Proof of Calvinism

[The Archangel]

Calvinism has not support in scripture, just verses ripped out of context, or misrepresented, such as Ephesians 2:8-9 supposedly supporting the gift of faith when the grammar precludes that understanding.

No, the grammar does not "preclude that understanding." The grammar actually supports the understanding that faith is a gift--it just isn't the only gift. Grace and faith are two sides of the same coin of salvation, which (salvation) is given.

And, though I don't necessarily agree with the view, it is possible, grammatically, that the neuter pronoun is referring to the feminine noun, faith. It is possible, it just isn't, in my opinion, likely in this case.

The Archangel

 

[jbh28]

God remembers no more our sins forever means some aspect of our sins is put out of His mind. The Bible does not say what aspect.

Or, we could just go with the definition of "remember" and say that God doesn't bring to mind our sins. You have admitted that the Bible does not say what aspect of knowledge is removed.

I have speculated, based on Colossians 2:14 that it is the decrees against us. [snip personal attack]

Colossians 2:13-14
When you were dead in your transgressions and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He made you alive together with Him, having forgiven us all our transgressions, having canceled out the certificate of debt consisting of decrees against us, which was hostile to us; and He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross.

A passage that speaks of conversion. We were dead in the flesh, now alive in Christ. We had a "certificate of debt" that was canceled and nailed to the cross. We are now justified.

So what we have here in the discussion, is that the debt of our sin is nailed to the cross. We are forgiven because Christ paid for it on the cross.

Now, back to the "remember no more" part of the discussion. You are advocating that the reason God "remembers our sins no more" is because some aspect of the sin is removed from God's knowledge. You cannot name the aspect. Why not just take the passage at face value and say that God no more remembers our sin, not forgets that they happen. He remembers no more because they have been nailed to the cross, not because he forgets the act. Not because He forgets that there was a debt. The debt has been paid for on the cross.

 

[JesusFan]

No, the grammar does not "preclude that understanding." The grammar actually supports the understanding that faith is a gift--it just isn't the only gift. Grace and faith are two sides of the same coin of salvation, which (salvation) is given.

And, though I don't necessarily agree with the view, it is possible, grammatically, that the neuter pronoun is referring to the feminine noun, faith. It is possible, it just isn't, in my opinion, likely in this case.

The Archangel

The point that the Apostle would be making is that faith is PART of the "salvation package" that comes unto us from God, in that we would also be receiving repentance/changed herat/mind/justification/Holy Spirit indwelling etc!

that basically ALL that we have is a gift from the Lord unto us!

 

[JesusFan]

Exhaustive determinism is a pagan philosophical view, not a biblical view. Calvinism cozies up to it but then adopts a logical impossibility as their official view. God ordains whatsoever comes to pass, but is not the author of sin. Since sin is something that comes to pass, God ordains sin. So Calvinists speak from both sides of their mouth, God ordains sin but is not the author of sin. Go figure.

ONLY extreme Hyper cals hold to dterminiosm as you state it, NOT the "rank and file" cals!

Just curious, do you view God as NOT knowing some things until they actually come to pass, that he would view some things as we do, that he has to 'wait" for it to happens before becomes fully aware of it happening?

 

[Van]

More falsehood

No, the grammar does not "preclude that understanding." The grammar actually supports the understanding that faith is a gift--it just isn't the only gift. Grace and faith are two sides of the same coin of salvation, which (salvation) is given.

And, though I don't necessarily agree with the view, it is possible, grammatically, that the neuter pronoun is referring to the feminine noun, faith. It is possible, it just isn't, in my opinion, likely in this case.

The Archangel

My view is from Daniel B. Wallace, a committed Calvinist with the integrity to present the verse as stating the gift is salvation, not faith. In another dispute you argued against violating the syntax, here you dangle violation like a apple from Eve.

 

[Van]

Hi Jesusfan, do not tell me what you do not believe, tell me what you believe. Remember when I asked does God predestine everything. Can you remember how you answered that?
I mean with a yes or no and not an evasion?

Yes, based on God saying "Now I know" I believe God sometimes chooses not to look into a persons heart to discern what he or she would do given any circumstance. But of course He does not have to wait, remember God knows everything He chooses to know and He does as He pleases?

Why is it you always, 100% of the time post a mistaken and unbiblical view and then ask if it is my view. One would expect a 50/50 performance unless you have another agenda. Can you recall a time when you did not misrepresent my views? With the copy and paste feature you would think you would get it right sometime. What gives?

 

[The Archangel]

My view is from Daniel B. Wallace, a committed Calvinist with the integrity to present the verse as stating the gift is salvation, not faith. In another dispute you argued against violating the syntax, here you dangle violation like a apple from Eve.

Perhaps you can't read.

I am making the same argument that Wallace is making. I am arguing that salvation is the gift. Of course the gift includes both grace and faith as two sides of the same coin.

But, as many other grammarians do point out, it is possible for the neuter pronoun to refer to the feminine noun. I don't think it does so in this case; Wallace doesn't think it does so in this case. A typical Pauline usage is to have a neuter pronoun refer to a concept, hence "salvation" being the gift.

It is highly peculiar, however, that you selectively read Wallace only when it seems to fit your disdainful purposes--seeing that he has much to say that, frankly, agrees with me and you dismiss it out of hand.

What is more, you have no basis to evaluate if Wallace is correct, not knowing any Greek at all. So, saying you agree with Wallace is very interesting since, in essence, you have no clue what exactly he's arguing. He could be an insane person--on the order of someone who thinks himself a poached egg--and he could be writing on Greek without any knowledge. Since you have no rubric or facility or schema with which to judge Wallace's work you can't "agree" with him. You can only say "what he said" and you can only say that based on what other people say about Wallace, not anything you've read, since you cannot read with any honest expectation of understanding.

The Archangel

 

[Tom Butler]

James 1:17 Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning.

Malachi 3:6 I am God; I change not....

I'm not an expert in hermeneutics, but I have always been told that scripture interprets scripture. And, that difficult or obscure passages must be interpreted in light of clear, unequivocal scriptures on the same subject.

So, it seems to me that when God says he will "remember no more," or says "now I know, the verses I quoted above will be helpful.

One of the attributes of God is his Immutability. So, I suggest that when God speaks of not remembering, or suddenly knowing something he did not know before, they must be anthromorphisms. Otherwise, they would represent changes in the God who says he doesn't change.

Now, if I could somehow relate this to the OP, we could go ahead and close thread, for there would be nothing left for anybody to say.

Naw, let's go ahead and chase this rabbit.

 

[AresMan]

The words translated as foreknew, and foreknowledge, do not mean looking down history before creation, they mean to use knowledge obtained or formulated in the past in the present, i.e. to do something now based on something known beforehand. I have presented in the thread "foreknowledge" where and how these words are used and they are always used in the same way. Calvinism takes this truth and redefines the meaning of the word, pouring into the Greek one of the meanings of foreknowledge from English which is to know things from the future. Pure fiction and shoddy bible study.

To know a person is to have some form of intimate relationship.
To foreknow a person, then, is to have this beforehand.

 

[Van]

Reply to AresMan

To know a person is to have some form of intimate relationship.
To foreknow a person, then, is to have this beforehand.

When the folks knew that Paul lived as a Pharisee, the idea was not an intimate relationship. You are simply redefining "before know" to before know intimately.
You are adding to scripture and redefining the word to alter God's message, in my opinion.

Neither "before know intimately" nor "to foresee the future" is the message of the Greek words translated foreknow and foreknowledge. The idea is to obtain or formulate knowledge in the past and then use that knowledge in the present.

Calvinism collapses when the actual meaning of the words are used, i.e. choice means choice and not non-choice, before know means to know beforehand and not to know beforehand intimately. I could go one, with about a dozen redefined words altered to change scripture so that Calvinism is supported.

 

[Van]

Both James 1:17 and Malachi 3:6 support my position and contradict Calvinism. God means what He says and when He says Now I know, it means He did not know beforehand, when He said remember no more our sins forever, He means He will put at least some aspect of our sins out of His mind and therefore limit His knowledge. He means what He says, and says what He means and does not change from this pattern of light with no shifting.

 

[Van]

Ever wonder how Archangel knows that I cannot agree with others because what they say is well supported. He seems to believe by questioning my qualifications he can undercut my positions but then that view is a logical fallacy.

Like may other Bible scholars that I have read, I think Dr. Wallace gets some things right and some things wrong. I know nothing of Greek grammar but I know he is a well respected expert, and when Archangel says Dr. Wallace is wrong on the grammar, I go with Daniel and not with the... well lets leave it as less respected "expert."

 

[jbh28]

Calvinism collapses when Van decides to only use one of the definitions of a word and ignore the other possible definitions.

 

[jbh28]

...He means He will put at least some aspect of our sins out of His mind and therefore limit His knowledge. ....

Please name this "aspect" or stop repeating this false teaching.
There are not that many options on the table.

1. the act of sin
2. the consequence of sin

so what is it? You seem so adamant to limit God's knowledge, but when pressed to name that knowledge He doesn't have, you refuse to answer. Saying I don't know won't cut it.

I have given a very good answer to the "remember no more" by using the very definition of the term. You ignore that and pretend that I believe God remembers our sins even though he said he wouldn't. That of course is not true. God doesn't bring to mind our sins because they have been nailed to the cross and the payment has been made. It's kinda like the expression forgive and forget. You don't really forget what the person did, but act as if it never happened. You never bring it to mind.

 

[jbh28]

Ever wonder how Archangel knows that I cannot agree with others because what they say is well supported. He seems to believe by questioning my qualifications he can undercut my positions but then that view is a logical fallaciy.

Like may other Bible scholars that I have read, I think Dr. Wallace gets some things right and some things wrong. I know nothing of Greek grammar but I know he is a well respected expert, and when Archangel says Dr. Wallace is wrong on the grammar, I go with Daniel and not [snip]

Why do you use an ad hominem against yourself? You are questioning your qualifications.

 

[Greektim]

Ever wonder how Archangel knows that I cannot agree with others because what they say is well supported. He seems to believe by questioning my qualifications he can undercut my positions but then that view is a logical fallaciy.

Like may other Bible scholars that I have read, I think Dr. Wallace gets some things right and some things wrong. I know nothing of Greek grammar but I know he is a well respected expert, and when Archangel says Dr. Wallace is wrong on the grammar, I go with Daniel and not with the... well lets leave it as less respected "expert."

I missed w/ AA said DW was wrong. He acknowledged what most if not all grammarians acknowledge, that the neuter pronoun can refer to a feminine noun. AA also acknowledged that DW doesn't think it does so in Eph. 2. So he agreed w/ DW. And DW (he would tell you this) is not the end all be all of Greek grammar. He wrote his grammar as a tool for students not to be the new canon of Greek exegesis.

 

[JesusFan]

Hi Jesusfan, do not tell me what you do not believe, tell me what you believe. Remember when I asked does God predestine everything. Can you remember how you answered that?
I mean with a yes or no and not an evasion?

God knows ALL things, but He has 2 Divine wills, a specific one, in that He directly causes things to occur, and general one, in those events that He permits to happen... In all cases, God knows absolutly all things that happen...

Yes, based on God saying "Now I know" I believe God sometimes chooses not to look into a persons heart to discern what he or she would do given any circumstance. But of course He does not have to wait, remember God knows everything He chooses to know and He does as He pleases?

God HAS to know all things that can possible be known, or else would NOT be God!

Why is it you always, 100% of the time post a mistaken and unbiblical view and then ask if it is my view. One would expect a 50/50 performance unless you have another agenda. Can you recall a time when you did not misrepresent my views? With the copy and paste feature you would think you would get it right sometime. What gives?

think problem is that you come very close to presenting God as an Open theist would, in that you asrcibe to Him the attribute of not knowing things, that he either has to 'wait" for them to happen to allow Him to be able to see it, or else limiting his own divine Omnscience, which He cannot do!

 

[JesusFan]

I missed w/ AA said DW was wrong. He acknowledged what most if not all grammarians acknowledge, that the neuter pronoun can refer to a feminine noun. AA also acknowledged that DW doesn't think it does so in Eph. 2. So he agreed w/ DW. And DW (he would tell you this) is not the end all be all of Greek grammar. He wrote his grammar as a tool for students not to be the new canon of Greek exegesis.

This whole discussion point here reminds me of when JW would quote Dr Bruce metzger as being a Greek authority who believed in their translation of "the word was a god" Even though he was adament that he did NOT view it as being that way, that the 'word was God" was only way that fit the Greek!

In like fashion, van quotes a recognized Greek authority, but problemis that author goes against his very points being made by using that writer!

 

[glfredrick]

Ever wonder how Archangel knows that I cannot agree with others because what they say is well supported. He seems to believe by questioning my qualifications he can undercut my positions but then that view is a logical fallacy.

Like may other Bible scholars that I have read, I think Dr. Wallace gets some things right and some things wrong. I know nothing of Greek grammar but I know he is a well respected expert, and when Archangel says Dr. Wallace is wrong on the grammar, I go with Daniel and not with the... well lets leave it as less respected "expert."

And you have just set yourself up as THE expert in all things Bible. We've been down this road before. You, without a smattering of Greek and Hebrew in your arsenal are interpreting the work of masters in the field. :laugh: