Every knee shall bow and tongue confess

[Allan]

No, it does not. Scripture calls him the god of this world. Then Scripture tells us he has blinded the minds of them that do not believe.

But the fact remains that Scripture says he is the god of this world.

Now according to you guys who have no identifiable theology "world" means every single person in some places.

Is this not one of them?

Because it appears your rule is- "world" means every single person when I want it to and it doesn't when I don't.

You seem to have no clue as to what we believe but regurgitate falsehoods and lies even after you have been shone and proved you are incorrect. It has already been explained to you that we do not hold that world always means every single person.

However this seems to be more of an education aspect with you here as it is apparent you must know very little or nothing about Greek language. Therefore I will do you a favor and quote from a very well respected Greek Scholar, who is even Reoformed/Calvinist. A.T. Robertson and I will cite from an easy to work of his - "Robertson Word Pictures" so you can double check it:

2Co 4:4
The god of this world (ho theos tou aiōnos toutou). “Age,” more exactly, as in 1Co_1:20. Satan is “the god of this age,” a phrase nowhere else in the N.T., but Jesus uses the same idea in Joh_12:31; Joh_14:30 and Paul in Eph_2:2; Eph_6:12 and John in 1Jo_5:19. Satan claimed the rule over the world in the temptations with Jesus.

Blinded (etuphlōsen). First aorist active of tuphloō, old verb to blind (tuphlos, blind). They refused to believe (apistōn) and so Satan got the power to blind their thoughts. That happens with wilful disbelievers.

The light (ton phōtismon). The illumination, the enlightening. Late word from photizō, to give light, in Plutarch and lxx. In N.T. only in 2Co_4:4, 2Co_4:6. Accusative case of general reference here with the articular infinitive (eis to mē augasai that should not dawn). That is, if augasai is intransitive as is likely, though it is transitive in the old poets (from augē, radiance. Cf. German Auge=eye). If it is transitive, the idea would be “that they should not see clearly the illumination, etc.”

You can also find in used in various translations of scripture.

 

[Luke2427]

You seem to have no clue as to what we believe

Yea... who does???

How is such a thing possible with you people. You have no identifiable theology.

This makes you conveniently slippery.

I've said before- trying to nail down what you believe is like nailing jello to a wall.

So, I won't argue on this point.

I'll just say- it's your fault that nobody knows what you people believe.

Pick a theology or systematize one of your own and this won't be such a problem in the future.

but regurgitate falsehoods and lies even after you have been shone and proved you are incorrect. It has already been explained to you that we do not hold that world always means every single person.

I should very much like to see where this proof took place.

BTW, I know that you people say you don't believe that "world" means every single person every single time. But what you people do seem to do is make it mean "every single person" just when it suits you.

However this seems to be more of an education

Ahhh.... there it is again. You've popped that word out there three times in a thirty minute span. See my question to you concerning this problem of yours in the other thread.

aspect with you here as it is apparent you must know very little or nothing about Greek language. Therefore I will do you a favor and quote from a very well respected Greek Scholar, who is even Reoformed/Calvinist. A.T. Robertson and I will cite from an easy to work of his - "Robertson Word Pictures" so you can double check it:

You can also find in used in various translations of scripture.

I am aware of what the greek term is there for world but it seems that you people don't care about that.

You people try to argue that "kosmos" in John 3:16 must mean "every single person". And since it does not- I didn't figure you cared much what Greek words mean.

Your whole position seems to rest on your ability to demand that terms mean one thing when it suits you and another when it does not.

Since "kosmos" means to you people when it suits you "every single person" I figured the god of this age" should also mean "every single person in this age".

But who knows how you people will use a term in any given place?

 

[glfredrick]

Now, with regard to the question of this OP...



Don't most Calvinists believe that God doesn't force people to go against their will, but instead that he changes their will effectually by giving them a new nature? Are these people bowing and confessing as a result of being giving a new nature or are they doing it against their wills?

Could it be that even though it is too late for salvation, that the revelation of Christ at judgement would convince everyman to finally bow and confess? How is that not good for those holding to a free will theology?

IF this one-time event happened during the course of normal human affairs
IF this one-time event were the mere will of humans
And IF this one-time event were something other than God FINALLY making clear in a way that ALL will know, you could have a point.

But, of course, none of the "IFs" above are true. What God does before He makes final His utter and absolute sovereignty as King is His will and His choice (and by default, not ours). Once He sets all things (finally) into His divine order, there will be no room for free expression, nor will there have to be. As I have argued before, once in the presence of God, all people WILL be believers -- alas, not in a salvific way, that happening only during the times allotted by God -- which seems to cause great harm to your doctrine of human belief.

 

[Skandelon]

You people try to argue that "kosmos" in John 3:16 must mean "every single person". And since it does not- I didn't figure you cared much what Greek words mean.

When you say "you people" I suppose you are including your namesake, John Calvin, since in his commentary on John 3:16 he wrote: "Both points are distinctly stated to us: namely, that faith in Christ brings life to all, and that Christ brought life, because the Heavenly Father loves the human race, and wishes that they should not perish."

Are you sure it's not you with the "nameless" theology?

 

[percho]

You seem to have no clue as to what we believe but regurgitate falsehoods and lies even after you have been shone and proved you are incorrect. It has already been explained to you that we do not hold that world always means every single person.

However this seems to be more of an education aspect with you here as it is apparent you must know very little or nothing about Greek language. Therefore I will do you a favor and quote from a very well respected Greek Scholar, who is even Reoformed/Calvinist. A.T. Robertson and I will cite from an easy to work of his - "Robertson Word Pictures" so you can double check it:

You can also find in used in various translations of scripture.

I disagree with Robertson and probably everyone else. World in 2C4:4 is age and every reference he made to the world was kosmos. If this is Satan blinding people, it is the only place in scripture that states he blinds people.
Whereas many times in scripture it is said God blinds and I believe that to be the case here. Through google of blinded by the devil I see also Adam Clarke sees this the same way.

As a matter of fact Verse 3 But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost (perishing): covers all, dying thou shall surly die, And you who were dead in trespasses and sins;
It is through the gospel by election that the scales have fallen.

And Ananias went his way, and entered into the house; and putting his hands on him said, Brother Saul, the Lord, [even] Jesus, that appeared unto thee in the way as thou camest, hath sent me, that thou mightest receive thy sight, and be filled with the Holy Ghost. And immediately there fell from his eyes as it had been scales: and he received sight forthwith, and arose, and was baptized.

I believe that Paul did not begin to be a believer but he was made a believer.
He was given the faith of not in Christ. Scripture: Interesting it would come from the same chapter, did not realize it until was going to copy. 2 Cor. 4:13 We having the same spirit of faith, according as it is written, I believed, and therefore have I spoken; we also believe, and therefore speak;

Read from whence that was written and tell me that as in Acts 2 where Peter said David was speaking as a prophet of Christ and not himself wasn't also from whence that was written speaking of Christ and not himself.

Please respond esp. to the last part. Thanks in advance.

O yes, Psalms 116.

 

[glfredrick]

because IF they were all saying it in a "saving faith" way, none of them would go to hell!

The issue then, is whether one's "saying" something equals salvific faith. I would suggest that it is not, but you may disagree. I've always thought that "salvation" was a supernatural act that only God could do, so what we say really plays a very small part in the process, and what even that small part is is up for debate.

 

[TomVols]

Skan,
I think what you're attempting here is to draw a line from what is clearly an eschatological confession due to recognition of the truth clearly revealed at that moment - namely that the Christ people have rejected is indeed Christus Victor - to a place where Reformed soteriology is defeated. I think that's a stretch here since those who are more Calvinistic and those who are less Calvinistic agree that this is not a salvific confession.

 

[glfredrick]

Skan,
I think what you're attempting here is to draw a line from what is clearly an eschatological confession due to recognition of the truth clearly revealed at that moment - namely that the Christ people have rejected is indeed Christus Victor - to a place where Reformed soteriology is defeated. I think that's a stretch here since those who are more Calvinistic and those who are less Calvinistic agree that this is not a salvific confession.

Well said! I agree.

To that, I would add (what I've added SO many times before), why the huge effort to defeat Calvinism? In so doing, brothers and sisters are becoming alienated from fellowship with each other. Discuss the points, sure, but to use every rhetorical trick in the book to try to trip up a person who holds a Reformed point of view just to win an argument seems beneath the efforts of a man of God.

 

[Skandelon]

Skan,
I think what you're attempting here is to draw a line from what is clearly an eschatological confession due to recognition of the truth clearly revealed at that moment - namely that the Christ people have rejected is indeed Christus Victor - to a place where Reformed soteriology is defeated. I think that's a stretch here since those who are more Calvinistic and those who are less Calvinistic agree that this is not a salvific confession.

I'm not attempting to claim the complete defeat of the Calvinistic dogma on this one verse, Tom. I'm simply pointing out apparent discrepancies along the way.

The point you make regarding the ability of man to the "recognition of the truth clearly revealed at that moment," is that apparent discrepancy in light of the fact that "Total Depravity" teaches such recognition is impossible apart from the divine effectual aid of God. The fact that it is not salvific is common with us all because of it being "too late," but that doesn't change the discrepancy I just mentioned.

 

[Skandelon]

I would add (what I've added SO many times before), why the huge effort to defeat Calvinism? In so doing, brothers and sisters are becoming alienated from fellowship with each other.

Could both sides not make the same inquiry depending upon which thread one is reading at any given time? In fact, one could make a very strong argument that those of "reformed" tradition are more contentious and less kind in their discussions of these matters than those of our persuasion. (i.e. Luke, Aaron etc)

Discuss the points, sure, but to use every rhetorical trick in the book to try to trip up a person who holds a Reformed point of view just to win an argument seems beneath the efforts of a man of God.

This is a soteriological debate forum Fredrick. In debate one asks for clarification (i.e. distinction between God's desire and unchanging decrees), and should be able to do so without being ridiculed for "dodging" and "dancing," as was I by you and Aaron. In other words, I addressed the subject of your question by clarifying the terms and even quoting scholars from your own perspective. You and Aaron mocked me personally and refused to draw the simple distinction between what God desires (i.e. for man to obey Him) and sovereignly decrees (i.e. "let their be light.") So, I'll let objective readers judge which action is consistent to one claiming to be a man of God.

 

[Luke2427]

When you say "you people" I suppose you are including your namesake, John Calvin, since in his commentary on John 3:16 he wrote: "Both points are distinctly stated to us: namely, that faith in Christ brings life to all, and that Christ brought life, because the Heavenly Father loves the human race, and wishes that they should not perish."

Are you sure it's not you with the "nameless" theology?

Yea I point out to you the silliness of this argument in another thread.

It works like this- "You don't agree with John Calvin about one verse of SCripture- HA!!!!!! Se there!!!! You are a hypercalvinist!!!"

There is very little I disagree with Calvin about- but he is not infallible.

Many Calvinists have noted that "kosmos" has nothing to do with every single person on earth in John 3:16.

Are ALL OF THEM hypers?

Because that is what you are saying I am. You are saying I "out Calvin, Calvin" and your ridiculous justification for that is that I don't agree with him on ONE VERSE OF SCRIPTURE!"

Can you not see how absurd an argument that is????

 

[TomVols]

Glfredrick wrote:

To that, I would add (what I've added SO many times before), why the huge effort to defeat Calvinism? In so doing, brothers and sisters are becoming alienated from fellowship with each other. Discuss the points, sure, but to use every rhetorical trick in the book to try to trip up a person who holds a Reformed point of view just to win an argument seems beneath the efforts of a man of God.

I think many of our Calvinistic brothers and sisters need to give account for themselves here, too. Far too many on both "sides" believe it's their calling and purpose to uplift their view while demolishing anything and anyone in disagreement. To uphold Biblical teaching is a Biblical mandate. To destroy another person or simply engage in argumentative rancor is unChrist-like and foreign to Scripture. We may well win an argument (I've always wondered who decides the wins and losses) but what we lose may be far more critical.
Skandelon wrote:

In fact, one could make a very strong argument that those of "reformed" tradition are more contentious and less kind in their discussions of these matters than those of our persuasion. (i.e. Luke, Aaron etc)

I don't think it's particularly helpful to say that one side or the other is more vitrioloic. There are good and bad examples of all sides of all issues. Check your PM.

I'm not attempting to claim the complete defeat of the Calvinistic dogma on this one verse, Tom.

No, and I overstated it a bit. Let me rephrase it: to say this verse in any way contributes to a supposed silver bullet against Calvinism or somehow is a lynchpin argument for the other "side" is a stretch in my mind since both "sides" seem to agree.

The point you make regarding the ability of man to the "recognition of the truth clearly revealed at that moment," is that apparent discrepancy in light of the fact that "Total Depravity" teaches such recognition is impossible apart from the divine effectual aid of God. The fact that it is not salvific is common with us all because of it being "too late," but that doesn't change the discrepancy I just mentioned.

Following this line of reasoning, you would seem to argue that there will be no eschatological confessions that are susbtantively different from those that precede the coming of the Lord. So, if every knee confesses, then those confessions must by default be salvific. That's where I (and numerous others on here of all theological stripe) disagree. See above.

I think the line from Princess Bride says it best: "I do not think this means what you think it means." :tongue3:

Thanks, friend.

 

[Skandelon]

Yea I point out to you the silliness of this argument in another thread.

Yes, and I pointed out that bullying techniques, such as patronizing comments, don't work. You still must deal with the argument.

It works like this- "You don't agree with John Calvin about one verse of SCripture- HA!!!!!! Se there!!!! You are a hypercalvinist!!!"

I've reserved the term "hyper" for those who tend to anti-evangelism. I've called you a "hard determinist" because you can't seem to draw a distinction between God's active decrees and his permissive ones.

Plus, this wasn't just about the one verse, Luke. This was about you accusing Allan ("you people" with a "nameless theology") of being uninformed about what "Calvinists" believe when in reality you seemed to be uninformed about what Calvin himself taught on the very point you were attempting to prove.

There is very little I disagree with Calvin about- but he is not infallible.

We certainly agree on that point! :thumbsup:

Many Calvinists have noted that "kosmos" has nothing to do with every single person on earth in John 3:16.

Good, so then maybe you've learned your lesson not to label those of us to don't fall into lock step behind Arminius or some other name sake as being "nameless." Got it?

Are ALL OF THEM hypers?

Nope, never said they were. Try to read my posts more carefully.

 

[Skandelon]

I don't think it's particularly helpful to say that one side or the other is more vitrioloic. There are good and bad examples of all sides of all issues. Check your PM.

You're right, it might not be helpful, but at times it certainly appears to be true. As I've noted before, even John Piper acknowledges the tendency of Calvinists to act this way when he wrote:

"I love the doctrines of grace with all my heart, and I think they are pride-shattering, humbling, and love-producing doctrines. But I think there is an attractiveness about them to some people, in large matter, because of their intellectual rigor. They are powerfully coherent doctrines, and certain kinds of minds are drawn to that. And those kinds of minds tend to be argumentative.

So the intellectual appeal of the system of Calvinism draws a certain kind of intellectual person, and that type of person doesn't tend to be the most warm, fuzzy, and tender. Therefore this type of person has a greater danger of being hostile, gruff, abrupt, insensitive or intellectualistic.

I'll just confess that. It's a sad and terrible thing that that's the case. Some of this type aren't even Christians, I think. You can embrace a system of theology and not even be born again."

- John Piper

But, that being said, I do agree there is unnecessary vitriol on both sides. I guess from my perspective, which I admit is biased, the personal attacks do appear to be coming more from one side than the other.

No, and I overstated it a bit. Let me rephrase it: to say this verse in any way contributes to a supposed silver bullet against Calvinism or somehow is a lynchpin argument for the other "side" is a stretch in my mind since both "sides" seem to agree.

I think you still might be overstating. I never meant to communicate this is a "lynchpin argument" or close to a "silver bullet." I simply want to know how Calvinists maintain consistency in their view regarding whether or not a man can truly bow and confess Jesus as Lord while not being regenerated first (as is the view of many Cals)?

Following this line of reasoning, you would seem to argue that there will be no eschatological confessions that are susbtantively different from those that precede the coming of the Lord. So, if every knee confesses, then those confessions must by default be salvific.

Not if they aren't done "in faith" prior to judgement. I think we both agree their confession comes "too late" for it to merit salvation, but that is beside the point. My question is in regard to the natural man's ability to genuinely bow and make such a confession without being given a new heart first.

I hope that makes more sense.

 

[TomVols]

Not if they aren't done "in faith" prior to judgement. I think we both agree their confession comes "too late" for it to merit salvation, but that is beside the point. My question is in regard to the natural man's ability to genuinely bow and make such a confession without being given a new heart first.

I hope that makes more sense.

It does. I still maintain that, because it's too late to be salvific, this doesn't speak one whit to Calvinism or Arminianism, pro or con, and this seems to be borne out on the consensus by both sides.

 

[DHK]

THE OP:

Do you believe this means that one day every single person will bow and confess that Jesus is Lord, or is this speaking of only His elect?

If it means every individual, how do the totally depraved, natural, unregenerate men destined to an eternity in hell make such a confession without first being made able to understand and believe through the effectual work of God? In other words, if men can't bow and confess Jesus as Lord without first being effectually called (or regenerated) then how does every individual do this?

1. Every believer has already confessed Christ as Lord.
2. The rest of the world (all unbelievers) will confess Christ as Lord (whether they want to or not), at the Great White Throne Judgment, before that last sentence when they are thrown into the Lake of Fire. They will indeed recognize the ONE who is King of Kings and Lord of Lords, and they will not be able to deny him any longer. It will be a confession, but at this point it is too late. It cannot save.

 

[Luke2427]

I've reserved the term "hyper" for those who tend to anti-evangelism. I've called you a "hard determinist" because you can't seem to draw a distinction between God's active decrees and his permissive ones.

I have drawn a distinction. Apparently that is a waste of time when debating you.

Plus, this wasn't just about the one verse, Luke. This was about you accusing Allan ("you people" with a "nameless theology") of being uninformed about what "Calvinists" believe when in reality you seemed to be uninformed about what Calvin himself taught on the very point you were attempting to prove.

Yes, it WAS about one verse- because that is ALL YOU BROUGHT UP.

NOBODY agrees with ANYBODY about everything.

It is a meaningless argument you employed here.

Good, so then maybe you've learned your lesson not to label those of us to don't fall into lock step behind Arminius or some other name sake as being "nameless." Got it?

I'd be utterly THRILLED to label them as Arminians. Utterly THRILLED. What a blessing it would be to be able to label them Arminians- which is what they really are.

But they won't accept it.

So give me a name for their theology- and I will start calling them that.

But so long as their theology remains nameless- that is what I am going to call it- nameless.

 

[Skandelon]

I have drawn a distinction. Apparently that is a waste of time when debating you.

First, can we please drop the attitude? Try avoiding taking jabs. Let's just discuss the subject. Ok?

The only distinction I can recall is that you think God permits that which he has determined. You never seem to explain any situation where God only permissively decrees something and on the other hand actively decrees something else. Do you see my point?

Yes, it WAS about one verse- because that is ALL YOU BROUGHT UP.

But it only takes one commentary on one verse to prove what Calvin believe on that one subject, Luke. I could have quoted his commentary on 2 Peter 3:9 or a few other verses as well to show you where you differ.

NOBODY agrees with ANYBODY about everything.

And that is fine. You can disagree with Calvin on as many points as you want to Luke. I disagree with him on a lot of points too. I was just showing you how you "out-Calvin, John Calvin" on one important subject: God's love and desire for every individual in the world to be saved. Why you are trying to down play that very important point is pretty obvious to anyone following along.

It is a meaningless argument you employed here.

It's not meaningless to those you continually referred to as "you people" and accused of having a "nameless theology" because our individual views don't perfectly align with a historical namesake. How does it feel to be apart of the nameless crowd Luke? We are no more "nameless" than you are. We all disagree on some points with those "labels" you are trying to pin on us, but instead of treating us with respect and dealing with our arguments you attack us as being "nameless." Why? For the same reason that you have stated here, "NOBODY agrees with ANYBODY about everything."

I'd be utterly THRILLED to label them as Arminians. Utterly THRILLED. What a blessing it would be to be able to label them Arminians- which is what they really are.

But they won't accept it.

Why? Maybe because they don't agree with Arminius about everything and some of the other people throughout history who are closer to what they believe aren't known. Or maybe they take the scripture to heart where Paul writes:

11 My brothers, some from Chloe's household have informed me that there are quarrels among you. 12 What I mean is this: One of you says, "I follow Paul"; another, "I follow Apollos"; another, "I follow Cephas "; still another, "I follow Christ." 13 Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Were you baptized into the name of Paul? 14 I am thankful that I did not baptize any of you except Crispus and Gaius, 15 so no one can say that you were baptized into my name. 1 Cor.

Sound familiar?

So give me a name for their theology- and I will start calling them that.

But so long as their theology remains nameless- that is what I am going to call it- nameless.

How about you write to them with the respect and love that Paul wrote to the Corinthians, who he was attempting to correct and who he disagreed with on many points. He called them "brethren, beloved of the Lord." That is a good name.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

I simply want to know how Calvinists maintain consistency in their view regarding whether or not a man can truly bow and confess Jesus as Lord while not being regenerated first (as is the view of many Cals)?

I think this has already been explained to you, so forgive me if I appear to be repeating what someone else has already posted, but I'll try to put some extra flesh on it.

Let's try an analogy. When the Bible says, 'No one can say that Jesus is Lord except by the Holy Spirit' (1Cor 12:3), I should have thought it was obvious that it does not mean that the words are literally impossible to say unless the Holy Spirit permits. It means, in context, that no one can say and mean that Jesus is Lord. If you put a gun to the head of the average atheist and tell him to say Jesus is Lord or you'll blow his brains out, the chances are that he will say the words to save his life. So 1Cor 12:3 is not to be taken absolutely literally.

Are you with me so far?

When the Lord Jesus returns in glory, 'Every eye will see Him, even they who pierced Him, and all the nations of the earth will mourn because of Him' (Rev 1:7). They will not see our Lord as He is depicted in Isaiah 53:2-3, but as He will be in Rev 19:11ff. There will be no faith required to know that Jesus is Lord; it will be breathtakingly obvious. It will be the worst nightmare come true for those who have not believed, which is why they will 'mourn.'

They will not require the Holy Spirit to say, and mean, Jesus is Lord, because they will have the evidence of their own eyes.

'Every eye shall now behold Him
Robed in dreadful majesty;
Those who set at nought and sold Him,
Pierced and nailed Him to the tree,
Deeply wailing,
Shall the true Messiah see.

Every island, sea and mountain,
Heaven and earth, shall flee away;
All who hate Him must, confounded,
Hear the trump proclaim the day;
Come to judgement!
Come to judgement! Come away!'
John Cennick & Charles Wesley

I'm sorry if this is pathetically obvious, but you appear from your posts not to understand it.

Steve

 

[Amy.G]

I'd be utterly THRILLED to label them as Arminians. Utterly THRILLED. What a blessing it would be to be able to label them Arminians- which is what they really are.

But they won't accept it.

So give me a name for their theology- and I will start calling them that.

But so long as their theology remains nameless- that is what I am going to call it- nameless.

Why is this so important to you? Nowhere in the Bible are we required to label our theology. In fact Paul rebuked certain ones for doing just that. The only label that should matter is the one of Christian, a follower of Christ. I don't care what you call me. I belong to Jesus and I uphold His theology.