Featured Total Inability in the Gospel of John

Shall we add that it is hard to find even that number of Calvinists who understand the Arminian position??

Redefinition of terms among Calvinists is almost as popular as Calvinists not agreeing among themselves and Calvinist claiming no Arminian understands Calvinism

 

"Monergists believe that sinners cannot come to faith in Christ without the Holy Spirit doing an initial work.
Faith comes from hearing, and hearing from the word of Christ (Romans 10:17)."



All we got to do is focus right here. THE CALVINIST BLIND SPOT.


The "INITIAL WORK" is currently trapped in the [Edited: Name Calling] requirement of having heard the gospel.

100 MEN. 50 of them decide to listen to the gospel. 50 of them refuse. Remember only hearing the gospel can spark the "initial work".

The 50 who refuse from their will SYNERGIST are guaranteed to be damned there is no chance they get "initial work"

The 50 who decide to listen SYNERGIST have a chance to be elect as they have allowed the possibility of getting "initial work"



REFORMED, you can PROVE your position ABSOLUTELY easily.

Show us a Eskimo, a native indian, someone from far away land, who were filled with the holy spirit and before even ever hearing of Jesus or the gospel are full 5 point Calvinist.

Show us who is filled with the holy spirit having never heard of Jesus and has "INITIAL WORK".



The TIMING YOU HAVE is FLAWED. Do a step by step time line and present it......and we will show you how horribly wrong it is.


1. A total depraved DECIDES BY HIMSELF to hear the gospel.

Or do we tie them up or hold them at gunpoint?


2. AFTER hearing the gospel THEN HE might be regenerated by GOD




ACTS 2
38Peter said to them, “Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Backwards backwards bacwards.

Repent, Baptize get sins forgiven, Receive the holy spirit.

You want it it BACKWARDS with holy spirit first.



Look at how preachers are filled with the holy spirit to speak to non-believers. Having to fill a preacher with a holy spirit would be a waste since only the guys hearing would require the spirit.


We can even change to the perspective of saying Calvinist believe salvation BY WORKS ABSOLUTELY.

"The WORK of cooperating and listening to the GOSPEL"

 

A Calvinist believes UNLESS you do the GOOD WORK of Listening to the Gospel.

You will be damned and you will never be regenerated.

Thats right "WORKS ALONE".


Challenge that.

 

It that were all there was to it -- I would be calling myself a monergist.

But there is more to what they are claiming.

"The work" that they claim the Holy spirit has to do before you "can" believe is to make you a born again Christian... then when you wake up one morning and find out that you are already a born again Christian ... well then as a Christian -- you choose to have faith.

============================

Contrast that with the more basic idea "the Holy Spirit doing an initial work" like for example "convicting the World of sin and righteousness and judgment" John 16 -- which He does for all mankind. Drawing all mankind to Christ John 12:32.

"I STAND at the door and knock - if anyone hears My voice AND OPENS the door - I WILL come in" Rev 3

 

I didn't find it on a page; I know Koine Greek.

Blessings,

The Archangel

 

There are several problems here: (1) The word for "world" (kosmos) is present in John and the Romans passage, but it is modified by the word pas in the Romans passage. The word pas refers to oneness or wholeness. There is no such modifier in John. So, you are reading the "whole"-ness of Romans back into John instead of letting the text speak for itself. (2) You have two different authors who generally use the world kosmos in different ways.

Hmmm... You really have no clue when it comes to the biblical languages, do you?

First, as far as your argumentation goes, you're begging the question by your use of "arbitrary." No Calvinist I know argues God's chose of whom to save is arbitrary. Certainly we do not claim to know why He chooses whom He chooses, but our ignorance in this matter (and yours) do not make His choice "arbitrary."

Second, I whole-heartedly agree that God loved the world as John 3:16 says. There are issues with most translations of the verse because they kowtow to the KJV which translated the verse very poorly. God demonstrates His love for the world by sending Christ. What you are wrongly assuming is that the world means "all without exception." In fact, God loving the world and sending Christ to it demonstrates His love not only for people, but also the creation. Remember: Paul tells us "all creation is groaning under the curse." So, it is not only for people that Christ came.

Third, your arguments in this post alone demonstrate you don't understand the idea of context. Instead you are trying to force your a priori understanding(s) of words (some of which are hopelessly flawed to begin with) into a particular context (see the "first" and "second" points directly above) without any regard for the author's use of a word. Furthermore, you seem to want the text to mean things in certain places it simply cannot mean by clear rules of lexical function and grammar.

Blessings,

The Archangel

 

That should settle it, but I would bet good money that we will soon see a reply that simply repeats the same errors, over and over again.

 

When you say GREEK scholars do you mean Greek folks who are Scholars?

No such thing as a Greek Calvinist.


other then maybe a Greek guy who doesn't know Greek.

Cause you can't trickem to believe wrong meanings to Greek words.

You would think Greece is just chock-full of Calvinist huh?

I bet they are Greek-Orthodox Catholics.

 

I think I remember seeing where you posted somewhere, saying that words often have several meanings, depending on context? Maybe it was someone else? But we all know it's true don't we. The word "Krino" does not just mean to "condemn or render final judgement. It can simply mean "to determine".
Judge
κρίνω,v \{kree'-no}
1) to separate, put asunder, to pick out, select, choose 2) to approve, esteem, to prefer 3) to be of opinion, deem, think, to be of opinion 4) to determine, resolve, decree 5) to judge 5a) to pronounce an opinion concerning right and wrong 5a1) to be judged, i.e. summoned to trial that one's case may be examined and judgment passed upon it 5b) to pronounce judgment, to subject to censure 5b1) of those who act the part of judges or arbiters in matters of common life, or pass judgment on the deeds and words of others 6) to rule, govern 6a) to preside over with the power of giving judicial decisions, because it was the prerogative of kings and rulers to pass judgment 7) to contend together, of warriors and combatants 7a) to dispute 7b) in a forensic sense 7b1) to go to law, have suit at law


Verse 46
This is saying that these Jews determined themselves to be "unworthy of eternal life' because they "put it from them". Howbeit, it was THEY who sealed "determined" their own "judgement" by willfully refusing the Gospel.

Verse 48
By contrast, the "Gentiles" in verse 48 "determined themselves" to be "worthy" because they "received the word of the Lord gladly". And the word "ordained", here, can simply means "ordered" or "disposed to" something. Not only that, bu the Greek word "τεταγμένοι" can also be used in the "middle voice". Sir, God is not mentioned in the verse as "ordaining" anyone. The ones who "gladly received" were simply individuals who wanted to live forever. Many lost people DO want to live forever you know.

 

You really should be able to wield something more robust than Strongs for this discussion. Greek doesn't work the way you're thinking it does and... it takes more than a Lexicon. The problem here is that you don't get to pick whatever definition you like best. First the verb, krinow, in this instance takes its object in the accusative and that narrows the range of meaning. The idea is that one would be expressing judgement or opinion about a person or thing--themselves in this case. This is confirmed by the context as the Jews "thrust aside" the word of God. Second, even if you wrongly insist on your preferred "determine," you must realize that your understanding of determine is outside of the semantic range of this verb. You would prefer to understand determine as "I decided to go to the mall today" when the semantic range has "decide" more in terms of "this is what I've discovered." You want this word to mean something determinate as in causing a state of being to come about when the semantic range of the word clearly deals with the revealing of an already-existing state.

The use of the reflexive pronoun with krinow does give the verb a reflexive idea. As said above, however, these people do not cause a state of unworthiness, they demonstrated that state which already existed. Again, this type of linguistic approach is seen in the Prophets and the Law.

Here is where your lack of Greek really shows itself. Again, one simply does not determine meaning from a lexicon and not every possibility of voice (ie. middle or passive) is open to any word. This particular word, tassw, does have the same form for the perfect passive as the middle passive, but the middle passive isn't a possibility for this word.

First, by this point in linguistic history Greek greatly prefers the passive to the middle and most had begun to drop the middle, opting instead for the reflexive pronoun (like that of v. 46). Second, because this verb is perfect, the middle simply will not work conceptually. Technically the phrase in question is pluperfect periphrastic. The perfect tense in Greek refers to something that has happened in the past that has lasting effect into the present. The pluperfect changes that slightly and give the meaning of an action (appointing) preceding another action (believing). The second action is, for lack of a better term, contingent of the first. Why did the gentiles believe in the here and now? Because in the past they were ordained to eternal life.

For your understanding of this passage to be correct, the perfect cannot be used, which it simply is. For the middle voice to be understood, since the verb is perfect tense, you'd have to argue that these gentiles went back in time and ordained themselves to eternal life in the past so that they would now--in the present--believe, which is simply nonsense. Because the passive has to be understood here, it is understood to be a divine passive. Who else could "appoint" anyone for eternal life (in the past)? Can someone go back in time and appoint themselves? Of course not. Again, to argue for that is simply nonsense.

Unfortunately, your lack of facility in the Greek has led you to these errant conclusions. This passage is simply never going to mean what you wish it to mean and you should stop kicking against the goads here. One does not achieve facility in Greek by consulting Strongs and using a parsing tool. You actually have to roll up your sleeves and get into the mess in order to understand the language with its nuance and see how it works and, more importantly, why it works the way it does. Certainly study tools are helpful, but study tools do not convey facility or competence upon you.

The Archangel

 

I've have attempted to make such a point in another thread yesterday, but it went over like a lead ballon. Many Baptists are anti-intellectual, thinking they are being anti-Rome in being so.

 

Very true! I commend anyone who wants to get into the Greek. But, there are no short cuts and there is no substitute for actually learning and working with the language. Study tools are helpful, but they do not win the day for you. Actually, I would argue to combine your points a and b. There are certain places, for instance, where the Greek subjunctive, when negated, has the force of an imperative. It's odd, but you have to know that Greek does that, or you miss out on actually understanding what the author was intending to convey.

In my Seminary Greek class, we translated Revelation (Chapter 1 through the end of the letters to the seven churches). That, in itself, was quite informative. Even so, John's Greek is much more simple than the other writers, especially Paul. It is interesting to see how certain authors have their own style as it shows-up in the Greek. Sometimes the English translations do not always convey that style.

Ephesians 2 was a passage I had to diagram and write a paper on for a preaching class. The diagram had to be done in Greek and the paper had to, essentially, explain what was going on. So, that's why I said I'd combine your point a and point b. It is usually what I do when I'm trying to get deep into a passage. And, because I'm not the sharpest knife in the drawer, I am always trying to confirm my work with other sources. In the case we are discussing here, there is some pretty good corroborating stuff written by some fairly important big-wigs.

Blessings,

The Archangel

 

I don't think baptists are anti-intellectual, per se, as much as they are anti-institutional. Which is even more odd considering many will send their children to a secular college, but would not dare send their ministers to a Southern Baptist Seminary.

 

I simply looked up the word in a dictionary, lexicon, whatever and never "presented myself" to be "competent" in Greek. But then you know that don't you. Sorry I embarrassed you. lol

 

I'm not Greek and likely never will learn it. But on May 11, 1986, I heard the Word of God, the Gospel, preached by a backwoods Georgia preacher, full of the Holy Ghost, out of a King James Bible. I'm quite sure that was enough. And since I am an English speaker, I trust that God in His providence worked things out through faithful men to get an accurate copy of His word for myself and other English speakers. In God's word it says that God so loved "the world" and I'm just ignorant and simple and foolish enough to believe that the loving God, who lives in my heart, meant what He said. Study is important, reading the scriptures is important. but if my salvation had been dependent on that old preacher being able to "parse" Greek(or whatever you call it) I would still be lost. I'm glad that you are an intellectual, praise God for that. But there are too many ignorant and weak-minded people in this world who don't have the IQ nor the inclination to be able to depend on that. It's really simple, sir: God so loved the world....and that means everyone. God loved us all so much that He gave his only begotten son to die in our place. But God wanted to give us the choice of trusting the wonderful finished work of Jesus to save our souls from Hell, or rejecting Him and going there. It's just that simple.

But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty; 1 Corinthians 1:27

 

I whole-heartedly agree with you: Hearing the gospel preached and responding to it in repentance and faith is enough. And I thank God for that daily.

No one said you have to know Greek to be saved. No one that I know of says you have to know Greek to have a deep relationship with or appreciation for God. Our translations are, indeed, sufficient.

I do appreciate the KJV, and it is a good translation in most places. Today, however, there are much better translations. As I used KJV for many, if not most, of my formative years, it holds a special place in my heart and many of the verses I memorized as a child are still in my head in the KJV.

We are all blessed beyond measure that we are dependent on no one but Christ for our salvation.

I fully agree that God loved the world. I agree that He, in some way, loves everyone (causing the rain to fall on both the just and the unjust). I agree that God gave Christ to die in the place of sinners, but I would argue it is not every sinner without exception. I would say Christ died for the elect. I would agree that we must choose to respond to God in repentance and faith, though I would say that choice must be enabled by the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit.

In the end, as far as Christ's work of salvation is concerned, I would argue that Christ actually accomplishes the salvation of the elect rather than merely making salvation (for all or some, it does not matter) possible.

Yes! But, don't use this as an excuse to persist in ignorance. And I would say that to everyone, including myself.

Blessings,

The Archangel