Calvinism Refuted

[Epiphoskei]

It is the very definition of a deponant verb that it is morphologically middle/passive but active in meaning. I trust you're speaking in good faith, but I've been studying classical languages for eight years, and I don't know where you could be getting something contrary to that statement.

 

[archierieus]

It is the very definition of a deponant verb that it is morphologically middle/passive but active in meaning.

Your description is over-simplified. Once again, after reading your post here, I did still more checking. You are mistaken. In English, we often, but not always, read it as active, but that is not consistently the case from the perspective of a Greek speaker.

Let me refer you to one discussion online for starters, from the B-Greek Digest:

http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek/test-archives/html4/1997-01/16845.html

Notice also the comments of Dr. Don Wilkins, head translator for the Lockman Foundation:

http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/b-greek/2003-November/026994.html

I trust you're speaking in good faith, but I've been studying classical languages for eight years, and I don't know where you could be getting something contrary to that statement.

I have been studying Greek for the better part of 40 years. I have checked and double-checked a wide variety of sources. Sounds to me like you may have been taught some over-simplified principles, perhaps for the sake of not confusing beginning students.

Dave

 

[Hammster]

Mark 10: 5. But Jesus said to them, "Because of your hardness of heart he wrote you this commandment.



Mark 16: 14. Afterward He appeared to the eleven themselves as they were reclining {at the table;} and He reproached them for their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they had not believed those who had seen Him after He had risen.



How about that, Jesus got upset with the disciples. Now according to Calvinism Jesus was the one who hardened their hearts so if that is the case we have a real big problem.



Acts 19: 9. But when some were becoming hardened and disobedient, speaking evil of the Way before the people, he withdrew from them and took away the disciples, reasoning daily in the school of Tyrannus.



2 Cor. 3:14. But their minds were hardened; for until this very day at the reading of the old covenant the same veil remains unlifted, because it is removed in Christ. 15. But to this day whenever Moses is read, a veil lies over their heart; 16. but whenever a person turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away.



Seems to me that the turning is of the person and because it is recognized then it must be.



If I say by way of my personal testimony, I turned to God, or the Lord etc., I would be accused of attributing my salvation to works. I will stick to the Scripture and Just leave Calvinology and Arminiology to the _______________.



Ephesians 4: 17. So this I say, and affirm together with the Lord, that you walk no longer just as the Gentiles also walk, in the futility of their mind, 18. being darkened in their understanding, excluded from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them, because of the hardness of their heart; 19. and they, having become callous,have given themselves over to sensuality for the practice of every kind of impurity with greediness. 20. But you did not learn Christ in this way, 21. if indeed you have heard Him and have been taught in Him, just as truth is in Jesus,



Hebrews 3:7. Therefore, just as the Holy Spirit says, "TODAY IF YOU HEAR HIS VOICE, 8. DO NOT HARDEN YOUR HEARTS AS WHEN THEY PROVOKED ME, AS IN THE DAY OF TRIAL IN THE WILDERNESS, 9. WHERE YOUR FATHERS TRIED {Me} BY TESTING {Me,} AND SAW MY WORKS FOR FORTY YEARS. 10. "THEREFORE I WAS ANGRY WITH THIS GENERATION, AND SAID, 'THEY ALWAYS GO ASTRAY IN THEIR HEART, AND THEY DID NOT KNOW MY WAYS'; 11. AS I SWORE IN MY WRATH, 'THEY SHALL NOT ENTER MY RESt 2. Take care, brethren, that there not be in any one of you an evil, unbelieving heart that falls away from the living God.

13. But encourage one another day after day, as long as it is {still} called "Today," so that none of you will be hardened by the deceitfulness of sin.

I don't think there is as much of a conflict as you are trying to make out. Man's heart is hard by nature. He is dead in his sin. He has a heart of stone. So by nature he will reject God's word.

And there is a general call to come to God. And man will reject without an intervention of the Holy Spirit. But does that mean that God cannot harden a person's heart in a certain circumstance? I don't think so. Maybe, in the case of Pharaoh, his heart was hard against God and didn't want to let the people go. But he got tired of the plagues and wanted to let them go, but it wasn't in God's timing so He hardened his heart.

 

[Benefactor]

I don't think there is as much of a conflict as you are trying to make out. Man's heart is hard by nature. He is dead in his sin. He has a heart of stone. So by nature he will reject God's word.

And there is a general call to come to God. And man will reject without an intervention of the Holy Spirit. But does that mean that God cannot harden a person's heart in a certain circumstance? I don't think so. Maybe, in the case of Pharaoh, his heart was hard against God and didn't want to let the people go. But he got tired of the plagues and wanted to let them go, but it wasn't in God's timing so He hardened his heart.

The issue of "hardening of the heart" from the Calvinist side takes on a form of elitism, from my point of view. What do I mean by that? Because when it is brought up or talked about only the passages that speak of God hardening the heart are mentioned.

Getting back to a normal literal understanding of written language the genre plays a major role in interpretation. However, genre can be manipulated, abused, and redefined to force an opinion on truth, as can any principle or method.

It is my humble opinion that the passages where you only see "God" as hardening the heart that this is true because those in the context have willfully set their heart against God. When Scripture speaks of those who have done so it is done in such a way that if the other side of the coin so to speak is not consider that all mankind are painted with that brush.

The other side of the coin is that some do not rebel against the call of God when they hear the truth. Calvinism is fixed on the one side to the exclusion of the other unless they can frame it from the negative. This all gets back to the need to remain truth to the fundamentals of their position.

Whenever Calvinism or Arminianism encounter a passage that is contrary to their theology they modify what is said, to accomidate thier view, whereas to force it to comply with their foundation. Everything is approached form that angle. But is there a position that moves away from these two extremes? Yes there is and it is called CURED. That is my label but others have managed to do the same without an acrostic.

As in Hebrew parallelism Calvinist when convenient refuses the positive side in favor of the negative and provide for the negative to be interpreted in accordance with their fundamental position. The Arminian does just the opposite, so the two sides are both wrong as they only use what supports their theology by forcing the opposite beyond its intended meaning.

To the Arminian or Calvinist it really does not matter what the other says each will manage to frame any real or apparent difference against their position to support their position. So in this respect any debate, while fun for some, is of no constructive purpose in the end, except that each side hones their position by such activity.

Hardening of the heart is a sin problem but not to the extent that some will not respond to the solution freely. This statement supports my position and is contrary to the Calvinist system and as such I too will be accused of the same game. While my position may have points that favor a given position more than the other does not make me either. We have been down that path before.

The example I gave on the word all where I show that the BAG lexicon defines what Calvinist have sought to misrepresent the meaning in using the same lexicon and ignoring the definition of the word. I have watched Calvinistic T-tube clips where the BAG is illustrated and points out the definition they want to use to reinforce their position. To the average reader or viewer this may seem genuine and true. However, because the person doing this has lied to the viewer he discredits his view more so than just by lying about the actual meaning of the word in that particular text. He looses his credibility at the altar of deception.

If we truly represent what a source tells us we have credibility. We are not forced to agree with a source but when a person, as some have, use a source to deceive then that approach is knowingly discredits that person’s credibility as a representative of their belief.

 

[Hammster]

The issue of "hardening of the heart" from the Calvinist side takes on a form of elitism, from my point of view. What do I mean by that? Because when it is brought up or talked about only the passages that speak of God hardening the heart are mentioned.



Getting back to a normal literal understanding of written language the genre plays a major role in interpretation. However, genre can be manipulated, abused, and redefined to force an opinion on truth, as can any principle or method.



It is my humble opinion that the passages where you only see "God" as hardening the heart that this is true because those in the context have willfully set their heart against God. When Scripture speaks of those who have done so it is done in such a way that if the other side of the coin so to speak is not consider that all mankind are painted with that brush.



The other side of the coin is that some do not rebel against the call of God when they hear the truth. Calvinism is fixed on the one side to the exclusion of the other unless they can frame it from the negative. This all gets back to the need to remain truth to the fundamentals of their position.



Whenever Calvinism or Arminianism encounter a passage that is contrary to their theology they modify what is said, to accomidate thier view, whereas to force it to comply with their foundation. Everything is approached form that angle. But is there a position that moves away from these two extremes? Yes there is and it is called CURED. That is my label but others have managed to do the same without an acrostic.



As in Hebrew parallelism Calvinist when convenient refuses the positive side in favor of the negative and provide for the negative to be interpreted in accordance with their fundamental position. The Arminian does just the opposite, so the two sides are both wrong as they only use what supports their theology by forcing the opposite beyond its intended meaning.



To the Arminian or Calvinist it really does not matter what the other says each will manage to frame any real or apparent difference against their position to support their position. So in this respect any debate, while fun for some, is of no constructive purpose in the end, except that each side hones their position by such activity.



Hardening of the heart is a sin problem but not to the extent that some will not respond to the solution freely. This statement supports my position and is contrary to the Calvinist system and as such I too will be accused of the same game. While my position may have points that favor a given position more than the other does not make me either. We have been down that path before.



The example I gave on the word all where I show that the BAG lexicon defines what Calvinist have sought to misrepresent the meaning in using the same lexicon and ignoring the definition of the word. I have watched Calvinistic T-tube clips where the BAG is illustrated and points out the definition they want to use to reinforce their position. To the average reader or viewer this may seem genuine and true. However, because the person doing this has lied to the viewer he discredits his view more so than just by lying about the actual meaning of the word in that particular text. He looses his credibility at the altar of deception.



If we truly represent what a source tells us we have credibility. We are not forced to agree with a source but when a person, as some have, use a source to deceive then that approach is knowingly discredits that person’s credibility as a representative of their belief.

What is odd to me is the fact that I did address the issue of hardening FIRST from the standpoint of man, and then from the standpoint of God, and yet bt your definition I am an elitist.

And then, instead of actually addressing my post, which you quoted, you go off on some other tangent.

Is there something in my post that you disagree with? Or do you just not want to admit you agree with it because you feel it might weaken your position in our eyes? We don't know because you chose instead to disengage.

 

[MamaZ]

Calvinism: God on His throne, man bowed in humble adoration.

 

[MamaZ]

Well, I have offered a summary and a scriptural argument against it, but you have not been here long so you probably don't know it.

I may not know Calvinism but my question to you was do you think the person and work of Jesus Christ is fundamental to the Christian faith? If you do, this is a major disagreement because we do not see the cross and what was accomplished there in the same way.

So you do not know calvanism but you are here condemning something you do not know? Many a person are born and do not understand their birth. This is why we are to continue in the word so that we may know the truth.. If you do not know Calvanism why are you so intent on speaking against it?

 

[MamaZ]

BW, you may not think I am telling you the truth but I know that is what you believe and I could argue against it because I do not agree with it but what I am wanting from you is to know if you believe those things strongly enough to believe them to be essential doctrines of the Christian faith?

If it is a package that cannot be separated, why wouldn't it be? And I will ask you again, why are Arminians who disagree with it granted the status of Christian brothers?

because if one is truly born again then it was from the choosing of God and the human person just has not yet understood his birth.. They still hang on to I must have done something for God to save me..

 

[MamaZ]

BW, I am wanting to know specifically about predestination since it is essential to election. How does the text define it? We can learn from any text that defines its terminology. The term is used twice in Ephesians and twice in Romans.

Rom 9:10 And not only this, but there was Rebekah also, when she had conceived twins by one man, our father Isaac;
Rom 9:11 for though the twins were not yet born and had not done anything good or bad, so that God's purpose according to His choice would stand, not because of works but because of Him who calls,
Rom 9:12 it was said to her, "THE OLDER WILL SERVE THE YOUNGER."

 

[Hammster]

They did so because that is the correct translation. I wouldn't think of wanting to change it. The problem simply is that the English word does not convey the full flavor of the original.







I happened to look at the Jn. 12 verses because someone else brought them up. I was intrigued by what was found:



Imperfect tense, middle voice. Taken on its face, it indicates continuing action in the past which the actors initiated and participated in the results.



Since this is a deponent verb, an alternative reading still is continuing action in the past, but the element of the individuals initiating is not present in the morphology. It would be an active rather than middle. Initiation of the action would be in the context.



This is relevant to the question about Calvinist teachings because the first reading shows the Jews initiating and contributing to their blindness, rather than being MADE unable by decision or election of God. Without that reading, as you have pointed out, the verse still is not a slam-dunk for Calvinism because of both immediate and prophetic context. But, standing alone, it is more up for grabs.

Maybe we should do it this way. How about you finding a passage that you feel disputes Calvinism that is translated correctly and has the same meaning in English as it does in Greek. That way we can move this discussion along, and if you two still want to debate the Greek, that is still cool..

 

[Benefactor]

I don't think there is as much of a conflict as you are trying to make out. Man's heart is hard by nature. He is dead in his sin. He has a heart of stone. So by nature he will reject God's word.

And there is a general call to come to God. And man will reject without an intervention of the Holy Spirit

Agree.

But does that mean that God cannot harden a person's heart in a certain circumstance? I don't think so. Maybe, in the case of Pharaoh, his heart was hard against God and didn't want to let the people go. But he got tired of the plagues and wanted to let them go, but it wasn't in God's timing so He hardened his heart

Pharaoh was one of huminaty that did not respond to the knowledge of God. God knows this from eternity as He knows this of all who will not accept truth unto salvation and God uses them to bring glory to himself. The advantage God has over us is that he knows who is not going to believe. It is not a problem for Him to use them and cause them to be kings, or fishermen if this serves His plan and purpose while at the same time not violating their free will to reject or acept the Truth.
.

.

[/quote].

 

[Benefactor]

Rom 9:10 And not only this, but there was Rebekah also, when she had conceived twins by one man, our father Isaac;
Rom 9:11 for though the twins were not yet born and had not done anything good or bad, so that God's purpose according to His choice would stand, not because of works but because of Him who calls,
Rom 9:12 it was said to her, "THE OLDER WILL SERVE THE YOUNGER."

Isn't God's foreknowledge wonderful? So you agree that God knew that the older would not believe and upon that basis God makes a choice and makes it know as He has in these verses? This is what you are saying correct?

If God had made the choice after birth then it would not be on the basis of His foreknowledge.

 

[Hismessenger]

Many falsely believe that man has a bearing upon what God has already decided. The truth is that mans actions unbeknown to Him will fall in line with what God has said would be.

Here is a single passage that gives much insight into the whys of what God is doing.

Rom 8:20 For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected [the same] in hope

How is it that you believe that what you do can alter a plan which is already finished before you were made manifest in it.

. Rom 9:19 Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?

God finds no fault with His plan for His ways are perfect and unsearchable , and His judgments are just and righteous for He is the author of our being and makes no mistakes or has to second guess himself.

Isa 40:13 Who hath directed the Spirit of the LORD, or [being] his counsellor hath taught him?
Isa 40:14 With whom took he counsel, and [who] instructed him, and taught him in the path of judgment, and taught him knowledge, and shewed to him the way of understanding?
Isa 40:15 Behold, the nations [are] as a drop of a bucket, and are counted as the small dust of the balance: behold, he taketh up the isles as a very little thing.

These verses say one thing. Man is not the be all to end all that He believes and God is the final authority in all creation.

The sooner you accept this fact, the beter you will be and your wilderness experience will come to a restful end in Him.

hismessenger

 

[Hammster]

Isn't God's foreknowledge wonderful? So you agree that God knew that the older would not believe and upon that basis God makes a choice and makes it know as He has in these verses? This is what you are saying correct?



If God had made the choice after birth then it would not be on the basis of His foreknowledge.

Where do you get that notion from the text she quoted? Where does it say that God knew Esau would reject Him and Jacob would accept Him?

 

[Hammster]

.

.[/QUOTE]



Benefactor,

What is your issue with God violating our so-called free will? And where do you find in the Bible that God can't violate it?

 

[Benefactor]

Rom 9:10 And not only this, but there was Rebekah also, when she had conceived twins by one man, our father Isaac; Rom 9:11 for though the twins were not yet born and had not done anything good or bad, so that God's purpose according to His choice would stand, not because of works but because of Him who calls,
Rom 9:12 it was said to her, "THE OLDER WILL SERVE THE YOUNGER."

In that God chose before birth explains that God knew the out come of the life of both before on the basis of His Absolute Knowledge, that which we call foreknowledge.

Good and bad things we are all capable of doing can not be used as any grounds for salvation. Therefore, it is consistent that God chose them on the basis of foreknowledge of their faith in God not their words regardless of the goodness of them or the badness of them.

God requires man to believe, and believing in not a work and God knows in advance, in eternity all who will believe and these are those who God elects. God elects only those that believe and He did so in His Now before creation. You can't dispute God's absolute knowledge of all believers’ believing unto salvation. I can not deny God's absolute knowledge. God requires of humans that they believe Him. The Scripture clearly tells us the man must do his part and believe in that which God offers that man must believe in during his dispensation. There is no way around this fact which of course is truth.

 

[Benefactor]

.

Benefactor,

What is your issue with God violating our so-called free will? And where do you find in the Bible that God can't violate it?[/quote]

Could God violate our limited free will - NO he can't because it is his plan.

We are told that God desires the salvation of all mankind that is a fact

If God violates this desire He forfeits his Holiness. That is not going to happen.

So what do we do? We accept the fact that God is Holy and will be true to His holiness.

In doing so with respect to His desire as He has made know to us which then is His purpose in His plan then the only way to honor it is that man must be free to accept or reject God and that is what is taking place and has been form Adam to now and will be until the close of the 1K kingdom.

 

[archierieus]

Where do you get that notion from the text she quoted? Where does it say that God knew Esau would reject Him and Jacob would accept Him?

Very honestly, I have studied that passage and the Genesis account repeatedly, and do not find a reference to either salvation or rejection of God. I do see it pertaining to which son would receive the birthright and continue the line of the patriarchs.

I do believe in taking each verse or passage as it reads, at face value.

Dave

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Very honestly, I have studied that passage and the Genesis account repeatedly, and do not find a reference to either salvation or rejection of God. I do see it pertaining to which son would receive the birthright and continue the line of the patriarchs.

I do believe in taking each verse or passage as it reads, at face value.

Dave

Did YHWH know Esau would give up his birthright?

Rotherham) Genesis 25:34 And, Jacob having given to Esau bread and a dish of lentils, he did eat and drink and rose up and went his way,--thus Esau despised his birthright!

Hebrews 12:16 Lest there be any fornicator or profane person as Esau, who for one morsel of meat sold his birthright.

 

[archierieus]

Benefactor,

What is your issue with God violating our so-called free will? And where do you find in the Bible that God can't violate it?

Hope you don't mind if I chime in here. Does the Bible teach that we have free will? That would be an interesting study in itself. Certainly on point to the topic of this thread. But please, Scripture, rather than serving opinions back and forth lol.