Calvinism Refuted

[heymikey80]

In the Calvinist system, based first on Augustine, it seems to be that the reprobate cannot believe because God has determined that they should be allowed not to want to believe.

It's a result of the self-caused Fall of man.

If God, in his absolute sovereignty, chose to bring the elect out of the mass of the damned, and thus left the remainder to continue to their destruction, it follows that he has withheld the grace that is efficient for them to desire and will to believe in the Savior, which is the other option than the one they are locked into by nature.

God withholds what He doesn't owe. Is it wrong to withhold what you don't owe?

"How much did you make? Send it in."

Nevertheless, as the Scriptures say, the clay has no right to demand from the Potter why it was made a vessel for destruction. Ultimately it is God demonstrating his cosmic justice for his glorification, according to Calvinists. The reprobate were given the freedom only to desire and want to sin.

Prepped for destruction. We've all made ourselves deserving of destruction, God's prepping the pot for destruction once it's used. The base purpose and the elevated purpose are different from the destruction at the end of one and the glorification at the end of the other purpose. At least to me.

But in the end, according to the Calvinist system, since God is outside of time, and therefore his predestination and foreknowing are connected in an eternal present, it was determined that Adam would sin, and that he determined this according to his divine plan. It was not a part of God's plan that Adam have the option of choosing not to sin. God's predestination and foreknowing of this event are one and the same.

Uh, either I'm misreading or something, but Calvinism doesn't presume "eternal now". It simply doesn't comment on it. I would agree with you that the identical accusation can be made against non-Calvinist systems of foreknowledge and the "eternal now".

Predestination is the designation. Foreknowing is the choosing or the relationship that results in the pre-designation. So they're not one and the same. They're two facets.

Also, it logically follows that God created evil and determined that it be used according to his divine plan.

It really depends what's meant by "created". It's certain that God comprehends evil and determined its use in His plan. If evil exists, it exists because of God. But to say, "God created evil" like He made human will or creatures or anything else in creation, that's a different thing. By extension, yes, if evil exists God is the First Cause of everything, so evil exists because He created. But to say God created evil ex nihilo, without a secondary cause, doesn't seem to be what Scripture says. Evil appears as something emerging because of limits in knowledge or will among people. It doesn't appear as an ex nihilo created object.

 

[heymikey80]

I am not so sure that election is a prevenient grace when observed by finite, temporalized humans. The regenerate elect before conversion are dead in sin just as much as the unregenerate non-elect.

Yeah, prevenient grace isn't an aspect of Calvinism per se. Normally Calvinists point out common grace for sure, and prevenient grace is a qualified grace, non-salvific in itself, but preparatory to salvation grace -- New Birth.

The Council of Orange on human will and God's grace might resolve some of the questions right off as well, when isolating and identifying Calvinism.

Their predestined conversion has not taken place until they are regenerated. Just because they have seen the spiritual good and recognized it does not mean they have at that moment been regenerated.

I think that's accurate, when you consider "seeing" to mean they have some kind of recognition of an apparently insane logic of the spiritual.

Also, pre-conversion, the elect's motivation is not necessarily any different than the unregenerate non-elect's motivation. Then, how are either categories of people different in respect to what they desire and will?

I'm unsure of the issue here, but they're not different wrt will or action. That's pretty-much the point in Calvinism and in Scripture. God doesn't choose on this basis; so there's no reason to expect them to be different.

In terms of foreseen will or action, though, it's an "end-run" around Paul's point that God's choice isn't based on human will or action at all. Paul's talking nonsense in Romans 9, and John in John 1, if their assertions are ultimately false and God is looking at foreseen will and action. They're essentially equivalent. So neither Apostle should be mentioning a distinction without a difference.

But now you are admitting that the unregenerate non-elect can see and recognize the spiritual good for what it is. That implies they have done so of their own will and could possibly even desire it. How do you resolve this?

I find what the unregenerate see is "the craziness". "These guys are drunk," is the Scriptural description that comes to mind.

So they see the effects -- joy, peace, etc. They tend to like these things because they're psychially (to coin a transliterated word) a "plus" -- but from a practical standpoint it looks like someone's gone Bible-thumping insane, to them.

 

[Epiphoskei]

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.

That still leaves a hoti not modifying anything, if the primary referant of dia touto isn't verse 40. As to the imperfect, I get this feeling that you're reading it more like a past progressive tense. Continual action in the past and progressive action in the past are slightly different concepts.

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.

As a rule, I'm not comfortable looking at the original context of an Old Testament quote in the New Testament if that context hasn't also been brought into the new. First, there's the issue of typological verses whose first context simply doesn't apply, though I don't think that's what's happening here. But second, the books of scripture were written at first to stand on their own, and they were only bound into one volume later. The authors would have taken as much context from their sources as the readers needed.

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.

God isn't the subject because edunanto doesn't mean to make unable, it means to be unable, and God isn't the one being unable here.

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.

I'm only really comfortable saying it's one of the three options. There aren't any obvious clues, and context rarely can indicate the tense of a verb.

 

[archierieus]

That still leaves a hoti not modifying anything, if the primary referant of dia touto isn't verse 40.

I understand what you are saying, however, I see it differently in light of vv. 37 and 38. vv. 39 and 40 continue the explanation of their action. I also see διὰ τοῦτο οὐκ ἠδύναντο πιστεύειν as shedding light on the process of hardening as described in v. 40.

As to the imperfect, I get this feeling that you're reading it more like a past progressive tense. Continual action in the past and progressive action in the past are slightly different concepts.

Not my intention, perhaps choice of words. Continuing action, a course of action, however the facts are that in operation and result it was progressive, that is, their hearts being hardened. That doesn't happen overnight.

though I don't think that's what's happening here.

Agreed.

But second, the books of scripture were written at first to stand on their own, and they were only bound into one volume later. The authors would have taken as much context from their sources as the readers needed.

I would disagree with that when it comes to cites to the prophets. The OT Scriptures were complete hundreds of years before John wrote his gospel, and were studied and referred to by the faithful on a regular basis. As for the NT Scriptures, indeed, they were separate accounts and letters for some time.

God isn't the subject because edunanto doesn't mean to make unable,
it means to be unable,

But described through the imperfect, continuing action, not the aorist.

context rarely can indicate the tense of a verb.

There I would disagree. Attempting to translate without reference to context can result in a pretext. Where different, otherwise reliable manuscripts have different tenses, then one is left with resorting to context.

 

[Epiphoskei]

But described through the imperfect, continuing action, not the aorist.

Which means they were continually unable, not they were becoming unable.

There I would disagree. Attempting to translate without reference to context can result in a pretext. Where different, otherwise reliable manuscripts have different tenses, then one is left with resorting to context.

Attempting to translate without context, yes, that's bad. Textual criticism? That's another matter. There are three options here any any three could be the one originally written. The context doesn't demand any of them.

 

[archierieus]

Which means they were continually unable, not they were becoming unable.

Disagree there, that would as well apply to the aorist. Continuing action, without a doubt. And I do tend to place more weight on the middle voice, while recognizing it as a deponent verb. As well, it is imperfect as opposed to the perfect. All of this points to continuing action in the past, initiated by and participated in by the group described, and that is consistent with v. 17, it is explanatory of v. 20 and it is consistent as well with the passage John quotes from Isaiah.

This is an example of where consideration of both immediate and prophetic context can be helpful.

The context doesn't demand any of them.

Here I would tend to disagree. But more on the issue of 'hardening' later.

 

[Hammster]

Is there anything in the text that would indicate that at one time they could believe?

 

[archierieus]

Is there anything in the text that would indicate that at one time they could believe?

It is not addressed either way in the verb being discussed, beyond clues from the morphology, which include that they initiated their inability to believe, and participated in the results. That is consistent with the Isaiah passage. V. 37 is interesting, 'they WOULD not believe,' but to answer your question precisely would require looking at other passages, including the Isaiah passage quoted by John in v. 20.

 

[heymikey80]

I keep reading it as "unable" due to a heart set against it, even in the face of visible signs. It appears to be an inability that's blinding them, and God is stated as the One who blinds and hardens.

While tenses are helpful, it's very difficult to see what anyone's implying because of the confusion of a tense with its contrary. Which I think is what epiphoskei was getting at, earlier. If the clarity's not there where the tense is going, then the implication is lost and the argument is also lost.

Is the idea being proposed that they weren't and aren't believing, and then God blinded and hardened, to achieve the purpose of their inability to believe?

Would inability be inability if they stopped disbelieving? Keeping in mind, adunanto (unpowered) isn't necessarily implying the same things as English "unable" -- though "harden" along with it tends to increase its force in my eyes.

 

[archierieus]

I keep reading it as "unable" due to a heart set against it, even in the face of visible signs.

I couldn't have worded it better myself. That is exactly what I get out of the verse as it reads, as well as taken in conjunction with the Isaiah passage John quotes. They are consistent.

It appears to be an inability that's blinding them, and God is stated as the One who blinds and hardens.

Which leads us to the core question of how hearts are hardened, and what God's role is. Anxious to get to that.

While tenses are helpful, it's very difficult to see what anyone's implying because of the confusion of a tense with its contrary. Which I think is what epiphoskei was getting at, earlier. If the clarity's not there where the tense is going, then the implication is lost and the argument is also lost.

The research I have done indicates a reasonable amount of clarity. The risk will often be present of one's belief system influencing one's exegesis, and that is something to be avoided. In some cases, word meanings and grammatical issues can be taken more than one way, and that is where the student's orientation can influence his or her judgment call.

Would inability be inability if they stopped disbelieving? Keeping in mind, adunamis isn't necessarily implying the same things as English "unable" -- though "harden" along with it tends to increase its force in my eyes.

That again illustrates the limitation of the language to accurately convey the sense of the original. Many doctrinal disputes have arisen over such things IMO. Because of these limitations, more in-depth study is called for, which I personally am looking forward to.

 

[Tzaousios]

Which leads us to the core question of how hearts are hardened, and what God's role is. Anxious to get to that.

I am interested in this particular discussion as well.

The writer of Exodus obviously felt it necessary to distinguish between two kinds of hardening - that of God to Pharaoh and of Pharaoh to himself.

If I recall correctly, there is a third kind that can be added - Pharaoh being hardened by an unnamed subject or the general situation he was in. I am assuming that the Septuagint has a middle verb for this type; I'd have to check.

Sorry to interject!

 

[archierieus]

I am interested in this particular discussion as well.

The writer of Exodus obviously felt it necessary to distinguish between two kinds of hardening - that of God to Pharaoh and of Pharaoh to himself.

Interesting question, and one which needs to be explored.

If I recall correctly, there is a third kind that can be added - Pharaoh being hardened by an unnamed subject or the general situation he was in. I am assuming that the Septuagint has a middle verb for this type; I'd have to check.

Please do check. Your knowledge of the Septuagint would be most helpful.

 

[heymikey80]

I couldn't have worded it better myself. That is exactly what I get out of the verse as it reads, as well as taken in conjunction with the Isaiah passage John quotes. They are consistent.

* * *

Which leads us to the core question of how hearts are hardened, and what God's role is. Anxious to get to that.

Yeah, I think that's a provocative focus as well. I'm also interested in the change in a heart. If we're looking at power/ability and its lack, I'm pretty interested in what & where that power or ability is conditioned by. Is the passage saying God's involved in the power or its lack? And what's God involved in?

The research I have done indicates a reasonable amount of clarity. The risk will often be present of one's belief system influencing one's exegesis, and that is something to be avoided. In some cases, word meanings and grammatical issues can be taken more than one way, and that is where the student's orientation can influence his or her judgment call.

Just that, having clawed my way through 1 John long ago -- I know it's something that this writer does a lot .... I guess I'd feel more comfortable trying to deal with it explicitly than to assume we're getting it right.

That again illustrates the limitation of the language to accurately convey the sense of the original. Many doctrinal disputes have arisen over such things IMO. Because of these limitations, more in-depth study is called for, which I personally am looking forward to.

Yeah. I know adunamai runs quite a range.

 

[Epiphoskei]

Disagree there, that would as well apply to the aorist. Continuing action, without a doubt.

Well, the aorist can be just about anything. It's the aspect of having no aspect.

Being imperfect, we can only say it means continual inability, not advancing inability. I still feel you're treating this more as a past progressive.

And I do tend to place more weight on the middle voice, while recognizing it as a deponent verb. As well, it is imperfect as opposed to the perfect. All of this points to continuing action in the past, initiated by and participated in by the group described, and that is consistent with v. 17, it is explanatory of v. 20 and it is consistent as well with the passage John quotes from Isaiah.

But it's not really in the middle voice. A deponant verb is not a middle verb, it's an active verb. And intransitive verbs simply can't be middles or passives.

As for this pointing to action initiated by the subject of the verb, I don't think that's a justified conclusion. Let me give an example.

Let's say we're talking about a blind man, and writing about him in Greek. This particular man was blind from birth, he did not initiate his blindness. If we wished to say "he was not able to see," wouldn't we have to say "edunato ophthelein"? Dunamai has to take middle endings because it's deponant. We'd want to use one of the past tenses, and we wouldn't want to use one of the perfect tenses. That leaves us with imperfect or aorist. Either is fine, but if I wanted to stress that he had been blind from birth and was continually blind all his life, and had not ceased being blind, I'd use imperfect. Hence, "edunato ophthelein." This doesn't indicate that I mean to say he blinded himself or became progressivly blind all his life. I mean to say he was always blind, and "edunato ophthelein" works just fine to express that.

Or, to look at this another way, if John had wanted to write that the Jews were not capable of believing, and continually inable despite seeing miracle after miracle over three years of Christ's ministry, what tense and voice would he have needed to put dunamai in to indicate this? Imperfect deponant, wouldn't it be? The aorist or perfect would not have indicated continual disbelief, and dunamai can only ever be a deponant.

 

[JDS]

Has this thread been hijacked? Do we need to create a Greek study thread?

 

[drstevej]

Has this thread been hijacked? Do we need to create a Greek study thread?

It's on topic. Are you having trouble following the discussion?

 

[JDS]

It's on topic. Are you having trouble following the discussion?

It was aquestion, friend. No need to get ugly.

 

[drstevej]

It was aquestion, friend. No need to get ugly.

Not ugly at all. If you can follow it you know it is on topic.

 

[JDS]

Not ugly at all. If you can follow it you know it is on topic.

You meant no malice? (remember, you are a Christian)

 

[Hammster]

I agree with JDS on this one. It isn't that it's hard to follow, but where is it going to get us? I really appreciate what the are doing, but as I tried to demonstrate by conceding to Arch, even his view doesn't make his case as a stand alone proof text. Plus, I'm not sure that it is a live or die verse for Calvinism.