Calvinism Refuted

[Tzaousios]

Cygnusx1, please see my post #855 when you have a moment. Thanks.

 

[cygnusx1]

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?



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?



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.



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

i'll try and get back to you bro when my mind is more rested , if i don't just reminde me , peace to you.

 

[archierieus]

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

Such a position is absolute anathema to anyone who has intellectual integrity and who takes seriously the charge to rightly divide the Word of truth. Goal is to weed out subjectivism, personal opinion, etc.

 

[archierieus]

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).

Gotta head out the door right now, but will get back to your very interesting post a bit later.

Cheers

 

[Tzaousios]

i'll try and get back to you bro when my mind is more rested , if i don't just reminde me , peace to you.

Thanks very much. This stuff can be very exhausting! I appreciate yours and others' replies.

 

[nobdysfool]

Such a position is absolute anathema to anyone who has intellectual integrity and who takes seriously the charge to rightly divide the Word of truth. Goal is to weed out subjectivism, personal opinion, etc.

I agree, and that was my point. The person I was replying to seemed to be making the case that it was unnecessary to consult the Greek or Hebrew.

 

[cygnusx1]

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

your point is well made and i am aware that this concept of words being " flexible " is the fast track to liberalism and heresy ..... it wasn't that long ago we had a guy on these forums who persistently dealt a blow at words meanings and mental concepts until the average reader either switched off in disgust or was sorely tempted to bin their Bible.

One can argue over words forever , even Greek ones ... Paul warned us against this,.

 

[Hammster]

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.)

Well, I suppose that's what I would expect from someone dead in their sins...more rebellion.

 

[JDS]

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.

God did not just hang this verse out there and say take your best shot at understanding it. This is no harder than any other difficult passage. The methods that works on other passages works on this one. Understanding comes by considering the immediate context, the historical context, the prophetical context, by comparing the way the the terms are used in other parts of scripture and by being willing to change ones mind if all these things dictate that one must. And, oh yeah, by consulting the Greek if it is available and one is able to use it and by prayer and a sincere desire to be taught of God.

I do think you are an honest seeker and I appreciate your posts and insights.

 

[Tzaousios]

Although I'm having to read 20 pgs to catch up to y'all...

Since you are reading through the thread, did you have any comments on the questions I have raised?

 

[archierieus]

I agree, and that was my point.

 

[drstevej]

God did not just hang this verse out there and say take your best shot at understanding it. This is no harder than any other difficult passage. The methods that works on other passages works on this one. Understanding comes by considering the immediate context, the historical context, the prophetical context, by comparing the way the the terms are used in other parts of scripture and by being willing to change ones mind if all these things dictate that one must. And, oh yeah, by consulting the Greek if it is available and one is able to use it and by prayer and a sincere desire to be taught of God.

I do think you are an honest seeker and I appreciate your posts and insights.

It is available, are you able to use it?

 

[MamaZ]

It is the word of God that pricks the conscience and it is the will of man that responds, positively or negatively. The word of God gives fallen men all the information he needs to be reconciled to God, separation being confirmed by the conscience, and the decision man makes seals his destiny. If he believes God, he is predestined to a state of Glory. If he does not believe or does nothing, he is already condemned to the Lake of Fire, a place of eternal separation. The will is the determining factor!

Pricks the conscience? This is what you call Godly Sorrow? The sword of the Spirit does more than prick..

 

[Hammster]

Pricks the conscience? This is what you call Godly Sorrow? The sword of the Spirit does more than prick..

I really don't mean this as a slam against JDS, because I am sure I have used similar language before coming to the dark side (Calvinism). But that is one of the problems with today evangelicalism. They use words and phrases that sound all touchy-feely, but have no basis in scripture, ie. prick the heart/conscience, or my favorite, ask Jesus into your heart.

There is no biblical basis for the phrases.

 

[Epiphoskei]

Note the verb in v. 39, which is imperfect middle. I.e., it comes from within themselves, they initiate the action and participate in the results(middle voice) That is very consistent with the Septuagint reading as noted above. God sent light, they hated the light, and the more light sent to them, the more they rejected it. This was demonstrated in Christ's ministry. John records how Jesus worked miracle after miracle, made appeal after appeal, culminating in the evidence of Lazarus' resurrection. But they refused to believe, as Jesus said in Jn. 9, they said they see but refused to accept the evidence, so their blindness remains.

A point of grammatical clarification. That's not a middle, that's a deponent. An intransitive verb like dunamai can never take a middle, because the subject also functions as the de facto direct or indirect object, which don't exist in clauses whose verb is intransitive. But even if it were, the middle doesn't mean the action comes from subject of the verb, it means the subject acts on itself (direct middle) or for itself (indirect middle).

 

[archierieus]

A point of grammatical clarification. That's not a middle, that's a deponent. An intransitive verb like dunamai can never take a middle, because the subject also functions as the de facto direct or indirect object, which don't exist in clauses whose verb is intransitive. But even if it were, the middle doesn't mean the action comes from subject of the verb, it means the subject acts on itself (direct middle) or for itself (indirect middle).

I will admit to relying on morphology tables perhaps more often then ideal. Usually use Gramcord, although I don't have that accessed today. Did go back and double check after reading your post. Shows as middle. Some differences occur between morphological tables. In double checking other sources, I find that dunamai can and does take a middle. As for the middle voice, I would agree with how you have described it, the subject acts on itself. That is indeed the point. This occurrence indisputably is the imperfect, which is consistent with the record of their continuing action in the past. As for cross checking the tables, I will need to get to that a bit later, as it would take some time.

 

[heymikey80]

John 1:7 outoV hlqen eiV marturian ina marturhsh peri tou fwtoV ina
panteV pisteuswsin di autou

7. He came as a witness, to testify about the Light, so that all might believe through him.

John 6:29
apekriqh o ihsouV kai eipen autoiV touto estin to ergon tou qeou ina pisteuhte eiV on apesteilen ekeinoV

29. Jesus answered and said to them, "This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He has sent."

They are verbs in the subjunctive mood. And they support your statement that but not your conclusion.

It's a little alarming the points of contact you've chosen. Do you assert that all will believe because of what John the Baptist testified about the Light? Clearly this isn't an absolute, it's conditioned on other causes.

Hence the use of the subjunctive.

The second (and really the first as well) are intent forms of the subjunctive. Are you asserting that all are intent forms? Because that would be fairly absurd, wouldn't it.

There're literally hundreds that do support my statement and my conclusion. Picking grammatical anomalies does not make the anomaly the norm.

 

[Hammster]

Where has all of the earlier enthusiasm to refute Calvinism gone?

 

[heymikey80]

I was thinking of 'universalism' as a term of art, that is, the belief that all mankind will be saved. The understanding that all are capable of believing by no means translates into all actually being saved.

I think the issue is one of a shift in terminology when it comes to resistance of will.

The will doesn't factor into ability. That is, a person has ability when he could act, given the outside pressures against his action. But a person without the will to act is someone who is unwilling. We get declarations that they will not. That's why inability of will doesn't really absolve someone of responsibility.

They may believe but not act on their belief, they may refuse to believe, but they are ABLE to believe. Hence the apparent inapplicability of the term 'quasi-universalism' to this application.

Yes, inasmuch as there is nothing but their own wills in the way. But a refusal of the will is quite an obstacle. The text points out that the option is available. But it doesn't point out that the will shall be willing, outside the work of God.

Agreed. My point had to do with accuracy.

OK, I'll probably have to be educated a number of times to get clarity on that. Not that I'm not trying and you're expressing it fine, it's just that I'm not really clear on the distinction.

It may be that ability in this sense is really coming from two different directions, depending on the underlying assumptions. So what you see as an ability of the individual's will alone, we don't, because of the inclusion of something else as enabling or empowering.

Indeed. And that is good, a good starting point. Permit me to once again express appreciation for your evident reasonableness and goodwill. It is a pleasure participating in a discussion with you.

I agree, I think it always seems useful to get clear on what we're talking about. Even if it reduces to our assumptions, at least we may understand one another.

As for points of agreement, yes, in terms of the content of the post. As for the Canons of Dordt, I would not necessarily concur in all of that but it is man's teaching, and I stick with Scripture--so will not comment on it. Sola Scriptura.

Mmm, I think this is a condensation of the influences and causes Scripture itself describes. It's significant, because as you can see from Dordt, these things are not excluded from Calvinism. They're included in the plan and purpose of God. So to cite these things as evidence against Calvinistic predestination ... well, it's got to be a lot bigger than "just saying so".

And I'm not saying particularly that you're doing so. I just think the assumption's being made from so many different postings, it really needs to get ironed-out before the argument begins. A prolegomena.

I stick with Scripture--so will not comment on it. Sola Scriptura.

We do find the subject of predestination (designation beforehand) and election outside the will of man to be declared explicitly in Scripture. Where's the equivalent for a natural freedom of will in Scripture? Or what exactly is the sola point you're making?

Were I to do this with the thrust of the argument of ability and freedom of will, I'd point out that the unwillingness of people is a foregone actuality declared by Scripture. So to talk about ability to do otherwise, when the actuality is already declared, is a pretty tough thing to do.

Assertions of fact normally exclude the ability to go back and do otherwise.

God's declaration is that no one exercises this ability. The will is always consistently opposed to the exercise of this ability. Prediction or observation, that fact is declared by Scripture (Rom 3:9-20).

That opposition is then changed by God, and John 6:29 is one point of contact there: through the work of God, people believe.

But that's where Calvinism hits on the idea of inability of will. It's not some other inability. God's declared human unwillingness is universal. Freedom in any other sense isn't really significant when the will is opposed to exercising this freedom. Human capacity in other senses essentially places the maximum responsibility on the will when the option is open. But the human will never naturally engages that capacity.

The will makes the choice. Calvin had no trouble with that. But the problem is that the will never makes the choice for good.

Now I'm sure you take this as an observation, and attribute more freedom to the subject than I do -- that there's something about the will that can make the right choice. But I would point out that absent the power of God, no will makes the right choice.

So I hope you see now how this became in-ability of will in theological terms. The will needs a power of God -- an ability -- to actually make this choice. Given that power, the will is capable of making the choice. The lack of that ability is viewed as an inability -- but as an inability of will it is referred-to in Scripture an unwillingness.

 

[Epiphoskei]

I will admit to relying on morphology tables perhaps more often then ideal. Usually use Gramcord, although I don't have that accessed today. Did go back and double check after reading your post. Shows as middle. Some differences occur between morphological tables. In double checking other sources, I find that dunamai can and does take a middle. As for the middle voice, I would agree with how you have described it, the subject acts on itself. That is indeed the point. This occurrence indisputably is the imperfect, which is consistent with the record of their continuing action in the past. As for cross checking the tables, I will need to get to that a bit later, as it would take some time.

It shows as middle because it is morphologically middle, but it's not syntactically middle. It's deponant. That's when a verb is middle in form, active in meaning. Dunamai, the lexical form, is middle in form but active in meaning. It means "I am able," not "I able myself." That doesn't make sense in Greek or in English, because intransitive verbs are always syntactically active. Intransitive verbs can't take a real middle because they can't take objects, and a middle verb essentially uses its subject as an object, either direct or indirect.