Which Points of Calvinism Do You Believe?

[Faith alone]

Notice that once again FA cannot represent his opposition without misrepresenting them. I did not call him a liar. I said that if he really objected to characterizations of others he would refrain from them himself. I said he is inconsistent, not that he’s a liar.

Then apparently you do not know what the expression "to speak with a forked tongue means." The picture comes from a snake's tongue, and the idea (according to wikipedia and Webster's) is that of duplicity, saying one thing while meaning another. The least that could be said about such a person is that he lacks integrity... a nice way of calling someone a liar. But instead of apologizing, all you do is look down your nose at me and say I am ignorant of what you said. Now I'm going to assume that you took "forked tongue" to mean saying two different things at the same time without the integrity issue.

May I ask, "What are you doing here?" You have an excellent education, and are well-respected in the academic community. So let me see who I can swoop down upon and try to make him look foolish? Well instead of demonstrating your excellent knowledge of theoloy and philosophy, how about demonstrating that exegetical ability you spoke of earlier? I don't doubt that you have such experience. Let's get onto the Word of God. I tried to be very respectful with you earlier. You completely ignored that. You seem to have a goal. And IMO it is not Christ-centered in the least, and I have refused to interact with anyone on boards when it gets personal. "The anger of man does not work the righteousness of God." You obviously are operating out of anger, and it's making me angry as well - which does not build up.

Now, that said, I also have the concenr that you mightthink that I am backing down. So if you've got something to say from the Word, let's get on with it.

And notice that I have demonstrated several times now where he simply has his facts wrong. On the one hand, he says he’s asking questions, but when the answers are given he rejects them, particularly when it’s shown he has not accurately represented the opposing position or even, as in Molinism, the one he invokes. He needs to do better homework.

Really? Then why did your representation of UPG come directly from Fide-O blog, written by my friend Jason Robertson?

For the 2nd time, please pay attention to what I said. I never said that this representation of UPG was my own!!!!!!! I had a roguh idea of what UPG teaches, but if I just shared off the top of my head, with your background you'd clearly just ridicule my respknse. (Now certainly you will not characterize your previous responses as anything less.) Anyway, what's why I said that the scripture used did not matter. Did I not then list those points that I did not agree with? And how did I misrepresent UPG? You must be saying that your friend Jason Robertson was misrepresenting UPG. I am confused, unless you mean that represented that as coming from myself - which is ridiculous. All Isaid was, "UPG asserts the following: ..."

I’ve already done this several times. All you have to do is Google my exegesis of this passage. It is on several websites.

And the issue isn’t the use of the present tense. That would apply to your view of “punctiliar faith.” That's a separate issue.

Well, I never said that. But if you would like to discuss the nature of PISTEUW as used in John's gospel, I am quite ready to do so. But I should warn you that 1st year Greek arguments regarding aspect is not enough there. I do not mean this in a disparaging manner, but that is all I've ever seen for the argument that faith must be continuous. I will quote several Greek grammars.

Rather, the issue is the relationship between being born again and faith within the structure of the letter. All that is necessary is to show the causal link between being "born again" and "believing" in John's

I did not say it had to do with the present tense, but with the perfect tense.

Now, I do have some things to say about 1 John 5:1. I too have spent some time exegeting 1 John 5:1 it myself. I've also considered the context. Hey, I could have some things wrong there, but I am anxious to see what you have to say, and no I will not simply google you. After themanner in which you've interacted with me... you first, Brother Gene. Please.

You mentioned John 6:44 - 45. Since I've answered your questions several times, it's time you do me a favor. Please exegete John 6:44 - 45 and its relationship, or lack thereof, to "irresistible grace." While you're at it, you can answer my question about Acts 7 too.

Apparaently you're reading my posts too quickly, for you keep misunderstanding what I am saying. I said absolutely nothing about Acts 7:51. Your friend did. I never represented it as being my own thoughts on UPG. Now, why don't you exegete exegete John 6:44, 45 and 1 john 5:1. If you use RC Sproul's arguemnts for John 6:4, 45, well, think it will not make your point to the degree you'd like.

You were the one who clearly came in looking for a fight. I neverasked you to answer several questions. I was merely explaining my position. But please, check out my previous posts on various threads. You'll see that I strive to be considerate and respectful in my posts.

I’m glad you’re asking questions, but, Brother FA, I fear you are not “getting” what you are reading.

<snipped>

No doubt you're right. Divine Foreknowledge, Four Views twice. I guess I need to read it a couple more times. But I do appreciate your somewhat kind words above. Now, if you want to exegete John 6:44, 45 and 1 John 5:1, please do so. Otherwise, we're wasting our time.

FA

 

[GeneMBridges]

One more thing, while we're at it.

You keep repeating that we Calvinists somehow "limit God's sovereignty" because you think we deny he wills through free agents.

This is another misrepresentation.

What we affirm is God wills the end via the means. He wills the accomplishment of a given outcome through some secondary agent or agency. We deny that He wills via libertarian agents.

So, the issue there comes down to libertarian agency or not. You say you deny libertarian agency, but then you keep referring to Molinism and Craig.

Now, as I said you can deny libertarian agency and adopt a view like Ware's. However, if you believe that ability limits responsibility:

a. That is the very defintion of libertarian agency.
b. By appealing to MK, you've not helped your case, for under a theory of MK, this is the only world that truly obtains.

You see, here's the problem, given your objection to SupraL. You can define permission as the absence of prevention as Ware does, but where does that lead? If God doesn't prevent an event, then the event will still occur, and it will happen because God decreed the event. Permission means is that God doesn't prevent the execution of his own decree - as I pointed out this is true even in the Arminian order of decrees, and Molinism is the heart of Arminianism. How does that absolve God of complicity and make man "responsible," if men don't have libertarian freedom or if this is the only world that obtains and they nevertheless have libertarian freedom? Either way, you've at best only moved those questions back one step, committing the regressive fallacy.

I'd also point out that its the libertarian, not the non-libertarian that "denies that counterfactuals exist" because in libertarianism, they don't, indeed, can't exist until actually instantiated.

 

[GeneMBridges]

For the 2nd time, please pay attention to what I said. I never said that this representation of UPG was my own!!!!!!! I had a roguh idea of what UPG teaches, but if I just shared off the top of my head, with your background you'd clearly just ridicule my respknse. (Now certainly you will not characterize your previous responses as anything less.) Anyway, what's why I said that the scripture used did not matter. Did I not then list those points that I did not agree with? And how did I misrepresent UPG? You must be saying that your friend Jason Robertson was misrepresenting UPG. I am confused, unless you mean that represented that as coming from myself - which is ridiculous. All Isaid was, "UPG asserts the following: ..."

Apparaently you're reading my posts too quickly, for you keep misunderstanding what I am saying. I said absolutely nothing about Acts 7:51. Your friend did. I never represented it as being my own thoughts on UPG.

Apparently, you can't follow your own arguments. I asked for an argument for UPG from you, you presented what Jason said, and said you had a problem with several points, caveating several, moving from 7 to 9, so, yes you did represent it as your own, and you quite explicitly affirmed 8, which refers to Acts. My responses are pegged to the way you framed the issues. Go back and read what you said after your presentation.

I have an issue with # 4, 5, 6, 7, and 9.

Here is

8:This grace is not coercive but resistible (Acts 7:51).

So I asked him how this is relevant, to which you replied you only presenting what those who hold to UPG say.

However, I had asked,

"Where is your argument for UPG?"

What FA has done here is run away from his own words and come stumbling back with an armload of caveats which were distinctly absent from his original reply. I respond to what people say when the say it.

He also said he doesn't post the arguments of others from the internet, but what he did was post a summary of UPG written by a friend of mine no less - getting caught in the act- and present it as his own with caveats over 5 of the 9 points and then try to run away from it. I can only conclude that those not caveated are those with which he agrees. I'm merely following his own argumentation.

And notice that I've asked him several questions in our discussion, and he has not responded to them. For example, I asked if man's ability to respond was by way of UPG or design. No answer, but when asked for an argument for UPG, he presents a summary and then caveats it. So, which is it? UPG or design? I've asked him several times for a theory of agency, and I've gone into detail to interact in some detail with Molinism and his statements on SupraL and InfraL. We discussed the state of man in Libertas Adami and I asked him how what I stated from the SLC and Thomas Boston was at a variance? No answer. I also asked for exegesis of other texts, including John 6:44. No answer except to ask for me to do it for him. Sorry, I'm not playing that game, especially when he keeps telling me that he's read Reformed websites. Reformed exegesis of John 6 is remarkably uniform, so it isn't as if he doesn't know it already.

I'm sorry, but it seems I'm the one doing all the heavy lifting in this discussion, which gets me here:

Now, I do have some things to say about 1 John 5:1. I too have spent some time exegeting 1 John 5:1 it myself. I've also considered the context. Hey, I could have some things wrong there, but I am anxious to see what you have to say, and no I will not simply google you. After themanner in which you've interacted with me... you first, Brother Gene. Please.

A. No, because I've done far too much of your homework for you in this thread, for example correcting you on Molinism, agent causation, and Supra and Infralapsarianism. I've been very generious in interacting with nearly everything you have stated as you state it..

Therefore, you're free to Google my exegesis of 1 John 5:1 at any one of the websites to which I've been a contributing author, admin, or editor. It's in the public domain.

B. I asked you to do some exegesis. You said in the past that I'm not interacting with what you say - which is patently false-, but when I ask you to make a presentation yourself, you refuse. Apparently, you're not so "anxious" after all.

C. And if you want to bow out, that's fine, but if you want to debate 1 John 5:1 with a group that understands Greek grammar in great detail, then might I suggest Gene Cook's website.

D. I'd add that you can pontificate over the perfect tense all you want, but in so doing you're committing the word-concept fallacy. I've seen that argument before. The issue isn't the use of the perfect tense; rather it's the concept conveyed in concert with the trajectory of the whole of the Johanine corpus, particularly the structure of his work.

You, keep talking about my alleged motives and calling for Scripture. Well, you need to pay attention to Scripture:

Therefore do not go on passing judgment before the time, but wait until the Lord comes who will both bring to light the things hidden in the darkness and disclose the motives of men's hearts; and then each man's praise will come to him from God.

And you keep smuggling tendentious characterizations of the opposing views and past opponents into your statements. Forgive me for thinking you operate with a double standard.

Incidentally, I'm not at all "acting out of anger." That's another tendentious characterization on your part. I've done apologetics for years now.

I’m not stressed out by responding to the atheist heckler or the Romanist or the Arminian or the libertarian or the Presbyterian, or the Muslim. I have no emotional investment in apologetics. For me, this is a purely intellectual exercise. I’m quite detached about it. I have no personal stake in this, for that’s epiphenomenal to where I am.

did not say it had to do with the present tense, but with the perfect tense.

Actually, it's a present active particple and a perfect participle together.

But as I stated, the issue isn't that, the issue is the structure, the causal link.

Where the causal link is spelled out, it is explicit in 1 John.

1 Jn 3:1-8 is an expansive gloss on of Jn 1:12-13.

As to 1 Jn 5:1, the perfect participle could just as well be rendered, “whoever believes in God will have been begotten of God,” or, more idiomatically, “has already been begotten of God.” That is not the only possible rendering, but it’s grammatically unimpeachable.

At best, the verse is ambiguous, and therefore neutral on this question. And on the one occasion where John does clarify the causal relation, regeneration takes precedence (3:9).

So if you've got something to say from the Word, let's get on with it.

Yes, let's and since I've asked you several times to do that, then, as they say, "the ball is your court."

Your primary objetion continues to be "ability limits responsibility" and you've explicitly stated that Scripture assumes that men are able to do what God commands.

These, of course, must come from a platform of libertarian freedom, as I have repeatedly stated. So, present your theory of agent causation and back it up with Scripture.

I never asked you to answer several questions.

Once again, you can't follow your own arguments, for the first statements from you to which I replied stated a number of questions, statements, and tentendious (misrepresentations) and poorly reasoned conclusions, which I answered, and you specifically asked for comments from Calvinists - a fourth question.

You keep saying you want to learn, and that comes from a posture of asking questions. My responses are pegged to what you state.

 

[Faith alone]

Quote:
Now, I do have some things to say about 1 John 5:1. I too have spent some time exegeting 1 John 5:1 it myself. I've also considered the context. Hey, I could have some things wrong there, but I am anxious to see what you have to say, and no I will not simply google you. After themanner in which you've interacted with me... you first, Brother Gene. Please.

A. No, because I've done far too much of your homework for you in this thread, for example correcting you on Molinism, agent causation, and Supra and Infralapsarianism. I've been very generious in interacting with nearly everything you have stated as you state it..

FA: FWIW, I did google for an exegesis of 1 John 5:1 by you, but could no find a single one. I found sites that referred to you, but it was others doing the analysis. I found no places where you dealt in any detail with 1 John 5:1.

Therefore, you're free to Google my exegesis of 1 John 5:1 at any one of the websites to which I've been a contributing author, admin, or editor. It's in the public domain.

FA: Where - please be specific.

B. I asked you to do some exegesis. You said in the past that I'm not interacting with what you say - which is patently false-, but when I ask you to make a presentation yourself, you refuse. Apparently, you're not so "anxious" after all.

C. And if you want to bow out, that's fine, but if you want to debate 1 John 5:1 with a group that understands Greek grammar in great detail, then might I suggest Gene Cook's website.

FA: I suggest we do it right here. And that it be done in a respectful and Christ-centered manner by all. That means, stick to the text, and don't disparage each other or make judgments about motives or be overly critical of each other in the process.

D. I'd add that you can pontificate over the perfect tense all you want, but in so doing you're committing the word-concept fallacy. I've seen that argument before. The issue isn't the use of the perfect tense; rather it's the concept conveyed in concert with the trajectory of the whole of the Johanine corpus, particularly the structure of his work.

FA: Please be specific. I am not committing any such thing. Of course, you haven't seen my analysis yet. But I do know that the word-concept fallacy iswhen someone assumes that they have exhaustively studied a concept when they have instead exhaustively studied a word. But my concenr is the wrong assumptions commonly made regarding the perfect tense. (As well as worng assumptions made regarding the present tense in the indicative mood.) You're far off the mark here. I suggest that you just wait until I do get an opportunity to post. Thx. I probably shouldn't have bothered to give any warning. I simply wanted to forewarn you that I probably knew what you were going to say and that, if I had guessed correctly, that it was improper use of the perfect tense.

You, keep talking about my alleged motives and calling for Scripture. Well, you need to pay attention to Scripture:

Gene,

The reason I have been standing pat on this, is because I frankly do not think your Greek background is as strong as your obvious theological and philsophical background. Now I am familiar with the arguments that have been made exegetically on both sides of thsi issue, and have observed that both sides tend to make too strong statements regarding that text. Hence, I personally do not use that text as a proof-text for the ordo salutis I hold to. I have had to argue regarding why it does not work for your side though.

You see, if you will simply check some of my posts on this board, one thing will become apparent, obvious really... I tend to get lengthy. What then happens is that someone simply searches for one or two things where he can find fault with my analysis and ignores the rest. (To be fair, it is very difficult to address each of my points in detail, of course.) So I do better when I can allow the other person to post, then address each of his points exegetically. As I said above, I could not find any of your posts on the public domain in which you did much analysis at all on this text, and very little Greek grammatical analysis. So if you have something to say... why not simply say it?

But I will then exegete this text. it will probably take me two long posts, as it will be too long to fit in 10,000 chars, I imagine. (What do you know? it didn't.) But I then have every right to expect you to explain your position, and not just analyze my own. But I think you will find that my position is fairly balanced and reasonable on this text, though you may not agree with my conclusions.

Now regarding the middle knowledge philosophy, it is patently obvious that you far exceed my skills and knowledge in this. If I were to debate this with you, I would becoming across as if I know all about something on a level with you, and obviously I do not. I will say this: since in a time frame we are going to agree that much of the components of the ordo salutis occur simultaneously, some may ask, "Why bother?" It is a valid question.

The issue has to do with whether becoming a child of God is monergistic or synergistic in nature. Otherwise, who cares?


So I will exegete 1 John 5:1. It is my work. Sure, I have researched what others have said on this issue - on both sides. But the actual exegesis is completely mine. Hence, it could be fraught with some fairly minor errors, no doubt. If you disagree with my analysis, then please be specific (as you have been) and show me where my grammatical analysis is inaccurate. I expect that all you will be able to do in that respect is address the very important context.

After that, I could deal with the abuse of the present tense misunderstanding of PISTEUW in John's gospel as well as John 1:12, 13 or John 6:44, 45.

Now, I do hate to do this, but I am a teacher and my first day back at work will be tomorrow. I am also writing a philosphical paper, and am behind on that, due this week. Thirdly, my eldest teen is becoming a freshman in college next weekend, and I have much to do in that respect. So I will not be able to spend a lot of time here. But if you address my exegesis, I will get back to you as soon as possible.

Fourthly, as I think should be apparent by now, I have an abhorrence to self-centered debating on boards such as this one. If we cannot interact with one another in a considerate and respectful manner, then I will not continue this. That is not a game I am playing. I am very serious about such things.

Now, I think I have been very forthright here. Please do not make any disparaging remarks. Simply address my analysis and the scriptures.

Thx,

FA

 

[Faith alone]

1 John 5:1 exegesis

Now since what I could find by Gene, he (or those who alluded to his work) referenced 2:29 as having similar structure, I will break down both texts...

1 John 5:1 - This is not a conditional statement - merely a statement of fact.
Πᾶς ὁ πιστεύων ὅτι Ἰησοῦς ἐστιν ὁ Χριστὸς ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ γεγέννηται, καὶ πᾶς ὁ ἀγαπῶν τὸν γεννήσαντα ἀγαπᾷ [καὶ] τὸν γεγεννημένον ἐξ αὐτοῦ.
Each one who believes that Jesus is the Christ of God has been born (brought forth) and each one who loves the one who bears (brings forth) loves the one who has been brought forth (born) of him.
(I used "each one" to emphasize the singular nature of the articular participle. Most Bibles simply say something like "whoever..." The same is true for 2:29 below.)

Πᾶς ὁ πιστεύων - present, active, participle, masculine, singular, nominative
γεγέννηται - third person, singular, perfect, passive, indicative
πᾶς ὁ ἀγαπῶν - present, active, participle, masculine, singular, nominative - each one who loves
τὸν γεννήσαντα - aorist, active, participle, masculine, singular, accusative - the one who bears (brings forth)
ἀγαπᾷ - third person, singular, present, active, indicative - loves
τὸν γεγεννημένον - perfect, passive, participle, masculine, singular, accusative - the one brought forth (born), or the one who has been brought forth (born) - passive
ἐξ αὐτοῦ - personal, third person, masculine, singular, genitive - of him


1 John 2:29 - This is a 3rd class (probable future) conditional statement. (ἐὰν with a subjunctive in the protasis ["if" clause])
ἐὰν εἰδῆτε ὅτι δίκαιός ἐστιν, γινώσκετε ὅτι καὶ πᾶς ὁ ποιῶν τὴν δικαιοσύνην ἐξ αὐτοῦ γεγέννηται.
If you(pl) may know that he is righteous, [then] you(pl) know that each one who does righteousness of him has been born (brought forth)

ἐὰν - with subjunctive - 3rd class condition (probable future) - "if"
εἰδῆτε - second person, plural, perfect, active, subjunctive - you(pl) may know
δίκαιός - adjective, singular, nominative masc. - righteous
ἐστιν - is
γινώσκετε - second person, plural, present, active, indicative - you(pl) know
καὶ - and, also
πᾶς ὁ ποιῶν - present, active, participle, masculine, singular, nominative - each one who does ("practices", perhaps)
τὴν δικαιοσύνην - feminine sing. accusative - righteousness
γεγέννηται - third person, singular, perfect, passive, indicative - has been born (brought forth) - it's passive


OK, let's do a little analysis. 1 John 5:1 Everyone (I prefer "Each one") who believes that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God, and everyone (same as earlier) who loves the "parent" loves the "child." (But "parent" and "child" are not really the words there.)

Now in context John is simply saying that if a Christian asks who his Christian brother or sister is (probably to get out of some responsibility to love him), the response is that everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God (See also "born of God" in 1 John 3:9; 4:7; 5:4, 18). So whether or not a believer is "loveable", we need to love him because God is love, and everyone who loves the Father loves His children as well.

Taking this in context, what is John's specific point here? Is he saying that a person who is believing in Jesus Christ has already been born from above? No. Of course we know that the instant a person trusts in Christ he is born from above (John 1:12, 13). But this is not a causal statement but merely a statement of fact. Look at Galatians 2:20, for example. There we also see a perfect passive συνεσταύρωμαι (SUNESTAURWMAI) "I have been crucified"/"I am crucified" with Christ. The perfect tense in Greek has both ideas in it - that we were, at a point in time in the past - crucified, and we are in a state of having been crucified. Most Bibles translate it as "I have been crucified...," but the KJV translates it as "I am crucified..." The KJV is focusing on the present state. I don't think it is the best expression, but it isn't exactly wrong either.

Thus 1 John 5:1 is simply stating that a Christian is in a state of having been born of God. Whether faith resulted in their new birth or vice-versa, the same statement could be said here. So this verse does not say, as well, that being born of God results from faith. I realize that those who agree with my ordo salutis have used this verse as a proof text, but IMO it doesn't really apply. Whether his new birth is a result of his faith or not, what can be said about the person who believes in Jesus Christ? It can be adamentaly declared that he was regenerated by God. John is not trying to make some statement about when this all happened and how - about the ordo salutis ("order of salvation"). He is simply trying to make a statement that the person who has been born again has God as a parent, and hence should love all of his Parent's children.

The same Greek word (GENNAW - "born") is used twice here to make that point... it reads something like, "Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God, and everyone who loves the the One who bore him loves the [other] born one." John is saying to a particular Christian, "Look, you were born of God, so you, the born-one, should love the [other] ones who were born of God." He's just telling them that they are brothers in Christ. So Gene, for example, John is saying that you and I were both born of God, and hence need to love each other, since we are children of the same heavenly Father.

Let me reiterate: this verse is not saying that at the very moment that you have faith this or that happened, nor is it saying that the moment you were regenerated you had faith... it is saying that the Christian can know that he has been born of God. An articular participle is simply acting like a noun; it's called a substantive. Isn't it true (assume for the moment that my ordo salutis is correct - faith first) that if I believe in Jesus Christ I immediately am born of God? So I can confidently say that as a believing-one that I have been born of God. So it will always be in the past tense, regardless of your ordo salutis.

Now, some will say that they see the same structure in 1 John 5:1 as in 2:29. That is why I laid out the Greek for both texts. Because those who say this are then ignoring a significant distinction. 1 John 2:29 is a 3rd class conditional statement (probable future). But in 2:29, similarly whether his new birth is a result of his righteousness or not, what can be said about the person who is doing righteousness? It can be adamentaly declared that he was regenerated by God, since God is righteous.

But since in my analysis I see no basis for making an ordo salutis conclusion in either direction for 5:1, the same applies to 2:29. Now at the time of John's writing of this letter a group called docetists claimed that when we sinned it was merely our body, our flesh, and hence didn't matter. But John is teaching here that whenever we sin such sinning does not proceed from God... ever. One of the earliest church fathers was Ignatius of Antioch (the same Antioch which sent out Paul and Barnabas) 35 - 107AD. He was a disciple of the apostle John himself! He was well aware of the heretical teaching (docetism - related to Gnosticism) that taught that Jesus was born a human being (only), became indwelt by the Christ at the baptism of John (and fully God at that point), but who gave up the Spirit of Christ at His crucifixion, and Ignatius firmly opposed it. Polycarp also said that John opposed Cerenthus.

IMO the key to understanding 1 John is just that - the absoluteness, such as that seen in this 2:29 text. If you(pl) may know that he is righteous, [then] you(pl) know that each one who does righteousness of him has been born (brought forth). In context John spoke of the antichrists, and he certainly considered Cerenthus as one of them. In 2:29 John is saying that we can identify those antichrists by those who say that it's Ok to live unrighteously, as the docetists claimed.

OK, enough said. I guess it was fairly short.

Thx,

FA

 

[Faith alone]

I'm not sure if Gene is going to respond, or is able to respond, to my post. I also am not sure if we should continue to go into such depth on this particular thread about such things. The OP asks us to simply tell which of the points of the TULIP we hold to. I do not want to overwhelm people.

So let me ask, since I am prepared to look at the use of the present tense indicative in John's gospel. IOW, some say that sense PISTEUW "to believe") is present tense in John's gospel, in general, with few exceptions, that this indicates that IOT be saved one must continue to believe, since the aspect (kind of action) for the present tense is linear. Actually, this is definitely not at all true. But I do not know if anyone wants to look at that.

So, is anyone interested in what I have to share on the present tense? It is somewhat related to Calvinism, since Reformed people often take that position, but Arminian and others do as well. If not, perhaps I should just share it on a new thread, when I have the time to respond. (When you start a thread, you feel obligated to interact with all of the posts, and I don't know if I'm in a position to do that right now.)

So if you're not interested, that's OK, just say so - won't hurt my feelings... or just say nothing, and I'll get the point.

Thx,

FA

 

[Allan]

I'm not sure if Gene is going to respond, or is able to respond, to my post. I also am not sure if we should continue to go into such depth on this particular thread about such things. The OP asks us to simply tell which of the points of the TULIP we hold to. I do not want to overwhelm people.

So let me ask, since I am prepared to look at the use of the present tense indicative in John's gospel. IOW, some say that sense PISTEUW "to believe") is present tense in John's gospel, in general, with few exceptions, that this indicates that IOT be saved one must continue to believe, since the aspect (kind of action) for the present tense is linear. Actually, this is definitely not at all true. But I do not know if anyone wants to look at that.

So, is anyone interested in what I have to share on the present tense? It is somewhat related to Calvinism, since Reformed people often take that position, but Arminian and others do as well. If not, perhaps I should just share it on a new thread, when I have the time to respond. (When you start a thread, you feel obligated to interact with all of the posts, and I don't know if I'm in a position to do that right now.)

So if you're not interested, that's OK, just say so - won't hurt my feelings... or just say nothing, and I'll get the point.

Thx,

FA

Actaully, he wont in most cases. He sometimes comes around and posts his knowledge than leaves (I assume because he figures he has settled the issue). But mostly he stops by when someone (1) from here gets caught against another (2) from here who seems to be more knowledgable and have stronger arguments than the other (1). They get Gene to come out (or someone else at Tri, but usually I've seen Gene) because he is considered "the shapest knife in the drawer". (and that is a direct quote from the site - Strange Baptist Fire blog).

I have interacted with Gene there over this exact same issue once before and got him quite upset at me because I stated he didn't understand the Greek properly regarding this. I forget how many pages he set down to refute my claim. I don't think we ever finished our conversation because that was months if not a year ago, but I to got tired of the attitude of superiority and condesending interaction. He is a good guy and fun to debate with because he is well versed, but he does have a sour disposition in his writtings when speaking to any non-calvinist that I have read him conversing with.


PS. I would say make a new thread and if others wish to expound (and if Gene comes back) we can all do some serious and hopefully respectful interaction. It might just be fun

 

[Rippon]

Allan , you are speaking out of turn . No one here asked Gene to come here and deal with non-cals ( to my knowledge ) . Leave your gossip at the door . You have called me a liar a few times yourself . I would keep your tongue in restraint if I were you . You are a Pastor you know . Just stick to what you think you know .

 

[Faith alone]

Actaully, he wont in most cases. He sometimes comes around and posts his knowledge than leaves (I assume because he figures he has settled the issue). But mostly he stops by when someone (1) from here gets caught against another (2) from here who seems to be more knowledgable and have stronger arguments than the other (1). They get Gene to come out (or someone else at Tri, but usually I've seen Gene) because he is considered "the shapest knife in the drawer". (and that is a direct quote from the site - Strange Baptist Fire blog).

I have interacted with Gene there over this exact same issue once before and got him quite upset at me because I stated he didn't understand the Greek properly regarding this. I forget how many pages he set down to refute my claim. I don't think we ever finished our conversation because that was months if not a year ago, but I to got tired of the attitude of superiority and condesending interaction. He is a good guy and fun to debate with because he is well versed, but he does have a sour disposition in his writtings when speaking to any non-calvinist that I have read him conversing with.


PS. I would say make a new thread and if others wish to expound (and if Gene comes back) we can all do some serious and hopefully respectful interaction. It might just be fun

Thx Allan,

I will do that, but it will have to wait awhile, since school will be starting soon. You're right about Gene's knowledge of doctrine and philosophy, but he is so arrogant... Though we never got to interact on exegesis, which is my strength. But I am not interested in just trying to win some debate... what a waste of time! And I do feel very strongly that I can learn from those who oppose me and those who agree with me as well.

Anyway, if he comes back, then I will continue on with John 6:44, 45 and John 1:12, 13 like we talked before. I have looked at the arguments made regarding 1 John 5:1, and I am confident that those who say that it teaches that regeneration precedes faith are misunderstanding the perfect tense. I am confident that he will not be able to find anything improper with what I shared earlier on it.

Whoever asked for Gene to come out here, if anyone did that, if you'd like to direct him back again regarding my 1 John 5:1 post, that would be good. He should not make the claims that he did without being willing to get involved with my post on that topic.

But we should be respectful in how we post. let's not call anyone a liar here... wouldn't be prudent. Or edifying. Thx.

And thx for telling me about the website they're from... when I get some free time, I'll have to visit it.

Oh, the reason I could post on the present tense is that I have already organized what I wanted to say on it. I've led studies on it a few times before, so my work has already been done.

Thx again,

FA

 

[J.D.]

Ahem, I would like to direct you guyzes attention to my thread on sandemanianism where Gene tuned in and I expressed my suprise. You really think that I would get a ringer to do my work for me and then lie about the circumstances of his appearance?

It was predestined, that's what it was!

 

[Allan]

Ahem, I would like to direct you guyzes attention to my thread on sandemanianism where Gene tuned in and I expressed my suprise. You really think that I would get a ringer to do my work for me and then lie about the circumstances of his appearance?

It was predestined, that's what it was!

No, JD. I wasn't insinuating that is what you did at all. If you re-read what I wrote you will see I stated he sometimes comes around on his own AND when others ask him to. I didn't state anyone here asked him come or accused anyone specifically did such and then lied about it, if you remember.

 

[Rippon]

Allan : "They get Gene to come out."

 

[Allan]

Allan , you are speaking out of turn . No one here asked Gene to come here and deal with non-cals ( to my knowledge ) . Leave your gossip at the door . You have called me a liar a few times yourself . I would keep your tongue in restraint if I were you . You are a Pastor you know . Just stick to what you think you know .

There is no "in turn, out of turn" here Rippon, but your insolence toward me is well documented and brushed aside. The part about being called a liar is inaccurate as usual woth you. I have stated you are lying before but never have I called you a liar. One (to lie) is the act that was done and the other (to be a liar) is a state of being or character. You should know the difference.

My tongue is well restrained my brother but I don't follow you around throwing slander and accusation like you do me. Your quote here is yet ANOTHER example.

I know well my calling and responsiblities and conduct myself in such a manner as I should most times. But I am also a man who is capable of not being perfect at all times in all situations so forgive me any mistakes as Christ did. :thumbs:

 

[Allan]

Allan : "They get Gene to come out."

Please go back and read the post again because ONCE AGAIN you are posting out of context. Why do you persist in such?

>>>Editted a portion out - due to allowing for reconciliation.<<<

IF I have offended you to the degree that you can't say one civil word toward me, or even look at my posts with trying every way possible to discredit it, then please forgive me. I dont' know where your hated for me comes from but please forgive me and at least treat me as a brother in Christ and not a dog in the world.

EDITTED IN >>>
PM me if need be and hopefull we can work this out.

 

[Rippon]

Allan , I have often disagreed with you . I have factually demonstrated cases where you have been in error . You have been in error about me and others both present and deceased .

I have never called you a liar -- I would not stoop that low . But you have habitually called me a liar . No matter how you slice it , dice it , parce it , or nuance it -- it is what it is . Now I suppose I am a liar because I am reminding you of what you have told me several times ?! The distinction between an ignorant act and being ignorant is also a kind of dicey situation . If you tell someone either -- you will have to do some fancy dancing to keep your skin intact .

For civil conversations between us refer to postings we shared as recently as yesterday : "Did Spurgeon Believe In Limited Atonement? "

No matter how you try to present yourself -- your past record still stands . Gene is just the latest person that you have chosen to besmirch .

Hold your tongue .

 

[J.D.]

They get Gene to come out.

You can understand how that statement might be provocative if you think about it.

But you're forgiven on my side of it. It probably won't be long before I'm gonna need forgiving.

 

[Allan]

Allan , I have often disagreed with you . I have factually demonstrated cases where you have been in error . You have been in error about me and others both present and deceased .

I have never called you a liar -- I would not stoop that low . But you have habitually called me a liar . No matter how you slice it , dice it , parce it , or nuance it -- it is what it is . Now I suppose I am a liar because I am reminding you of what you have told me several times ?! The distinction between an ignorant act and being ignorant is also a kind of dicey situation . If you tell someone either -- you will have to do some fancy dancing to keep your skin intact .

For civil conversations between us refer to postings we shared as recently as yesterday : "Did Spurgeon Believe In Limited Atonement? "

No matter how you try to present yourself -- your past record still stands . Gene is just the latest person that you have chosen to besmirch .

Hold your tongue .

You need to make a distinction Rippon - is it 'serveral times' or is it 'habitual'?

Your accusation has no merit about being proved wrong, since this is more than likely about quoting many early Calvinists and Reformers in that they did not hold the 'L' as most Calvinists do today. If a Calvinist believes Christ died for anyone other than the elect ALONE - then it is a different 'L', regardless of if they hold to Election and predestination. And no, I was not proved wrong but Right

I have no record here that is tarnished nor besmirched.

However, since you will allow no reconciliation and having a constant isolence towards me, then I have no other choice but to mark you as one who makes division and and disunity among the brethren. My tongue hence forth is held from you as you wish/ at least until repentence is offered.

 

[Allan]

You can understand how that statement might be provocative if you think about it.

But you're forgiven on my side of it. It probably won't be long before I'm gonna need forgiving.

Thank you. I didn't mean to put words toward anyone or speak for them either.

We may disagree, (and heartily sometimes) but at least there is love in it. Thank you again.

 

[Faith alone]

I was looking at the poll results, and expected that L would be the least, which it was, but it was tied with irresistible grace (I). I think that without the "eternal security" option that perhaps the P would have been the largest. But many who hold to the security of the believer, would not express it exactly as in P. The T was the largest in support, which is interesting. IMO, total depravity is what leads to the rest, logically. The only one which is not as tied into it is the L.

Does this make sense?

BTW, I've had users PM me on other boards from time to time when a Greek issue or something regarding textual criticism (another interest of mine) came up, asking me to consider posting on a thread. So I do not have a problem if anyone had contacted Gene... he posts very often here (seems to me, about 750 times), so he is a regular poster here. My issue with Gene was how he came in, talking down to me. I may not be a theological scholar, but I deserved better than that. And what I really wanted to do was discuss the exegesis of various texts, but he never addressed any that I had done nor would he give me his exegesis on any texts. That's just a matter of professional courtesy. And this thread was a poll - asking people to give their opinion and to just tell which tenets they supported. In such cases it's best to allow people to disagree with us, and not flame them.

So I over-reacted, no doubt about that. I'm just going to put it behind me. I've observed that Gene tends to pop in, post extensively, then exit... sometimes for months. He also likes to debate free-grace issues.

Thx,

FA

 

[Faith alone]

OK, when Gene originally posted 3 days ago, I was so irate I couldn't even see straight. So I didn't even read everything carefully, I was so irritated for the unfairness of it all. Now, I went back, and I must comment on some statement he made, which were just unfair and inaccurate:

... [edited-deleted by author (FA)]

Guys, I've been thinking about it, and that kind of posting (above-deleted) just has no place on forums such as this one. So I deleted what I had posted here. I'll just leave in some of this concluding remark...

I do have no doubt that Gene did misunderstand what I was posting. I will give him the benefit of the doubt there. But he absolutely has no right to say I misrepresented something as my own material! [edited-deleted] I could care less about coming across as some authority on UPG!! [edited-deleted]

Now, let's just talk theology. Sorry, guys.
FA