Calvinism Refuted

[archierieus]

As far as I am concerned, the verses you quoted will do. I have no idea what all that other explanation was. It was all Greek to me... (You know someone has to say it.)

It will help me is, when you explain what the Greek is, if you would also explain what you mean it to mean, and what you take from the tex. Also, if you think you have a different interpretation, that would be good to know.

Okay, here is what I set out to do:

1) Starting point is Jn. 3. I was interested in the verb tensefor 'born again.' It is aorist which means punctiliar, a point in time, an event as opposed to a process.

2) I was very interested to compare the occurrence of regeneration. I discovered that it means 'born again' and that it mentions 'of water' or 'washing' and the renewing of the Holy Spirit.

3) Based on these clues, I conclude preliminarily that the two descriptions are of the same event.

Next step is to work outward from this event, backward and forward, to find what comes before it and what comes after.

Dave

 

[archierieus]

Dave,

I seriously considered that.

I earnestly asked myself if the reason why I was so frustrated and, frankly, angry with you was because you were right and I was wrong.

I had not meant to suggest that. Simply having to do with the process.

I was frustrated because I believed you were dodging me.

That was not my intention and the thought didn't occur to me until I just now read it in your post. Quite the opposite. I wanted to engage, but on the basis of Scripture, separating man's teaching and opinions.

See, I put a lot of thought and effort into what I write, and if I reference another person's thought it's because I have put a lot of thought and work into ascertaining that I agree with them at every point. So, to have you tritely request "scripture please" was odious to me and I was quick to assume that it was an effort on your part to avoid dealing with my argument.

I see. Thanks for clarifying that. Not in the slightest on my part. I simply take a clinical approach, with the great desire to preserve accuracy and discover truth.

Be that as it may, you have my explanation, any further requests for Scriptural support, for what amounts to proof-texting will see me referring you to the whole Bible.

You may see me asking for Scriptural support from whoever might post. I do wish to distinguish between man's opinions and constructs, and the Word of God.

But I do appreciate your kindness and forgiveness here and for my part will try very hard not to take any further irritation out on you.

Thanks,

Mike

Thank you kindly, Mike.

Dave

 

[heymikey80]

From here you can get a summary of John Murray's view: http://evangelicalthoughts.com/johnmurray.aspx

 

[heymikey80]

Nope, apples and oranges. I would ordinarily be interested in exegesis and faithfulness to the text. But the writings I have been referred to, and which have been presented as authority, pointed to AS authority, such as John Gill, and the several Calvinist expositors, intermixed unsubstantiated opinions with Scripture, thus distorting Scripture. that is anathema to this student, totally unacceptable and I would not give such the time of day. Even if they had separated Scripture from their commentary, I could live with that, but they mixed it all together so as to give the impression of Scriptural authenticity. Absolutely unacceptable.

Hm. And you would say you're not doing that? I continue to see open-ended questions about Scriptural support for faith preceding New Birth. I think it would be fairly caustic to engage in absolutes at this point. The attempt still seems to me to be joined from one side, only.

I've posted a few, and appreciate your response to one of the points regarding heart change.

Were we talking in absolutes, I would think Benefactor's dismissal of my position because I'm a Vos amil -- that would seem absolutely unacceptable under your qualification. Would it?

 

[archierieus]

From here you can get a summary of John Murray's view:

Once again, this illustrates the phenomenon I have experienced in having discussions with Calvinists. For the last 40 years almost, I have held and engaged in Bible studies with a wide range of people. With the exception of RC's, those participating with me have been interested in what the Bible says, not in what some theologian says. In fact, typically there has been a shying away from commentaries, theologians and the like, because people have wanted to focus on the Bible. Now I encounter the Calvinists, and specifically here on CF. Now there is an emphasis on this and that commentary, or theologian, someone who talks ABOUT the Bible. Even the Calvinists I have dealt with in the past have focused on Scripture--although they had no Scriptural answers, but didn't try to bring in commentaries.

Now, I took a few minutes to scan one of the articles you linked to. But once again, I find the same mixture of rhetoric, a small amount of exegesis but not truly exegesis, more in the nature of rhetoric, pertaining to certain Scriptures. It really is rhetoric. It is not pure exegesis. This is why I do not wish to study such things.

Dave

 

[Hammster]

The Lakers won. Just in case anyone wanted to know.

 

[archierieus]

Hm. And you would say you're not doing that?

Please give examples from my posts.

I continue to see open-ended questions about Scriptural support for faith preceding New Birth. I think it would be fairly caustic to engage in absolutes at this point. The attempt still seems to me to be joined from one side, only.

And regarding regeneration? I would not call what I posted to be rhetoric. Is that what you referring to? If so, then please explain why you think it is rhetoric?

dismissal of my position because I'm a Vos amil -- that would seem absolutely unacceptable under your qualification. Would it?

I really make an effort to be clinical and focus on the data, accurately observing and understanding the data and interpreting same with the goal of neutrality. Any position re the millennium would to me be immaterial.

Dave

 

[Hammster]

I assume that we will get to the passages at hand at some point.

 

[Epiphoskei]

With the exception of RC's, those participating with me have been interested in what the Bible says, not in what some theologian says. In fact, typically there has been a shying away from commentaries, theologians and the like, because people have wanted to focus on the Bible.

It is foolishness to see the two as contrary. Smarter men than you or I have read the scriptures more times than any of us, and while they are not infallable and must be appraised by every student of the word, it is the definition of a book-of-Proverbs fool to ignore our elders' teaching and instruction.

These teachers, of course, have a duty to preach the scriptures and bring the student to an understanding of why they see what they see, so that he may discern for himself what the scripture teaches and if the teacher is correct, and the great abuse of the teaching role in some churches has lead to the shunning of theologians in many circles, for many see them as pontificating what shall be believed, instead of teaching the word of truth, but the failures of the teachers does not justify the rejection of the Biblical duty and spiritual gift of teacher.

 

[archierieus]

It is foolishness to see the two as contrary. Smarter men than you or I have read the scriptures more times than any of us, and while they are not infallable and must be appraised by every student of the word, it is the definition of a book-of-Proverbs fool to ignore our elders' teaching and instruction.

Agreed, if they are teaching truth. But what bugs me about a lot of these guys is what I consider, if not outright dishonesty, at least misleading tactics. That is, quoting Scripture passages, then running away from their content, going beyond the content, yet with no 'marker,' no disclaimer, no separation of their own opinions from Scripture. THAT I find offensive. I could give you fifty examples from the articles linked to on this thread.

These teachers, of course, have a duty to preach the scriptures and bring the student to an understanding of why they see what they see, so that he may discern for himself what the scripture teaches and if the teacher is correct, and the great abuse of the teaching role in some churches has lead to the shunning of theologians in many circles, for many see them as pontificating what shall be believed, instead of teaching the word of truth, but the failures of the teachers does not justify the rejection of the Biblical duty and spiritual gift of teacher.

And I believe that some have the calling of sorting through teachings and distinguishing Scripture from statements of opinion or error. I don't see that as my personal calling. I want to stick with the infallible Word of God. But I covet peer review, and have frequently made the appeal to rip my work product apart. I welcome it in the cause of finding truth.

Dave

 

[heymikey80]

Now, I took a few minutes to scan one of the articles you linked to. But once again, I find the same mixture of rhetoric, a small amount of exegesis but not truly exegesis, more in the nature of rhetoric, pertaining to certain Scriptures. It really is rhetoric. It is not pure exegesis. This is why I do not wish to study such things.

I don't see that distinction. Murray essentially isolates words and then deals with their possible range of meanings in the text. That is, there must be a meaning the writer wanted to convey: what is it? He's then working with those concepts as general themes throughout Scripture (that "comparing Scripture with Scripture" part of your list of approved exegeses), and hitting on that as well.

Yes, there's a range limitation that he's working within. I'd daresay a range limitation is delineated by everyone on the board. You're expressing a certain advocacy, for instance. Considering that outline to be rhetoric doesn't deal with the basic issue.

Ultimately any systematizing of different writers has something of a challenge; it's a rather serious confrontation to exegesis. Because the concepts, terms, and usage of different persons may not be the same -- not unless they've already adopted a systematic terminology. How big was that terminology by Paul's death? I'm unsure. I would probably accede that beyond a half-dozen words, the commentary over any systematic treatment would be all rhetorical, by this definition.

 

[archierieus]

I assume that we will get to the passages at hand at some point.

Yes, very good. As for regeneration, that is being born again from our passages mentioned, perhaps the next step is to identify what precedes that event and what flows from it. I would like to give some thought to how to proceed. I believe it was benefactor who posted a number of Bible verses which appear to show the role and place of repentance. If we are connecting being born again, regeneration with baptism, then where does repentance fit it? Perhaps that is a next step.

Dave

 

[archierieus]

I don't see that distinction.

Let me give an example. Take 'world,' a word Murray addresses. Here is an approach I would be comfortable with:

1) Identify the origin/etymology of the word;
2) Chart the evolution of its meaning over the course of time, and the range of meanings;
3) Describe its application in, for example, inter-testamental times, in the Johannine writings particularly;
4) List every occurrence of the word in the Johannine writings;
5) Show textual evidence to support its range of meanings in his writings;
6) Identify grammatical issues for the Jn. 3:16 occurrence;
7) Show how the immediate context should influence our understanding of that specific occurrence, and why.

Etc.

Stick with the data in doing the study.

 

[heymikey80]

Here is what I mean by 'regeneration':


John 3:3 - 6

Greek is γεννηθῇ ἄνωθεν verb, aorist passive subjunctive 3rd pers. sing.

I note a couple of points of interest about this. Grammatically, it is aorist, that is punctiliar. Also, in terms of word definitions apparently the Jewish understanding of gennhth anwthen was conversion, hence 'born again' pertains to conversion.

Paul's reference to regeneration is as follows:


Titus 3:4 - 6

Gr. λουτροῦ παλιγγενεσίας n., genitive singular feminine, new birth.

Paul refers to the new birth, and that of or by water and the renewal of the Holy Spirit ἀνακαινώσεως πνεύματος ἁγίου (gen. sing. fem.)

Looks to this student like a match-up. Jesus spoke in Jn. 3 of the new birth by water and the Spirit. Paul speaks in Titus 3 of the new birth by water and the renewal of the Holy Spirit. Preliminarily, it appears reasonable IMO that the new birth mentioned by Paul is the same as the new birth described by Jesus.

That would be a starting place with respect to 'regeneration.'

Dave

I assume you meant this posting in your reference to your presentation?

The words for water aren't the same; the words for regeneration aren't the same. What's the exegetical basis for concluding Titus 3 is referring to the same concept as John 3?

Presence of water and renewal or cleansing appears in other Scriptures as well, which don't particularly relate to the idea of New Birth. I think that's due to a general association of Baptism with cleansing, so I'm not sure Titus can be associated this way.

I'm also not sure it matters much for either side. I've seen Titus 3 used in some Calvinistic views, and not used in others.

"Regeneration" is quite a broad term in its few places in Scripture. Regeneration is used for new-life events, sure, from possibly speaking about New Birth, to speaking about Spiritual preparation, to (Scripture's term of) sanctification, to resurrection. So one might accidentally neglect the breadth of this term in Titus 3, and introduce points that couldn't be sustained if the term were directly identified with a punctual event in another text.

So the footprint of Scriptural "regeneration" is wider to me than represented here.

 

[Hammster]

Yes, very good. As for regeneration, that is being born again from our passages mentioned, perhaps the next step is to identify what precedes that event and what flows from it. I would like to give some thought to how to proceed. I believe it was benefactor who posted a number of Bible verses which appear to show the role and place of repentance. If we are connecting being born again, regeneration with baptism, then where does repentance fit it? Perhaps that is a next step.



Dave

Given my past remarks, this may seem like a slam, but it is a serious question.

Why don't you know what you believe? It would seem to me from observing your intelligence, and the way you bolted onto this thread proclaiming the Death of Calvinism, that you would have those figured out.

On one post you listed all of the passages that we use that you would show do not support our views. And in the same post you listed passages that would support your view. Yet, here we are on regeneration and you still need to think it over. It would seem to me, who has only been saved for 13 years, and a Calvinist for just a few months, that after 40 years you would be able to present a case fairly easy.

So from my vantage point, it seems like we are getting played.

I am confident that you will be able to clear up the apparent disconnect between what you say and what you actually do.

 

[archierieus]

I assume you meant this posting in your reference to your presentation?

The words for water aren't the same; the words for regeneration aren't the same. What's the exegetical basis for concluding Titus 3 is referring to the same concept as John 3?

Yes, I recognized the differences. My conclusion was preliminary. At this point, the possibility of a match-up appeared from the general meaning of the word translated regeneration in Titus 3, which again means generally new birth, it is a form of gennaw; secondly, the reference to washing, which while a different word still is a reference to washing, water; thirdly, reference to the renewing (regeneration) by the Holy Spirit, while Jn. 3 speaks of the renewing (born again) of the Holy Spirit.

So on a preliminary basis, a match-up appears. What would need to be done without a doubt is more in-depth study to determine if there is a significant difference in meaning or application between the word regeneration in Titus and born anew in John, between washing or water in Titus and water in John, and so forth. And that is where peer review can be helpful. If the tentative conclusion is disputed, then by all means provide the data.

Presence of water and renewal or cleansing appears in other Scriptures as well, which don't particularly relate to the idea of New Birth.

Except that 'new birth' is the meaning or within the range of meanings for the Gk. for regeneration in Titus.

"Regeneration" is quite a broad term in its few places in Scripture. Regeneration is used for all sorts of new-life events, from possibly speaking about New Birth, to speaking about Spiritual preparation, to (Scripture's term of) sanctification, to resurrection. So one might accidentally neglect the breadth of this term in Titus 3, and introduce points that couldn't be sustained if the term were directly identified with a punctual event in another text.

But new birth is a punctual event, and regeneration as it appears in Titus 3, new birth, is a punctual event. (although it is a noun in Titus)

Dave

 

[archierieus]

Why don't you know what you believe? . . . Yet, here we are on regeneration and you still need to think it over. It would seem to me, who has only been saved for 13 years, and a Calvinist for just a few months, that after 40 years you would be able to present a case fairly easy.

So from my vantage point, it seems like we are getting played.

I am confident that you will be able to clear up the apparent disconnect between what you say and what you actually do.

Knowing what I believe personally, and doing a serious, credible Scripture study may be two different things. I can easily summarize what I believe. But the goal here is to see what the evidence supports, and I really do want to be clinical about this, to let the evidence speak.

Dave

 

[heymikey80]

I think that it would be good to first establish where in the Bible Scripture clearly teaches that Regeneration is prerequisite to repentance.

Absolutely.

Done.

So far all I can find is one must believe to be regenerated but perhaps I missed something.

Agreed.

Awaited.

 

[archierieus]

Done.

So far, in this discussion at least, regeneration has been discussed. There has not yet been a study of the connection or sequence of repentance/regeneration. What are you referring to when you say, 'done'?

 

[heymikey80]

Yes, I recognized the differences. My conclusion was preliminary. At this point, the possibility of a match-up appeared from the general meaning of the word translated regeneration in Titus 3, which again means generally new birth, it is a form of gennaw; secondly, the reference to washing, which while a different word still is a reference to washing, water; thirdly, reference to the renewing (regeneration) by the Holy Spirit, while Jn. 3 speaks of the renewing (born again) of the Holy Spirit.

As pointed out, you're working with a palin prefix, though, which does talk in different terms from what John / Jesus used. The root itself makes for some semantic problems in Greek, that it becomes hard to tell the difference between "birth" and "genetic kind" in Greek at this point.

So the term may well be an "already/not yet" term, connected with Jesus' use of the term "eternal life" to carry through both the present life and into the Resurrection. But Titus 3 as a punctiliar past operation wouldn't argue well for that meaning, either.

It then comes down to a special use of a term, which wouldn't apply elsewhere in Scripture. It's probably unlikely that "regeneration" would appear outside religious texts too. Maybe myths? I'm unsure where else its breadth could be measured.

So on a preliminary basis, a match-up appears. What would need to be done without a doubt is more in-depth study to determine if there is a significant difference in meaning or application between the word regeneration in Titus and born anew in John, between washing or water in Titus and water in John, and so forth. And that is where peer review can be helpful. If the tentative conclusion is disputed, then by all means provide the data.

The term itself is very broad. A word survey would produce that result.

Except that 'new birth' is the meaning or within the range of meanings for the Gk. for regeneration in Titus.

Its use in Mt 19:28 would point out it's not going to be a small enough footprint of meaning to sustain a case for precedence. If regeneration can be entirely future and entirely past, we're not going to get any strong conclusions for time precedence from this word.

But new birth is a punctual event, and regeneration as it appears in Titus 3, new birth, is a punctual event. (although it is a noun in Titus)

Well, I'd agree it's past, without reference to how long it took. I'd say it's sustained that the regeneration was completed, yes (though some would dispute even that, I think usage at this point handles that pretty well by default). But as Mt 19 also states, a regeneration is future.