• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

What Side Of The Fence Are You?

Which doctrine do you believe?

  • Synergism

    Votes: 26 35.6%
  • Monergism

    Votes: 47 64.4%

  • Total voters
    73
Status
Not open for further replies.
What side of the fence?

I have a simple and true answer to the "Which side of the fence are you on" question. The WINNING SIDE!!::godisgood::jesus::thumbs: :)


Willis
 
I really see nothing from that article that is any different than the arguments put forth here. I cannot understand how such a learned person can call that "grammatical slam-dunk"...more grammatical half court shot with the clock running down :)

Webdog, the nicest thing I can say is that our friends seem to be better at grammar than logic. As I see it, they're making two fallacies: they're turning an assertion into an If/Then condition, and they're making a post hoc fallacy. Neither of these are warranted.

The point of 1 John is to provide confidence in the audience to which he was writing. He repeatedly makes assertions about what we can know. As I read it, the point is just to assert what can be known from the belief: that people who believe are born again.

To take an assertion and use it to prove causation simply does not follow.
 

sag38

Active Member
It's what happens when you interpret the Bible not on its own merit but come to it with your mind already made up. Calvinists interpret the Bible from a Calvinist's point of view. It clouds all their judgments concerning the Bible so quite naturally they will make all scripture fit nicely into their presupposed system of theology and then conveniently call it a slam dunk. I get a chuckle every time they make such statements as if they have an exclusive wrap on the Word of God.
 

webdog

Active Member
Site Supporter
In I Jn 5:1 the pronoun "pas" is used twice in the same grammatical structure "pas o pisteuwn...gegennhtai" and "pas o agapwn ton geehsanta."

The term acting as the subject noun is not the participle in either phrase but the pronoun "pas." It is best to interpret the participles in both phrases as additional modifers of the pronoun just as both verbs modify the pronoun.

John of Japan knows this is the natural interpretation and that is why he only suggests that taking the participle to be the subject noun "is best" only in his opinion but not demanded.

This being the case, then it is proper to look at the tense relationships between the participles and the verb in their modifying role of the pronoun "pas." No honest exegesis of this text would fail to consider the same structures in 1 John 2:29; 4:7 as they precede this one. It is obvious that new birth precedes doing righteousness (2:29) and loving (4:7) and therefore new birth also logically precedes beleiving (5:1) as that is the only consistent interpretation of this structure by John. For John to use the same exact sentence structure in I Jn. 2:29 and 4:7 and assume his readers would conclude something different in the same use in 1 Jn. 5:1 is strange fiction.

The Greek language has always had a proper way to speak and read it and that has been determined by its prefix and suffix endings of nouns and verbs. Every language has natural laws that govern its use or else communication would be impossible. These laws may not have always been spelled out in a separate grammar book but they are inherent in the language for it to be a langauge at all. So the nonsensical statement there was no such thing as grammar 2000 years ago is about as logical as saying there was no such thing as human language 2000 years ago. The laws of language have been known and taught even if there were not written grammar books. If you doubt what I say, then try speaking the human language any way you please and see if you can communicate with another human being by the word order you randomly choose? Try saying the following and see if it makes any sense without putting these words in their proper order - proper order is grammatical use.

"lake jump the in go nonsense the this with"





pas o pisteuwn oti ihsouv estin o cristov ek tou yeou gegennhtai kai pas o agapwn ton gennhsanta agapa kai ton gegennhmenon ex autou

All the ones believing and all the ones loving are those who have been begotten.
This from John of Japan: "the present participle in both cases does not deal with at what point the present action begins--the present participle never does in koine Greek!

The present tense is not normally used in Greek to show ingression, or beginning. Daniel Wallace's grammar gives only two instances when the present is ingressive: the "mostly futuristic" use in which "The present tense may describe an event begun (Wallace's emphasis) in the present time, but completed in the future" (Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, p. 537). Again, there is an ingressive-progressive use of the present imperative (Wallace, p. 721-722). But our three passages in 1 John fit neither of these cases."

The Archangel might want to re-think that slam dunk :D
 

Dr. Walter

New Member
This from John of Japan: "the present participle in both cases does not deal with at what point the present action begins--the present participle never does in koine Greek!

The present tense is not normally used in Greek to show ingression, or beginning. Daniel Wallace's grammar gives only two instances when the present is ingressive: the "mostly futuristic" use in which "The present tense may describe an event begun (Wallace's emphasis) in the present time, but completed in the future" (Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, p. 537). Again, there is an ingressive-progressive use of the present imperative (Wallace, p. 721-722). But our three passages in 1 John fit neither of these cases."

The Archangel might want to re-think that slam dunk :D

What John of Japan is saying is true when considering the participle in isolation but it is not true when considering it with the action of the main verb and he knows that if he is a Greek teacher. So his argument is a farse and only convincing to those who do not know Greek grammar.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

The Archangel

Well-Known Member
This from John of Japan: "the present participle in both cases does not deal with at what point the present action begins--the present participle never does in koine Greek!

The present tense is not normally used in Greek to show ingression, or beginning. Daniel Wallace's grammar gives only two instances when the present is ingressive: the "mostly futuristic" use in which "The present tense may describe an event begun (Wallace's emphasis) in the present time, but completed in the future" (Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, p. 537). Again, there is an ingressive-progressive use of the present imperative (Wallace, p. 721-722). But our three passages in 1 John fit neither of these cases."

The Archangel might want to re-think that slam dunk :D

I don't remember if this was John of Japan or you (webdog) saying I may want to re-think the slam dunk. Either way, I doubt you or JoJ would make that statement to Screiner who happens to agree with me.

The Archangel
 

The Archangel

Well-Known Member
It's what happens when you interpret the Bible not on its own merit but come to it with your mind already made up. Calvinists interpret the Bible from a Calvinist's point of view. It clouds all their judgments concerning the Bible so quite naturally they will make all scripture fit nicely into their presupposed system of theology and then conveniently call it a slam dunk. I get a chuckle every time they make such statements as if they have an exclusive wrap on the Word of God.

This is an ironic and funny statement.

The fact of the matter is this: Non-Calvinists interpret the Bible from a non-Calvinist's point of view.

The irony in your statement is that, as it is relating to 1 John 5:1, we, the Calvinists, are interpreting the Bible on its own merit. The Grammar is driving our interpretation. For many others their interpretation of soteriology is driving their interpretation--even going so far as to ignore what is simple as far as the grammar goes.

There is a reason many, many Greek or New Testament scholars are reformed in their theology--it is what the text actually says.

Blessings,

The Archangel
 

Dr. Walter

New Member
The subject of I john 5:1 is found in the pronoun "pas" not the participle and "pas" is repeated again in the verse where it is modified by another present tense participle. The subject "pas" is the object of the action (passive) found in the main verb translated "born."

The perfect tense verb translated "born" by the very nature of the term refers to a completed action in the past. The present tense participle translated "believeth" is a continous action verb. However, its relationship to the main verb defines the point of action. If this participle had been Aorist or any other completed action past tense it would have demanded that the action preceded the action of the verb. In other words, if it were a completed action participle it would have proven that believing occurred BEFORE being "born" of God. If it were a future tense completed action it would proven the act of believing occurred at some point future of being born of God. The present tense shows identical action or action present with being "born" of God.

This is true in 1 John 2:29 and 4:7 as well. There is no chonological order demanded by the grammar but this does not deny a logical order and this is obvious in the I Jn 2:29 and 4:7. Spiritual life logically precedes spiritual activities such as doing righteousness and loving and saving faith is a fruit of the Spirit and there is no fruit where there is no living tree.
 

The Archangel

Well-Known Member
Webdog, the nicest thing I can say is that our friends seem to be better at grammar than logic. As I see it, they're making two fallacies: they're turning an assertion into an If/Then condition, and they're making a post hoc fallacy. Neither of these are warranted.

The point of 1 John is to provide confidence in the audience to which he was writing. He repeatedly makes assertions about what we can know. As I read it, the point is just to assert what can be known from the belief: that people who believe are born again.

To take an assertion and use it to prove causation simply does not follow.

I would much rather be better at grammar, since that is where the meaning of the text is, than logic.

As far as the post hoc fallacy is concerned, this is not it. Again, we are dealing with facts explicitly stated in the text (the Greek makes the nuance come out in a way that English is not capable of without many added words).

For example: If I were to drop my computer and at that same instant my house were to fall down around me we could make the wrong assumption that my dropping my computer caused my house to fall down. That would be the post hoc fallacy. But, that is not what is going on in 1 John 5:1.

In 1 John 5:1 we have John telling us about a present state (believing in Christ) and how we got to this point (we were born of God). The Greek perfect tells us that the being born happened at some time in the past and it has implications into the present (the present of John's writing). The passive tells us that we did not act upon ourselves, but it was God's acting that "born-ed" us again and because of His action we believe in Christ.

So, we are not committing a fallacy here. We are simply reading what the fully nuanced Greek text actually says. It would be the same as reading a police report that says "the suspect pulled the trigger and the gun fired." The gun firing is the direct result of the suspect pulling the trigger. When we come to that conclusion based on reading the report, we cannot make the post hoc fallacy because we are not making a logical leap. Rather, we are reading the facts presented to us as they are presented to us and making the connection that the author intends us to make.

Blessings,

The Archangel
 

Jerome

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Any success in finding another example in in the vast corpus of Greek literature that comports to your grammatical hypothesis?
 

MB

Well-Known Member
Herein lies the problem. Of course there were grammatical rules. If there weren't, there would be no translation of The Iliad or The Odyssey.

The fact of the matter is that language has rules--grammar--and those rules dictate how the words interact with one another. This is basic to communication.

Furthermore, what is communicated through language is not determined by the recipient (ie. the reader), but is determined by the author.

Therefore "what this passage means to me" is the absolute wrong question. The right question is this: What is the author saying, what is his main point.

To aid us in answering the question of authorial intent we follow rules--biblical hermeneutics. One of the most important things in the science of biblical interpretation (hermeneutics) is to read the original languages according to their own inherent grammatical rules.

To deny grammar is to condemn every language to being nothing more than jibberish and to apply the tyranny of the reader to everything read.

The Archangel
I believe Jesus Christ is the greater as compared to your hermeneutics. It is God that gives us wisdom not some teacher in a seminary.
In order for me to believe there was gramatical rules in Biblical Greek two thousand years ago you'd have to prove there was with some kind of instructional document from the period. Gramatical rules weren't invented yet, until around just 200 years ago. It's one of the reason the KJV 1611 is so hard to read and understand. Yet it isn't impossible. Gramatical rules are a modern invention.
MB
 

Skandelon

<b>Moderator</b>
Let's suppose that the Calvinists here are correct and regeneration does proceed faith. This would mean that the people of Noah's day were unbelieving ultimately because God refused to regenerate them and NOT because they simply refused to believe the clearly seen and understood divine revelations of Himself.

Explain therefore the frustration and anger of God in this situation?

Explain the "long-suffering" and "patience" of God with regard to the lost?

Why would God be frustrated and angry with people who cannot do otherwise than what they were born to do apart from His regenerative work?

Further, why does the scripture speak so much about the patience of God toward the lost and rebellious people? What is God waiting on besides Himself?
 

Thinkingstuff

Active Member
Let's suppose that the Calvinists here are correct and regeneration does proceed faith. This would mean that the people of Noah's day were unbelieving ultimately because God refused to regenerate them and NOT because they simply refused to believe the clearly seen and understood divine revelations of Himself.
Explain therefore the frustration and anger of God in this situation?

Explain the "long-suffering" and "patience" of God with regard to the lost?

Why would God be frustrated and angry with people who cannot do otherwise than what they were born to do apart from His regenerative work?

Further, why does the scripture speak so much about the patience of God toward the lost and rebellious people? What is God waiting on besides Himself?
Yes that is exactly what it means. And they were bringing to conclussion the fruit of sin which Adam brought into the world and so angered God. Because God is just.
 

webdog

Active Member
Site Supporter
What John of Japan is saying is true when considering the participle in isolation but it is not true when considering it with the action of the main verb and he knows that if he is a Greek teacher. So his argument is a farse and only convincing to those who do not know Greek grammar.
...and now we begin to see the arrogance seeping through... :rolleyes:

He is more than a greek teacher...he is a translator. How many Bibles have you translated into foreign languages?
 

webdog

Active Member
Site Supporter
Yes that is exactly what it means. And they were bringing to conclussion the fruit of sin which Adam brought into the world and so angered God. Because God is just.
You say "that is exactly what it means"...and then have to say "because God is just" in the same breath? You need to learn about justice.
 

Skandelon

<b>Moderator</b>
You say "that is exactly what it means"...and then have to say "because God is just" in the same breath? You need to learn about justice.

That is just what I was thinking. They think it is just for God to condemn mankind from birth to an eternity burning in hell because two people ate a piece of forbidden fruit...all the while pretending to call them to repentance, pretending to be upset with them for not repenting, pretending to appeal to them to be reconciled, pretending to be patiently waiting on them and pretending to be angry with them for not doing what ONLY HE can make them do. What sane person would ever define that as being JUST???
 
In 1 John 5:1 we have John telling us about a present state (believing in Christ) and how we got to this point (we were born of God). The Greek perfect tells us that the being born happened at some time in the past and it has implications into the present (the present of John's writing). The passive tells us that we did not act upon ourselves, but it was God's acting that "born-ed" us again and because of His action we believe in Christ.

So, we are not committing a fallacy here. We are simply reading what the fully nuanced Greek text actually says. It would be the same as reading a police report that says "the suspect pulled the trigger and the gun fired." The gun firing is the direct result of the suspect pulling the trigger. When we come to that conclusion based on reading the report, we cannot make the post hoc fallacy because we are not making a logical leap. Rather, we are reading the facts presented to us as they are presented to us and making the connection that the author intends us to make.

Blessings,

The Archangel

Let me give an illustration that shows my point. Forgive me for the silly illustration, but it's the only way I can think of to reconstruct the language into a similar situation to prove my point.

There is a car that when driven emits a smelly chemical. Driving the car causes the chemical, and exposes the driver. As the car drives, the people standing on the sidewalk are also exposed, which causes them to run away. At the time of the statements below, the exposure has happened in the past, and the people are currently driving & running. I think this mimicks the same language that we're speaking about.

1. All who are driving have been exposed.
2. All who are running have been exposed.

(similar to 'all who are believing have been born')

Now in 1, the driving caused the exposure. In 2, the exposure causes the running. In both, at the time the statements are made, the exposure happened in the past, and the action is ongoing. The same exact grammatical construction can be used to show both causal relationships.

Therefore, even if you are correct about the grammatical construction of 1 John 5:1, we simply cannot use this grammar to show a causal relationship. Sorry, but there are a couple of logical fallacies being used here. First, we can't take a simple assertion and turn it into an If-Then logical condition (the way it's being used here, anyway), and we can't show that "prior to" means "cause of." It just doesn't work that way. Your position very well may be correct, but you can't use 1 John 5:1 to prove it.

Besides, the point of 1 John is assurance. He's simply giving a way for people to be sure that they're saved.

Respectfully
 

The Archangel

Well-Known Member
I believe Jesus Christ is the greater as compared to your hermeneutics. It is God that gives us wisdom not some teacher in a seminary.
In order for me to believe there was gramatical rules in Biblical Greek two thousand years ago you'd have to prove there was with some kind of instructional document from the period. Gramatical rules weren't invented yet, until around just 200 years ago. It's one of the reason the KJV 1611 is so hard to read and understand. Yet it isn't impossible. Gramatical rules are a modern invention.
MB

You are simply wrong. Language, by definition, has grammar. It is inherent to language. In fact, if you do not have grammar, you have no language.

Your argument does not place the burden of proof on "us" to produce a grammatical key, rather it places the burden of proof on you to give evidence to your assertion.

We know that biblical Hebrew (which is quite a bit older than your arbitrary 200 years) has grammar. There are nouns, verbs, etc. That's grammar. In Hebrew, the verb usually (but not always) begins the sentence. That's odd from an English point of view, but that's the way Hebrew works. But the verb is recognized as a verb and not a noun. So, grammar is present and functioning.

Also, "Gramatical" is actually spelled Grammatical.

The Archangel
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top