Calvinism Refuted

[student ad x]

wonder what he thinks of "wisdom is justified by her children .... " justification is clearly used in more than one way .

like vindicated

 

[cygnusx1]

I agree that actual election is by God's unmerited grace. It is the means by which the elect are saved through Christ.

good.

However, it is not the same thing as the "prevenient grace" that Calvinists sometimes speak of.

I tend to dislike that phrase because it is so abused by Arminians and Methodists .... let me just say , Does God's Grace go before the elect? yes at every step.

It seems that in the above responses it was implied that both the unregenerate elect and unregenerate non-elect have the ability to recognize the spiritual good.

that all depends .... some unregenerates are indeed made able to distinguish and recognise God's work , even partake to a degree , see unregenerate Judas.

Logically, it would follow that both have the ability to desire the spiritual good.

let's not get ahead here .... there are 4 states of man ...

a. libertas Adami - (freedom of Adam); "before the fall - this is the ability or power not to sin." (Muller 176).
b. libertas peccatorum - (freedom of sinners); a freedom that is proper to and confined within the limits of fallen nature and is therefore an absolute inability to do good or to act for the good with the sinner described as not able not to sin." (Muller 176).
c. libertas fidelium - (freedom of the faithful); "a freedom of those regenerated by the Holy Spirit that is proper to the regenerate nature and is characterized by the ability to sin and to do good." (Muller 176).
d. libertas gloriae - (freedom of glory); "a freedom proper to the fully redeemed nature of [the blessed in heaven], who, as residents of the heavenly kingdom are now characterized by the inability to sin." (Muller 176).

Next, based on their desire, they can will certain things,

yes , but based ONLY upon their strongest desire.

and then at least cry out for mercy to God. Are both, or just the unregenerate elect, able to become cognizant of spiritual good, and then act on that knowledge and ask for mercy and forgiveness?

Only the elect are granted FULL conviction by the Holy Spirit , the rest get a measure ... see Felix and his knocking knees.

Perhaps. But I am genuinely interested in Reformed theology and am trying to resolve some of what appear to me to be inconsistencies.

Yes, the timing is mystifying, but temporality is the context in which finite humans are forced to think and act. Saying it is a mystery does not help for understanding!



Alright. How then would you apply this concept to the above dilemma?

i don't know a little mystery does us good .....

 

[archierieus]

International Standard Version (©2008)
This is why they could not believe: Isaiah also said,

New American Standard Bible (©1995)
For this reason they could not believe, for Isaiah said again,

GOD'S WORD® Translation (©1995)So the people couldn't believe because, as Isaiah also said,


King James Bible
Therefore they could not believe, because that Esaias said again,

American King James Version
Therefore they could not believe, because that Esaias said again,

American Standard Version
For this cause they could not believe, for that Isaiah said again,

Bible in Basic English
For this reason they were unable to have belief, because Isaiah said again,

Douay-Rheims Bible
Therefore they could not believe, because Isaias said again:

Darby Bible Translation
On this account they could not believe, because Esaias said again,

English Revised Version
For this cause they could not believe, for that Isaiah said again,

Webster's Bible Translation
Therefore they could not believe, because that Isaiah said again,

Weymouth New Testament
For this reason they were unable to believe--because Isaiah said again,

World English Bible
For this cause they couldn't believe, for Isaiah said again,

Young's Literal Translation
Because of this they were not able to believe, that again Isaiah said,






Pretty conclusive I think . ... these men "could not believe"




*btw , the cause of their INABILITY was never at issue , (deflections abound) instead the very idea of some being UNABLE to believe was the ONLY issue.

Perhaps it is the only issue to you. But concepts are based upon the meaning of words. As used in this verse, what does 'could not' mean? It is an English rendering of a Greek word, hence the necessity of going back to the original language. The inflected verb is imperfect tense, middle voice, thus the INFLECTED definition of the verb, as the cause originating within themselves, etc. And that is highly significant.

 

[cygnusx1]

Perhaps it is the only issue to you. But concepts are based upon the meaning of words. As used in this verse, what does 'could not' mean? It is an English rendering of a Greek word, hence the necessity of going back to the original language. The inflected verb is imperfect tense, middle voice, thus the INFLECTED definition of the verb, as the cause originating within themselves, etc. And that is highly significant.

you can argue over words forever , it isn't worth it and it's not recommended in scripture ...

lets just agree to differ .

 

[Hammster]

Perhaps it is the only issue to you. But concepts are based upon the meaning of words. As used in this verse, what does 'could not' mean? It is an English rendering of a Greek word, hence the necessity of going back to the original language. The inflected verb is imperfect tense, middle voice, thus the INFLECTED definition of the verb, as the cause originating within themselves, etc. And that is highly significant.

How would it be better translated then. (Serious question)

 

[archierieus]

you can argue over words forever , it isn't worth it and it's not recommended in scripture ...

Whatever the Jews were arguing about in Paul's day is not at issue here. The same writer does, however, admonish believers to :

"Study to show yourselves approved unto God, a good workman who needs not be ashamed, rightly dividing the Word of truth." 2 Tim. 2:15 I think.

Words are the basis and building blocks of understanding. An accurate understanding of the Scripture as it occurs in the original is important to develop an accurate understanding of the Bible's teaching.

lets just agree to differ .

For those who are very interested in discovering what is truth, that is not an acceptable resolution. Both positions cannot be correct, and the difference between the two is hugely important. Sola Scriptura.

 

[archierieus]

How would it be better translated then. (Serious question)

The limitations of the English language would not permit any more precise rendering than what appears in the regular Bible versions. This is one place where resort to the original can be extremely helpful. For those who may not be familiar with NT Greek, going back to the Isaiah passage is very helpful--and should be done in any case. One cause of confusion over some doctrinal points is language limitations in going from Hebrew/Aramaic or Greek to English.

 

[Hammster]

The limitations of the English language would not permit any more precise rendering than what appears in the regular Bible versions. This is one place where resort to the original can be extremely helpful. For those who may not be familiar with NT Greek, going back to the Isaiah passage is very helpful--and should be done in any case. One cause of confusion over some doctrinal points is language limitations in going from Hebrew/Aramaic or Greek to English.

Okay, then in normal Sunday school language, what is the point John is making?

 

[JDS]

The limitations of the English language would not permit any more precise rendering than what appears in the regular Bible versions. This is one place where resort to the original can be extremely helpful.

Would not the context be more helpful in understanding the meaning than the original language, if one had a faithful translation? It seems this is not a difficult passage when all the contexts are considered, i. e. historical, prophetical, and grammatical.

 

[drstevej]

Would not the context be more helpful in understanding the meaning than the original language, if one had a faithful translation? It seems this is not a difficult passage when all the contexts are considered, i. e. historical, prophetical, and grammatical.

This takes us to the original greek not a translation.

 

[Tzaousios]

I tend to dislike that phrase because it is so abused by Arminians and Methodists .... let me just say , Does God's Grace go before the elect? yes at every step.

Alright. But I am a member of neither denomination and I do not think that I have abused the phrase. What you said is pretty much the definition.

What did the grace you are describing do to the unregenerate elect's will and at what point in time is it applied?

that all depends .... some unregenerates are indeed made able to distinguish and recognise God's work , even partake to a degree , see unregenerate Judas.

Alright. Does this mean that Judas is an unregenerate non-elect?

Whatever Judas might be, was he able to become cognizant of the spiritual good without God's grace?

Secondly, how do you account for the spiritual good that Judas did as one of the disciples, before the betrayal took place?

Did he desire and will to do this with or without grace?

a. libertas Adami - (freedom of Adam); "before the fall - this is the ability or power not to sin." (Muller 176).
b. libertas peccatorum - (freedom of sinners); a freedom that is proper to and confined within the limits of fallen nature and is therefore an absolute inability to do good or to act for the good with the sinner described as not able not to sin." (Muller 176).

Augustine makes these two distinctions in his letter to Simplician. However, there are some inconsistencies in Augustine's view of the role of the human will, which I think carried over into Calvin's adaptation.

Since I addressed this in #840 to our new brother BW, please see what I said there. Basically, it seems, when the logical steps of Calvinism are followed, and God's interconnected predestining and foreknowing are taken into account in the context of his divine plan, Adam did not have the ability not to sin.

i don't know a little mystery does us good .....

Uh oh, you are starting to sound Eastern Orthodox there!

 

[archierieus]

Okay, then in normal Sunday school language, what is the point John is making?

As for the verse itself, John is saying that the cause of their inability to believe was from within themselves. The next verse refers back to the Isaiah passage. God sent them light, He is the Originator, they closed their eyes to the light and shut their ears, as it reads. Refer to the Septuagint cite above. They hardened their hearts against the light. That is stated grammatically as the cause.

 

[JDS]

This takes us to the original greek not a translation.

We have been told that single verse hermeneutic is not sufficient for understanding doctrine, and I agree. Therefore, the proper way to understand the word of God is by comparison, comparing spiritual things with spoiritual. It is not by comparing English with the Greek. Why would single verse hermeneutic work in the Greek if it will not work in the English?

Sure, looking at the original Greek word is helpful, but it is not the most important means and it is not essential to come to the right understanding. There are more ways than one that are better.

 

[archierieus]

Would not the context be more helpful in understanding the meaning than the original language, if one had a faithful translation? It seems this is not a difficult passage when all the contexts are considered, i. e. historical, prophetical, and grammatical.

Because of the limitations of the language, it can be confusing. Other factors add up, but the 'could not' standing alone can be understood more than one way in English, hence the confusion. And as DrSteve has pointed out, the grammatical issues go back to the original. One good resource for understanding semantic issues is Louw-Nida. Here is a list of good resources for study:

Bauer-Arndt-Gingrich-Dankher Greek-English Lexicon
Louw-Nida Greek-English Lexicon Based on Semantic Domains
Gerhardt Kittel's Theological Dictionary of the NT
Exhaustive Analytical Concordance of the Greek NT
Parsing Guide to the Greek NT (several are out there, I forget which one I use)

 

[Hammster]

As for the verse itself, John is saying that the cause of their inability to believe was from within themselves. The next verse refers back to the Isaiah passage. God sent them light, He is the Originator, they closed their eyes to the light and shut their ears, as it reads. Refer to the Septuagint cite above. They hardened their hearts against the light. That is stated grammatically as the cause.

So the translators of the NIV, a thought for thought translation, couldn't have used "would not"?

 

[Tzaousios]

Bauer-Arndt-Gingrich-Dankher Greek-English Lexicon
Louw-Nida Greek-English Lexicon Based on Semantic Domains
Gerhardt Kittel's Theological Dictionary of the NT
Exhaustive Analytical Concordance of the Greek NT
Parsing Guide to the Greek NT (several are out there, I forget which one I use)

Liddell and Scott's Greek Lexicon would be good to have for comparisons too.

 

[archierieus]

We have been told that single verse hermeneutic is not sufficient for understanding doctrine, and I agree. Therefore, the proper way to understand the word of God is by comparison, comparing spiritual things with spoiritual. It is not by comparing English with the Greek. Why would single verse hermeneutic work in the Greek if it will not work in the English?

Sure, looking at the original Greek word is helpful, but it is not the most important means and it is not essential to come to the right understanding. There are more ways than one that are better.

Remember that context cannot violate the text itself. Abuses can occur on both sides. One cannot indeed rely on a single verse hermeneutic. By contrast, however, one cannot rely on a faulty construction of multiple verses or passages to develop a doctrine. Accuracy is critical. And if there are misunderstandings due to language limitations, then it is quite important to look at the original.

 

[cygnusx1]

Whatever the Jews were arguing about in Paul's day is not at issue here. The same writer does, however, admonish believers to :

"Study to show yourselves approved unto God, a good workman who needs not be ashamed, rightly dividing the Word of truth." 2 Tim. 2:15 I think.

Words are the basis and building blocks of understanding. An accurate understanding of the Scripture as it occurs in the original is important to develop an accurate understanding of the Bible's teaching.



For those who are very interested in discovering what is truth, that is not an acceptable resolution. Both positions cannot be correct, and the difference between the two is hugely important. Sola Scriptura.

It is true both positions cannot be correct .

There are only three positions ;

1. Every single person will be saved = Universalism
2. Every single person can be saved = Hypothetical Universalism
3. Only some will be saved = Particularism

can every single person believe ?

that in itself is not a straight forward question , first we have to define 'person' .. does that include everyone from the past NOW dead , does that include those now in hell etc etc ... Universalists will say YES ... others will argue over the meaning of the word "person" and so on and on it goes .

then you have to look into the conditions of men believing , faith in Christ , the Gospel bringing the message of salvation ... are these conditions always met ?

as far as I can see;

it's pretty clean cut that man is unable , and that those drawn are evidenced by their actions.

"No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me
draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day" (Jn 6:44).

 

[nobdysfool]

We have been told that single verse hermeneutic is not sufficient for understanding doctrine, and I agree. Therefore, the proper way to understand the word of God is by comparison, comparing spiritual things with spoiritual. It is not by comparing English with the Greek. Why would single verse hermeneutic work in the Greek if it will not work in the English?

Sure, looking at the original Greek word is helpful, but it is not the most important means and it is not essential to come to the right understanding. There are more ways than one that are better.

So, find the way that makes it say what you want, is that it?

 

[archierieus]

So the translators of the NIV, a thought for thought translation, couldn't have used "would not"?

That is not what the Greek says. Gk. word means could not. It is the imperfect middle of that, which means that the cause of 'could not' originated within themselves. Here is my take on it: A consistent course of rejection of the light, referred to in the next verse, had so hardened their hearts that they could not bring themselves to believe. That would be consistent with the grammar (Although later a 'great company of the priests' did believe.)