If Calvinism is true....

[MamaZ]

And I will pray the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may abide with you forever—

menō
men'-o
A primary verb; to stay (in a given place, state, relation or expectancy): - abide, continue, dwell, endure, be present, remain, stand, tarry (for), X thine own.

 

[MamaZ]

If Calvinism is true....

Then God gets ALL the Glory.

 

[Van]

Here is the issue, MamaZ, the NASB renders John 14:16 as: "And I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may be with you forever." But the ESV renders it this way: "And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Helper, to be with you forever." And if you look at other well respected translations, you find they are split 50/50, with YLT, the NKJV, and the NASB using "may be with you," but the NIV, ESV, and HCSB using "will be with you." So I am unsure if the grammar is decisive, or whether the translators chose their version without a basis from Greek grammar. The NIV often strays off the grammatical center, but not the NASB, YLT, HCSB or ESV.

Here is what an Online Interlinear says: the Greek word transliterated as "eimi" is in this form: eimi
vs Pres vxx 3 Sg
it-MAY-BE
he-may-be

Because the mood is subjunctive, "may be" rather than "will be" might be indicated. Do you know? And further, if the circumstance in view is a possibility, rather than a certainty, is the circumstance whether God will send the Helper in response to Christ's request, or in other words, is Christ choice of words asking rather than telling, i.e not assuming that the Father will send the Helper, or is the circumstance in view whether or not the Helper will stay forever. I believe the former view is the idea and therefore "will be with you forever" is the best translation.

 

[MamaZ]

You need the correct greek word..

 

[beloved57]

Hey 57!! How come God had to learn obedience?

Because he was a man..

 

[Ormly]

Because he was a man..

Then He wasn't God.

 

[Van]

Hi MamaZ, I do not know how to post Greek, the word is a single letter that looks like an "H". It is transliterated as "eimi" And what I posted above should tell you the form the word takes in the verse.

 

[beloved57]

Then He wasn't God.

huh, even satan called him The Son of God did he not ? You do realize He was GodMan ?

and even if you insist that he was only a man at the time of the temptation, the challenge is the same..

Do you believe Jesus the man could have sinned ? Yes or no ..

 

[beloved57]

Here is the issue, MamaZ, the NASB renders John 14:16 as: "And I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may be with you forever." But the ESV renders it this way: "And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Helper, to be with you forever." And if you look at other well respected translations, you find they are split 50/50, with YLT, the NKJV, and the NASB using "may be with you," but the NIV, ESV, and HCSB using "will be with you." So I am unsure if the grammar is decisive, or whether the translators chose their version without a basis from Greek grammar. The NIV often strays off the grammatical center, but not the NASB, YLT, HCSB or ESV.

Here is what an Online Interlinear says: the Greek word transliterated as "eimi" is in this form: eimi
vs Pres vxx 3 Sg
it-MAY-BE
he-may-be

Because the mood is subjunctive, "may be" rather than "will be" might be indicated. Do you know? And further, if the circumstance in view is a possibility, rather than a certainty, is the circumstance whether God will send the Helper in response to Christ's request, or in other words, is Christ choice of words asking rather than telling, i.e not assuming that the Father will send the Helper, or is the circumstance in view whether or not the Helper will stay forever. I believe the former view is the idea and therefore "will be with you forever" is the best translation.

The conditonalism of the subjunctive is premised on the act of the giver giving, if he gives then he will abide forever..

Quit twisting scriptures.. you get in volved with the greek and tenses and moods and voices and have not the spirit of truth, you become a walking time bomb..lol..

 

[Ormly]

huh, even satan called him The Son of God did he not ? You do realize He was GodMan ?

and even if you insist that he was only a man at the time of the temptation, the challenge is the same..

Do you believe Jesus the man could have sinned ? Yes or no ..

Don't even DARE to give anyone a yes or no ultimatum when you can't abide by the same!

You said He was a man. So how can He be both God and man at the time of His temptation? If He was God, how is it He had to learn obedience? You never did answer that. Obedience to what or whom? For your information, not that it will help, but God can't be tempted. But then I believe I wrote that already. So if being a man and being subjected to temptation as all men are, then yes, He could have sinned and yes Satan was trying to get Him to do just that and yes that is the reason why His temptation was permitted. Jesus suceeded, how? What did He possess that the new born of/in Him,also possesses?


Btw, I don't want your answers and I won't reply to them, but any of others who have better understanding of the scriptures and might be curious about this.

 

[nobdysfool]

Because he was a man..

Jesus Christ was both God and Man. He emptied Himself, and humbled Himself, to become as we are, but without sin. As a man, he was subject to temptation. He could be tempted, but He also could overcome temptation, by the only means possible: The Word of God. He did so, so that we would have a patten, a model to follow, once we were born again. No unregenerate man could follow that pattern, because it requires the indwelt Holy Spirit, which Jesus had, to do so.

All this arguing is stupid. If Jesus was not both God and Man, we are all still in our sins, with no hope.

 

[beloved57]

You said He was a man. So how can He be both God and man at the time of His temptation?

easy..

If He was God, how is it He had to learn obedience

because he was man too..i said that already though..

So if being a man and being subjected to temptation as all men are, then yes, He could have sinned

As I thought blasphemy, he could not have sinned because he was the genuine son of God, his temptation only proved him so..

If you put a genuine diamond through a sever test to test its genuiness and it passes the testing, you proved your point, and guess what ? Was it ever any possibility of the genuine diamond not passing the test ? Nope.

gen 4:

For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.

now, the genuine diamond when submitted to the testing, still experienced what the testing feels like and can Iidentify .. but you concept ormly is totally humanism and is not from the Spirit pf God..

 

[nobdysfool]

easy..



because he was man too..i said that already though..



As I thought blasphemy, he could not have sinned because he was the genuine son of God, his temptation only proved him so..

If you put a genuine diamond through a sever test to test its genuiness and it passes the testing, you proved your point, and guess what ? Was it ever any possibility of the genuine diamond not passing the test ? Nope.

gen 4:

For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.

now, the genuine diamond when submitted to the testing, still experienced what the testing feels like and can Iidentify .. but you concept ormly is totally humanism and is not from the Spirit pf God..

Amen, B57. The diamond analogy is a great one. And your assessment is also spot-on.

 

[heymikey80]

Content: Debate rages here. What is the antecedent of touto? What, exactly, is this? Wallace lists four possible answers:

The standard interpretations include: (1) “grace” as antecedent, (2) “faith” as antecedent, (3) the concept of a grace-by-faith salvation as antecedent, and (4) kai« touvto having an adverbial force with no antecedent (“and especially”).

The first and second options suffer from the fact that touvto is neuter while ca¿riti and pi÷stewß are feminine. Some have argued that the gender shift causes no problem because (a) there are other examples in Greek literature in which a neuter demonstrative refers back to a noun of a different gender, and (b) the touvto has been attracted to the gender of dw◊ron, the predicate nominative. These two arguments need to be examined together.

While it is true that on rare occasions there is a gender shift between antecedent and pronoun, the pronoun is almost always caught between two nouns of different gender. One is the antecedent; the other is the predicate nom….The construction in

[CTSJ 7:2 (April 2001) p. 36]

Eph 2:8, however, is not parallel because dw◊ron is not the predicate nom. of touvto, but of the implied “it” in the following clause. On a grammatical level, then, it is doubtful that either “faith” or “grace” is the antecedent of touvto.

Couple of points. That "almost always" has to be the most wondrous argument I've ever seen. "It rarely happens, so it hasn't happened here." In fact Paul himself has stated things this way before, no problem, with no foul called.

Ep 2:8 -- "... through faith [fem], and that not of yourselves [masc]"
Pp 1:28 -- "... but to you of salvation [fem], and that from God [masc]"

It's only when Scripture says what doesn't fit a chosen theology that, "Let the equivocations begin!"

I'd also point out, this neatly trims exactly the same duplicated statement -- "by grace you have been saved". There's not a little rhetoric running through the argument that, just because a statement is reiterated, every qualifier must be referred to it.

While some Reformed commentators and theologians argue for faith as the antecedent, it has been roundly rejected outside Reformed circles for the reasons that Wallace mentions. Using a neuter pronoun to refer to the feminine noun faith would be an oddity, requiring considerable defense.

As John Chrysosotom and Theodosius and Augustine and the Council of Orange would beg to differ with this, I'd have to as well. There's no one who's a native speaker of NT Greek today. But when it comes down to native speakers, Wallace's objection doesn't seem to have been leveled.

You'd think it would be. You'd think Pelagius would have a field day with Ephesians 2:8.

But no.

Meanwhile, even Thomas Aquinas quotes the verse in his chapter, "That Divine Grace causes Faith in us" (hm, wonder what he thought about this subject):

Hence the Apostle says: By grace ye are saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, for it is the gift of God.
Hereby is refuted the error of the Pelagians, who said that the beginning of faith in us was not of God, but of ourselves. from "Of God and His Creation"
​

Thanks, guys, for so clearly identifying the historic line of Christianity -- Catholic Christianity -- as patently Reformed!

 

[Ormly]

Jesus Christ was both God and Man. He emptied Himself, and humbled Himself, to become as we are, but without sin. As a man, he was subject to temptation. He could be tempted, but He also could overcome temptation, by the only means possible: The Word of God. He did so, so that we would have a patten, a model to follow, once we were born again. No unregenerate man could follow that pattern, because it requires the indwelt Holy Spirit, which Jesus had, to do so.

All this arguing is stupid. If Jesus was not both God and Man, we are all still in our sins, with no hope.

Why? Wasn't His sinless Blood sufficient to wipe out Adam's trangression? Did He have to be God to do that?

Better yet, don't answer.

 

[Ormly]

Amen, B57. The diamond analogy is a great one. And your assessment is also spot-on.

. . . . . Why of course. :o

 

[MamaZ]

Did He have to be God to do that?

yup.. He did for it had to be a Spotless lamb. Men are full of spots and sin because they are born sinners..

 

[nobdysfool]

yup.. He did for it had to be a Spotless lamb. Men are full of spots and sin because they are born sinners..

What surprises me is that anyone would dispute the idea and fact that Jesus was both God and Man at the same time. Jesus is the Second Adam, the head of a new race of men. Looks like some ancient heresies are still around. Gnosticism has never really gone away.

 

[Ormly]

Seems like a whole lot of ignorance goin on here as to the fact Jesus was a man born sinless, remained that way and therefore was qualified to take away the sins of the world; erase the stain of Adam's trangression. Pity, that aside from His miraculous conception, some need to believe that God was needed beyond that point by inferring the sinlessness of Jesus was insufficient..

 

[JimfromOhio]

What I am seeing is pure ignorance spiritually in CF. I am not quiting CF but I am surely cutting back. I will get on when I have nothing better to do.

Have a good day.