Calvinism Refuted

[archierieus]

Then when I show that the state you described sounds like a man in need of the Holy Spirit to believe, you introduce all of this other stuff.

So the question is, are we going to discuss the passage, or are we going to discuss doctrine?

Where I am coming from is looking at the passage at this point. Any doctrine would need to be based on the passage or passages. The passage itself addresses the state of the group described at the time. It is silent as to the future, or as to any direct statement about what the remedy (although such may be implied.) The grammar is clear, and that is what I was referring to. As a point of interest, I also fast forwarded to post-ascension, when Acts records that a great company of the priests believed. You mentioned about needing the Holy Spirit. The fact is that the gospel of John records the repeated and persistent efforts of the Holy Spirit to reach these people, and their repeated and persistent rejection of the work of the Spirit.

That, then, takes us to context. Having taken the initial step of looking at the grammar, we next look at the context. The gospel of John is interesting context indeed. An opening statement appears in ch. 1, "He came unto His own, but His own received Him not." The next ten chapters present stronger and still stronger evidence of Christ's Messiahship, including miracles, Jesus' appeal to the evidence of His miracles, His teachings, His discourses with the Jews and His appeals to them to believe, the great miracle of healing the man born blind, and Christ's telling statement in ch. 9, at the end, "If you were blind, you would have no sin. But since you say, 'We see!' your sin remains.' Then the greatest miracle, the raising of Lazarus. After all this weight of evidence, the testimony in ch. 12 is that they STILL did not believe. Thus the imperfect tense, the continuing action in the past, the continuing rejection of the evidence, the self-imposed blindness. The context is consistent with the grammar described in the text.

 

[Epiphoskei]

The issue which this pertains to is the assertion that God, by His predetermined will and plan, made it impossible for the group described in Jn. 12:39 to believe. That is, they were unable to believe because God decided they would not be given the ability to believe. The verse and its grammar dispute that. Their inability to believe arose from their persistent rejection of the light from God, from shutting their eyes against it, and in doing so their hearts were hardened (imperfect tense, continuing action in the past but not completed action in the past) against the light, against all the evidence presented to them.

I'm not sure the grammar argues that. The reason why some are not able to believe would be whatever the clause is that the "touto" in the "dia touto" ("for this reason" for the non-Greek speakers among us) introducing the sentance, wouldn't it be? And the "dia touto" certainly must point to the "hoti" ("because") at the end of the sentance, otherwise we've got a hanging "because" that isn't really modifying or explaining anything.

If that is so, then their inability was because "He blinded their eyes and he hardened their hearts," the Isaiah quotation. And because the subject of these verbs is "He," ostensibly God, the aspect of these verbs would only explain God's working, not man's.

Moreover, I'm not sure your text points this out, but the tense of "hardened" is one of the more difficult determinations of textual criticism. I've got Vaticanus and Alexandrinus, some later uncials and miniscules, and Origen and Eusebius putting it in the aorist, an editor of Vaticanus, the Byzentine text type, other miniscules, and another version of Eusebius going for perfect, and two papyri and Siniticus going for imperfect. Now my UBS Greek New Testament 4th Edition goes for aorist, but only gives it a C out of A-D in certainty. I wouldn't be comfortable hanging any interpretation on the tense of that verb.

 

[Hammster]

Where I am coming from is looking at the passage at this point. Any doctrine would need to be based on the passage or passages. The passage itself addresses the state of the group described at the time. It is silent as to the future, or as to any direct statement about what the remedy (although such may be implied.) The grammar is clear, and that is what I was referring to. As a point of interest, I also fast forwarded to post-ascension, when Acts records that a great company of the priests believed. You mentioned about needing the Holy Spirit. The fact is that the gospel of John records the repeated and persistent efforts of the Holy Spirit to reach these people, and their repeated and persistent rejection of the work of the Spirit.



That, then, takes us to context. Having taken the initial step of looking at the grammar, we next look at the context. The gospel of John is interesting context indeed. An opening statement appears in ch. 1, "He came unto His own, but His own received Him not." The next ten chapters present stronger and still stronger evidence of Christ's Messiahship, including miracles, Jesus' appeal to the evidence of His miracles, His teachings, His discourses with the Jews and His appeals to them to believe, the great miracle of healing the man born blind, and Christ's telling statement in ch. 9, at the end, "If you were blind, you would have no sin. But since you say, 'We see!' your sin remains.' Then the greatest miracle, the raising of Lazarus. After all this weight of evidence, the testimony in ch. 12 is that they STILL did not believe. Thus the imperfect tense, the continuing action in the past, the continuing rejection of the evidence, the self-imposed blindness. The context is consistent with the grammar described in the text.

So you want to discuss John as a whole, then?

 

[archierieus]

I'm not sure the grammar argues that. The reason why some are not able to believe would be whatever the clause is that the "touto" in the "dia touto" ("for this reason" for the non-Greek speakers among us) introducing the sentance, wouldn't it be?

It could as well refer back to what preceded it (recognizing there were no sentence breaks in the original) The imperfect sheds light on the process, and indeed describes it as a process, not as a one-time event.

And the "dia touto" certainly must point to the "hoti" ("because") at the end of the sentance, otherwise we've got a hanging "because" that isn't really modifying or explaining anything.

I would treat it as a unit, vv. 39 and 40. Both verses provide evidence of what happened. The events in v. 40 preceded the response in v. 19. God sent light, it was rejected (note the Septuagint as referenced earlier) their hearts were hardened as a result of the light and their rejection of the light, resulting in the condition described in v. 39.

If that is so, then their inability was because "He blinded their eyes and he hardened their hearts," the Isaiah quotation. And because the subject of these verbs is "He," ostensibly God, the aspect of these verbs would only explain God's working, not man's.

But God is not the subject of ἠδύναντο. The described result does help shed light on the process described in v. 40. And Isaiah's account places responsibility on the individuals. God sent the light, in that sense He is responsible, but their response to the light, their hardening of their hearts against the light, is their responsibility.

Now my UBS Greek New Testament 4th Edition goes for aorist, but only gives it a C out of A-D in certainty. I wouldn't be comfortable hanging any interpretation on the tense of that verb.

Sounds wise. In cases like that, I would have to look at context to help determine a proper reading. Based on the context and the prophecy referred to, I would go with Siniaticus.

 

[archierieus]

So you want to discuss John as a whole, then?

Part of the study of context includes looking at the book as a whole, as well as other Johannine writings. But right now, it is off to bed.

Cheers.

 

[Hammster]

Part of the study of context includes looking at the book as a whole, as well as other Johannine writings. But right now, it is off to bed.



Cheers.

I didn't know that. I thought Sola Scriptura meant looking at single verses out of context to find doctrine. I thought that was why your side keeps quoting 1 John 2:2, John 3:16, 1 Peter 3:9, etc. to prove how wrong Calvinism is. And now you whip out this whole "in context" thing. Well,at that's going to change everything.

Thank you for the enlightenment.


Note to my people: we have to start using scripture in context now.

 

[drstevej]

Ahhhhhh, it's a c-o-n-t-e-x-t thing. That's GREEK to me.

 

[heymikey80]

I have debated calvinists for a long time now. I have personal contact with several Calvinists in my social realm, and I have several years experience watching Christiandom around me and I have never observed any evanagelistic efforts by any reformed churches, be they Baptist or Presby or any other.

Indeed, of all the testimonies I have ever heard from men who hold Calvinistic views, and I have heard many, I can recall only one who testified that he was converted by the efforts of the reformed. All others come to faith though evangelistic efforts of others and then converted later to Calvinism.

Add another to your list.

I was brought to Christ through a Baptist church which held to the precedence of the Spirit's regeneration. At the time I was under plenty of misimpressions, but they weren't under some misunderstandings here.

I was educated and grown by a Methodist grandmother afterward, when I started to realize the concerns and issues over the different theological positions -- and that my own impressions were flat-out wrong. I couldn't even describe my own conversion with my own ideas about what happened.

I moved a lot. I spent a time in adverse situations among peers in churches of all kinds, and I found it was easier not to go to church than to be challenged with the behavior of others. Only at the end of high school did I connect with a thoroughgoing Calvinistic school and church, with top-to-bottom discipled believers who could really connect with me, from a number of different denominations.

 

[heymikey80]

What was Spurgeon and Whitefield and Kerry famous for? Debate? Calvinism? Writing books? No! Evangelism. They were responsible for winning many souls only because they gave it much effort and preached the right gospel to the lost. That Jesus Christ died to save sinners and whosoever will may come and be saved. The crowd today does not do that for the most part.

Spurgeon? Interesting inclusion in this list.

He's famous to me for writing books.

He packed a church as well, like Ferguson, Kennedy, Barnhouse, Edwards .... But first and foremost in my mind are his devotions and sermons with actual content.

 

[Benefactor]

Originally Posted by archierieus

More to the point, how does this dispute some of the things which seem to have been presented on this thread? (since there seemes to be some disagreement about what Calvinists actually believe or teach)



The issue which this pertains to is the assertion that God, by His predetermined will and plan, made it impossible for the group described in Jn. 12:39 to believe. That is, they were unable to believe because God decided they would not be given the ability to believe. The verse and its grammar dispute that. Their inability to believe arose from their persistent rejection of the light from God, from shutting their eyes against it, and in doing so their hearts were hardened (imperfect tense, continuing action in the past but not completed action in the past) against the light, against all the evidence presented to them.
​

Hammster

So you are saying that they couldn't believe (their inability) because of their rejection (wouldn't believe). It would seem to me, then, that these men who are dead in their sins would need some sort of work by the Holy Spirit to be able to believe.

I love this conversation and it is making me study harder.

There are other passages in the English that support “archierieus’s” position. I will diligently look for them and post them later. Can't now our SSC is involved in painting a house.

 

[JDS]

I didn't know that. I thought Sola Scriptura meant looking at single verses out of context to find doctrine. I thought that was why your side keeps quoting 1 John 2:2, John 3:16, 1 Peter 3:9, etc. to prove how wrong Calvinism is. And now you whip out this whole "in context" thing. Well,at that's going to change everything.

Thank you for the enlightenment.


Note to my people: we have to start using scripture in context now.

Since the conversation has turned to John: (Whose name means God is a gracious giver) appropriate for the information we are given in his gospel.

Hes says this:

Joh 20:30 And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book: 31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.

He state 3 reasons for this work

1) That you might believe Jesus is the Messiah
2) That you might believe he is the son of God
3) That believing, you might have life through his name (Jesus)

His name means - Jehovah is salvation.

When everyone has made up their minds and he rules over the whole world and the unbelievers are in hell, his name will be Immanuel - God with us.

Since we are refuting Calvinism , I have some observations.

First, Calvinists teach that, having life, you might believe. Their ordo salutis is askew, requiring a quickening in order to believe. To quicken means to give life.

Next, every event recorded in John's gospel until the resurrection of Jesus Christ took place under the Jewish economy of "law". See Ga 4:4; Ro 15:8. He is the only writer of Scripture who wrote after the fall of Jerusalem and the dispersion of Israel in 70 AD. He wrote his gospel in or around 90 AD. This means that Christianity was 60 years old at the time and it had been 30 years since Israel was a nation. In spite of that fact, he is still concerned that the world understands and believe that Jesus Christ is the MESSIAH, the Christ of God.

Did anyone get that? After all these years John is still trying to convince the world that Jesus is the Messiah of Israel. He is not just the saviour, though thank God he is that, but he is the Christ. He chose out about 7 major miracles of Jesus Christ to include in his book for that purpose, although he said there were many more that his group observed that he did not write down and the world could not contain all his works.

There was not anything new about the Messiah in the NT that was not written about in the OT. The gospels just recorded the fulfillment of the messianic prophecies concerning his coming and his work. The Messianic information is given in the prophetic writings and the Psalms and Proverbs. They foretold that he would die for his people, Israel, see Is 53, and would rise again and that he would be a king. Someone said that 39 distinct prophecies were literally and exactly fulfilled at his coming. I do not know about that because I haven't counted them.

The interesting thing about it is there are no prophetic utterances about this age by the prophets and as far as they were concerned, the Messiah would die, be buried, and rise again the third day. Of course, in the higher thinking of God, that is the way he sees it also because 1000 years are as one day to him and a day is as 1000 years. Therefore, two days have past and we are in the beginning of the third day if one accepts God's chronology. The prophets were recording the higher thoughts of God when they wrote his words.

Ho 6:2 After two days will he revive us: in the third day he will raise us up, and we shall live in his sight.

In the immediate context of Hosea, this is Israel, but one who studies ones bible can not help but observe that the history of Israel is an exact pararell of the life of Jesus Christ and what is said about one can and does apply to the other in the prophetic sense.

I am not trying to prove this because it is foolishness to the mind that is unspiritual and my attempt would be futile, but I will give one verse that will demonstrate this, if one is familiar with the whole bible.

Re 12:4 And his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and did cast them to the earth: and the dragon stood before the woman which was ready to be delivered, for to devour her child as soon as it was born.

The woman is Israel and the child is Jesus Christ and the pararell is that the devil attempted to destroy both Israel and Jesus in their infancy.


Those who approach the scriptures from the position of "a" or "post" millennialism will forever have these wonderful truths hidden from them and will be interested in Jesus as a saviour but not as THE Messiah. They will not see the Christ rising from the dead to sit on the throne of David in Jerusalem and from there ruling over the whole world in righteousness as a continious, unbroken event as God sees it in his prophetic word. This will be because they have been taught allegory as the proper way to interpret the prophecies concerning Israel and King Jesus in the OT although for some reason they do not do that with prophecies concerning his suffering at his first coming. The reason they can't is simple. History has proven them to be literal and exact and accurate. However, they have not learned from history because the bible to them is a religious book and it is about them only.Here is an example of Jesus on the davidic thone on earth in Jerusalem.

Zec 14:4 And his feet shall stand in that day upon the mount of Olives, which [is] before Jerusalem on the east, and the mount of Olives shall cleave in the midst thereof toward the east and toward the west, [and there shall be] a very great valley; and half of the mountain shall remove toward the north, and half of it toward the south.
Zec 14:9 And the LORD shall be king over all the earth: in that day shall there be one LORD, and his name one.

Niow, what is all this got to do with John 12? Much, because God also confirms his truth in metaphors and they are all through the scriptures. John 11 and 12 gives the chronology of Israel and the church from Abraham to his coming back to earth to rule. it is no accident of the time lines given and the delay of Jesus to go to raise Lazarus from the dead in Jn 11 in the city of Bethany (house of figs) and immediately having a supper prepared in Jn 12 and then the warning of judgment of the unbelievers. All the participants in these chapters represent something else but it would be a waste of time to point them out to a crowd that defines their eschatolgy beginning with an "a". I will tell you that Lazarus represents Israel, the house of Jacab, the nation.

 

[Bulstrode Whitelock]

JDS,

Thanks for the dispensational review, but how does any of this "refute" Calvinism?

 

[MamaZ]

Just as Lazarus was called forth from the dead so is everyone of Gods Adopted Children for while we were yet dead in our tresspasses Christ died for us. All of Gods elect are called forth from Spiritual deadness to Spiritual life By Jesus Christ.

 

[MamaZ]

JDS,

Thanks for the dispensational review, but how does any of this "refute" Calvinism?

I almost asked the same question.

 

[JDS]

JDS,

Thanks for the dispensational review, but how does any of this "refute" Calvinism?

Because John says you must believe in him as Messiah in order to have life and I think Calvinists deny that part of his work. In other words, they do not believe half of whats told them (generally speaking).

Do you believe it?

 

[JDS]

Just as Lazarus was called forth from the dead so is everyone of Gods Adopted Children for while we were yet dead in our tresspasses Christ died for us. All of Gods elect are called forth from Spiritual deadness to Spiritual life By Jesus Christ.

Do you want me to roll out BW's comments and your agreement with them of yesterday?

 

[Bulstrode Whitelock]

I have debated calvinists for a long time now. I have personal contact with several Calvinists in my social realm, and I have several years experience watching Christiandom around me and I have never observed any evanagelistic efforts by any reformed churches, be they Baptist or Presby or any other.

I am having a very hard time believing you. You are either being dishonest about what you have seen or your sample group is much smaller than you are indicating.

If I am mistaken and you are telling the truth then you are experiencing a gross anomaly.

I would therefore refer you to the Mars Hill church in Seattle and the Brooklyn Presbyterian in Brooklyn as two examples of solidly Calvinists Church bodies which are, at the same time warmly evangelistic and missional.

And these are just two examples. There are many, many more. I could also cite Bethlehem Baptist in Minneapolis and Parkside in Cleveland.

These are just the hi-lites, there are, literally, thousands more fervently evangelistic and missional Reformed and Calvinistic churches in the US, not to mention the thousands of missionaries these churches send overseas.

I really have to wonder about you, JDS, you take me to task for "changing things" and expect your criticisms to be taken seriously but then you come with chiliastic fantasies on the one hand and, may I be frank? demonizations of Calvinistic evangelistic effort on the other. You say that this has been your experience, as though that will protect you, because, afterall, who can gainsay your experience? But we can provide you with numerous examples which show you to have been either careless, dishonest or resident of some bizarre otherworld of hyper-calvinism.

 

[Bulstrode Whitelock]

Because John says you must believe in him as Messiah in order to have life and I think Calvinists deny that part of his work. In other words, they do not believe half of whats told them (generally speaking).

Do you believe it?

Do I believe that Jesus was the Messiah? Of course I do. I believe that Jesus is the anointed one, the elect par excellence, the One who came to save and ransom Israel.

And I am in Israel. So yes, he is the long awaited Messiah.

 

[MamaZ]

Do you want me to roll out BW's comments and your agreement with them of yesterday?

Roll them on out.. One cannot believe or will to believe if God has not called them forth from Death to Life.. Natural man are dead in their tresspasses.. If I remember correctly you mis interpreted what it was He said..

 

[Bulstrode Whitelock]

I would like very much for you to show me where I said that Christ does not raise us to new life.