Harmony or Hostility?

[JonC]

There is a lot to parse out here (and I'll do that later Lord willing), but the more I read you the less it seems you understand Calvinism (Determinism). I don't mean that disparagingly, but what you're describing is more akin to non-determinism than to determinism. There is no "optimal" choice of God or any "freedom" of creatures in Calvinistic theology. Everything that occurs is normatively decreed.

You have to remember that Calvinism is far from united on this issue

Jonathan Edwards explained that Calvinists and Arminians both believe everything is predestined - either via divine decree (God causing it to occur) or in that God knows what will occur - so in practice there is no difference (the difference is philosophical).

Many Calvinists do not consider Edwards a Calvinist (based primarily on his explanations in Freedom of the Will) while others uplift him as a Calvinistic scholar.

I say that to say that you are broadbrushing Calvinism by arguing against Calvinistic theologies with which you disagree. Granted, those positions reflect the most vocal aspect of Calvinism today, but the most prolific is not always consistent (e.g., they are deterministic yet still consider Edwards representative of their views).


How do you come up with the conclusion that Calvinism excludes individual free choice?


Note: I am not a Calvinist. But I do believe everything is predestined while affirming free will (in the normal sence of the term, not libertarian free will).

 

[George Antonios]

Even Wesleyan Arminians believe that there must be a work of 'Prevenient Grace' before men can receive the Gospel.

There is no such thing as prevenient grace. The Arminians are as wrong about this as the Calvinist brethren are about effectual grace.

There is nothing in man's constitution that prevents him from coming to Christ; it is his own wicked and sinful nature that makes him unwilling.

Susbstitute "nature" for "constitution" and see how much sense this makes.

These little tweaks - flipping to a dynamic definition for antiordain or flipping to "constitution" instead of "nature" - reflect the bankruptcy of the philosophy.

But the question remains unanswered:
Is it not God that determined the nature of man's fallen nature?

Why can we not get a straight answer to a fair question?

I am going into hospital in a short while for a minor medical proceedure (cataract) so I'm not sure how soon I shall be able to answer any reply you may make.

I'm sorry about that. May the Lord heal you fully and keep you in good health.

 

[Van]

You…. are proving my prior statement.

You…. being an amateur student of Biblical Greek, looked in a Greek lexicon and noticed a possible meaning for a word that differs from the traditional understanding.

You,: being an amateur student of Biblical Greek and thus not having a clue WHY true Biblical Greek scholars: who have devoted decades of their lives to understanding the way in which Biblical Greek is used in context and have agreed the word means “world” and not “humanity” in that context:

You….. decided to offer an alternative meaning to the passage based on nothing more than an anti-Calvinism obsession.

You…. embarrass yourself every time you start a thread pretending to offer something new by way of understanding Biblical Greek.

You… can have your thread and I will leave you to it.

peace to you

LOL, if one of the meanings of a word is found in lexicons, then the meaning is historical, traditional and a valid translation choice.
Notice once again this ignorant blowhard begins each false claim with "YOU." Why these off topic posts are allowed is anyone's guess.

 

[RipponRedeaux]

If you really want to know what Calvinism is, read stuff by Baptists like John Bunyan, Benjamin Keach, Abraham Booth, and especially Andrew Fuller. You should also read Jonathan Edwards and D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones.

Also, read, AWP, CHS, JIP, BBW, Boice, Boyce, Reymond and Cunningham.

 

[DaveXR650]

Susbstitute "nature" for "constitution" and see how much sense this makes.

These little tweaks - flipping to a dynamic definition for antiordain or flipping to "constitution" instead of "nature" - reflect the bankruptcy of the philosophy.

Fuller goes into that and you are right in that more is going on than just you sin because you want to. If that was true then the Pelagians would be right in that all you need to do is stop doing that. It truly is a case of inability but it still is at the level of the will. The Bible talks about those whose eyes are full of adultery so that they can't stop sinning. They really can't. "Won't" would not be a correct explanation. But are they not still accountable for their sin? The point is that it is different than "can't" in the way I would say you can't jump over the church building. That is truly a natural inability.

But the question remains unanswered:
Is it not God that determined the nature of man's fallen nature?

Why can we not get a straight answer to a fair question?

The answer is God has indeed permitted it. My opinion is that he decided that given the amount of original freedom and ability he created men with, and taking in all other things that God figured in that are completely above us, he decided that that would be the best thing to happen and so it was indeed his will.

I know that is a bonified Calvinistic position but not the only one. Many Calvinists believe that God meticulously determined every specific act involved in the fall. Let me be clear: they believe God made Adam and Eve fall, purely and directly. This is not the type of determinism I believe but I have seen it in the literature and admit it is there. And it may be the predominate view.

I'm sorry about that. May the Lord heal you fully and keep you in good health.

Amen

 

[DaveXR650]

Many Calvinists do not consider Edwards a Calvinist (based primarily on his explanations in Freedom of the Will) while others uplift him as a Calvinistic scholar.

Jon, if you want to get a real nerd fight going just say he was a Puritan. A lot of people would disagree. And I heard Sinclair Ferguson claim Edwards as British the other day and not American because technically he was a British subject living in America! Now them's fightin' words.

 

[Van]

Sometimes you can find two verses that read very much the same in two different books, but then you also find the scholars think one verse was altered to read like another by a copyist in a misguided effort to present the true harmony of scripture. Translators might be tempted to engage in emendation too, and that of course would be very wrong.

One of the oft repeated phrases found in the New Testament is "from (or before) the foundation of the world." This phrase is found about 10 times. And the Greek word, transliterated Katabole (G2602) is translated as "foundation" in all 10 of these cases.

However, we can find a very similar phrase "from the foundation of the earth" also in the New Testament. One would assume that these phrases in the original Greek would be very similar, since they are translated almost in the same way. However, "katabole" also appears to mean "cast down" (see Hebrews 11:11) so why is it translated as if it means "foundation," when another Greek word, transliterated "Themelioo" (G2311) actually means foundation? See Hebrews 1:10.

The phrase "ability to conceive" found in the NASB version of Hebrews 11:11, is a translation of the Greek construction of "dunamin eis kabolen spermatos: (power for down-casting of seed). Thus Hebrews 11:11 demonstrates (1) katabole means down-casting and (2) used to indicating the laying down or founding of something.

So why do these very different phrases read nearly the same in many of our English translations, is this a case of actual harmony of message, or a case of hostility to God's inspired word?

It is interesting to consider Hebrews 6:1, because both our words appear, but the idea is "not again casting down the foundation of repentance from dead works and faith in God." "Foundation" is another translation of "themelioo" and (in verb form) "kataballomeno" is rendered "laying or casting down." (See Hebrews 6:1 and 2 Corinthians 4:9)

What if God's word was intended to say, from (or before) the founding of humanity?[/QUOTE]

 

[Van]

The topic of this thread is to accurately translate God's word. Thus KJVO advocates would be opposed to correcting anything found in the KJV and the Falselogy advocates would be opposed to correcting their mistranslations and misinterpretations. Therefore posters from both groups are furiously posting off topic posts non-stop.

Go figure...

 

[George Antonios]

Fuller goes into that and you are right in that more is going on than just you sin because you want to. If that was true then the Pelagians would be right in that all you need to do is stop doing that. It truly is a case of inability but it still is at the level of the will. The Bible talks about those whose eyes are full of adultery so that they can't stop sinning. They really can't. "Won't" would not be a correct explanation. But are they not still accountable for their sin? The point is that it is different than "can't" in the way I would say you can't jump over the church building. That is truly a natural inability.



The answer is God has indeed permitted it. My opinion is that he decided that given the amount of original freedom and ability he created men with, and taking in all other things that God figured in that are completely above us, he decided that that would be the best thing to happen and so it was indeed his will.

I know that is a bonified Calvinistic position but not the only one. Many Calvinists believe that God meticulously determined every specific act involved in the fall. Let me be clear: they believe God made Adam and Eve fall, purely and directly. This is not the type of determinism I believe but I have seen it in the literature and admit it is there. And it may be the predominate view.


Amen

In any part of the Calvinistic spectrum, it is God that constituted the make-up of man's fallen nature.

The answer is God has indeed permitted it.

The parameters of fallen human nature did not devolve randomly on their own.
God programmed them.

Therefore, to say that "man sins because it is his nature" is to, as the Lebanese proverb says, "hide behind the shadow of one's finger".
Since it is God that formed the make-up of fallen human nature, it is God that made fallen man incapable of believing the gospel. God then judges that man for an inability that God himself set up.

The truth of the matter is that fallen man can believe the gospel, and often does, without any internal work of grace, prevenient or otherwise.

 

[RipponRedeaux]

The truth of the matter is that fallen man can believe the gospel, and often does, without any internal work of grace, prevenient or otherwise.

Only by the intervention of the Lord can someone be saved.

"The Lord opened her [Lydia's] heart to respond to Paul's message." Acts 16:14.

 

[George Antonios]

The topic of this thread is to accurately translate God's word. Thus KJVO advocates would be opposed to correcting anything found in the KJV and the Falselogy advocates would be opposed to correcting their mistranslations and misinterpretations. Therefore posters from both groups are furiously posting off topic posts non-stop.

Go figure...

Well brother, the majority of your threads are a "correction" of the KJB wording, so it gets tedious for everyone, even those who aren't impressed with the KJB, to always deal with that, especially when an anti-KJB bias on your part is perceived by both sides of the issue.

 

[Van]

Well brother, the majority of your threads are a "correction" of the KJB wording, so it gets tedious for everyone, even those who aren't impressed with the KJB, to always deal with that, especially when an anti-KJB bias on your part is perceived by both sides of the issue.

Even if your claim were true, and it is not, those trying to highjack this thread are violating forum policy.

BTW, Verses from many versions, such as NLT, NIV, and ESV were specifically given as examples of hostility to God's word.
Recall James 2:5? Note the verse in the KJV is rendered accurately, showing no hostility in that verse. The charge was demonstrated as true using other translations. Me thinks thou protest too much...

 

[George Antonios]

Only by the intervention of the Lord can someone be saved.

You don't say... No one denied that.

"The Lord opened her [Lydia's] heart to respond to Paul's message." Acts 16:14.

A) it's: whose heart the Lord opened, that she attended unto the things which were spoken of Paul.

B) This is a classic case of resonance whereby we read something into the text because its tenor resonates with our mental framing:



C) This can only be resolved by cold, clinical observation:

• The verse does not say she worshipped God in vain.
• The verse does not say she prayed in vain.
  The verse does not say that God regenerated her.
• The verse does not say that that's how God deals with every man.
• The verse does not say what Paul was saying – it is an assumption that here it was the gospel to which her heart was opened (even if the gospel may have been mentioned). Changing the wording to "message" is biased because it implies "gospel". Lydia may already have been saved, since Luke tells us that she already worshipped God and prayed before meeting Paul.
  Remember, this meeting occured where prayer was wont to be made and there also Luke only says that they spake (not "preached the gospel" - which, again I say, does not automatically imply that they did not preach the gospel) unto the women which resorted thither. It is likely that this was a situation like Apollos' unto whom Aquila and Priscilla expounded...the way of God more perfectly (Acts 18:26). This understanding is strengthened by noting that only her ensuing baptism is mentioned, not her ensuing faith; and by noting that the apostles had had time enough to judge her as faithful to the Lord (the verse does not say "a believer in God"). How could she have been considered faithful to the Lord if she had just gotten saved on the spot? But if she had already been saved and the entourage testified to that, then the noted faithfulness makes more sense.
• That there was a conditionality to God opening her heart is implied in Luke’s noting that she was already a worshipper of God and a pray-er. So if anything, the opening is conditional, just as in Psalm 50:23 and Romans 2:6-11 and Acts 10.

Let me say again, that these are simply observations and considerations which must be taken into account.

Only with assumptions and with confirmation bias can God's opening of Lydia's heart translate into Calvinism.

 

[George Antonios]

Even if your claim were true, and it is not, those trying to highjack this thread are violating forum policy.

BTW, Verses from many versions, such as NLT, NIV, and ESV were specifically given as examples of hostility to God's word.
Recall James 2:5? Note the verse in the KJV is rendered accurately, showing no hostility in that verse. The charge was demonstrated as true using other translations. Me things thou protest too much...

So you're asking me to stop replying to the posts on Calvinism in this thread?
If that is so, fine, I will cease. I do not wish to highjack your thread.

 

[AustinC]

Even if your claim were true, and it is not, those trying to highjack this thread are violating forum policy.

BTW, Verses from many versions, such as NLT, NIV, and ESV were specifically given as examples of hostility to God's word.
Recall James 2:5? Note the verse in the KJV is rendered accurately, showing no hostility in that verse. The charge was demonstrated as true using other translations. Me thinks thou protest too much...

In this area, George is not wrong. You have many threads where you attempt to "retranslate" the Bible to fit your theology.

 

[JonC]

Jon, if you want to get a real nerd fight going just say he was a Puritan. A lot of people would disagree. And I heard Sinclair Ferguson claim Edwards as British the other day and not American because technically he was a British subject living in America! Now them's fightin' words.

Lol....yea.....them fighting words.

 

[Van]

In this area, George is not wrong. You have many threads where you attempt to "retranslate" the Bible to fit your theology.

Yet another "You" post clearly off topic addressing my supposed behavior. How long will this travesty continue?

 

[Van]

Sometimes you can find two verses that read very much the same in two different books, but then you also find the scholars think one verse was altered to read like another by a copyist in a misguided effort to present the true harmony of scripture. Translators might be tempted to engage in emendation too, and that of course would be very wrong.

One of the oft repeated phrases found in the New Testament is "from (or before) the foundation of the world." This phrase is found about 10 times. And the Greek word, transliterated Katabole (G2602) is translated as "foundation" in all 10 of these cases.

However, we can find a very similar phrase "from the foundation of the earth" also in the New Testament. One would assume that these phrases in the original Greek would be very similar, since they are translated almost in the same way. However, "katabole" appears to mean "cast down" (see Hebrews 11:11) so why is it translated as if it means "foundation," when another Greek word, transliterated "Themelioo" (G2311) actually means foundation? See Hebrews 1:10.

So why do these very different phrases read nearly the same in many of our English translations, is this a case of actual harmony of message, or a case of hostility to God's inspired word?

It is interesting to consider Hebrews 6:1, because both our words appear, but the idea is "not again casting down the foundation of repentance from dead works and faith in God." "Foundation" is another translation of "themelioo" and (in verb form) "kataballomeno" is rendered "laying or casting down." (See Hebrews 6:1 and 2 Corinthians 4:9) What if God's word was intended to say, from (or before) the founding of humanity? The context of the verses which include the phrase, the foundation of the world actually refer to before or after God creates humanity.

Matthew 13:35 refers to the time period since things were hidden from humanity.

Matthew 25:34 refers to the kingdom prepared for people since the founding of humanity.

Luke 11:50 refers to charging the shed blood of prophets against humanity since the founding of humanity.

John 17:24 refers to Christ existing before the founding of humanity.

Ephesians 1:4 refers to Christ being chosen before the founding of humanity to be God's redeemer and the corporate choice therefore of those His redeemer would redeem.

Hebrews 4:3 refers to God completing His words since the founding of humanity.

Hebrews 9:26 refers to the fact Christ would have needed to suffer many times since the founding of humanity if He was like the human High Priests, entering a temple made by human hands, but He was not, and offered Himself once for all.

1 Peter 1:20 refers to Christ being know as the Lamb of God before the founding of humanity.

Revelation 13:8 refers to names written in the Lamb's book of life since the founding of humanity.

Revelation 17:8 refers to names written in the Lamb's book of life since the founding of humanity.
​

 

[RipponRedeaux]

Calvin quoted Augustine more than any other Church Father. However, he wasn't into him "100%"; he took issue with him a number of times.

I have only eight of John Calvin's New Testament commentaries. In those volumes he cites Augustine 82 times and Chrysostom 84 times.

I have a book edited by Herman J. Selderhuis. Its title is The Calvin Handbook. There is a chapter by Ian Hazlett. It's called Theological Relations --Calvin and the Church Fathers.

"...Chrysostom was his lifelong favorite in matters of biblical exegesis..." (p.127)

"...he will find no other Greek or Latin author in the canon to equal Chrysostom." (p.129)

Types--commentaries and Prefaces by Raymond A. Blacketer

In Chrysostom he finds a model of sound exegesis, that is, a decidedly historical and literal method of interpreting Scripture, despite the fact that, doctrinally, Calvin prefers Augustine's monergistic tendencies..." (p. 191)

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

…Notice once again this ignorant blowhard begins each false claim with "YOU." Why these off topic posts are allowed is anyone's guess.

“Ignorant blowhard”?

Perhaps one should wonder why such offensive epithets are allowed.