Featured Total Inability in the Gospel of John

What would you recommend to someone like our friends here who desire to become more versed in Greek but cannot, for practical reasons, attend a seminary?

Sorry...I started this post before I saw the post above and then was interrupted by students getting out of class. You answered my question.

 

Some seminaries may let you take a course via the internet. It may not be the same as being there, but it isn't a bad option if it's available. Of course, many seminaries will require matriculation, and that may be a problem for some. Even so, there are some good Bible colleges, I'm sure, that would do a good job teaching Greek.

College pace, too, is probably better than seminary pace. In our seminary we got the equivalent of 2 years of Greek in one year. It was brutal at times. It took quite a while for it to "click" with me, but, by God's grace, when it did, I was off and running.

The opportunities are there if you're (a generic plural) willing to look for and pursue them.

Blessings,

The Archangel

 

You must be amused and perplexed at times by some of the posting here that have someone using Strongs concordance as final say in what the Greek meant....

 

Or what the Greek article really is used for?

 

His main problerm is not knowing the Greek, but in heeding the teachings of EW above Christ!

 

Yes, but it isn't unexpected. Greek is a pursuit, not a destination. In other words, you never really "arrive." There are some things that can, legitimately, be seen differently and still be within the bounds of the grammar, syntax, and semantic range. But others things cannot be that "flexible."

When going to the Greek, I do a lot of work to see where I am. If I were smarter, I'd have immediate recall of all my text books, etc., but I don't. Reading and re-confirming things you know you know is a good, though tedious, way to learn and re-learn.

And, there is great joy for me in the pursuit.

Blessings,

The Archangel

 

I'm sorry, I'm not familiar with "EW?" Can you explain for the slow-of-understanding?

Even so, we should be gracious to and with those who are genuinely seeking to know the Bible more deeply because we all were once hooked by our own understanding to the exclusion of all else. Just because others are there, does not mean we are smarter or better.

Blessings,

The Archangel

 

My pastor does a daily reading every morning in both the Hebrew and Greek texts, and always joked with him about being "a big show off"
he also has said that a vast majority of people will do very well by using a good English translation, and applying themselves to studies with good tools and a method of interpreting the text.

 

Ellen White, false prophetess of the 7th Day adventist church!

 

I think that's a helpful distinction, and I agree, but I've read many, many posts here and elsewhere, and there are a lot of folks out there.

 

I think you should go to GREECE and learn GREEK, where they can laugh at you,

Cause there no such thing as a Greek Calvinist.

There just ain't no fooling the folks who speak it all the time.

They do their liturgy in Koine when they go to church.

 

You've stated two ridiculous things here:

And here:

I'm sure you know you're acting like an imbecilic middle-schooler and getting in the way of a rather good conversation.

First, you wouldn't go to Greece to learn Koine Greek, since Koine is about 2,000 years old and modern Greek is fairly different. Second, you have shown little or no facility to challenge the claims made here about the Greek text. You've only attacked Calvinists with your nonsense. You probably can't even adjudicate the difference between a lambda or a psi.

Perhaps you don't know the inanity of your statement: "I bet they are Greek-Orthodox Catholics." Of course this is impossible since the great schism of AD 1054 saw the separation of the Catholic church from the Eastern Orthodox churches. So, in your ignorance (perhaps), you've posted an oxymoron.

The Archangel

 

NOPE. Sorry if these facts are upsetting. Here some Wikipedia links you can look at the common knowledge.

Eastern Orthodox Church - Wikipedia

The Eastern Orthodox Church,[1] also known as the Orthodox Church,[2] or officially as the Orthodox Catholic Church,[3] is the second-largest Christian Church, with over 250 million members.

The name Greek Orthodox Church (Greek: Ἑλληνορθόδοξη Ἑκκλησία, Ellinorthódoxi Ekklisía, IPA: [elinorˈθoðoksi ekliˈsia]), or Greek Orthodoxy, is a term referring to the body of several Churches[5][6][7] within the larger communion of Eastern Orthodox Christianity, whose liturgy is or was traditionally conducted in Koine Greek,[8] the original language of the New Testament,[9][10] and whose history, traditions, and theology are rooted in the early Church Fathers and the culture of the Byzantine Empire.



=========================
Greeks are Greek-Orthodox and are a part of the larger communion akak ORTHODOX CATHOLIC CHURCH and use Koine Greek in their liturgy.

The GREEKS know KOINE GREEK.


"you wouldn't go to Greece to learn Koine Greek"

Yeah you'd go Japan to learn English too? LOL. They got real GREEK scholars fluent users too , they would run circles around you Calvinist.

That is why there is no GREEK CALVINIST.


Apparently, God doesn't know enough Greek to elect a Greek Calvinist.

All those millions of people they hear the same gospel you do. They don't "regenerate" into Calvinist.

Where they at - Where they at- Where they at? Show me Greek Calvinist.

 

The only way you get Calvinist is you if you are introduced to Christianity by a Calvinist and have a Calvinist over your shoulder as you learn.

If all it took was hearing the gospel and God flicking a switch, there would be numerous reports of spontaneous Calvinist popping up all over the place, especially among the Greeks who know the language.

You know your gut says I'm telling the truth and it should be to your joy to point at the Greek Calvinist.

 

How many logical fallacies can you commit in one thread? I think you're pushing a new record.

First, to argue that language is the determining factor in theology is a red herring (among other fallacies). There are many factors to one's theology. I know many Calvinists who don't read Greek and came to their theological conclusions through an English translation. The use of Greek is not about theology, per se, it is about getting to what the scriptural author intends to convey in his writing. In the New Testament, the Pharisees were also experts in Hebrew and yet they got God hopelessly wrong. So, language is not the determining factor in one's theology. For your assertion about language and Calvinism to be correct, you would have to claim that the Greek Orthodox has the correct theology in all of Christendom, which would be a very difficult claim to support.

Second, you are begging the question. You're assuming your claims are true without proving them. You simply think that your understanding of the Greek orthodox church proves that there are no Greek Calvinists, buy you have not taken it upon yourself to prove it. What is more, you commit a third logical fallacy by saying "Where they at - Where they at- Where they at? Show me Greek Calvinist." This third fallacy is known as shifting the burden of proof (or, in Latin, Onus Probandi). Rather than prove you are right, you're putting the onus on us to prove you wrong (which, if you notice, I did by pointing out the Pharisee's bad theology when they were experts in Hebrew).

That's just three fallacies I've named here, and there are many more. But this should be sufficient to make my point: You're barking up the wrong forest. And, you're acting like a middle school student in doing so.

The Archangel

 

Thank you. Its like hearing a dis-inflating balloon

#1 You guys brought up having to know GREEK.

My challenge was:

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

You will be damned and you will never be regenerated. A "WORKS ALONE" belief.




"Paul is NOT saying they are making themselves unworthy; he is saying these Jews are showing themselves to be unworthy (an already-existing condition)."

Not even John Calvin's commentary agrees with you.

Such greatness of grace which God vouchsafed to bestow upon them, doth exaggerate and increase the greatness of their sin, whilst that they reject that which is so mercifully offered unto them. Therefore he addeth that they give judgment of themselves, that they are unworthy of eternal life. For seeing that the rejecting of the gospel is the denial of the righteousness of God, we need no other judge to condemn the unbelievers. --John Calvin.

^ thats part of your problem You want it to mean that God already judged them unworthy SO that is why they reject.


krinete κρίνετε

I'm going to keep looking through commentaries.......to see if anyone supports your position, I havent found a line.




I could see why there is added confusion. You are taught that you deserve hell, that you deserve to sin against God eternally.



Paul is chewing them out in the manner they must not want to be saved to reject Jesus.


Brother if you KNEW God has me condemned from the get-go you wouldn't even give me a chance to "reject' since its a done deal.


Listen to what we are saying unless you make the synergistic good work of listening to the gospel you stand no chance in being saved.

 

God judged all humanity in the fall as being now found Guitly before Himself...

 

"Having," as in a necessity? No. We talk about Greek and knowing the biblical languages as a means to knowing the text of Scripture better, to better understand the author's intent. Knowing Greek is not an end unto itself and it is not an issue of salvation. We have been quite clear on this; you simply decline to listen.

Again, this is not true. This is the logical fallacy of a "Straw Man." First, listening is not a work. Second, we argue the Holy Spirit may regenerate whomever He chooses to regenerate. Upon regeneration the "soil" is ripe for Gospel planting and the preaching of the Gospel will result in a conversion. That's what we think. You may think differently, and that's fine, but you may not misrepresent our position, as you continue to insist upon doing.

You have not shown how Calvin's quote disagrees with my statement.

I find it interesting you've posted the form "krinετε," as it is not the lexical form. This is showing the likelihood that you have no clue when it comes to the languages.

Also, when it comes to the Jews, it must be remembered that they had been "entrusted with the oracles of God" (Romans 3:2) and so when Jesus comes upon the scene, they should have responded to Him faithfully. Jesus is the fulfillment of everything the Old Testament was about. For a faithful Jew, accepting Him would have been quite natural. Instead of demonstrating faithfulness, most of the Jews demonstrated their unfaithfulness by rejecting Christ.

As for commentaries, you obviously haven't looked very far.

#1 But the Jews in Antioch had rejected the eternal life that is to be found in Jesus, and Paul had to turn to those who were “worthy” (v. 46)

John B. Polhill, Acts, vol. 26, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1992), 308.

#2
Paul and Barnabas gave a straightforward answer to their disparaging words. It was right and proper, they affirmed, that Jews should have the first opportunity of hearing and believing the good news. Had the Jews of Pisidian Antioch accepted the message, theirs would have been the privilege of evangelizing their Gentile neighbors, in accordance with the terms of Israel’s world mission laid down in the Isaianic servant songs and their contexts. But if they refused to receive the light themselves, they could not be allowed to pursue a dog-in-the-manger policy. The life of the age to come1 had been brought near to them here and now as God’s free gift in Christ; if they showed themselves unworthy of the gift by declining to accept it, there were others who would appreciate it: it would be offered direct to the Gentiles.

F. F. Bruce, The Book of the Acts, The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1988), 265–266. (Emphasis mine)

#3 " ‘judge yourselves unworthy of eternal life’ ” It is difficult to hold the concept of predestination, which is emphasized so often in Acts, with the concept of mandated individual personal response. No one can come to faith without the drawing of God (cf. John 6:44, 65), but we are judged by whether we respond. By their rejection of Paul’s preaching of the gospel, they revealed their true selves (cf. John 3:17–21). The blame for lack of response cannot be placed on God. He has provided a way, His Son, but He is the only way!

Robert James Utley, Luke the Historian: The Book of Acts, vol. Volume 3B, Study Guide Commentary Series (Marshall, TX: Bible Lessons International, 2003), 170.
​

It isn't that we're "taught" we deserve hell; the Bible is quite clear that we do--All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God; we are condemned already; etc.

This is another strawman. We (all-inclusive) have no idea who is elect and who isn't. I would have no way of knowing whether or not God had chosen you or not. We preach Christ to all without exception and we leave the results to the Holy Spirit.

When I was a pastor, I led our church to do door-to-door evangelism, which we did. We sought to proclaim Christ to all. We had a person in our church who was (not a member) an unbeliever and we prayed for him continually--that God would change his heart and cause him to desire Christ. We also pleaded with him to come to Christ.

This is inane nonsense that demonstrates a total lack of understanding on your part.

The Archangel

 

Yes. That was the point. I'm not sure how anyone could have thought otherwise.