What Side Of The Fence Are You?

[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

Your entire argument is, basically, a non sequitur. Why? because John is not leaving us to imply--rather he is giving us the specifics in the grammar itself.

It is not that the participle and verb of the first clause of 1 John 5:1 are causative in and of themselves. The grammatical connection is present because you have a perfect/passive verb (has been born) telling us that we did not born ourselves and that "born-ing" took place in the past with the results of that "born-ing" lasting into the present (the present of John's writing). The participle, which is present, gives a present state. So, you have the present state of the participle being explained by the perfect/passive verb. The connection could not be more clear.

I would remind you also, world-renowned New Testament and Greek scholars agree with me. Men who have written tome upon tome about the New Testament and are as comfortable with Greek as a fish is in water.

The Archangel

 

[The Archangel]

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???

Your issue, then, is not with Calvinists, but with God.

The Archangel

 

[The Archangel]

...and now we begin to see the arrogance seeping through...

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

But we could argue that you are displaying arrogance by discounting the exegesis of a world-renowned New Testament scholar too. After all, if Schreiner is correct (and the many droves of scholars that agree with him on this text) you are displaying a grand amount of arrogance by dismissing what the Bible is teaching in favor of your own preferences.

You really need to be careful about throwing around the "arrogant" thing. Calvinists can and do have troubles with humility, etc., just as everyone else does. However, judging from your interactions with me and many others, humility has never been one of your vices either. You are always quick to point out arrogance on the part of people who disagree with you--usually with a "gotcha quip"--but you never display the humility you seek to have others exhibit.

The Calvinist--especially of those who are well-versed in the languages of Greek and Hebrew--must remember that the true measure of humility is to be subject to the text. That is what we are seeking to do and that is a driving reason that explains our love for the original languages.

While I have an immense amount of respect for John of Japan and the work that he does preaching the gospel in, of all languages, Japanese, he is not, to my knowledge, a world-renowned New Testament/Greek scholar like Dr. Schreiner is. I am sure, however, John of Japan's reward will be a million times more than mine because he is on the front lines of battle in a very dark place. May God grant him many years to minister to the lost and dying in Japan!

Blessings,

The Archangel

 

[Skandelon]

Your issue, then, is not with Calvinists, but with God.

The Archangel

Argumentum ad ignorantiam

 

[Thinkingstuff]

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.

What do you base justice on? If you are a calvinist you would hold to total depravity of the race. God is just in destroying everyone of us because of Adams sin whether or not we made any choice or not. God would be right (according to Calvin) to wipe everyone of us out without the cross.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Argumentum ad ignorantiam

That wasn't nice but agreeably equating a man's theory of redemption with God's perspective is presumptious.

 

[The Archangel]

Argumentum ad ignorantiam

Nope. Not an argument, an observation.

 

[The Archangel]

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???

argumentum ad captandum

 

[Dr. Walter]

Your analogy is flawed. Starting the engine emits the smelly chemical rather you drive it or not. However, all who are driving it are emitting smelly chemical and are being affected and affecting others. However, if you never started it there would be no smelly chemical emitted at all.

In this passage the new birth is like starting the engine and believing is like driving it. However, you cannot drive what has not been previously started.

Let's look at the grammar from your perspective. If John wanted to convey that believing produces the new birth all he would have to have done is use a past tense participle instead of a present and that would demand believing occurs prior to being born again. He did not use a completed action participle or a future tense participle.

When God gives a new heart (new birth) it is a believing heart. Hence, there is no such person as an unregenerated believer or a regenerated unbeliever. This is the precise point of the grammar being used here.

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

 

[Humblesmith]

It is not that the participle and verb of the first clause of 1 John 5:1 are causative in and of themselves. The grammatical connection is present because you have a perfect/passive verb (has been born) telling us that we did not born ourselves and that "born-ing" took place in the past with the results of that "born-ing" lasting into the present (the present of John's writing). The participle, which is present, gives a present state.

The Archangel

Every word you said here can be applied to statement 1 in the illustration, except for the underlined part, which assumes a a causal relationship. Again, I'll give you the point about the tenses. But you simply can't show a causal relationship based on the past tense at the time the statement is made, you just can't. My proof is that the exact same statement you're making, absent the causal relationship that you're reading into it, can be said about statement 1 in the illustration. Where else, besides the causal part, does the illustration deviate from the description you gave? You didn't address how to decide if 1 John 5:1 is like statement1 or statement 2, unless you've already assumed a causal relationship.

But I'm backing out of this one; I made my point. The logic isn't there, neither is the context. It's re-hashing the same ground. I'm done with this.

 

[Humblesmith]

If John wanted to convey that believing produces the new birth all he would have to have done is use a past tense participle instead of a present and that would demand believing occurs prior to being born again. He did not use a completed action participle or a future tense participle.

.......unless of course he wanted to emphasize something different than whether one causes the other. He may have merely wanted to emphasize that we can know who are saved by looking at who is believing, which appears to be the case from the context.

Now we're arguing why John didn't say/mean something different than what he said. I'm done.

 

[The Archangel]

Every word you said here can be applied to statement 1 in the illustration, except for the underlined part, which assumes a a causal relationship. Again, I'll give you the point about the tenses. But you simply can't show a causal relationship based on the past tense at the time the statement is made, you just can't. My proof is that the exact same statement you're making, absent the causal relationship that you're reading into it, can be said about statement 1 in the illustration. Where else, besides the causal part, does the illustration deviate from the description you gave? You didn't address how to decide if 1 John 5:1 is like statement1 or statement 2, unless you've already assumed a causal relationship.

But I'm backing out of this one; I made my point. The logic isn't there, neither is the context. It's re-hashing the same ground. I'm done with this.

Again, though you have backed-out now, the causal relationship is in the juxtaposition of the participle (and its grammatical baggage) and the verb (and its grammatical baggage).

Again, I'd remind you that I am not your only opponent in this. Dr. Schreiner--a Greek scholar par excellence--reads the passage as I do. Other scholars such as John Piper and John R. W. Stott also read the passage as I do.

If you were in Schreiner's New Testament class, would you really exert your understanding of this text over his? I think not.

Blessings to you,

The Archangel

 

[webdog]

But we could argue that you are displaying arrogance by discounting the exegesis of a world-renowned New Testament scholar too. After all, if Schreiner is correct (and the many droves of scholars that agree with him on this text) you are displaying a grand amount of arrogance by dismissing what the Bible is teaching in favor of your own preferences.

You really need to be careful about throwing around the "arrogant" thing. Calvinists can and do have troubles with humility, etc., just as everyone else does. However, judging from your interactions with me and many others, humility has never been one of your vices either. You are always quick to point out arrogance on the part of people who disagree with you--usually with a "gotcha quip"--but you never display the humility you seek to have others exhibit.

The Calvinist--especially of those who are well-versed in the languages of Greek and Hebrew--must remember that the true measure of humility is to be subject to the text. That is what we are seeking to do and that is a driving reason that explains our love for the original languages.

While I have an immense amount of respect for John of Japan and the work that he does preaching the gospel in, of all languages, Japanese, he is not, to my knowledge, a world-renowned New Testament/Greek scholar like Dr. Schreiner is. I am sure, however, John of Japan's reward will be a million times more than mine because he is on the front lines of battle in a very dark place. May God grant him many years to minister to the lost and dying in Japan!

Blessings,

The Archangel

I thought you were past the ad hominem stage with me, but I guess not. Weren't you the one asking Dr. Walter not to lecture you on hermeunetics? Forgive me, but there you might want to remove the humility log from your own eye first...

If I recall from that thread in February, the majority of greek scholars do NOT agree with Schreiner, so I do not believe it to be "arrogance" to form my opinion based on that.

 

[The Archangel]

I thought you were past the ad hominem stage with me, but I guess not. Weren't you the one asking Dr. Walter not to lecture you on hermeunetics? Forgive me, but there you might want to remove the humility log from your own eye first...

If I recall from that thread in February, the majority of greek scholars do NOT agree with Schreiner, so I do not believe it to be "arrogance" to form my opinion based on that.

Soooo typical. That you would take what I said as an ad hominem is sad. And that you refuse to heed my advice is sad, but so typical of your posting. A word to the wise should have been sufficient.

Furthermore, a warning about hermeneutics--having studied hermeneutics myself--is nowhere close to eschewing humility and it is nothing close to your common "zinger" practice.

The Archangel

 

[webdog]

Soooo typical. That you would take what I said as an ad hominem is sad. And that you refuse to heed my advice is sad, but so typical of your posting. A word to the wise should have been sufficient.

The Archangel

The same could be said of your postings and interaction with those on this thread. :wavey:

Word to the wise...when you bring up someone's humility (or lack thereof) out of the clear blue...it is most definitely construed as an ad hominem.

 

[The Archangel]

The same could be said of your postings and interaction with those on this thread. :wavey:

Not so much. I have rarely known you to employ any substantive argument that does not also include the ad hominem.

Though I do not do so perfectly, I always try to stick to the substance of the argument.

I think it is becoming clear that anyone with whom you disagree with is targeted for the attack-zinger.

The Archangel

 

[The Archangel]

Word to the wise...when you bring up someone's humility (or lack thereof) out of the clear blue...it is most definitely construed as an ad hominem.

Oh...you mean like you did here:

...and now we begin to see the arrogance seeping through...

So, let me get this straight. You accuse someone of not having humility (hence the word "arrogance") and then when I mention it to you you accuse me of an ad hominem as if you were the innocent bystander in the whole exchange?

Friend, this is nothing less than rank hypocrisy on your part.

The Archangel

 

[webdog]

Not so much. I have rarely known you to employ any substantive argument that does not also include the ad hominem.

Though I do not do so perfectly, I always try to stick to the substance of the argument.

I think it is becoming clear that anyone with whom you disagree with is targeted for the attack-zinger.

The Archangel

and another post for the sole reason of the ad hominem. Time to remove the log, Arch! If you think this latest exchange is sticking to the "substance of the argument" you are quite mistaken. I disagree agreeably with most people. Based on your "warning" (not sure why he needs a "warning") to Dr. Walter, you may want to rethink the "zinger" claim you are noted for.

 

[webdog]

Oh...you mean like you did here:



So, let me get this straight. You accuse someone of not having humility (hence the word "arrogance") and then when I mention it to you you accuse me of an ad hominem as if you were the innocent bystander in the whole exchange?

Friend, this is nothing less than rank hypocrisy on your part.

The Archangel

Hardly. Someone having the nerve to question JoJ's understanding of the greek in favor of their own (who admitted earlier in this debate to NOT be a greek scholar) reeked of arrogance, as there was no substance behind it.

 

[The Archangel]

and another post for the sole reason of the ad hominem. Time to remove the log, Arch! If you think this latest exchange is sticking to the "substance of the argument" you are quite mistaken. I disagree agreeably with most people. Based on your "warning" (not sure why he needs a "warning") to Dr. Walter, you may want to rethink the "zinger" claim you are noted for.

You are wrong again! The post you quoted was a post for the sole reason of defending myself against your ad hominem post.

There is no log and though this is not about the substance of this thread, it is you and your zinger-isms that have precipitated this line of defense on my part.

Dr. Walter was new to the board and, presumably, didn't know that I have been trained in hermeneutics.

And, no, you don't disagree agreeably. Having read you and watched your interaction for may years, it is clear to this observer that you are like the wounded animal who lashes out whenever someone disagrees with you. Though, I will give you that you do not always do so, it is a hallmark of your writings.

The Archangel