Calvinism Refuted

[MamaZ]

A number of things have to happen before babies can be born, including 'water breaking.' However, physical birth is not described that way anywhere in the Bible. It IS described in a different way, consistently. Aside from that, the fluid we describe colloquially in our culture as 'water' in physical birth is not what the Greek word in v. 5 says, which is water in streams, fountains, etc.

Probably because this is where Jesus is explaining to Niccodemus about birth.. Niccodemus asked if he could crawl back into his mothers womb.. LOL.. Nothing about baptism or word here..
This is entirely about birth and the birth of flesh and the birth of Spirit..

 

[archierieus]

Probably because this is where Jesus is explaining to Niccodemus about birth..

The fact is that nowhere in the gospels or in Scripture is physical birth described in such a way. Nor is there any textual indication that 'water' was intended to pertain to physical birth. It is a different word, in fact.

 

[MamaZ]

Joh 3:5 Jesus answered, Truly, truly, I say to you, If one is not generated out of water and Spirit, he is not able to enter into the kingdom of God.
Joh 3:6 That having been generated out of the flesh is flesh, and that having been generated out of the Spirit is spirit.
Joh 3:7 Do not wonder because I said to you, You must be generated from above.
Joh 3:8 The Spirit breathes where He desires, and you hear His voice; but you do not know from where He comes, and where He goes; so is everyone having been generated from the Spirit.
Joh 3:9 Nicodemus answered and said to Him, How are these things able to occur?
Joh 3:10 Jesus answered and said to him, You are the teacher of Israel, and you do not know these things?
Joh 3:11 Truly, truly, I say to you, That which we know, we speak; and that which we have seen, we testify. And you do not receive our testimony.
Joh 3:12 If I tell you earthly things, and you do not believe, how will you believe if I tell you heavenly things?

 

[Epiphoskei]

Aorist is a simple action, a one-time event, distinguished from progressive or ongoing action. And that is significant for this occurrence--very significant.

This is not correct.

According to Carson, the aorist was described by careful grammarians as punctiliar in the same sense mathematicians can use the word "point," to describe location without magnetude. The unfortunate use of the word punctiliar lead to many presuming it referred to a one-time action, or a dot on a timeline. This isn't correct, and every good grammar will tell you so.

According to Daniel Wallace, "It is true that the aorist may, under certain circumstances, describe an event that is, in reality, momentary. But we run into danger when we say that this is the aorist's unaffected meaning, for then we force it on the text in an artifician way. We then tend to ignore such aorists that disprove our view (and they can be found in virtually every chapter of the NT) and proclaim loudly the 'once-for-all' aorists when they suit us." The Basics of New Testament Syntax, 240.

 

[MamaZ]

The fact is that nowhere in the gospels or in Scripture is physical birth described in such a way. Nor is there any textual indication that 'water' was intended to pertain to physical birth. It is a different word, in fact.

Sure it is.. Jesus spoke these words to Niccodemus.. Very simple words.. Right there is where Jesus is explaining birth.. NOT baptism

 

[archierieus]

This is not correct.

According to Carson, the aorist was described by careful grammarians as punctiliar in the same sense mathematicians can use the word "point," to describe location without magnetude. The unfortunate use of the word punctiliar lead to many presuming it referred to a one-time action, or a dot on a timeline. This isn't correct, and every good grammar will tell you so.

According to Daniel Wallace, "It is true that the aorist may, under certain circumstances, describe an event that is, in reality, momentary. But we run into danger when we say that this is the aorist's unaffected meaning, for then we force it on the text in an artifician way. We then tend to ignore such aorists that disprove our view (and they can be found in virtually every chapter of the NT) and proclaim loudly the 'once-for-all' aorists when they suit us." The Basics of New Testament Syntax, 240.

I am quite familiar with the aorist, but before responding to your previous post I did further checking. I also recognize that there are some different views on the nature of aorist. However, what I posted, while general, is pretty much the consensus, based on the additional checking I did. Aorist is indeed unique, without a corresponding English tense. Still, it is generally distinguished from action which is continuing or progressive, each of which has its own form. Aorist is not continuing action, it is not progressive action.

One challenge which Bible students often face in doing exegesis is allowing their own beliefs or constructs to influence their work product. Thus, where a word appears in the aorist, but a continuing action is more in harmony with the student's doctrinal construct, then there can be the tendency to seek to explain away the aorist, and find an exception. Of course, such a tendency can work in the reverse, across the board. This tendency needs to be carefully guarded against.

 

[archierieus]

Sure it is.. Jesus spoke these words to Niccodemus.. Very simple words.. Right there is where Jesus is explaining birth.. NOT baptism

My post was referring to the textual evidence. It is absent. Jesus' words were simple enough. That is not the issue. The issue is how they are interpreted. You are interpreting Jesus' words in a particular way. The issue is whether or not that interpretation is consistent with the textual evidence.

 

[Epiphoskei]

I am quite familiar with the aorist, but before responding to your previous post I did further checking. I also recognize that there are some different views on the nature of aorist. However, what I posted, while general, is pretty much the consensus, based on the additional checking I did. Aorist is indeed unique, without a corresponding English tense. Still, it is generally distinguished from action which is continuing or progressive, each of which has its own form. Aorist is not continuing action, it is not progressive action.

One challenge which Bible students often face in doing exegesis is allowing their own beliefs or constructs to influence their work product. Thus, where a word appears in the aorist, but a continuing action is more in harmony with the student's doctrinal construct, then there can be the tendency to seek to explain away the aorist, and find an exception. Of course, such a tendency can work in the reverse, across the board. This tendency needs to be carefully guarded against.

Where are you fact checking? Again, I trust you're acting in good faith, but that is not remotely the consensus. People don't fact check Dan Wallace, they check everyone else by Dan Wallace. It is the unanimous testimony of the better Greek grammars that the aorist is not driven by aktionsart.

 

[MamaZ]

My post was referring to the textual evidence. It is absent. Jesus' words were simple enough. That is not the issue. The issue is how they are interpreted. You are interpreting Jesus' words in a particular way. The issue is whether or not that interpretation is consistent with the textual evidence.

We are reading and understanding the scripture in the context it is written which Jesus is speaking about birth.. Not baptism and not the washing of the water of the word..

 

[MamaZ]

Niccodemus was an Isrealite.. He knew from where babies came from.. This is why He asks Jesus how can these things be.. For He knew babies were born from water.. But now Jesus is saying one has to be born not just of water but now they must be born of the Spirit.. The Mystery of the Gospel.. Christ in us the Hope of Glory.. Born and begotten of God and His Spirit..

 

[Hammster]

My post was referring to the textual evidence. It is absent. Jesus' words were simple enough. That is not the issue. The issue is how they are interpreted. You are interpreting Jesus' words in a particular way. The issue is whether or not that interpretation is consistent with the textual evidence.

I am interested in knowing what your take is on the John 3 passage.

 

[Benefactor]

Probably because this is where Jesus is explaining to Niccodemus about birth.. Niccodemus asked if he could crawl back into his mothers womb.. LOL.. Nothing about baptism or word here..
This is entirely about birth and the birth of flesh and the birth of Spirit..

That too was my emphasis as I felt that while Christ stated that regeneration was a spiritual birth, born from above, which triggered Nics response.

Many of us grew up in a Christian environment. Using the statements we heard our teachers use and our pastors / priest use which set our thinking in that direction apart from our own personal investigation of the text.

Nics' mind set was of his influence; don't remember which, Shammai and Hillel. Perhaps someone can shed more light on which tradition Nic held. Both S and A may have held the same view on matters of "conversion" to Judaism, which of course would not understand the "born from above" conversion taught by Jesus.

Anyway, because Nic introduced natural birth then on that basis, as I see it, Jesus refers to water and flesh which I see as being used as synonymous, one of the other.

In my former position I viewed the word "water" as synonymous with "the washing of the word" which would convey that the words of truth have a washing and cleansing effect.

Now, in another conversation concerning Titus the words "washing of regeneration" are used and that would be somewhat akin to the washing of the word, but not a point I would press and of course not one that I hold to now

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

In my former position I viewed the word "water" as synonymous with "the washing of the word" which would convey that the words of truth have a washing and cleansing effect.

What was the significance of the Laver outside the Tabernacle/Sanctuary in the OT?
This "Court" in Reve 11 is interesting because if this is the type of "Camp" of Moses in the OT, both the Laver and Altar of Sacrifice would be in it. I am now doing a study on this.

Revelation 11:2 and the Court/fold, the *without/in of the Sanctuary/naou <3485>, be thou Casting-Out!/ek-bale <1544> (5628) out-side/exw <1854>, and no her thou should be measuring,

http://www.nsbible.org/sits_ts/v0s1.htm

The Camp--The Court--The Tabernacle--The Brazen Altar--The Laver-- The Table--The Lampstand--The Golden Altar--The Mercy Seat and Ark--The Gate--The First Veil--The Second Veil--The Significance of These and Their Antitypes.

Laver is an English word that originated from a Latin word which meant to wash (laundry and lavatory originated from the same word). It's used to translate the original Hebrew word of the Scriptures, pronounced kee-yore, which meant a cauldron or wash bowl. It was the name given to the large water-filled basin that the Levite priests used to wash their hands and feet before entering The Tabernacle In The Wilderness. The laver wasn't merely a facility for physical washing however. As with almost everything that the Old Testament Levites were given to do, it was also symbolic of a spiritual cleansing, the basis of baptism, which originated long before Christian times (see the Fact Finder question below).

 

[Benefactor]

What was the significance of the Laver outside the Tabernacle/Sanctuary in the OT?
This "Court" in Reve 11 is interesting because if this is the type of "Camp" of Moses in the OT, both the Laver and Altar of Sacrifice would be in it. I am now doing a study on this.

Revelation 11:2 and the Court/fold, the *without/in of the Sanctuary/naou <3485>, be thou Casting-Out!/ek-bale <1544> (5628) out-side/exw <1854>, and no her thou should be measuring,

http://www.nsbible.org/sits_ts/v0s1.htm

The Camp--The Court--The Tabernacle--The Brazen Altar--The Laver-- The Table--The Lampstand--The Golden Altar--The Mercy Seat and Ark--The Gate--The First Veil--The Second Veil--The Significance of These and Their Antitypes.

Laver is an English word that originated from a Latin word which meant to wash (laundry and lavatory originated from the same word). It's used to translate the original Hebrew word of the Scriptures, pronounced kee-yore, which meant a cauldron or wash bowl. It was the name given to the large water-filled basin that the Levite priests used to wash their hands and feet before entering The Tabernacle In The Wilderness. The laver wasn't merely a facility for physical washing however. As with almost everything that the Old Testament Levites were given to do, it was also symbolic of a spiritual cleansing, the basis of baptism, which originated long before Christian times (see the Fact Finder question below).

Interesting, I would think that the rituals of the OT will, for the most part, be reinstated in the 1K kingdom as a memorial. So the washings would most likely be there too.

Do you know if there is information on what view/s of washing Nicodemus may have believe and if so perhaps this would give us a better insight into his lack of understanding concerning Jesus' question concerning being born of water and from above?

 

[Hammster]

I was thinking about starting a "'Calvinism Refuted' Refuted" thread, but then I realised that we already have one here.

 

[Robert Pate]

If every one is predestinated why did Jesus command his apostles to go into the world and preach the Gospel to every creature? Mark 16:15. And then Jesus said in verse 16, "He that believes in me will be saved, and he that does not believe will be damned."

If everyone is predestinated why preach the Gospel at all?

The preaching of the gospel is what draws men to Christ. Jesus said, "When I am lifted up (up on the cross) I will draw all men to myself." When the Gospel is preached the Holy Spirit is there to convict men of their need for Christ. This is how the 5000 were converted on the day of Pentecost. Peter preached the Gospel. Peter did not say that this Gospel is only for the elect. No, he said, "It shall come to pass that WHOSOEVER shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved," Acts 2:21.

The Gospel refutes Calvinism. In the Gospel God has perfected all of humanity and has taken it to heaven. The Gospel is God's great free gift to humanity, Romans 5:18. We have been MADE complete in Christ, Colossians 2:10. This Gospel is yours only when by faith you make it yours. If you don't accept it you are still in your sins.

John 1:7, The same came for a witness, of the light, that ALL MEN through him might believe.

John 3:16, For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son that WHOSOEVER believes in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

Acts 22:15, For you shall be witnesses unto ALL MEN of what you have seen and heard.

Romans 5:12, Wherefore as by one man sin entered the world, and death by sin: and so death passed upon ALL MEN, for that all have sinned.

Romans 5:18, Therefore by the offense of one (Adam) judgment came upon ALL MEN to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one (Christ) the free gift came upon ALL MEN unto justification of life.

Romans 8:32, He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up FOR US ALL, how shall he not give us all things.

2 Corinthians 5:14-15, For the love of God constraines us; because we thus judge, that if one died FOR ALL, then we are ALL dead. And he that died FOR ALL, which live should not live unto themselves.

2 Corinthians 5;19, God was in Christ reconciling the WORLD unto himself.

2 Corinthians 9:13, While by the experiment of this ministration they glorify God for your professed subjection into the gospel of christ, and for your liberal distribution unto them, and unto ALL MEN.

Ephesians 3;9, And to make ALL MEN see what is the fellowship of the mystery from which from the beginning of the world was hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ.

1 Timothy 2:4, Who will have ALL MEN to be saved and to come into the knowledge of the truth.

1 Timothy 2:5-6, For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Jesus Christ who gave himself a ransom FOR ALL.

1 Timothy 4:10, For therefore we both labor and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the savior of ALL MEN.

Titus 2:11, For the grace of God that brings salvation to ALL MEN.

Hebrews 2:9, But we see Jesus who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honor; that he by the grace of God should taste death for EVERY MAN.

Hebrews 10:10, But that we will have been sanctified through the offering of one body of Jesus Christ once FOR ALL.

James 1:15, If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that gives to ALL MEN liberally.

1 John 2:2, And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but for the sins of the WHOLE WORLD.

1 John 4:14, And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the savior of the WHOLE WORLD.

1 John 5:4, For whatsoever (whosoever) is born of God overcomes the world: and this is the victory that overcomes the world OUR FAITH.

2 Peter 3:9, The Lord is not slack concerning his promise as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering toward us, not willing THAT ANY SHOULD PERISH, but that ALL should come to repentance.

Visit: http://www.theapostlesdoctrine.com

I think that you need to re-read the original post.

 

[Epiphoskei]

That post only proves you don't understand Calvinism.

 

[Hammster]

That post only proves you don't understand Calvinism.

Or scripture in general.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

I was thinking about starting a "'Calvinism Refuted' Refuted" thread, but then I realised that we already have one here.

I myself would have no earthly idea whether it was or wasn't refuted

 

[Hammster]

In the interest of down playing my one linerness, I decided to look at Mr. Pate's most recent post and address a verse or two, and Romans 8:32 jumped out. And, of course, je highlighted all men, which I assume he means to demonstrate that salvation is available to all men.

So when I looked it up it struck me as odd that this verse is bookended by 2 verses/passages that speak of election: vs. 28-30 and verse 33. This demonstrates to me God's foreknowledge and election of a set number of people, not that salvation is available to all.

Is there anybody who shares Mr. Pate's view want to take a stab at defending his use of that verse for universal atonement?