Calvinism Refuted

[archierieus]

Those receiving the light aren't spoken of in a way that's opposed to Calvinistic ordos. The point of 1:13 is that those who received Him were born of God, not of their own wills. So I'm not entirely understanding how this could happen with a heart that's been illuminated as what it is -- evil.

ὅσοι δὲ ἔλαβον αὐτόν, ἔδωκεν αὐτοῖς ἐξουσίαν τέκνα θεοῦ γενέσθαι, τοῖς πιστεύουσιν εἰς τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ,

οἳ οὐκ ἐξ αἱμάτων οὐδὲ ἐκ θελήματος σαρκὸς οὐδὲ ἐκ θελήματος ἀνδρὸς ἀλλ' ἐκ θεοῦ ἐγεννήθησαν. Jn. 1:13, 14 N-A

Note the order of things. Receiving comes first, then ἐκ θεοῦ ἐγεννήθησαν It shows up that way in English, but of particular interest is the word order in Gk. which has a quite different sentence structure.

 

[archierieus]

Well, Scripture does use subjunctive and conditional terminology. If Scripture says "all can believe" and "not all believe", then we really are reduced to the idea of universalism not being actual

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. 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.

 

[archierieus]

... so the soil has an impact, but it has no preparation? Or isn't the preparation simply absent from mention in the parable? Absence of mention isn't mention of absence, right?

Agreed. My point had to do with accuracy.

But ... the parable offers no comment on how the soil got to be good, just that the seed, the word, lands indiscriminantly on good and bad areas of the field.

So as far as I can tell, we're talking over points we agree on, and concluding that at least the parable is not really hitting on points we disagree on

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.

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.

Dave

 

[Hammster]

One of the characteristics of translating from Gk to Eng. is that there may be more than one Eng. word within the semantic range applicable to a particular Gk. word. pisteuw, pistis, etc., can be translated by more than one Eng. word. And, as well, if I recall there is more than one Gk. word which may be translated as 'believe' or 'faith.' Thus, my inquiry to you. Are we talking about the same Greek word, with diff. Eng. words, or about different Gk. words? Please clarify. Please give Scriptural cites to illustrate what you are referring to.

Never mind. You had made some statements, which I had identified, and I was looking for clarification. It is obvious that you don't want to answer, so be it.

 

[archierieus]

It is obvious that you don't want to answer, so be it.

Incorrect. I have no problem answering questions. However, you posed a distinction which was unclear, so I asked you for clarification--which you have failed to provide. So be it. If you wish to do so, then I should be pleased to answer your question. So, once again, are you referring to the same Greek word, translated with different English words, or to two different Greek words?

 

[Hammster]

Incorrect. I have no problem answering questions. However, you posed a distinction which was unclear, so I asked you for clarification--which you have failed to provide. So be it. If you wish to do so, then I should be pleased to answer your question. So, once again, are you referring to the same Greek word, translated with different English words, or to two different Greek words?

Okay, I will try one time. In post 462 I asked if someone had their spiritual eyes open if that was the same as being saved.

In post 463 you responded that the blind needed FAITH to have their eyes opened.

In post 464 I said that wasn't the question.

In post 465 you said it was the same thing and quoted John 3:16 which uses the word BELIEVES.

(Not exact quotes because I can't copy/paste with my cell phone, but the gist is correct.)

So, I am wondering what YOU meant when you used two terse to define what in your view is essentially the same thing.

 

[cygnusx1]

Hypothetical? It is a statement of fact, not hypothetical. "All can believe." Please show how it is hypothetical. Please give Scriptural cites. Sola Scriptura.

If all can believe then all might believe , clearly suggesting the impossibility of the parable of the sower .

The parable of the sower premises THE FACT that all will NOT believe , therefore all CANNOT believe , FACT !

“For this cause they could not believe, for that Isaiah said again, He hath blinded their eyes, and He hardened their heart; Lest they ... John 12 : 1-50

Reference is to Isaiah, ch. 6:9, 10. Note the Septuagint:



English translation:



Now compare the John cite of Isaiah 6:9, 10:

[/size][/font]

don't need to , the statement of inability to believe stands , FACT !

“For this cause they could not believe, for that Isaiah said again, He hath blinded their eyes, and He hardened their heart; Lest they ... John 12 : 1-50

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.

makes no difference to the FACT .

This is not a popularity contest. Sola Scriptura.

good 'cause you ain't winning , no , it's a place where the truth ought to be spoken in love , without love we are nothing.

 

[cygnusx1]

Well, Scripture does use subjunctive and conditional terminology. If Scripture says "all can believe" and "not all believe", then we really are reduced to the idea of universalism not being actual -- nothing may be particularly in the way of actuality except the real observation. That is, indeed, the definition of the term "hypothetical" or "suppositional" in English.

I don't believe Scripture calls the proclamation of the Gospel an "offer", either. But that wouldn't prevent my considering whether the Gospel is an offer.

Not every concept of Scripture must obtain a name in Scripture, for it to be a concept of Scripture. "Trinity" is the overused example of another term which represents a range of Scriptures, none of which uses the term "Trinity".

thanks Mikey

"all men can believe" would deny the very idea of the parable of the sower , it would read somewhat different ......

"a sower went out to sow , scattered the seed liberally , then watched expectedly as the POSSIBILITY of bumper harvests from every single seed ............etc

 

[Benefactor]

Well, Scripture does use subjunctive and conditional terminology. (True)


If Scripture says "all can believe" and "not all believe", then we really are reduced to the idea of universalism not being actual (False - just because all do not believe does not remove the universal offer. If you posit that an offer must result in all believing then your assumption is fasle. If we changed the statement from "all can believe" to "all will believe" then your statement would be true, but because the statement is "all can believe" does not means "all must believe". The offer is indead universal and the offer is actual because the condition of the offer is not an experiment. )



-- nothing may be particularly in the way of actuality except the real observation. (human reasoning -finite thinking -)


That is, indeed, the definition of the term "hypothetical" or "suppositional" in English. (God's plan of Salvation is not hypothetical, it exist - all parts of it and it works - it is actual, it is not an experiment, test, or supposition.)

I don't believe Scripture calls the proclamation of the Gospel an "offer", either. But that wouldn't prevent my considering whether the Gospel is an offer. (agree)


Not every concept of Scripture must obtain a name in Scripture, (true) for it to be a concept of Scripture. "Trinity" is the overused example of another term which represents a range of Scriptures, none of which uses the term "Trinity".

.

Is it your position then that salvation is hypothetical because the offer is subjunctive?



Are you saying that because salvation which is offered to all is not a universal offer?

 

[JDS]

Understanding the parable of the sower

Historically, it was given along with 6 other kingdom of heaven parables in Mt 13. It was after the the Jews had committed the unpardonable sin in Mt 12 and Jesus Christ had essentially withdrawn his offer of national salvation in fulfillment of OT prophecies to them. . The kingdom that Jesus had been preaching was at hand would require that every subject in it would be born again. Joh 3:5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and [of] the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. This, of course would mean that all in his kingdom would be willingly subjected to his rule. Since the rulers, the spokes people for Israel, rejected his kingdom and they held sway over the people, it was clear that his physical kingdom could not be established at this time.

Therefore, Jesus began speaking of the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven. This would not be a kingdom from without, but from within the hearts of his subjects. The king would be absent physically, but present spiritually and would set on the throne of the heart of those who submitted to his rule. It would still require one be born again and the citizenship of these subjects would have no earth boundaries and would live on different principles than earthly kingdoms, though living among and in the various kingdoms of the world and being subject to them physically while we are here.

Php 3:20 For our conversation (citizenship) is in heaven; from whence also we look for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ:

The transition from the offer of the promised kingdom to the spiritual was symbolized by the text of scripture in Mt 13, a transition number for God, and easily seen if one pays attention to numbers as he reads the words of God.

A new relatioship was announced for this spiritual kingdom relating to the Jews in the last verses of ch 12.

Mt 12:46 While he yet talked to the people, behold, [his] mother and his brethren stood without, desiring to speak with him. 47 Then one said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to speak with thee.
48 But he answered and said unto him that told him, Who is my mother? and who are my brethren?
49 And he stretched forth his hand toward his disciples, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren!
50 For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother.

His previous prayer had been that "thy will be done, on earth, as it is in heaven", but it was not to be at this time. It will be later. Now, it would be those who are willing submit to the Father in heaven and do his will.

The next thing is very symbolic and prophetic.

Mt 13:1 The same day went Jesus out of the house, and sat by the sea side. 2 And great multitudes were gathered together unto him, so that he went into a ship, and sat; and the whole multitude stood on the shore.
3 And he spake many things unto them in parables....

Going out of the house symbolized going out of the house of Israel. The place where he went is significant also. He went to the sea side. The sea represents the nations of the world and the multitude, the peoples. The ship would take him away and the first parable is foundational to all the kingdom of heaven parables, which are a prophecy of the expansion and charater of this kingdom during this entire age until the king comes back.

The king is a man of agriculture and he sows his words as he departs and the design is that at the end of the season, at harvest time, he has much increase. In later parables, we learn that he appoints stewards over his possession and requires they be faithful in their stewardship.

This has been a very brief summary of the mysteries of the kingdom but for the spiritual mind that has not understood this, it should be a light, however dim.

Let's meet here later and talk about the parable of the sower.

 

[MamaZ]

You have here added to Scripture. Please stick with Scripture as it reads.



Different parable. You have provided no exegetical basis for combining them.

Don't need to this is why we are to take the full counsel of the written scripture because they do not contradict..Truth plus truth equals truth.. The whole counsel of the written scriptures are to be combined for the whole bible is truth and allows one to come to knowing God the Father and His Son Jesus Christ..
1Co 2:1 And when I came to you, brothers, I did not come with excellency of word or wisdom, declaring to you the Testimony of God.
1Co 2:2 For I decided not to know anything among you except Jesus Christ, and Him having been crucified.
1Co 2:3 And I was with you in weakness, and in fear, and in much trembling.
1Co 2:4 And my word and my preaching was not in enticing words of human wisdom, but in proof of the Spirit and of power,
1Co 2:5 that your faith might not be in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God.
1Co 2:6 But we speak wisdom among the perfect, but not the wisdom of this age, nor of the rulers of this age, those being brought to nothing.

 

[JDS]

"Different parable. You have provided no exegetical basis for combining them."

Don't need to this is why we are to take the full counsel of the written scripture because they do not contradict..Truth plus truth equals truth.. The whole counsel of the written scriptures are to be combined for the whole bible is truth and allows one to come to knowing God the Father and His Son Jesus Christ..

De 14:7 Nevertheless these ye shall not eat of them that chew the cud, or of them that divide the cloven hoof; [as] the camel, and the hare, and the coney: for they chew the cud, but divide not the hoof; [therefore] they [are] unclean unto you.
_______________________________________________________

3 Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.
4 For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving:
5 For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.

 

[Benefactor]

The sower sowed his seed on all the types of soil. God as the Sower sows the gospel seed on all types of soil Some are responsive, others are not. Of those who are responsive, some get distracted by cares of the world or give up because of hard times. Others hang in there and yield of harvest. In the parable, the response of the individuals determines whether or not there will be a harvest. The seed was sown in all.

I like the reasoning in your statement. I am inclined to see it the same way.

 

[MamaZ]

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.

And He came unto His own and His own received Him not.. Then when we read further we find out why they believed Him not. Because God had shut their eyes and ears so that they could not believe Him. If God wants a person to believe in Him He is pretty effective in how He goes about it. Look at Saul now we know Him as Paul..

 

[MamaZ]

We can even Look at Peter. He walked and talked with Christ but yet it had to be revealed to Him by the Father who Christ really was.. Jesus even commented about this..

 

[Benefactor]

Don't need to this is why we are to take the full counsel of the written scripture because they do not contradict..Truth plus truth equals truth.. The whole counsel of the written scriptures are to be combined for the whole bible is truth and allows one to come to knowing God the Father and His Son Jesus Christ..
1Co 2:1 And when I came to you, brothers, I did not come with excellency of word or wisdom, declaring to you the Testimony of God.
1Co 2:2 For I decided not to know anything among you except Jesus Christ, and Him having been crucified.
1Co 2:3 And I was with you in weakness, and in fear, and in much trembling.
1Co 2:4 And my word and my preaching was not in enticing words of human wisdom, but in proof of the Spirit and of power,
1Co 2:5 that your faith might not be in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God.
1Co 2:6 But we speak wisdom among the perfect, but not the wisdom of this age, nor of the rulers of this age, those being brought to nothing.

I think we need to look at both. The immediate context should be first then move outward. To start from the outside and then narrow it to the statement is the wrong way to study Scripture. All is very important but first let’s look at the purpose, intent of the writer. What is the genre of the text, the grammar of the text, the theme of the text, etc. before we run off to Genesis or Revelation or somewhere in between other than the text under consideration? What good is a text in its context if we don’t let it tell us what it intends to convey. This does not suggest that a given subject in a given area is not modified or further defined in other places, but lets start at the juncture of the text under consideration first. All Scripture is profitable................

Many of us are too eager, including me, to pull from here and there before giving the immediate text its due representation at the table of consideration. A lot of us are all too eager to reverse the process and I thing most of us would agree.

 

[student ad x]

thanks Mikey

"all men can believe" would deny the very idea of the parable of the sower , it would read somewhat different ......

"a sower went out to sow , scattered the seed liberally , then watched expectedly as the POSSIBILITY of bumper harvests from every single seed ............etc

And quite possibly the reason for this hermeneutical hopscotch from synergists is because the Lord Himself in the parable has implied election.

 

[cygnusx1]

.

Is it your position then that salvation is hypothetical because the offer is subjunctive?

salvation cannot be hypothetical (see the Amayraldian understanding on this subject) to God who knows all things .... the parable of the sower leaves no doubt many will be lost , this I am certain you will agree with.

Are you saying that because salvation which is offered to all is not a universal offer?

"offered to all" has two interpretations =

1. Every single person hears the Gospel and makes a choice , clearly false.

2. The Gospel is offered indiscriminately to both elect and reprobate , clearly true.

 

[MamaZ]

thanks Mikey

"all men can believe" would deny the very idea of the parable of the sower , it would read somewhat different ......

"a sower went out to sow , scattered the seed liberally , then watched expectedly as the POSSIBILITY of bumper harvests from every single seed ............etc

 

[MamaZ]

"Different parable. You have provided no exegetical basis for combining them."





De 14:7 Nevertheless these ye shall not eat of them that chew the cud, or of them that divide the cloven hoof; [as] the camel, and the hare, and the coney: for they chew the cud, but divide not the hoof; [therefore] they [are] unclean unto you.
_______________________________________________________

3 Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.
4 For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving:
5 For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.

you take scripture from its context to wrap around your theory? It was good for a giggle..