Calvinism Refuted

[Hammster]

KIM that the terminology you are using apparently is from a Calvinist perspective--that is, 'general call' vs. a special call to the elect. Taking the passage as it reads, one should include v. 28, "All things work together for good for those who love the Lord, for those who are called according to His purpose."

The terminology is used because obviously those who are justified are called. The way it is used implies a special calling. If you would prefer different terms, then please let me know what they are.

Note the FIRST specification is 'those who love the Lord.' That sets the parameters for the exposition which follows. Those who love the Lord are the ones who are called according to His purpose, and it follows from there. The passage pertains to those who love the Lord.

Once again, look at the whole passage, or at least the whole verse. Those who are called according to His purpose are those who love God, not the other way around. Your way is just Arminian posturing to explain away perfectly simple texts to understand. In your version, God has to wait for someone to love Him before He can call them for His purpose. I guess He has to wait to find out if He is lucky.

Does everyone love the Lord? Obviously not. But they are not discussed in this passage. Does that mean God does not reach out to them? This passage does not get into that question. It is, however, discussed elsewhere. As for those who love the Lord, "We love Him because He first loved us." 1 Jn. 5. God loves all. Not everyone loves Him in return.

We, the believers, love Him becasue He first loved us. In your previous paragraph, God calls those who love Him.

So how does it go? God loves us first, then we love Him, then He calls us? Is that a gerneral call? If so, are all justified? If not, then how does it work? What would even be the purpose of the call? Why even use that term? Or the term 'elect'?

 

[archierieus]

The way it is used implies a special calling.

Please provide some Scriptural support for that specific statement.

Once again, look at the whole passage, or at least the whole verse. Those who are called according to His purpose are those who love God, not the other way around.

But that is not how the verse reads. Here, in the NASB:

28And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose.

Interestingly enough, in the Greek, the reference to loving God appears near the beginning of the sentence. Toward the end of the sentence is the reference to those who have been called.

In your version, God has to wait for someone to love Him before He can call them for His purpose.

Whatever terminology one may wish to use, the Bible teaches that the true Light, Jesus, shines upon everyone coming into the world, and that same Light draws all people to Himself. Is that a 'call'? Call if what you will, that is what the Bible says. God loves the world, that is, everyone in the world, God reaches out to everyone. Some respond. Many do not. but like a loving parent, God loves them all.

We, the believers, love Him becasue He first loved us. In your previous paragraph, God calls those who love Him.

God loves everyone. Some love Him in return. Ch. 8 deals with those who have responded to His love. See vv. 1, 2.

So how does it go? God loves us first, then we love Him, then He calls us?

Interesting fact, just looked closely for the first time comparing v. 28. A different word for 'call' there, than is used in v. 29. Can state as fact that God loves everyone. God extends the invitation to the gospel feast to everyone. Many do not respond. Some do respond. Once again, this passage and the immediate context in ch. 8 is those who have accepted Christ. That is quite abundantly clear from the opening verses. The passage does not address those who have NOt accepted Christ. So in understanding Romans 8, it pertains to those who have accepted Christ.

Is that a gerneral call? If so, are all justified? If not, then how does it work? What would even be the purpose of the call? Why even use that term? Or the term 'elect'?

Different Greek word, that is interesting. Mt. 28:19, 20 contains the charge to preach the gospel to all nations, and in Mk. or Lk. to preach it to every living person. That certainly could be considered a 'call.' No, all are not justified. Those who respond to that worldwide call and accept Christ are justified. Those who do so are His elect, whom He foreknew.

 

[drstevej]

Calvinism Refuted...

Hasn't happened.

 

[heymikey80]

Probably at this point it will help to do some serious study. In the balance of your post you have made a number of statements or assertions about the grammar. Please provide cites.

The grammar for clause and sentence structure from "A New Short Grammar of the Greek New Testament", AT Robertson, p. 199.

Never try to explain the Greek idiom by a conjectural translation into English. Syntax is the interpretation of the facts, not a set of translation rules.

The Latin sententia is the expression of an opinion. The expression of an idea can be complex. It makes a statement about something. The subject and predicate are the two foci of the sentence considered as an ellipse. The normal sentence involves both subject and predicate as in 'Iesous elalesen, Matt. 23.1.
​

Also, of particular interest to me is your understanding of the morphology here. Please be so kind as to parse the verb, translated 'believes' in 1 Jn. 5:1.

the "verb" is actually a participle, present tense, which in Greek means the concept is continuing during the time of what's qualified. The participle is substantive, that is, it attributes to an article, "those"/"whoever", scopes that article. and qualifies it, not the actual verb of the sentence. (Machen, 234-235) There's no leading verb in the sentence. Therefore, continuing tense is referring to the subject in view, present tense, not the verb, which is in perfect tense, a past tense. (Machen, 233-234)

And your cites?

 

[MamaZ]

Calvinism Refuted...

Hasn't happened.

Never will either.. For the truth of God cannot be refuted.. For scriptures shows us let all men be liars and God be true..

 

[heymikey80]

Hey mikey. What other instance is that if I may ask. Thanks.

But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, 13who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God. John 1:12-13
​

Gal 4:23 doesn't use the terminology of John, Paul's statement "born of promise" self-statedly allegorizes Isaac (cf Rom 9:9).

"one who believes" is used more than 24 times, it's considered a classic statement of most Apostles that someone is considered "in" or "saved". Peter, Paul, and John used it. Plus, you see the form inflected differently as it fits differently into the sentence.

John's sentence is navigating these two clauses to point out the one who is "in", is different from the heretic who does not care for the flock.

 

[Hammster]

Please provide some Scriptural support for that specific statement.

How about the fact that it says that whom He calls He justifies. Unless you want to say that He justifies everyone, this call must be different than a general call. For this student, it is really obvious.

But that is not how the verse reads. Here, in the NASB:

28And we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose.

Interestingly enough, in the Greek, the reference to loving God appears near the beginning of the sentence. Toward the end of the sentence is the reference to those who have been called.

More Arminian rhetoric. It is obvious in every translation that I read that those who love God is descriptive of the called.

Whatever terminology one may wish to use, the Bible teaches that the true Light, Jesus, shines upon everyone coming into the world, and that same Light draws all people to Himself. Is that a 'call'? Call if what you will, that is what the Bible says. God loves the world, that is, everyone in the world, God reaches out to everyone. Some respond. Many do not. but like a loving parent, God loves them all.

One, you can't make an argument in the real world that God reaches out to everyone.

Two, for those who do hear the gospel (a general call) the elect respond (the call in v.30), the non-elect don't.

Interesting fact, just looked closely for the first time comparing v. 28. A different word for 'call' there, than is used in v. 29. Can state as fact that God loves everyone. God extends the invitation to the gospel feast to everyone. Many do not respond. Some do respond. Once again, this passage and the immediate context in ch. 8 is those who have accepted Christ. That is quite abundantly clear from the opening verses. The passage does not address those who have NOt accepted Christ. So in understanding Romans 8, it pertains to those who have accepted Christ.

You are right in the fact that Paul doesn't go through another description of the non-elect. Why would he? He has already addressed them in the letter. You are actiing like this is a text book and everything must be addressed in the passage for it to condsidered. Paul is writing to the elect. Are there non-elect who will hear this letter? Yes, but that is not his audience.

Paul says that those who are predestined are called. Obivously it is something other than a general call because those who are called are justified. Does everybody get preached to? Maybe. Probably not. But everybody who does get preached to fall into two catagories. The elect and the non-elect. So again, the called in v. 30 have to be called in a different way BECAUSE they are justified.

Different Greek word, that is interesting. Mt. 28:19, 20 contains the charge to preach the gospel to all nations, and in Mk. or Lk. to preach it to every living person. That certainly could be considered a 'call.' No, all are not justified. Those who respond to that worldwide call and accept Christ are justified. Those who do so are His elect, whom He foreknew.

What, exactly, are they accepting?

 

[nobdysfool]

2Ti 3:1-9 But understand this, that in the last days there will come times of difficulty. (2) For people will be lovers of self, lovers of money, proud, arrogant, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, (3) heartless, unappeasable, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not loving good, (4) treacherous, reckless, swollen with conceit, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, (5) having the appearance of godliness, but denying its power. Avoid such people. (6) For among them are those who creep into households and capture weak women, burdened with sins and led astray by various passions, (7) always learning and never able to arrive at a knowledge of the truth. (8) Just as Jannes and Jambres opposed Moses, so these men also oppose the truth, men corrupted in mind and disqualified regarding the faith. (9) But they will not get very far, for their folly will be plain to all, as was that of those two men.


We're seeing a lot of this, right here in this forum. Wrangling over tiny inflections and tenses as a diversion away from actually discerning what the Word says. Opposition seemingly for the sake of opposition. Abusive toward Calvinists. Refusing to be corrected even when it is clear that what they claim Calvinists teach and believe has absolutely no connection with reality. A general lack of civility toward anyone who disagrees with them. Attempts to entrap, to incite, to insult and defame. The intent is clear, to keep Calvinists on the defensive, so that they cannot expound on the Truth.

Think I'm overstating it? Read back through the threads. It's all there. I tell the Truth. Bloodied, but not bowed. Assaulted, but not defeated. Insulted but not offended. Beaten up, but not beaten down. Sometimes censored, but never silenced.

 

[MamaZ]

1Co 2:1 And when I came to you, brethren, I did not come with superiority of speech or of wisdom, proclaiming to you the testimony of God.
1Co 2:2 For I determined to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ, and Him crucified.
1Co 2:3 I was with you in weakness and in fear and in much trembling,
1Co 2:4 and my message and my preaching were not in persuasive words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power,
1Co 2:5 so that your faith would not rest on the wisdom of men, but on the power of God.
1Co 2:6 Yet we do speak wisdom among those who are mature; a wisdom, however, not of this age nor of the rulers of this age, who are passing away;
1Co 2:7 but we speak God's wisdom in a mystery, the hidden wisdom which God predestined before the ages to our glory;
1Co 2:8 the wisdom which none of the rulers of this age has understood; for if they had understood it they would not have crucified the Lord of glory;
1Co 2:9 but just as it is written, "THINGS WHICH EYE HAS NOT SEEN AND EAR HAS NOT HEARD, AND which HAVE NOT ENTERED THE HEART OF MAN, ALL THAT GOD HAS PREPARED FOR THOSE WHO LOVE HIM."
1Co 2:10 For to us God revealed them through the Spirit; for the Spirit searches all things, even the depths of God.
1Co 2:11 For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the spirit of the man which is in him? Even so the thoughts of God no one knows except the Spirit of God.
1Co 2:12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, so that we may know the things freely given to us by God,
1Co 2:13 which things we also speak, not in words taught by human wisdom, but in those taught by the Spirit, combining spiritual thoughts with spiritual words.
1Co 2:14 But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised.
1Co 2:15 But he who is spiritual appraises all things, yet he himself is appraised by no one.
1Co 2:16 For WHO HAS KNOWN THE MIND OF THE LORD, THAT HE WILL INSTRUCT HIM? But we have the mind of Christ.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

We're seeing a lot of this, right here in this forum. Wrangling over tiny inflections and tenses as a diversion away from actually discerning what the Word says. Opposition seemingly for the sake of opposition. Abusive toward Calvinists. Refusing to be corrected even when it is clear that what they claim Calvinists teach and believe has absolutely no connection with reality.
A general lack of civility toward anyone who disagrees with them. Attempts to entrap, to incite, to insult and defame. The intent is clear, to keep Calvinists on the defensive, so that they cannot expound on the Truth.

That could be true. But I also believe it is a matter of consistancy being in Translations that is the main problem.
Different Bible versions can render the same greek word or even the same FORM of a greek word differently in the NT.

I get along just fine with the NIV Chronological Bible, but when I do a deep study on words and verses, that is when I really see the inconsistencies arise in Bible versions and the greek texts themselves.

So yes, tenses and inflections as you say are perhaps overated by some, but that does not mean they should not be applied CONSISTENTLY in translations.
At least that is my humble view. Thoughts>?

Matt 12:41 "Men Ninevites shall be resurrecting/standing-up in the judging with the generation/geneaV <1074>, this and they shall be condemning her, that they reform into the proclamation of Jonah and behold! more of Jonah here. [Jonah 3]

 

[nobdysfool]

That could be true. But I also believe it is a matter of consistancy being in Translations that is the main problem.
Different Bible versions can render the same greek word or even the same FORM of a greek word differently in the NT.

I get along just fine with the NIV Chronological Bible, but when I do a deep study on words and verses, that is when I really see the inconsistencies arise in Bible versions and the greek texts themselves.

So yes, tenses and inflections as you say are perhaps overated by some, but that does not mean they should not be applied CONSISTENTLY in translations.
At least that is my humble view. Thoughts>?

Matt 12:41 "Men Ninevites shall be resurrecting/standing-up in the judging with the generation/geneaV <1074>, this and they shall be condemning her, that they reform into the proclamation of Jonah and behold! more of Jonah here. [Jonah 3]

If it were just trying to determine the precise meaning of the word (which must not be divorced from the surrounding context), that would be one thing. but as is so evident here, the intent of some in such an exercise is to promote an agenda, and to "destroy" any other view. In such cases, the underlying agenda completely destroys any attempt at so-called "scholarship". And, we've seen such tactics used to constantly deflect and evade. The claims of some that they will do this or that "later", consult this or that "when I have time", or accusations of "rhetoric" whenever they don't like what someone else says, along with constant calls to "provide scripture" for any statement, all plays into the agenda to put Calvinists (especially) on the defensive.

The study of Soteriological concepts necessarily involve more than just raw scripture. Explanations need to be given, and critiqued, concepts need to be explored, and conclusions drawn, based on the understandings derived. Not everyone is going to like what others have to say. But the overriding tone here seems to be a concerted attempt to "shout down" any and all Calvinists, by any means necessary, even less than honest means, while giving tacit approval to any and all non-Calvinist or anti-Calvinist views. For some reason, Calvinism, when expounded, seems to bring out the worst in its opponents. A cursory trip through these threads will show that to be so. Few are the anti-Calvinists who will actually listen and debate with respect and thoughtfulness. Most will instead react with defamatory accusations, ridiculously false statements as to what Calvinists believe, and respond in high dudgeon to any hint that they may be wrong, inaccurate, or acting in an un-Christlike manner. They react equally as badly when their own beliefs are examined and found to be in need of adjustment. The very idea that a Calvinist would dare to correct them is justification in their minds for all sorts of highly offensive, inaccurate, and un-Christlike responses.

We have people here who are convinced that they are 100% correct, yet cannot speak of even one point or one doctrine of Calvinism correctly, thereby showing that they do not even know or understand that which they so vociferously oppose. Those same people many times cannot even explain what they do believe, and those that try often can be shown to be holding contradictory ideas, and concepts, leading to radically unbiblical conclusions. But they are sure that Calvinists are deceived, when they cannot even see the deception they themselves embrace.

 

[archierieus]

The grammar for clause and sentence structure from "A New Short Grammar of the Greek New Testament", AT Robertson, p. 199.

I expected something like that. It does explain a good bit.

Never try to explain the Greek idiom by a conjectural translation into English. Syntax is the interpretation of the facts, not a set of translation rules.

The Latin sententia is the expression of an opinion. The expression of an idea can be complex. It makes a statement about something. The subject and predicate are the two foci of the sentence considered as an ellipse. The normal sentence involves both subject and predicate as in 'Iesous elalesen, Matt. 23.1.
​

Very general statements. But as they read, they do not appear to mandate your treatment of the verse.

​

the "verb" is actually a participle, present tense, which in Greek means the concept is continuing during the time of what's qualified.

Present participle, okay that's a good start. I thought I read in one of your posts where you called it an aorist????? Apparently I misread that. And the rest of the morphology?

The participle is substantive, that is, it attributes to an article, "those"/"whoever", scopes that article. and qualifies it, not the actual verb of the sentence. (Machen, 234-235) There's no leading verb in the sentence. Therefore, continuing tense is referring to the subject in view, present tense, not the verb, which is in perfect tense, a past tense. (Machen, 233-234)

Once again, I understand now where you are coming come. This helps explain it. I do suggest you shelve the outdated grammars and work with something more current. Although, the paragraph you have cited does not even on its face appear to support your conclusion about 1 Jn. 5:1. In addition, you have gone far beyond your brief cites in your exposition. The balance of the material I therefore assign to your own opinions about grammar, and would recommend that you publish and seek peer review. Would be interested to see that, if you do so.

And your cites?

As I have mentioned several times, my reference works are in boxes in the garage, and I have yet to drag them out. To make things worse, my digital resources are not available, since my computer broke and I had to build a new one from scratch. Have not been able to locate my list of install codes. So I am quite unmanned, and going on recall. Haven't done too bad, though, in double-checking with online resources. But if you would like a list of up to date Greek grammars, let me know and I will post some for you.

Dave

 

[archierieus]

How about the fact that it says that whom He calls He justifies. Unless you want to say that He justifies everyone, this call must be different than a general call. For this student, it is really obvious.

I believe I understand where you are coming from. The concept is not clear to me. I must go with the textual evidence. I do not find any specific evidence on point in the passage or in the immediate context in regard to the 'call' referred to in v. 30, or any basis for differentiating it, other than the fact that it is stated there to be given to those God foreknew. But at the same time, there is nothing there stating that God did not call others as well. This I suspect will take a bit of serious digging.

More Arminian rhetoric.

Rhetoric is a statement which is not factual. The statement you are referring to addresses the occurence of particular words in a sentence. Such would not be rhetoric.

It is obvious in every translation that I read that those who love God is descriptive of the called.

On what basis grammatically?

One, you can't make an argument in the real world that God reaches out to everyone.

Why not? Why limit what God is able to do?

Two, for those who do hear the gospel (a general call) the elect respond (the call in v.30), the non-elect don't.

Agreed. That is how I had understood it to occur.

You are right in the fact that Paul doesn't go through another description of the non-elect. Why would he? He has already addressed them in the letter. You are actiing like this is a text book and everything must be addressed in the passage for it to condsidered.

Chapter eight is part of what is often referred to as the 'Romans Road' in Baptist circles. Each chapter deals with a step along the road to salvation and the fruits of salvation. That is where I am coming from.

Paul is writing to the elect. Are there non-elect who will hear this letter? Yes, but that is not his audience.

Generally agreed, perhaps with some exceptions.

Paul says that those who are predestined are called. Obivously it is something other than a general call because those who are called are justified. Does everybody get preached to? Maybe. Probably not. But everybody who does get preached to fall into two catagories. The elect and the non-elect. So again, the called in v. 30 have to be called in a different way BECAUSE they are justified.

Okay, whom He foreknew He predestined, whom He foreknew and predestined He called, etc. And in v. 28, those who love the Lord are mentioned. In Jn. 6, Jesus says that those who listen to and learn from the Father are the ones who come to Him. Seems to possibly tie in. Is there a general call to every living person (gospel commission) and then, to those who respond to that general call, some further call? Interesting thought.

What, exactly, are they accepting?

Based on the gospel commission, the gospel is preached, some accept, hence would accept the gospel, I would think.

 

[cygnusx1]

once again 90% about me

so whats the strongest verse the Calvinist has then?

the enitire book of Job , especially the last part !

 

[cygnusx1]

so explain it in simple terms instead of claiming you can

ok , man cannot save Himself , God can!

 

[cygnusx1]

No Guess as to the author?

sounds like Spurgeon.......

Brigham Young ..... doh!

 

[cygnusx1]

Yep and if you do not toe the line He kicks you out of the family.

Conditional Grace
How shaky the ground
That saved a will that's free

I once was found but now I'm lost
I's a bummer when you're the Boss

well seeing as he thinks God already divorced his wife Israel , God forbid , it figures divorce all round ... liberally !

 

[cygnusx1]

we didn't choose how we came in but we most certainly choose how we go out

the millions in the flood didn't ........... they didn't believe the world would be flooded , "as it was in the days of Noah" etc ......

 

[cygnusx1]

Oh really


James 4:15-16 For that ye ought to say, If the Lord will, we shall live, and do this, or that. 1But now ye rejoice in your boastings: all such rejoicing is evil.

this verse is never quoted enough .... glad to see you quote it bro .

 

[cygnusx1]

I have yet to find any verse in the bible talking about a "gift of free will".

come now , that's because God just forces it on everyone !!!