John 1:9 "enlightens every man"

[The Archangel]

Benefactor,

You wrote:

This verse without a doubt tells us that the Light of Jesus enlightens every man coming into the world. We are not talking about natural revelation but a supernatural enlightenment.

Let me make this clear to all who read. This verse does not teach universalism or universal salvation. What it does say is that every man coming into the world is enlightened by Christ himself, the true light.


This verse is not just a declaration of universal atonement which is a fact in Scripture. There too, universal atonement is a conditional offer for all mankind to believe and be saved not a statement promoting universalism where all are saved. Atonement is conditional whereby the person must believe for it to be effective, but it is universally available.

Unfortunately, there is a contextual issue here. While I see your explanation of the Greek (and I think it is fine), you do not go far enough. Unfortunately, you focus on only one verse--John 1:9.

Had you gone further into verses 10 through 13 you would have seen things, in Greek, that absolutely refute your premises above.

1. Verses 10 and 11, even without Greek work, refute your idea. Why? Because Jesus came into the world and the world was made through Him and the world did not know Him. Therefore, it cannot be the case that He enlightens every man. Otherwise, as verse 11 states, His own people would not have rejected Him.

The verses following your argument clearly show that the people who rejected Christ were not enlightened.

2. Verse 12 tells us that anyone who receives Him (explained as those who believe in His name), He gave the right to become children of God. Now, that's obvious. Where your argument comes to a screeching halt is verse 13 and the verb egennethesan. This verb is a 3rd person plural, Aorist, Indicative, Passive.

In Greek, any verb which is passive absolutely precludes and prevents the subject from acting upon him/her/it self. In this case egennethesan, being passive, cannot mean that people who believed (in verse 12) did this of themselves.

So, to summarize, if verse 9 stood by itself, you would have a good argument. However, because the passage does progress further and because the explanation by John has this passive verb "Were Born," you cannot make your argument.

Such is the challenge when it comes to the Bible. Context is king, even when reading Greek.

While it is no secret that I am a 5-pointer, I encourage you to make your case for your non-Calvinist position. . .you just can't do it from this particular passage.

Many Blessings to you,

The Archangel

 

[Darrenss1]

Benefactor,

You wrote:
Unfortunately, there is a contextual issue here. While I see your explanation of the Greek (and I think it is fine), you do not go far enough. Unfortunately, you focus on only one verse--John 1:9.

Had you gone further into verses 10 through 13 you would have seen things, in Greek, that absolutely refute your premises above.

1. Verses 10 and 11, even without Greek work, refute your idea. Why? Because Jesus came into the world and the world was made through Him and the world did not know Him. Therefore, it cannot be the case that He enlightens every man. Otherwise, as verse 11 states, His own people would not have rejected Him.

The verses following your argument clearly show that the people who rejected Christ were not enlightened.

2. Verse 12 tells us that anyone who receives Him (explained as those who believe in His name), He gave the right to become children of God. Now, that's obvious. Where your argument comes to a screeching halt is verse 13 and the verb egennethesan. This verb is a 3rd person plural, Aorist, Indicative, Passive.

In Greek, any verb which is passive absolutely precludes and prevents the subject from acting upon him/her/it self. In this case egennethesan, being passive, cannot mean that people who believed (in verse 12) did this of themselves.

John 1:9 That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.

10 He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.

11 He came unto his own, and his own received him not.

12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:

13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

Once a sinner (whom the Lord's light shines upon according to the context of John 1:9) believes and is saved they are Born-Again by the power of God by God's will not man's, as is typical of an Arminian view. However those whom the light of the Lord shines upon can reject or refuse that light. I can't see a contradiction there at all, neither would that refute v9.

There is the Light that shines upon EVERY man v9, there is those that receive Him not v11 and those that DO receive Him v12, God by HIS will and power caused them, the ones whom believed on His name, to be Born of God v12-13.

The Light shined upon those that received Him as well as those that received Him NOT. That's the context as I see it....

Darren

 

[canadyjd]

In other threads over time, some have taken the position that the Bible speaks of Jesus being the light to every man, so someway, somehow, every person in the world knows about Jesus. They cannot explain how that was done, so it is a matter of faith for them......I wish it were provably true that every person without exception knows enough about Jesus for salvation; unfortunately, I don't see it.

As with me.

Apparantly, there is no good answer to the question, and so people declaring universal atonement available to everybody, use their own free will to ignored the question.:smilewinkgrin:

peace to youraying:

 

[Me4Him]

As with me.

Apparantly, there is no good answer to the question, and so people declaring universal atonement available to everybody, use their own free will to ignored the question.

peace to youraying:

In my "HUMBLE" :smilewinkgrin: Opinion,

Anyone who read the scriptures and doesn't come away with the idea that man must give God a reason to save him, such as "BELIEVE" and follow God's instruction,

Needs to return to school, "Headstart" even. :laugh:

I've said it before and say it again, if Calvinist tried interpreting any other document the same way they do scripture, they would be viewed as "incompetent".

Imagine, reading a "WILL" that divided the inheritance equally among "ALL", on the condition that "ALL" stop using drugs, those who don't comply, lose their part of the inheritance,

And it is the "responsibility" of the "Estate Executor" (Judge=God) to assist "ALL" who have a "WILLINGNESS" to kick the habit and to "Communicate" with those "UNWILLING" that he will assist if they become "Willing" in order to receive the inheritance,

Now imagine that Judge, ignoring the law, without any consideration of "Willingness", (faith) arbitrarily picking/chosing whom he will, and "WON'T" assist, to receive the inheritance.


Jesus died for the sins of the "WHOLE WORLD" that the whole world "MIGHT" receive the same inheritance as him, on the condition that a person is "WILLING" to have "Faith in him",

As "Executor of the estate", God is accused of ignoring the law, the condition of willingness/unwillingness, and actually not communicating (ineffective call) or offer assistance to those "unwilling".

The Conditions of the Will, and the "inheritance" that was intented for "ALL" has been denied to "ALL",

"BY THE JUDGE".

That's Calvin's interpretation of scripture.

 

[Benefactor]

Benefactor,

You wrote:
Unfortunately, there is a contextual issue here. While I see your explanation of the Greek (and I think it is fine), you do not go far enough. Unfortunately, you focus on only one verse--John 1:9.

Had you gone further into verses 10 through 13 you would have seen things, in Greek, that absolutely refute your premises above.

1. Verses 10 and 11, even without Greek work, refute your idea. Why? Because Jesus came into the world and the world was made through Him and the world did not know Him. Therefore, it cannot be the case that He enlightens every man. Otherwise, as verse 11 states, His own people would not have rejected Him.

The verses following your argument clearly show that the people who rejected Christ were not enlightened.

2. Verse 12 tells us that anyone who receives Him (explained as those who believe in His name), He gave the right to become children of God. Now, that's obvious. Where your argument comes to a screeching halt is verse 13 and the verb egennethesan. This verb is a 3rd person plural, Aorist, Indicative, Passive.

In Greek, any verb which is passive absolutely precludes and prevents the subject from acting upon him/her/it self. In this case egennethesan, being passive, cannot mean that people who believed (in verse 12) did this of themselves.

So, to summarize, if verse 9 stood by itself, you would have a good argument. However, because the passage does progress further and because the explanation by John has this passive verb "Were Born," you cannot make your argument.

Such is the challenge when it comes to the Bible. Context is king, even when reading Greek.

While it is no secret that I am a 5-pointer, I encourage you to make your case for your non-Calvinist position. . .you just can't do it from this particular passage.

Many Blessings to you,

The Archangel

Received and believing in 12 are active and man is active in this sense. Man cannot save himself only God does that but man can receive the truth and believe the truth, receiving Jesus and His message or believing Jesus and His message are not of themselves salvation, but the requirement of man if man is to passively receive new birth. There is nothing man can do to make himself a new creation, he only receives and believes the person and the message of the person Jesus Christ. God desires to save and when this condition is met the sinner passively, because he can do it himself, receives the new birth.

 

[The Archangel]

Benefactor,

You responded:

Received and believing in 12 are active and man is active in this sense. Man cannot save himself only God does that but man can receive the truth and believe the truth, receiving Jesus and His message or believing Jesus and His message are not of themselves salvation, but the requirement of man if man is to passively receive new birth. There is nothing man can do to make himself a new creation, he only receives and believes the person and the message of the person Jesus Christ. God desires to save and when this condition is met the sinner passively, because he can do it himself, receives the new birth.

I expected you to respond this way. Of course "receive" (elabon) is active, but it is subjunctive (which, ultimately, doesn't impact the nature of our discussion). However, "believed" (pisteuousin) is not a verb at all; it is a participle. A better translation would be "But to all who did receive him--the ones having believed in his name--he gave the right to become children of God."

The "believed" is part of what is essentially a parenthetical statement meant to qualify how one receives Jesus--by believing on his name. No good Calvinist would deny that man has to respond to God. Of course we have to actively believe.

However, the part that you still can't get past is verse 13.

John's statements (or argument) are very well structured. This passage reads more like a Pauline argument (with the exception of specific grammar). John is stating things that built upon one another. So, it is quite interesting that John withholds the verb of verse 13 until the very end. Because of his word order John is making the point that those who are children of God (the believing ones) became such, ultimately, by God's work, not their own.

Verse 13 in a more wooden translation can read: "who, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God were born." And this verse is meant to qualify who he is talking about in verse 12.

So, ultimately, the verb egennethesan, being passive, cannot support your point. Because God (Theou) is not the object of egennethesan (because Theou is genitive) , you can't suggest that "man passively receives new birth." Again, in Greek, the passive means that something is done to someone else. You cannot suggest man passively receives anything because receiving is, by definition, an active verb. Passively receiving is an oxymoron.

Further, the implied subject (the one doing the action) for egennethesan is God, not man. Because the passive requires the action being done by an outside force, man is not and, by definition, cannot be the subject of egennethesan.

So, again, you are free to make your argument; you just can't do it from this passage.

Also, in your OP, you suggested this was a proof of universal salvation. I can't find any word in verse 9 that suggests that "enlightens" has anything to do with salvation. Now, of course, contextually, it can be said the entire pericope of 9-13 is talking about salvation, but it is difficult to see your argument from that one verse.

As a Calvinist, I have no problem with a requirement for man to repent and believe--that is quite biblical. However, the problem that I and most Calvinists have is that your understanding of salvation makes God the reactor to man. The biblical model has always been that God acts first--He is the Main Actor--and man responds to His action. That is exactly what this passage suggests is going on.

Many blessings,

The Archangel

 

[ray Marshall]

This passage does teach a "spiritual enlightenment," though it does not specify the extent to which each human is "enlightened." It is certain that this "enlightenment" is NOT referring to universal salvation, which shoots down Calvinism's insistence of this being "effectual calling." Instead, this is a reference to "prevenient grace," which is the calling of ALL men to God, enabling them to respond to the "light," but in no way forcing such response.

All men are called of GOD.Johh, 1:11,13
11, He came unto his own, and his own received him not.
12, But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the Sons of GOD, even to them that believe on his name13, WHICH WERE BORN, not of blood, NOR OF THE WILL OF THE FLESH,NOR OF THE WILL OF MAN, "BUT OF GOD." Man had no part in the will of GOD. although he seems to think he does.

 

[The Archangel]

Darren,

You Wrote:

Once a sinner (whom the Lord's light shines upon according to the context of John 1:9) believes and is saved they are Born-Again by the power of God by God's will not man's, as is typical of an Arminian view. However those whom the light of the Lord shines upon can reject or refuse that light. I can't see a contradiction there at all, neither would that refute v9.

Unfortunately, you are reading a presupposition into this text. You are putting an order of things here that is simply not present in the Greek (or the English translation, for that matter).

Since you bring up "Born-Again" (and I'm assuming a reference to John 3:3) can you explain to me why John 3:3 states "Born-Again" as a passive verb? Your thoughts on the matter would have us believe that being born again is something that we do and then God jumps into action to save us. However, John 3:3 simply disallows that understanding.

Responding to God in repentance and faith is a result of being born again, not its cause.

Blessings,

The Archangel

 

[Robert Snow]

It is for Ben or anyone else who thinks they are wiser than their forefathers who taught these truths and martyrs who died for them.

Before you begin putting these "forefathers" on a pedestal, remember they were only human. As far as Calvin is concerned, they were wrong!

 

[Benefactor]

Darren,

You Wrote:

Unfortunately, you are reading a presupposition into this text. You are putting an order of things here that is simply not present in the Greek (or the English translation, for that matter).

Since you bring up "Born-Again" (and I'm assuming a reference to John 3:3) can you explain to me why John 3:3 states "Born-Again" as a passive verb? Your thoughts on the matter would have us believe that being born again is something that we do and then God jumps into action to save us. However, John 3:3 simply disallows that understanding.

Responding to God in repentance and faith is a result of being born again, not its cause.

Blessings,

The Archangel

Now, man is not passive in receiving and believing the truth as clearly stated in verse 12. Both are true, not one over the other.

Man accepts Christ not as affecting his own salvation but as accepting Him on the basis of Who He says He is as well as believing in Him, a transfer of trust from self and the world to Christ. Once this is done God regenerates or gives new birth, converts the sinner, etc. They are separated and both are true and combatable, thus free will to receive and believe truth, but by all means not save himself from hell to heaven with out God saving him

Receiving and believing is first and regeneration, salvation, conversion, new birth / born from above is second.

 

[Benefactor]

Benefactor,

You responded:

I expected you to respond this way. Of course "receive" (elabon) is active, but it is subjunctive (which, ultimately, doesn't impact the nature of our discussion).

I would direct you to look again. Sometimes it is easy to miss but elabon is not subjunctive

Here is the break down:

But as many as received - Elabon is as Aorist Active Indicative Verb third person plural As such the action, active, started at a point in time past.

Illustrated the ariost is represented as follows:

-------------------------*
*------------------------
or just a dot * The aorist is represented as punctilia, it happened period.

Every thing in the structure of these verse are in line with what I have said. Those that received at a point in time past who are the ones believing.

Verse 13 of course as we all agree tells us that God caused these to be born (from above). God birthed those that believed what He told them.



to the ones believing tois pisteuousin / tois = the ones / pisteuousin - believing = participleal verb in the present tense, active, dative case, masculine in gender and plural in number.

However, "believed" (pisteuousin) is not a verb at all; it is a participle. A better translation would be "But to all who did receive him--the ones having believed in his name--he gave the right to become children of God."

The "believed" is part of what is essentially a parenthetical statement meant to qualify how one receives Jesus--by believing on his name. No good Calvinist would deny that man has to respond to God. Of course we have to actively believe.

However, the part that you still can't get past is verse 13.

John's statements (or argument) are very well structured. This passage reads more like a Pauline argument (with the exception of specific grammar). John is stating things that built upon one another. So, it is quite interesting that John withholds the verb of verse 13 until the very end. Because of his word order John is making the point that those who are children of God (the believing ones) became such, ultimately, by God's work, not their own.

Verse 13 in a more wooden translation can read: "who, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God were born." And this verse is meant to qualify who he is talking about in verse 12.

So, ultimately, the verb egennethesan, being passive, cannot support your point. Because God (Theou) is not the object of egennethesan (because Theou is genitive) , you can't suggest that "man passively receives new birth." Again, in Greek, the passive means that something is done to someone else. You cannot suggest man passively receives anything because receiving is, by definition, an active verb. Passively receiving is an oxymoron.

Further, the implied subject (the one doing the action) for egennethesan is God, not man. Because the passive requires the action being done by an outside force, man is not and, by definition, cannot be the subject of egennethesan.

So, again, you are free to make your argument; you just can't do it from this passage.

Also, in your OP, you suggested this was a proof of universal salvation. I can't find any word in verse 9 that suggests that "enlightens" has anything to do with salvation. Now, of course, contextually, it can be said the entire pericope of 9-13 is talking about salvation, but it is difficult to see your argument from that one verse.

As a Calvinist, I have no problem with a requirement for man to repent and believe--that is quite biblical. However, the problem that I and most Calvinists have is that your understanding of salvation makes God the reactor to man. The biblical model has always been that God acts first--He is the Main Actor--and man responds to His action. That is exactly what this passage suggests is going on.

Many blessings,

The Archangel

And you are a Calvinist and I am not so that will not change. You must defend your model that is all your argument amounts too. Those of us that do not tip toe through the tulips and indulge in dortology expect you to run with whatever you can conjure up. It is what it is. Regardless of what we say or how many verses, chapters, books we present you are not going to accept them.

 

[The Archangel]

Benefactor,

You are correct that elabon is not subjunctive. I don't know why I thought it was subjunctive. Again, though, that has no bearing on our discussion.

Your original thoughts about verse 9 are still flawed. And, again, you are reading your supposed order of salvation into this text. The text doesn't suggest anything about salvation or the order thereof. And, yes, I am reading a bit into the text stating that Regeneration comes first. But in the context of the whole Bible that is clearly the case.

John's argument culminates in the passive egennethesan which, because of it's position in the sentence and the pericope as a whole is absolutely describing how someone becomes a believer.

John uses the idiom "coming into the world" several times in this Gospel. Not one of the uses are ever connected to man. All of his uses of this idiom are connected to Christ coming into the world. So, again, you are free to make your arguments, you just can't argue what you want to from this text without doing a great amount of violence to the letter of the Greek.

Not to mention, the great A.T. Robertson (a Greek scholar of the first order) stands firmly against you.

Blessings,

The Archangel

 

[Benefactor]

Benefactor,

You are correct that elabon is not subjunctive. I don't know why I thought it was subjunctive. Again, though, that has no bearing on our discussion.

Your original thoughts about verse 9 are still flawed. And, again, you are reading your supposed order of salvation into this text.

John uses the idiom "coming into the world" several times in this Gospel. Not one of the uses are ever connected to man. All of his uses of this idiom are connected to Christ coming into the world. So, again, you are free to make your arguments, you just can't argue what you want to from this text without doing a great amount of violence to the letter of the Greek.

Blessings,

The Archangel

Here is the order of salvation less you and me.

Some received
These some believed
These were birthed by God

 

[The Archangel]

Benefactor,

You wrote (and that a response to a conversation with someone else):

Now, man is not passive in receiving and believing the truth as clearly stated in verse 12. Both are true, not one over the other.

Man accepts Christ not as affecting his own salvation but as accepting Him on the basis of Who He says He is as well as believing in Him, a transfer of trust from self and the world to Christ. Once this is done God regenerates or gives new birth, converts the sinner, etc. They are separated and both are true and compatible, thus free will to receive and believe truth, but by all means not save himself from hell to heaven with out God saving him

Receiving and believing is first and regeneration, salvation, conversion, new birth / born from above is second.

First: I never suggested that Man was passive in receiving and believing the truth. If you read my previous posts I absolutely affirm that man must respond to God; I absolutely affirm that man must believe God. Please do not continue to mis-represent my (and others') position.

Second: The issue is the proverbial chicken-or-the-egg issue--which came first. Biblically speaking, God never responds to man. Man is always the responder and God is always the initiator.

Since you will, obviously, maintain your position that man acts first, I'll ask you to explain these two things:

Explain the Passive "Born-Again" in John 3:3.

Explain Abraham. Joshua clearly states that when God called him he was an idol worshiper. Explain Abraham acting first and then God saving him.

Blessings,

The Archangel

 

[TCGreek]

The window we look through does color the view. The answer is yes for me and for you if you are honest. Once you have established your foundation everything else is flavored by it.

It's not that black-and-white, my brother.

Both Calvinism and non-Calvinism positions are simply human efforts to get at truth.

Both are plagued with flawed arguments. Calvinists can't even agree on every passage.

 

[TCGreek]

It is for Ben or anyone else who thinks they are wiser than their forefathers who taught these truths and martyrs who died for them.

We need to sacrifice our lives for Jesus. If these truths that martyrs died for are about Jesus, then, hallelujah!

 

[The Archangel]

Benefactor,

You wrote:

Here is the order of salvation less you and me.

Some received
These some believed
These were birthed by God

Nope. Not even this passage will let you have that.

Unfortunately, and this is in no way intended to be an insult, I think your knowledge of Greek is limited to Strong's and parsing tool. Why do I say this? Because you put too much emphasis on the Active as progressing to the Passive of verse 13. In reality, no such progression exists. A careful diagram of the passage will show that John is not making such a progression. If anything he is making a digression making the final, ultimate, point that the ones who are believing were born of God and that's why they, ultimately, believed.

Now, friend, I don't know the level of your Greek education and I'm happy that you are into the Greek text. But, I do have a Master's Degree in this stuff and am quite proficient in diagramming Greek (even though I have to check a parsing here and there) and I'm telling you that you should look to other passages to support your order of salvation because this one won't let you do it.

Blessings,

The Archangel

 

[Benefactor]

Benefactor,

You wrote:

Nope. Not even this passage will let you have that.

Unfortunately, and this is in no way intended to be an insult, I think your knowledge of Greek is limited to Strong's and parsing tool. Why do I say this? Because you put too much emphasis on the Active as progressing to the Passive of verse 13. In reality, no such progression exists. A careful diagram of the passage will show that John is not making such a progression. If anything he is making a digression making the final, ultimate, point that the ones who are believing were born of God and that's why they, ultimately, believed.

Now, friend, I don't know the level of your Greek education and I'm happy that you are into the Greek text. But, I do have a Master's Degree in this stuff and am quite proficient in diagramming Greek (even though I have to check a parsing here and there) and I'm telling you that you should look to other passages to support your order of salvation because this one won't let you do it.

Blessings,

The Archangel

A participle is a verbal form; it has verb characteristics and functions as an adjective. The verbal characteristics are voice and tense and the adjective characteristics are number, gender and case

To state that the word does not mean what it says by stating that because it is a participle it can't mean what it says is a Huge Miss Leading Statement.

Robertson states, "the only way to get symmetry in the treatment of the participle is to follow the line of its double nature (adjectival and verbal) and discuss the adjectival functions and verbal functions separately" DM page 224


Use of the Greek Participle
A participle is called a 'verbal adjective' because it is formed from a verb, yet often modifies other words. Oftentimes it may be hard to to translate a participle into English and still bring out the same force as it has in the Greek. First try to understand the meaning of the Greek participle is trying to convey, then worry about an appropriate English translation. The translation may have to be as an English relative clause when used adjectivally in Greek.
The participle can be used in one of three major categories of use:

Internet source: h t t p : / / w w w . ntgreek . org / learn_nt_greek / participles . h t m

I encourage all who are not Calvinist to take your time and read the internet information. You will see than my friend is in deep water and has left the playing field.

Verse 12 means exactly what it says.

 

[Darrenss1]

Now, man is not passive in receiving and believing the truth as clearly stated in verse 12. Both are true, not one over the other.

Man accepts Christ not as affecting his own salvation but as accepting Him on the basis of Who He says He is as well as believing in Him, a transfer of trust from self and the world to Christ. Once this is done God regenerates or gives new birth, converts the sinner, etc. They are separated and both are true and combatable, thus free will to receive and believe truth, but by all means not save himself from hell to heaven with out God saving him

Receiving and believing is first and regeneration, salvation, conversion, new birth / born from above is second.

Exactly!! Why try and point out that being born of God is not something man does but it happens at the hand of God by His will, we know that!! It happens once a person believes and recieves Christ NOT before.

:BangHead:

Darren

 

[Darrenss1]

In my "HUMBLE" :smilewinkgrin: Opinion,

Anyone who read the scriptures and doesn't come away with the idea that man must give God a reason to save him, such as "BELIEVE" and follow God's instruction,

Needs to return to school, "Headstart" even.

I've said it before and say it again, if Calvinist tried interpreting any other document the same way they do scripture, they would be viewed as "incompetent".

Imagine, reading a "WILL" that divided the inheritance equally among "ALL", on the condition that "ALL" stop using drugs, those who don't comply, lose their part of the inheritance,

And it is the "responsibility" of the "Estate Executor" (Judge=God) to assist "ALL" who have a "WILLINGNESS" to kick the habit and to "Communicate" with those "UNWILLING" that he will assist if they become "Willing" in order to receive the inheritance,

Now imagine that Judge, ignoring the law, without any consideration of "Willingness", (faith) arbitrarily picking/chosing whom he will, and "WON'T" assist, to receive the inheritance.


Jesus died for the sins of the "WHOLE WORLD" that the whole world "MIGHT" receive the same inheritance as him, on the condition that a person is "WILLING" to have "Faith in him",

As "Executor of the estate", God is accused of ignoring the law, the condition of willingness/unwillingness, and actually not communicating (ineffective call) or offer assistance to those "unwilling".

The Conditions of the Will, and the "inheritance" that was intented for "ALL" has been denied to "ALL",

"BY THE JUDGE".

That's Calvin's interpretation of scripture.

I'm with you on that!! :applause:

Calvinism is a complicated system in itself. The arguments Calvinism uses are intricate and overstretched, requiring the use of isogesis all throughout the scriptures. When non Calivinist say they don't agree with the Calvinist interpretation or reading of a particular phrase or verse they are accused of not understanding what the bible says and are told to go and study, sought of like schoolyard theological bullies!! :tonofbricks:

I have heard of non Calvinist bible college professors being told they need to study and read their bibles by Calvinists!! Seriously.....

Darren