Truth or Calvinism - That should do it.

[Benefactor]

Well, no. This is incorrect. This is a case of hina+subjunctive, Wallace says, “We must not suppose that this use of the subjunctive necessarily implies any doubt about the fulfillment of the verbal action on the part of the speaker” (GGBB, p. 472). You should have known this already.

If you would please quote the larger context of Dr. Wallace's statement, I do not have this book.

Thank you
Benefactor

 

[Brian Bosse]

Hello Benefactor,

I would ask you and Pastor Larry to forgive me for answering a request that you directed to him.

If you would please quote the larger context of Dr. Wallace's statement, I do not have this book.

Here is the larger context...

The single most common category of the subjunctive in the NT is after ινα, comprising about one third of all subjunctive instances. There are seven basic uses included in this construction: purpose, result, purpose-result, substantival, epexegetical, complementary, and command. Its usage in the Koine period has increased from the classical as this construction came to be used as a periphrasis for the simple infinitive.


1) Purpose Ινα Clause (a.k.a. Final or Telic Ινα)

The most frequent use of ινα clauses is to express purpose. In classical Greek, this idea would have been expressed more often by the infinitive. The focus is on the intention of the action of the main verb, whether accom­plished or not. In keeping with the genius of the subjunctive, this subordi­nate clause answers the question Why? rather than What? An appropriate translation would be in order that, or, where fitting, as a simple infinitive (to . . .).

We must not suppose that this use of the subjunctive necessarily implies any doubt about the fulfillment of the verbal action on the part of the speaker. This may or may not be so; each case must be judged on its own merits. The subjunctive is used, however, because it answers the implicit deliberative question. Further, many instances of purpose clauses shade off into result as well, especially when the divine will is in view (Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, pgs. 471-472).

John 3:15 is good example of the subjunctive mood being used where the outcome is not doubted. We have, "so that whoever believes will...have eternal life - NASB." The NASB translates 'εχη' as "will...have" rather than "may (or might) have" indicating that at least this translation committee did not think that the use of the subjunctive here meant to imply doubt of the outcome.

I hope this helps.

Sincerely,

Brian

 

[Me4Him]

So you have seen the light.

The Comforter, the Holy Spirit, does change hearts, or actually wills, through the process of regeneration; that is giving spiritual life to those who are spiritually dead in sin. The Holy Spirit then gives the gift of faith through which the regenerate person can respond to the Gospel Call; which, for them, is now the Effectual Call. [Ephesians 2:1-8]

Mercy, Do I have to "Spell it out"??? :BangHead:

OT people never had a "comforter", God spoke to them through "prophets",

So how could they "OBEY" God's word's if there was "NO COMFORTER/HOLY SPIRIT" indwelling them to "MAKE" them "change their evil ways"??

Calvinist says that isn't Possible.

 

[Me4Him]

I read your post #29.

Are you equating the comforter of Ecc 4:1 with the Comforter of Jn 14 & 16? If you are, you're way off base. Not even the same.

Joh 14:26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, (Ghost of Jesus)

Joh 10:27 My sheep hear my voice,

Heb 1:1 God, spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,

2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son,

If the Comforter is not the "voice of Jesus", who's voice is it???

Can't be God's/Holy Spirit, he speaking through Jesus/comforter. :laugh:

 

[TCGreek]

Calvinism is not an either/or. It's simple an effort to understand God's role and humanity's role in the work of salvation.

 

[OldRegular]

Originally Posted by OldRegular
So you have seen the light.

The Comforter, the Holy Spirit, does change hearts, or actually wills, through the process of regeneration; that is giving spiritual life to those who are spiritually dead in sin. The Holy Spirit then gives the gift of faith through which the regenerate person can respond to the Gospel Call; which, for them, is now the Effectual Call. [Ephesians 2:1-8]

Mercy, Do I have to "Spell it out"??? :BangHead:

OT people never had a "comforter", God spoke to them through "prophets",

So how could they "OBEY" God's word's if there was "NO COMFORTER/HOLY SPIRIT" indwelling them to "MAKE" them "change their evil ways"??

Calvinist says that isn't Possible.

Before you beat your brains out read my post. I said nothing about the Old Testament.

But you are wrong about the Holy Spirit and the Old Testament!

 

[Benefactor]

Hello Benefactor,

I would ask you and Pastor Larry to forgive me for answering a request that you directed to him.



Here is the larger context...


John 3:15 is good example of the subjunctive mood being used where the outcome is not doubted. We have, "so that whoever believes will...have eternal life - NASB." The NASB translates 'εχη' as "will...have" rather than "may (or might) have" indicating that at least this translation committee did not think that the use of the subjunctive here meant to imply doubt of the outcome.

I hope this helps.

Sincerely,

Brian

Thanks for quoting the larger context. What he says supports my conclusion and view.

The single most common category of the subjunctive in the NT is after ινα, comprising about one third of all subjunctive instances. There are seven basic uses included in this construction: purpose, result, purpose-result, substantival, epexegetical, complementary, and command. Its usage in the Koine period has increased from the classical as this construction came to be used as a periphrasis for the simple infinitive.


1) Purpose Ινα Clause (a.k.a. Final or Telic Ινα)

The most frequent use of ινα clauses is to express purpose. In classical Greek, this idea would have been expressed more often by the infinitive. The focus is on the intention of the action of the main verb, whether accom*plished or not. In keeping with the genius of the subjunctive, this subordi*nate clause answers the question Why? rather than What? An appropriate translation would be in order that, or, where fitting, as a simple infinitive (to . . .).

We must not suppose that this use of the subjunctive necessarily implies any doubt about the fulfillment of the verbal action on the part of the speaker. This may or may not be so; each case must be judged on its own merits. The subjunctive is used, however, because it answers the implicit deliberative question. Further, many instances of purpose clauses shade off into result as well, especially when the divine will is in view (Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, pgs. 471-472).

 

[Pastor Larry]

Thanks for quoting the larger context. What he says supports my conclusion and view.

What??? You are making that up. Wallace most assuredly does not support your view. There is no implied doubt about the fulfillment of the divine action. When you judge this case on its own merits, your position does not stand.

BTW, if you are going to talk about Greek, you need to have worked through Wallace.

However, back to the point, nothing in Rom 11:32 says anything about special election.

 

[Tom Butler]

In a recent post on the website "Strange Baptist Fire, http://strangebaptistfire.wordpress.com/ Andrew Lindsey reported on a discussion on the Albert Mohler Radio Program. Dr. Mohler moderated a discussion on Calvinism featuring Dr. Russell Moore of Southern Seminary; Dr. Matt Pinson, President of Free Will Bible College; and Dr. Mark Dever of 9Marks Ministries.

In commenting on the discussion, Andrew Lindsey cited still another radio interview involving R. C. Sproul: This is what I'd like to throw out for your comments:

Any Christian who wants to be biblical knows that they have to have some doctrine of election- some doctrine of predestination- because its on every page. So you gotta deal with it. So then the question is, ‘How do you understand election?’ And the way that this is usually done is that they say, -”Well, yes God elects people but He elects them on the basis of what they do. And He knows in advance- from all eternity- what they’re going to do when they come to certain crossroads. And on the basis of that foreknowledge- or prescience- then He issues His election.”
But election, then, is rooted and grounded in the work of the individual.
To get this very simple- down and dirty- I say, “OK, are you a Christian?”
-”Yes”
“Do you have a family member or friend who’s not a Christian?”
-”Yes.”
“Please tell me why you are a Christian and that other person isn’t.”
-”Well, I believed and the other person didn’t.”
And I say, “I understand that, but why did you believe- why did you say ‘yes’ to the Gospel- when your friend said ‘no’ to the same Gospel? Is it because you’re better than they are?”
And what do they say, a hundred times out of a hundred?
-”No! Of course not!” They know they can’t say that.
I say, “Is it because you’re smarter?”
-”No.”
“Let me ask it again, when you’re neighbor said ‘no’ to the offer of the Gospel, is God pleased with that?”
-”No.”
“Is that the right decision?”
-”No.”
“Is that the wrong decision?”
-”Yes.”
“Is that a bad decision.”
-”Yes.”
“Is it a sin to say ‘no’ to God?”
-”Yes.”
“Well, you didn’t commit that sin, you did the right thing, the good thing, and the virtuous thing. So, in reality, you’re telling me that the reason you’re a Christian and that your neighbor is not is because you did the right thing, and they did the bad thing. And so, though you protest as loudly as you can, if you really believe what you’re telling me, you’re trusting in your ultimate salvation in your good behavior. You may say, ‘Well I couldn’t have done it except for the grace of God!’ But its the same grace He gave to your neighbor. In the final analysis, there was some ‘island of righteousness’ in you that caused you to say ‘yes’ to that grace where you wicked neighbor said ‘no’. You have something of which to boast. Not to mention how Paul not only destroys that position, but wipes off the spot where it stood in Romans 9 when he makes it emphatically clear that it is ‘not of him who runs, not of him who wills, but of God who shows mercy’(Romans 9:10).”
[from Sproul, R.C. Put on the New Man. Audio recording. St. Andrew’s Chapel, Sanford, FL. October, 2001.]

So the question of the hour is "Who makes you to differ from another?" in regard to salvation.

 

[Benefactor]

What??? You are making that up. Wallace most assuredly does not support your view. There is no implied doubt about the fulfillment of the divine action. When you judge this case on its own merits, your position does not stand.

BTW, if you are going to talk about Greek, you need to have worked through Wallace.

Attention everyone: Sir Larry Pastor his Greatness has entered the room bow down and kiss the floor in his presence.

However, back to the point, nothing in Rom 11:32 says anything about special election.

Hear Ye, Hear Ye, Read All About It

Larry Pastor Most Wonderful Advisor of All Declares:

If you have taken Greek any where at any time by any one other than Dr. Wallace you are a phony and you are stupid. He who has not rubbed shoulders with Dr. Wallace is a no body, so sound the trumpets, stand aside you lesser people for the great and wonderful Sir. Larry Pastor, of the know it alls is arriving.

 

[Benefactor]

In a recent post on the website "Strange Baptist Fire, http://strangebaptistfire.wordpress.com/ Andrew Lindsey reported on a discussion on the Albert Mohler Radio Program. Dr. Mohler moderated a discussion on Calvinism featuring Dr. Russell Moore of Southern Seminary; Dr. Matt Pinson, President of Free Will Bible College; and Dr. Mark Dever of 9Marks Ministries.

In commenting on the discussion, Andrew Lindsey cited still another radio interview involving R. C. Sproul: This is what I'd like to throw out for your comments:



So the question of the hour is "Who makes you to differ from another?" in regard to salvation.

First, the illustration is one that a Calvinist would use. It is flawed and designed to support what he believes.

Second, freedom to believe is not a work, but Calvinist beat the drum over and over again that it is and they themselves are self deceived in believing that faith in God is merit.

 

[saturneptune]

You know, all these names mentioned on this thread, whether it be Wallace, Calvin, Moore, Lindsey, or whoever, were mortal men like us, with minds like ours. God gave us a mind to read the Bible, and gave us the Holy Spirit to teach us in all things. What difference does it make what someone else thinks about what the Bible says?

It is obvioius from the Scripture that God is a sovereign and merciful God. He is the Creator, and salvation is totally from Him. Without Him, we could not take a breath of air. We do not choose to take a breath of air or not and sustain life. If there is any free will on the part of man in certain contexts, it is given to him by the Lord.

We are all capable of figuring this out by reading Scripture, going to Bible study, and fellowshipping. IMO, Pastor Larry, OR, and Tom Butler have this issue nailed down. The only thing that I wish is that we had named these doctrines something other than Calvinism.

 

[OldRegular]

The only thing that I wish is that we had named these doctrines something other than Calvinism.

I agree SN. Some people get their hackles up when they hear the name Calvinism and are immediately turned off. I have suggested several times that Baptists should use a name other than Calvinism, like the Doctrines of Grace. Tom Nettles uses that name as a subtitle of his book By His Grace and for His Glory. Besides Calvin believed some things I don't,

 

[Tom Butler]

First, the illustration is one that a Calvinist would use. It is flawed and designed to support what he believes.

Of course that is the design. That doesn't make it flawed. Please give your reasons you think the illustration is flawed.

Second, freedom to believe is not a work, but Calvinist beat the drum over and over again that it is and they themselves are self deceived in believing that faith in God is merit.

No one has claimed that freedom to believe is a work. It is a gift, of course, but not a work.

The illustration in question did not say faith is a work. If you don't like Sproul's illustration, would you like to take a crack at the question "Who makes you to differ in the matter of salvation?" Why did you repent and believe, and someone else not? What is it within you that turned you from rebellion to surrender? Why was the Holy Spirit's work of convicting of sin, righteousness and judgment effective with you, but not with another?

Why was the drawing by the HS effectual with you but not another?

 

[Benefactor]

Of course that is the design. That doesn't make it flawed. Please give your reasons you think the illustration is flawed.



No one has claimed that freedom to believe is a work. It is a gift, of course, but not a work.

The illustration in question did not say faith is a work. If you don't like Sproul's illustration, would you like to take a crack at the question "Who makes you to differ in the matter of salvation?" Why did you repent and believe, and someone else not? What is it within you that turned you from rebellion to surrender? Why was the Holy Spirit's work of convicting of sin, righteousness and judgment effective with you, but not with another?

Why was the drawing by the HS effectual with you but not another?

Of course the illustrations positions itself that man cannot respond to God unless he is regenerated first so that he then will believe. In this model the illustration fits, but with free will it does not. Jesus said in Luke 7:50 that faith saves not saves give faith. I believe that God elects all those whom He knows will receive the truth. God desires all to be saved and Jesus died for the sins of all and the only way that God's holiness can be protected is if man can freely believe in the work of God.

The reason the conviction of sin, righteousness and judgment was effective for some but not most is because of the ability to freely make that decision.

Are your choices in life free or are you robotically making each decisions?

 

[Brian Bosse]

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Sometimes the interactions on this board are not very gracious or charitable. I realize that many of the issues discussed deal with beliefs that are deeply held on both sides, and because of this emotions can run high. However, as Christian brothers and sisters all of our interactions should be seasoned with charity and grace. We have no right to be otherwise.

Your Fellow Sinner Saved By Grace,

Brian

 

[Lux et veritas]

I am not a Calvinist so that everyone knows.

I am not an Arminian so that everyone knows.

I do believe in once saved always saved and that does not make me a Calvinist.

I am a Baptist, I take serious my relationship in Christ and I love everyone and believe Christ died for all and that all can be saved, but most will not.

I reject universalism, special election, infant baptism, and a bunch of other stuff and I accept the 66 books of the Bible as 100 percent God's word.

So now put your theological model's boxing gloves on and let the in fighting began, metaphorically intended.

Here is a starter for you Calvinist that might get your spiritual blood pressure up, maybe not so much at first but as things progress in my favor you may need to see your medical doctor or take a breather.:godisgood:

Romans 11:32 is the culmination of Chapters 8, 9, 10, and 11. It completely refutes the doctrine of special election. Now that should draw some retort! If you are going pile on the bricks, :tonofbricks: check to make sure they are made of styrofoam.

P. S. I welcome quotes form different men in history and recent authors but try to keep it short I hate reading long extended explanations of a doctrine, just get to the point. I have anti my view commentary listing ADD and ADHD. Now if you are a wimp and your wear theological feeling on your sleeve then perhaps you don’t need to engage this topic.

Benefactor - I read some of your posts. For what it's worth, what you really could use is a good old fashioned dose of h-u-m-i-l-i-t-y-. Then, and only then, can you start to learn theology. Here's some verses that are good for Calvinists and Arminians, as well as your own, confessed "middle of the road" theology. (You want to be extra careful when you are in the middle of the road ... you're liable to get hit from both directions.)

Proverbs 29:23
A man's pride shall bring him low: but honour shall uphold the humble in spirit.

Isaiah 57:15
For thus saith the high and lofty One that inhabiteth eternity, whose name is Holy; I dwell in the high and holy place, with him also that is of a contrite and humble spirit, to revive the spirit of the humble, and to revive the heart of the contrite ones.

James 4:6
God resisteth the proud, but giveth grace unto the humble.

 

[saturneptune]

Of course the illustrations positions itself that man cannot respond to God unless he is regenerated first so that he then will believe. In this model the illustration fits, but with free will it does not. Jesus said in Luke 7:50 that faith saves not saves give faith. I believe that God elects all those whom He knows will receive the truth. God desires all to be saved and Jesus died for the sins of all and the only way that God's holiness can be protected is if man can freely believe in the work of God.

The reason the conviction of sin, righteousness and judgment was effective for some but not most is because of the ability to freely make that decision.

Are your choices in life free or are you robotically making each decisions?

You, like all of us are a created being. God is the Creator. Any free will that you have comes from and is defined from Above. As God has allowed, you have the free will to make day to day decisions that affect your life on this earth. What makes you think that in the fallen state we are in, that we have the free will to accept something that is Holy? What evidence or Scripture backs this up? These two examples are two entirely different areas.

For a while, I struggled with irresistible grace. I do not like that term, because it connects to the man Calvin. Anyway, once the Holy Spirit starts working on someone, maybe in God's timing, it is not at the first instant. Maybe when we see people who will seem to reject God time after time, it is because we are seeing the Holy Spirit convicting them on God's time schedule. The bottom line is, if God has chosen them, they will declare Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior. The other possibility is that we are seeing someone operating off a conscience in them, and the Holy Spirit is not convicting them.

By the way, welcome to Baptist Board, and hope you enjoy the exchange of ideas.

 

[Lux et veritas]

Mercy, Do I have to "Spell it out"??? :BangHead:

OT people never had a "comforter", God spoke to them through "prophets",

So how could they "OBEY" God's word's if there was "NO COMFORTER/HOLY SPIRIT" indwelling them to "MAKE" them "change their evil ways"??

Calvinist says that isn't Possible.

Could you please clarify? Are you really saying that those living in O.T. times did not have the Holy Spirit?

 

[Lux et veritas]

I believe that God elects all those whom He knows will receive the truth.

This statement, which is classic Armianism by the way (so much for "middle of the road"), makes election both illogical and redundant.

What is the PURPOSE of election at all if it is after one has been saved, (or to use your words, "received the truth")?

The very meaning of election is a choice to something, not after the fact. If I "elect" to do something, the "election" precedes the action. Why does the Bible even speak about election if it is a choosing by God of a person after a person has chosen (elected) God?

Your view of election is man-centered, not God-centered. And the kindest thing I can really say about it is that it makes nonsense of the language of the Bible; whether it's Greek or English!