as an antonym to that word. Therefore, προγινώσκω means "chose."

Why, you might ask? Because God did not merely know Israel before hand; He chose them. The Old Testament is replete with reference after reference to God's actively choosing Israel (and not for any preceding thing they had done, by the way).

So, Paul's usage is quite clear: προγινώσκω means "chose."

The other three uses of this word occur twice in the Petrine letters and once in the Book of Acts. Now, is it possible that Peter intended a different meaning? Is it possible that Luke meant to convey something other than "chose?" Sure, though it is highly unlikely. But, when dealing with the Pauline writings, especially Romans (since it is the only place the word exists in the Pauline corpus), Paul intends to convey the meaning "chose."

Words do have meanings, but those meanings are ultimately determined by the authors. Paul, in his use of this word, is quite clear that he intends it to mean "chose."

The Archangel

Why didn't Paul just say "chose"?

 

[Van]

Yes, now that you mention it, words do have meaning. Let's take "Foreknew," for example.

The word is προγινώσκω. In the entire Pauline corpus, this word is used only twice. In the entirety of the New Testament, it is used a total of five times.

Now, you may be committing what is called "the root fallacy" where you think the lexical definition is what give a particular word an immutable definition. As it is well known, the lexical definition is not the final arbiter of meaning, the usage is.

For example, I used the word "gerrymandering" while discussing your mishandling of the grammar of 2 Thessalonians 2:13. In using the word I raised the possibility that you were intending to misrepresent the grammar intentionally. Now, I don't think that to be the case; I think you are mistaken or (perhaps) unlearned in your grammar. Neither of these things rises to the level of deception...but I digress.

"Gerrymandering" is a word that refers to the re-drawing of congressional districts for political gain. Now, did my use of the word intend that exact meaning? No. I in no way, shape, or form think you are trying perpetrate a crime against the People of the United States. I merely raised the possibility that you were, either knowingly or unknowingly, tinkering with the grammar to support your errant opinion.

So, as this example shows, the lexical meaning is not the final authority on exact meaning, usage is. As they say, "Context is king."

It is the same situation with Paul's use of προγινώσκω. Paul's two uses are Romans 8:29 and Romans 11:2. Both uses are the same inflected form--Aorist Active Indicative, 3rd person Singular. I'll list the verses with the word προγινώσκω is in bold type:

For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers (Romans 8:29 ESV)

God has not rejected his people whom he foreknew...(Romans 11:2)
​

Now, Paul's usage of the exact same word in Romans 11 is quite instructive. He is talking about Israel and he uses the word προγινώσκω as an antonym (meaning an opposite) to the word "rejected" (ἀπωθέομαι). Clearly ἀπωθέομαι means "reject" and προγινώσκω is clearly used here as an antonym to that word. Therefore, προγινώσκω means "chose."

Why, you might ask? Because God did not merely know Israel before hand; He chose them. The Old Testament is replete with reference after reference to God's actively choosing Israel (and not for any preceding thing they had done, by the way).

So, Paul's usage is quite clear: προγινώσκω means "chose."

The other three uses of this word occur twice in the Petrine letters and once in the Book of Acts. Now, is it possible that Peter intended a different meaning? Is it possible that Luke meant to convey something other than "chose?" Sure, though it is highly unlikely. But, when dealing with the Pauline writings, especially Romans (since it is the only place the word exists in the Pauline corpus), Paul intends to convey the meaning "chose."

Words do have meanings, but those meanings are ultimately determined by the authors. Paul, in his use of this word, is quite clear that he intends it to mean "chose."

The Archangel

Archangel, I appreciate your effort to defend Calvinism from scripture. But I do not think your defense has any merit. Lets talk specifics, anyone can lob generalized bombs - that is bull - without any effort to understand where the other is coming from.

"Now, you may be committing what is called "the root fallacy" where you think the lexical definition is what give a particular word an immutable definition. As it is well known, the lexical definition is not the final arbiter of meaning, the usage is."

I might be doing everything soundly and you might be using logical fallacies to defend you view. So lets leave conjecture in the barn, and ride the horse named Truth. The way I arrive at the meaning of a word, is I look at the lexicons and at every scripture where it appears, in any of its related forms, and then draw a conclusion as to what meaning or meanings can be used in all the cases. Thus I try for the maximum coherence. If we just pick and chose from among possible meanings to pour our doctrine into scripture, we have not learned anything but the art of self deception.

"For example, I used the word "gerrymandering" while discussing your mishandling of the grammar of 2 Thessalonians 2:13. In using the word I raised the possibility that you were intending to misrepresent the grammar intentionally. Now, I don't think that to be the case; I think you are mistaken or (perhaps) unlearned in your grammar. Neither of these things rises to the level of deception...but I digress."

Even Whitefield agrees with me, so even Calvinists of renown disagree with "your mishandling of the grammar of 2 Thessalonians 2:13."

So, as this example shows, the lexical meaning is not the final authority on exact meaning, usage is. As they say, "Context is king."

What I see the Calvinists do is pour in something without in shed of contextual support and then make a generalized statement that it was based on context. Thus it is a ruse to redefine choice as non-choice, and whatever else it takes to avoid the truth of scripture.

[/INDENT]Now, Paul's usage of the exact same word in Romans 11 is quite instructive. He is talking about Israel and he uses the word προγινώσκω as an antonym (meaning an opposite) to the word "rejected" (ἀπωθέομαι). Clearly ἀπωθέομαι means "reject" and προγινώσκω is clearly used here as an antonym to that word. Therefore, προγινώσκω means "chose."

Romans 11:2 does not use foreknow as the opposite of rejected! It does not say God has not rejected His people whom He had chosen. You are simply rewriting the text to pour your doctrine into it. Lets try "knew about beforehand" God has not rejected His people, whom He knew about beforehand. That works perfectly. Now lets flip over to Romans 8:29. For those whom He knew about beforehand, [that would be the target group of His redemption plan] He also predestined to be... Again it works perfectly.

Now lets look at the lexicon which includes "to have knowledge beforehand." So my understanding is consistent with the context and with the lexicon and avoids a meaning that would not fit everywhere. Sounds like a winner to me.

 

[glfredrick]

I'm preoccupied with truth, the controversy is caused by those who reject the truth. To presume you hold the truth is question begging.

How is it that this only works in your favor... :wavey:

 

[glfredrick]

Why didn't Paul just say "chose"?

He did... in Greek.

 

[webdog]

He did... in Greek.

Gotcha...every translator who translated it into english got it wrong. Also, the antonym for reject is not chose (the premise The Archangel built his argument on), it's accept.

 

[glfredrick]

The way I arrive at the meaning of a word, is I look at the lexicons and at every scripture where it appears, in any of its related forms, and then draw a conclusion as to what meaning or meanings can be used in all the cases. Thus I try for the maximum coherence. If we just pick and chose from among possible meanings to pour our doctrine into scripture, we have not learned anything but the art of self deception.

This is EXACTLY why your posts are NOT coherent. You still do not grasp USAGE. Though the same word may be employed, it is USED in different ways depending on the context of the pericope where that word is found.

There is no ONE usage of virtually any word in the text of Scripture.

Also, virtually no one who has even a smattering of biblical or theological training uses a technique of "pick and chose from among possible meanings to pour our doctrine into scripture..." Doesn't work that way at all. That is the practice of ignorant and un-trained persons who just discovered a concordance, but don't really grasp the significance of proper use. Doctrine makes no difference in the way Scripture is exegeted, for SCRIPTURE drives doctrine, not the other way around as you imply (at least for those defending a doctrinal position apart from your own!).

I should not have to tell you this, but it seems that I do... The individual writers of Scripture came from all sorts of backgrounds, they lived in all sorts of different places. They wrote at different times. They wrote to different people groups for different reasons. And, they had different scribes work with them, either to write, translate, or edit their work, all of which may mean that word usage (especially when so many of the doctrines of Christianity were in the creation or invention phase -- they being BRAND NEW REVELATIONS from Christ through the Holy Spirit!) may not be so nailed down as you suspect it is.

The writers were led to transition everyday marketplace terms into newly minted Christian doctrine, and as such, they took words like baptizo (to wash by placing under) and gave them a new usage (to symbolically wash a new believer in Christ as the first act of obedience).

In another thread, I posted over 50 potential uses of the word "run." As I recall, you never returned to that thread to comment because the usage thing blew your point right out of the water. Like it or not, word usage in Scripture is not what you contend that it is. It is hermeneutics, i.e., "rightly dividing the word of truth..."

 

[glfredrick]

Gotcha...every translator who translated it into english got it wrong. Also, the antonym for reject is not chose (the premise The Archangel built his argument on), it's accept.

An antonym for reject CAN be chose, for if one rejects they do not chose.

 

[webdog]

An antonym for reject CAN be chose, for if one rejects they do not chose.

Granted, if it is the intent of defining reject to mean "not choose".

 

[The Archangel]

I might be doing everything soundly and you might be using logical fallacies to defend you view. So lets leave conjecture in the barn, and ride the horse named Truth. The way I arrive at the meaning of a word, is I look at the lexicons and at every scripture where it appears, in any of its related forms, and then draw a conclusion as to what meaning or meanings can be used in all the cases. Thus I try for the maximum coherence. If we just pick and chose from among possible meanings to pour our doctrine into scripture, we have not learned anything but the art of self deception.

So, in essence, what you are saying is that you assign meaning to words and not the author.

Your attempt to "arrive at the meaning of a word" is based not on the author's usage, but on your attempted discernment of that word's meaning. This is exegetical and syntactical Russian roulette.

The author's usage is the final arbiter of meaning--unless, of course, you are seeking to apply a Derridan concept of Deconstruction where the reader, not the author, is, ultimately, the final arbiter of meaning and truth.

It seems if you are not doing that in the outright, that you have taken one giant leap in that direction.

The Archangel

 

[Van]

In another thread, I posted over 50 potential uses of the word "run." As I recall, you never returned to that thread to comment because the usage thing blew your point right out of the water. Like it or not, word usage in Scripture is not what you contend that it is. It is hermeneutics, i.e., "rightly dividing the word of truth..."

Folks, what can I say, this slander is pure fiction. Note the careful, as I remember, to protect against being caught giving false testamony.
__________________

 

[ReformedBaptist]

So, in essence, what you are saying is that you assign meaning to words and not the author.

Your attempt to "arrive at the meaning of a word" is based not on the author's usage, but on your attempted discernment of that word's meaning. This is exegetical and syntactical Russian roulette.

The author's usage is the final arbiter of meaning--unless, of course, you are seeking to apply a Derridan concept of Deconstruction where the reader, not the author, is, ultimately, the final arbiter of meaning and truth.

It seems if you are not doing that in the outright, that you have taken one giant leap in that direction.

The Archangel

This is a keen observation. Our every intent in the interpretation of Scripture should be the author's meaning. Now, this may include lexical studies, parallel passages, and a host of other factors, but to arrive at the author's meaning is true exegesis.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

In another thread, I posted over 50 potential uses of the word "run." As I recall, you never returned to that thread to comment because the usage thing blew your point right out of the water. Like it or not, word usage in Scripture is not what you contend that it is. It is hermeneutics, i.e., "rightly dividing the word of truth..."

Folks, what can I say, this slander is pure fiction. Note the careful, as I remember, to protect against being caught giving false testamony.
__________________

Van,

What he shared was actually correct. And the Usus Loquendi is also important. What principles of hermeneutics do you use?

 

[Van]

Hi Archangel, did you ever hear of doing a "word study?" Calvinists practice choosing the defintion that fits their doctrine.

The method I am presenting is the accepted method at arriving at the authors intended message.

Picking from the "possible" meanings the one that fits the doctrine is what Calvinism is based on, pouring the doctrine into scripture. Foreknow basically means before knowledge or knowledge from before the present.

You have tried to turn it into choose, but other Calvinists have tried to turn it into having an intimate relationship. Any port in the storm.

 

[The Archangel]

Now, Paul's usage of the exact same word in Romans 11 is quite instructive. He is talking about Israel and he uses the word προγινώσκω as an antonym (meaning an opposite) to the word "rejected" (ἀπωθέομαι). Clearly ἀπωθέομαι means "reject" and προγινώσκω is clearly used here as an antonym to that word. Therefore, προγινώσκω means "chose."

Romans 11:2 does not use foreknow as the opposite of rejected! It does not say God has not rejected His people whom He had chosen. You are simply rewriting the text to pour your doctrine into it. Lets try "knew about beforehand" God has not rejected His people, whom He knew about beforehand. That works perfectly. Now lets flip over to Romans 8:29. For those whom He knew about beforehand, [that would be the target group of His redemption plan] He also predestined to be... Again it works perfectly.

Now lets look at the lexicon which includes "to have knowledge beforehand." So my understanding is consistent with the context and with the lexicon and avoids a meaning that would not fit everywhere. Sounds like a winner to me.

It really does not "work perfectly." Once you consider the form of the Aorist Active Indicative, it becomes next to impossible to impose a passive meaning on this verb.

Remember, grammar has meaning--there is a subject and a verb. This is the nature of language and the meaning and point of a sentence in Greek is easily found in the main verb. In Romans 8:29 and 11:2, the verb is an active verb--meaning the subject is performing the action (or has performed the action in the past). What the text is telling us--through the use of the Aorist Active Indicative form--is that God actively chose. To "foreknow" something as you are wanting to suggest is not an active action; it is inherently passive in that it is dependent on the action or the belief of another person that acts upon the subject.

This is precisely why in 1 Peter 1:20, in reference to Christ, you see the Perfect Passive Participle in Peter's dichotomic phrase referring to Christ. Christ--being foreknown--shows that He was acted upon, presumably by the Father. So, Christ being sent was God's choice--hence the passive form.

The fact (and it is a fact) that the subject in Romans 8:29 and Romans 11:2 is Himself performing the action all but rules out your interpretation that it is simply knowing something beforehand.

The Archangel

 

[The Archangel]

Hi Archangel, did you ever hear of doing a "word study?" Calvinists practice choosing the defintion that fits their doctrine.

The method I am presenting is the accepted method at arriving at the authors intended message.

Picking from the "possible" meanings the one that fits the doctrine is what Calvinism is based on, pouring the doctrine into scripture. Foreknow basically means before knowledge or knowledge from before the present.

You have tried to turn it into choose, but other Calvinists have tried to turn it into having an intimate relationship. Any port in the storm.

Ironically, the worst place for a ship to be during a storm is "in port." Hence the US Atlantic Fleet puts out to sea whenever a hurricane threatens Norfolk, VA.

The method you present is common; but that doesn't make it correct. Seeing the author's usage is paramount to defining the proper meaning. A word study is a fine study--if it is done correctly. To study a word, devoid of its forms and usage, only creates confusion and error--as it has clearly done in your case.

I'm not "turning it into choose" for that is what it clearly means. The reason that the word can be spoken of as "an intimate relationship" is because of the Hebrew word "Yada" and its corresponding usage. There is a wide semantic range with "yada" and it can (and does in places) mean "to choose."

Paul, being "the pharisee of pharisees," of course, knew this and since he was well-steeped in the Old Testament (and the Hebrew, being a pharisee) we can expect him to use the word in this manner, which he, of course, does.

The Archangel