Calvinists please help me as I am trying to understand.

[Amy.G]

While I agree that the order of events are often disputed, nevertheless most commentaries I've read state that John is the one that fills in gaps in the narrative.

How can John fill in the gaps when there are gaps in John's account????

John does not record the Lord's supper. That is a very big gap. In fact it was totally omitted. Therefore, you cannot use John's account to make your point when he doesn't even record the Lord's supper. But thanks for the discussion because I have seen that there is no contradiction in the accounts between John and Luke. Luke records the entire Lord's supper and John leaves it out. Therefore we have to go with what Luke says.

 

[Allan]

You have but a limited and twisted (opinion)<<(thrown it as a joke to you...please not another hate mail..just a joke) in which you see the meaning. At the very heart it means a close imminent caring love.

Please (Yes, I'm daring you) to find a reputable Greek lexicon or Concordenance that ever makes such a statement.

Greek lexicon based on Thayer's and Smith's Bible Dictionary plus others; this is keyed to the large Kittel and the "Theological Dictionary of the New Testament." These files are public domain:
a prolonged form of a primary verb
Transliterated Word TDNT Entry
Ginosko
Phonetic Spelling Parts of Speech
ghin-oce'-ko Verb

Definition
to learn to know, come to know, get a knowledge of perceive, feel
to become known
to know, understand, perceive, have knowledge of
to understand
to know
Jewish idiom for sexual intercourse between a man and a woman
to become acquainted with, to know

OR "gnosis"

Gnosis
Phonetic Spelling Parts of Speech
gno'-sis Noun Feminine

Definition
knowledge signifies in general intelligence, understanding
the general knowledge of Christian religion
the deeper more perfect and enlarged knowledge of this religion, such as belongs to the more advanced
esp. of things lawful and unlawful for Christians
moral wisdom, such as is seen in right living

And of course it's Hebrew Counter-part - 'yada'

yada`
Pronunciation - yä·dah' (Key)

Part of Speech - verb
Root Word (Etymology)
a primitive root

Outline of Biblical Usage 1) to know

a) (Qal)
1) to know
..a) to know, learn to know
..b) to perceive
..c) to perceive and see, find out and discern
..d) to discriminate, distinguish
..e) to know by experience
..f) to recognise, admit, acknowledge, confess
..g) to consider
..
2) to know, be acquainted with

3) to know (a person carnally)

4) to know how, be skilful in

5) to have knowledge, be wise

b) (Niphal)
1) to be made known, be or become known, be revealed

2) to make oneself known

3) to be perceived

4) to be instructed
..c) (Piel) to cause to know
..d) (Poal) to cause to know
..e) (Pual)

1) to be known

2) known, one known, acquaintance (participle)
..f) (Hiphil) to make known, declare
..g) (Hophal) to be made known
..h) (Hithpael) to make oneself known, reveal oneself

Hmm.. Nope, nothing here refering in any manner to love. Only the only thing that even comes close is the reference to se*ual int&rcourse - the act of se*ual inter*ourse, NOT the reason behind it. Here is one exaple regarding the words usage and here it is used refering to rape:

Jdg 19:25 But the men would not hearken to him: so the man took his concubine, and brought her forth unto them; and they knew her, and abused her all the night until the morning: and when the day began to spring, they let her go.

Yet in your rendering they were closely and imminently gving her their caring love.

Or even with regard for those who knew not their wives, in your definition they are witholding their caring love for their wives. Your definition can not be found in any lexicon that I am aware of. If so please provide it and it's definition.

Gods grace is expressed in two ways. General and special grace. This takes a while to develop so I'll keep it short here hoping you understand. General grace in that God sends the rain on the just and the unjust. More to it than this, but the point would be in this way God has showed his love to a group. The whole of mankind.

But even in this case of general grace, we should still ask what you asked above. That is what the Psalmist asked. "What is man that thou are mindful of him?"

I don't dispute this.

As to special grace....
Why did God choose Paul over others? Paul had a special grace given to him. Paul was blinded and God had a one on one talk with him from heaven. Was it because Paul was seeking to come to Christ? Paul was killing followers of Christ. Was it because if God talked to him God would know he would come to Christ? If so, why did God not blind Nero from Rome and talk to him from heaven? God choose Paul and did not choose Nero. Why?

That was my question.

In each case we are told because he Loved the ones he choose, but we are not told why he loved them. So again we must ask as the Psalmist..."What is man that thou are mindful of him?"

I disagree with the first part. With second, it is true. Why should God care about man? But He does and according to that same psalm has made mad a little lower than angels and crowned him with glory and honor as well as dominion over the works of God's hands.

This is why the Calvinist view is true. God "knows"(loves) alone the elect. It is limited. Where as if foreknowing means ..know about.....well God knows about all of mankind.

This is my point in spades. Yes, the Lord loves the elect in particular and all sides agree here. However even you acknowledge here that the actaul meaning of the word does not comport to your personal view so you must change it's meaning to something else. Yes, God does know about all men of all time however the passage itself limits a particular group of that whole as you previously mentioned via the word - 'whom'. And thus those whom He foreknew He then planned the means of their salvation and predestinated them unto the likeness Jesus as His children.

We can not redefine the words to fit our own view but must hold them to that meaning which it has always been. As I also stated, I do not disagree that to 'know' can imply love but that is not its definition.

 

[Allan]

In other words, salvation of a group.

yes..well there is that view but no support in scripture. Salvation is personal as I'm sure you will agree. I'm sure you would not hold to this view.

You know quite well 'exactly' what I was saying James. To pretend otherwise is dishonest on your part.

The usage of the term group is simply a way of describing the whole of whom God has saved.

 

[Jerome]

there is no contradiction in the accounts between John and Luke.

Rightly noted, Amy. John has no taking of the bread and cup after Judas's exit.

The discrepancy is not between Scriptures, but between Scripture and devotion to some "grand theory".

Luke 22:20-21 "Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you. But, behold, the hand of him that betrayeth me is with me on the table."

"Judas was gone from there when Jesus instituted the Lord's Supper"

"Judas IMMEDIATELY LEAVES!!!!!.......Next...the Lord's Supper."

 

[Allan]

I looked at this again and what did I see?

Allan, you said above


You said.......Knows all who are of faith?

If you would stop trying to read into it you would see much better.

How is this not the same as

"God's election is conditional on faith in the sacrifice and Lordship of Jesus Christ because He KNOWS before hand and elects because they choose."

??????????????

Please help me on this one.

Easy if you would read.
In the above you have God first having to look down through time to see who would believe and then decree to save them.

In the second they were elect because of His decree not foresight. What is distinct is that His decree was not made based upon all who would believe but on how He had chosen to save certain individuals out of mankind.

The first has God trying to figure out the best way to save the most people.
The second has God determining to save those whom He has chosen to be His own.

 

[Jarthur001]

Please (Yes, I'm daring you) to find a reputable Greek lexicon or Concordenance that ever makes such a statement.

Well...lets just use your post.

Ginosko
Phonetic Spelling Parts of Speech
ghin-oce'-ko Verb

Definition
to learn to know, come to know, get a knowledge of perceive, feel
to become known
to know, understand, perceive, have knowledge of
to understand
to know
Jewish idiom for sexual intercourse between a man and a woman
to become acquainted with, to know

I'm glad I can help you

 

[Jarthur001]

You know quite well 'exactly' what I was saying James. To pretend otherwise is dishonest on your part.

The usage of the term group is simply a way of describing the whole of whom God has saved.

You choose the word group. And...this is in face a view held by many. I think it was i that said that you did not hold to that.

So why say I'm dishonest? :godisgood:

 

[Jarthur001]

If you would stop trying to read into it you would see much better.


Easy if you would read.
In the above you have God first having to look down through time to see who would believe and then decree to save them.

In the second they were elect because of His decree not foresight. What is distinct is that His decree was not made based upon all who would believe but on how He had chosen to save certain individuals out of mankind.

The first has God trying to figure out the best way to save the most people.
The second has God determining to save those whom He has chosen to be His own.

This is getting good.

That line in bold is what a Calvinist would say. How is it applied to non-Calvinist?

ADDED LATER>>>

You also dropped the condition that man MUST DO 1st as you said above....

"God's election is conditional on faith in the sacrifice and Lordship of Jesus Christ because He KNOWS before hand and elects because they choose."

 

[Allan]

Well...lets just use your post.



I'm glad I can help you

So it is your contention that 'acquainted' means the same things as 'love'. :laugh:

Seriously???????

 

[Jarthur001]

So it is your contention that 'acquainted' means the same things as 'love'.

Seriously???????

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
..close and imminent yes

 

[Allan]

You choose the word group. And...this is in face a view held by many. I think it was i that said that you did not hold to that.

So why say I'm dishonest? :godisgood:

Your right, I misread it as stating "I'm sure you would [] hold to this view", instead of "I'm sure you would not hold to this view".

My appoligies on this issue.

 

[Allan]

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
..close and imminent yes

You do realize it states .. "to become acquainted with" meaning that at one time they were not... and this refers to 'both' parties.

 

[Allan]

That line in bold is what a Calvinist would say. How is it applied to non-Calvinist?

ADDED LATER>>>

You also dropped the condition that man MUST DO 1st as you said above....

Where did I say that man must do anything to be elected James??

 

[Jarthur001]

Where did I say that man must do anything to be elected James??

You didn't. That was my line. To tell you the truth, I have no idea why I asked that. Maybe I was up to late. Sorry. If in fact there was a good argument there, it will come to me later. If not, it is I that was wrong in this case.
At any rate it is clear you did not say that.

That was my line ...a statement that shows the Arminian views. What we were getting at if I recall right, was trying to list other non-calvinist views that are not Arminian.

You said...

The first has God trying to figure out the best way to save the most people.
The second has God determining to save those whom He has chosen to be His own.

The 2nd is Calvinist view...is it not?

 

[Allan]

You didn't. That was my line. To tell you the truth, I have no idea why I asked that. Maybe I was up to late. Sorry. If in fact there was a good argument there, it will come to me later. If not, it is I that was wrong in this case.
At any rate it is clear you did not say that.

That was my line ...a statement that shows the Arminian views. What we were getting at if I recall right, was trying to list other non-calvinist views that are not Arminian.

You said...

The 2nd is Calvinist view...is it not?

No, read what I said about it (below) and contrast it to the Cal position. They are distinctly different though very similar.

In the second they were elect because of His decree not foresight. What is distinct is that His decree was not made based upon all who would believe but on how He had chosen to save certain individuals out of mankind.

This position allows for mans choice and God's soveriegnty.


But as I said - the 'non-cal' reference is used to indicate that they are closer to the Cal position than the Arminian

 

[Jarthur001]

No, read what I said about it (below) and contrast it to the Cal position. They are distinctly different though very similar.
This position allows for mans choice and God's soveriegnty.


But as I said - the 'non-cal' reference is used to indicate that they are closer to the Cal position than the Arminian

Are you saying that election is the process used?

What is distinct is that His decree was not made based upon all who would believe but on how He had chosen to save certain individuals out of mankind.

Got to go....

be back tonight

 

[Allan]

Are you saying that election is the process used?

I'm not sure I understand the question.

If I am reading it correctly - No, Election is not a process but a matter of God's choice.
But to be honest I'm not sure I understand your question.

Got to go....

be back tonight

See-ya later.

 

[zrs6v4]

It goes full circle. Once you see it, its just simple. You will see it over and over in all the pages of the Bible you never saw before.

I would say it was enough for all but not for all.

yes I think the proper term is that it is/was sufficient for all, but only applied to few.

I would say that Jesus did not atone for Judas sins.

that never crossed my mind, hah you misunderstood me... Jesus died for everyone including Judas but Judas (I would say) obviously wasnt atoned for.

No...this atonement for all the sins of all people is not what Calvin wrote, nor is it Calvinist, but rather free-willism. Its free-willism, because what you just said places the power in man. Christ blood has no power till man says it has power. Calvin said and Calvinism teaches that the power is in the blood and WORKED on the cross the very day Christ died when he said..."it is finished"

I never said this, hah, misunderstanding...... Jesus the atonement was not for all people, but only the elect. again, I simply am stating the blood was enough for all people, but nobody accepts due to inability other than those that God calls.. So you could look at it like Christ only died for a few on the cross which is true, but the bible also seems to tell us He died for the world.

 

[zrs6v4]

His blood is applied by faith and only to those who put their faith in Christ. The blood was shed for all, but not all will have faith. He shed His blood for Judas as well as the others (as Luke 22:20-21 clearly says), but Judas did not apply the blood through faith, but instead betrayed the Lord because of an unbelieving heart. He who does not believe is condemned.

Again, sorry if I was unclear... Yes the blood is applied by faith and only to those who put their faith in Christ. Yes it was shed for all and no not all will have faith. I agree the atonement was not applied to Judas, but was available to Him and to the whole world. While it was available the whole world has rejected it and is always going to due to their sin nature. So I agree Judas obviously was not a believer and rejected God. We also must conclude that God allowed this to happen to fulfill His will and plan for salvation and that Judas was not one of the elect from before the creation of the world.

 

[zrs6v4]

Let me ask this question that arises of course about our cute little love discussion :laugh:

John 3:16- God loved the world. So He loves every person that ever walks on the earth infinitely great. So great that He wishes they would choose Him, but they dont.

Romans 9:13- Jacob I loved but Esau I hated So now God hates somebody while He loves them? obviously we seem to have a paradox

1 John 4:19- "We love because He first loved us" the reason we love and choose God is because He chose and loved us as He did Jacob. IMO of scripture


So we must conclude that love in election must mean that He chose to give Himself to Jacob rather than Esau. Meaning that He-------------------------->
"Even as He chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before Him. In love he predestined us for adoption through Jesus Christ, sccording to the purpose of His will, to praise his glorious grace, with which He has blessed us in the beloved." Eph. 4-7

So when Pauls says God hated Esau he must mean that He didnt choose Esau but rather Jacob to carry out His will. He actually loved Esau but He didnt give Himself to Esau. HE wished for Esau to be His but He must be allowed to give up His birthright and not be of God's chosen so the will might be fulfilled.

When God does save us and we come to the understanding (in maturity) of how God gave us grace and we didnt actully choose God but rather He chose us and we didnt do a thing, while even the faith we exercised was a gift from God at some point, then we can truly begin to praise God for His glorious grace...... but thats just my two cents.... And I admit I have been wrong before and Im still open minded to hear what you might present in scripture to lead me otherwise