Calvinism Refuted

[the particular baptist]

It was actually cited there. Was that your mistake? Is there no response to my response? So you haven't answered the posting -- there's no posting after it.

I point out again John's comprehensive assessment of the New Birth as being the source of each attribute he discusses. It's clear this hasn't been responded to. 1 John's pervasive on this point. There's no reason to consider 1 John 5:1 an exception -- certainly a habit that really, as we'll see, doesn't exist. But let's take the tiers one at a time as to why this isn't a reasoned argument.

John's not in a habit about talking in one tense to the point of making false statements. John knows Greek. If everything you said about John's habit were true, he'd still be using grammar to come up with a false statement. Greek grammar is being contradicted to make this kind of argument.

But I'll continue. I'll extend this argument, because it deserves extending.

This is dismissive of what John is saying. To conclude this is a habit, and not a fact, doesn't make a whole lot of sense actually. You'd have to conclude John's temporal (or ontological) grammar doesn't reflect the exact facts he's trying to establish and communicate. In other words, what John's primary focus is -- this argument dismisses as not the case.

It dismisses the exact thrust of John's assertion. Someone who is believing in Jesus has already been born of God, and you see the continuing effect of New Birth appearing in the continuing participle of "believing". The whole idea of this being John's habitual statement is actually based on the fact that John is pervasively talking about New Birth as the past continuing cause of believing -- the participle indicates what's continuing, the verb indicates something is continuing after New Birth.

Slip this knot, and John's sentence ends up meaning nothing at all, actually. In concluding against this verse, the assertion must be made that belief is not related to New Birth as a source or really as anything else. Belief doesn't cause New Birth in non-Calvinist theology. The relationship isn't merely deprecated. It's not true in nearly any sense. Not until New Birth is restored as a source of believing.

The "habitual" use of continuing tense for "belief" doesn't even hold up. In fact it doesn't hold up under even light scrutiny. The use of "belief" as purely continuous is actually not the case in 1 John 3:23, 4:1, 4:16. John isn't obsessed with this construction. So dismissing John's temporal grammar on the basis of some habit doesn't carry.

Finally, even if you were to force this habit argument, John's habit of basing each attribute on the New Birth is completely pervasive. To assert a non-pervasive habit prevails over a pervasive habit, that would be inconsistent: to conclude against the grammar and the habits of John.

As a result, it is not credible to assert that John's using Greek grammar poorly, and assert that this is taking "the text exactly as it reads, without any agenda." The fact is, taking the grammar "just as it reads", believing Jesus is the Christ cannot have occurred before New Birth.

• John's major point is that the two are related.
• John's grammar puts New Birth in precedence. Say it's logical -- then believing is dependent on it, and can't have preceded it temporally. Say it's temporal: then believing isn't prior to it in time.

The point is carried. 1 John 5:1 is thus assessed to the Calvinistic side on basis of grammar and John's habit of declaring New Birth the precedent for each personal attribute he relates to it.

Im bumping this

 

[archierieus]

1 John 5:1 is thus assessed to the Calvinistic side on basis of grammar and John's habit of declaring New Birth the precedent for each personal attribute he relates to it.

Your exposition of 1 Jn. 5:1 is assessed to the Calvinistic side. I carefully read your post. You have added a number of your own assertions, and presented them as fact. And, in doing so you have both gone beyond the text and contradicted the text as it reads. Later this evening, I plan to go through your post item by item and point out the specifics.

 

[archierieus]

You citing your ideas is still your ideas, rhetoric, and its no different than citing 1 Esdras either. There is one difference, I'll take John Gill over your understanding of scripture.

Gill really didn't get much into Greek grammar in the selections which I have seen quoted. He was perhaps a homiletic commentator. But it is not what John Gill says, or what I say, but what the text says that counts. It is not the homiletic commentary or opinions, but the text as it reads. Now, as to the text as it reads, do you have credible textual evidence (not commentaries) to dispute what this student presented?

 

[archierieus]

This is your take on the passage, however, John Owen wins.

Incorrect. It is not 'my take' on the passage, it is the text as it reads. Do you have credible textual evidence from the passage (not commentaries) to refute what has been presented? If so, please post it.

 

[archierieus]

I know this is not talking about an army, but the word is used in that same way, and it derives its meaning from that concept.

That is apparently the origin of the word, however, the meaning of a word is modified both by time, custom and application.

The same word is translated as "ordain", with the same intent of meaning.

A number of words fall within the semantic range. 'The same intent of meaning' is a different issue, and would ned to be confirmed by careful study.

When God ordains something, He arranges circumstances and events so that what He ordains will come to pass. It is clear that the ordination to eternal life which those who believed experienced was not from themselves, by themselves, but was from another,

Couple of problems with that. First, the passage does not state it. You are making an assumption here. Second, it is a perfect participle, which points to an ongoing action. That is in HUGE distinction to an aorist, which points to action in the past. Their belief is stated as aorist. The arranging for eternal life is stated as a perfect, that is, ongoing, in process.

and the obvious conclusion is it was God who ordained them to eternal life, their belief being a result of that ordination, not the cause of it. It stands to reason that ordination by God precedes the event which is ordained.

Incorrect on two counts. The passage does not state details of the 'arranging,' beyond tying it to their belief in Jesus. Second, 'precedes' is incorrect based on the grammar. It says that as many as believed were being set in order for eternal life. And that is exactly what it says, in that word order.

 

[archierieus]

I see you explaining away many passages so that elect doesnt really mean elect, ordained doesnt mean ordained, beforehand prepared doesnt mean that, will and draw ect... So you saying faithfulness to the text as it reads is a bit of an oxymoron.

You see this student making an extremely serious effort to be faithful to the text as it reads. Being faithful to the text may mean that ideas or ideologies ABOUT the text may be shown to be inaccurate. If that is the case, then the sincere seeker for truth should be willing to conform or adjust his or her ideology into harmony with the text as it reads. Now, if you have *credible* textual evidence to present which disputes the textual analysis offered above by this student, then by all means post it for review.

I dont think anyone can say that their thoughts or reflections on scripture are purely their own. Everyone has presuppositions and operating assumptions inevitably derived from those presuppositions. There is nothing new under the sun.

Without a doubt, that would apply to everyone participating in a discussion like this. Wouldn't you agree? So that one purpose of such a discussion is to separate the presuppositions from Bible truth.

There is great temptation to act out in the flesh and use words to injure and maim, and thank God for His Spirit being there to rein in our flesh, but dont you think at times that somewhat aggressive communication is warranted, when orthodoxy is dismissed and folks repeatedly intentionaly mis-represent the others position, and say that Calvinists are in no way saved people ? I am not talking about you but it has been going on in the last few threads discussing Calvinism.

Well, I have been on the receiving end too many times. Personally, I make a real effort to stay civil and keep on topic. It takes two to tangle. I do believe that courtesy and mutual respect are crucial, and need to be adhered to. And I would never say that adherents of a religion are not saved people, because there is no way I could possibly read their hearts. Only God knows.

 

[heymikey80]

Your exposition of 1 Jn. 5:1 is assessed to the Calvinistic side. I carefully read your post. You have added a number of your own assertions, and presented them as fact. And, in doing so you have both gone beyond the text and contradicted the text as it reads. Later this evening, I plan to go through your post item by item and point out the specifics.

I expect a healthy recognition of the level of argument I'm responding to. If the earlier posts made a similar level of argument, then criticizing my level of response would simply be criticizing the argument it's responding to ... and depriving the whole thread of force. Such an argument would tear back both arguments -- not simply mine. It'd go back to the basic grammar. And back to its inevitable precedential tenor.

The grammar makes New Birth the precedent.

In any event I thought it'd be interesting to look at some of the new assertions I've made.

I point out again John's comprehensive assessment of the New Birth as being the source of each attribute he discusses.
​

I would expect any anti-Calvinist view is forced to consider this an "assertion" and try to debase it. It stands -- because there's no example where it doesn't stand, and the argument's being profferred by the prior posting that obsessive thrusts override even grammar. If John is being obsessive, he's being obsessive on this thrust of his own argument. It's far better supported than the idea that John's obsessively talking about "believing" in continuing tense. Why? Because John's not as obsessive about "believing" in continuing tense.

Someone who is believing in Jesus has already been born of God, and you see the continuing effect of New Birth appearing in the continuing participle of "believing".
​

I'm sure this could be argued. But it's pretty clear t'me that a perfect tense verb -- a continuing-effect verb -- would simply expect a single continuing tense participle as the continuing effect referred. That's not simply "my own assertion" -- that's what happens in normal sentence construction.

That's a semantic argument, and may not carry. But it's far more plausible than thinking John habitually falls into using bad grammar for "believing".

• John's major point is that the two are related.
• John's grammar puts New Birth in precedence. Say it's logical -- then believing is dependent on it, and can't have preceded it temporally. Say it's temporal: then believing isn't prior to it in time.

On these points, they're exegeted directly from the grammar and context. So an argument, preferably one not claiming John's misuse of grammar, would be interesting to read. Because an argument against John's clear use of grammar, doesn't make an argument "on the text as it reads". It actually makes an argument against the text as it reads.

 

[cygnusx1]

??? If you are referring to Jn. 6, that has been discussed on this and anothr thread, and direct answers shown in the passage.

I am referring to my direct questions which have been skipped .......... like those old vinyl records !

Originally Posted by cygnusx1

why do the none Calvinists ignore the first part of this text ?

John 6:44 - No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day.
​

Originally Posted by archierieus

This verse has been reviewed and discussed in quite some depth very recently on another thread, in fact on more than one thread. The first part of the verse presents no difficulty for those whose orientation is not Calvinist. ........
​

how is that ?

why the difficulty coming to Christ ?

what possible reason beyond mans TD can be given for the impossibility of coming to Christ unless God uses power ?

where does that leave the none Calvinists "free-will" defense argument ?

 

[archierieus]

I am referring to my direct questions which have been skipped .......... like those old vinyl records !

Originally Posted by cygnusx1

why do the none Calvinists ignore the first part of this text ?

John 6:44 - No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day.

​

Originally Posted by archierieus

This verse has been reviewed and discussed in quite some depth very recently on another thread, in fact on more than one thread. The first part of the verse presents no difficulty for those whose orientation is not Calvinist. ........

​

how is that ?

why the difficulty coming to Christ ?

what possible reason beyond mans TD can be given for the impossibility of coming to Christ unless God uses power ?

where does that leave the none Calvinists "free-will" defense argument ?

This student has responded directly to your final question, because of the perception that there may be a misunderstanding about the term 'free-will.' That was addressed in the response. That clarification should render the other questions as moot.

 

[Hammster]

You see this student making an extremely serious effort to be faithful to the text as it reads. Being faithful to the text may mean that ideas or ideologies ABOUT the text may be shown to be inaccurate. If that is the case, then the sincere seeker for truth should be willing to conform or adjust his or her ideology into harmony with the text as it reads. Now, if you have *credible* textual evidence to present which disputes the textual analysis offered above by this student, then by all means post it for review.







Without a doubt, that would apply to everyone participating in a discussion like this. Wouldn't you agree? So that one purpose of such a discussion is to separate the presuppositions from Bible truth.







Well, I have been on the receiving end too many times. Personally, I make a real effort to stay civil and keep on topic. It takes two to tangle. I do believe that courtesy and mutual respect are crucial, and need to be adhered to. And I would never say that adherents of a religion are not saved people, because there is no way I could possibly read their hearts. Only God knows.

Are you saying that Calvinists are students and sincere seekers? That seems awfully personal and off subject.

BTW, it was sincere seeking and being a student that led me away from false theology and led me to the truth of the doctrines of grace. Maybe more people should try it.

 

[cygnusx1]

This student has responded directly to your final question, because of the perception that there may be a misunderstanding about the term 'free-will.' That was addressed in the response. That clarification should render the other questions as moot.

you haven't even begun to answer my question .... you have skipped it with an answer related to bringing one to Christ ... the difficulty , the impossibility of coming to Christ without HIS drawing power is skipped ... if you have no answers then one can only assume you have no altenative but to keep skipping and avoiding the direct questions.


why the difficulty of the sinner to come to Christ ?

 

[cygnusx1]

why do the none Calvinists ignore the first part of this text ?

John 6:44 - No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day.

 

[cygnusx1]

this thread needs retitling ; ' arguments from Calvinism avoided '


gotta dash out the door .... I' may be back

 

[archierieus]

the difficulty , the impossibility of coming to Christ without HIS drawing power is skipped

Not by this student's intention. It is addressed in the response, as well as earlier in the thread.

 

[archierieus]

Actually, I see a good bit of common ground. Indeed, it is God Who awakens the spiritual interest, Who enlightens, AND Who draws the sinner to Jesus, Who extends the gospel invitation and strenghtens the will to accept it. Where we seem to part company is this student's understanding of Scripture that God so awakens, enlightens and draws EVERYONE, extends the gospel invitation to all, strengthens the will of each one to accept it, and that Christ gave His life for all. Although, it wouldn't seem like accepting that should be such a problem. It is plainly taught in Scripture. The other area of parting company is the understanding that while God does this for all, not all are willing to accept the gospel invitation. Each person chooses whether or not to do so and, in so doing, is using the power of reason and choice which God created him with.

 

[heymikey80]

Actually, I see a good bit of common ground. Indeed, it is God Who awakens the spiritual interest, Who enlightens, AND Who draws the sinner to Jesus, Who extends the gospel invitation and strenghtens the will to accept it. Where we seem to part company is this student's understanding of Scripture that God so awakens, enlightens and draws EVERYONE, extends the gospel invitation to all, strengthens the will of each one to accept it, and that Christ gave His life for all. Actually, it wouldn't seem like accepting that should be such a problem. It is plainly taught in Scripture. The other area of parting company is the understanding that while God does this for all, not all are willing to accept the gospel invitation. Each person chooses whether or not to do so and, in so doing, is using the power of reason and choice which God created him with.

I appreciate the distinction. This is moving on from the precedence of New Birth to the effectiveness of New Birth, and whether Scripture really talks about a whole process of Illumination separate from New Birth that brings someone to belief.

On what Scriptural basis would you assert that EVERYONE is drawn, and how would that be consistent with what Jesus is saying in John 6?

John 6:35-37, 42-44 "I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst. 36But I said to you that you have seen me and yet do not believe. 37 All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out."
...
They said, "Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How does he now say, 'I have come down from heaven'?" 43Jesus answered them, "Do not grumble among yourselves. 44No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day."
​

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

why do the none Calvinists ignore the first part of this text ?

John 6:44 - No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day.

John 6:44 No-one is able to be coming toward Me except the Father, the One sending Me, should be drawing him and I shall be standing-up/ana-sthsw <450> (5692) him in the last day.

Textus Rec.) John 6:44 oudeiV dunatai elqein proV me ean mh o pathr o pemyaV me elkush auton kai egw anasthsw auton th escath hmera

1 Thessalonians 4:16 That Himself, the Lord, in a shout-of-command in voice of Chief-Messenger and in trump of God, shall be descending from heaven and the dead-ones in Christ shall be ressurecting/rising-up/ana-sthsontai <450> (5698) First

450. anistemi an-is'-tay-mee from 303 and 2476; to stand up (literal or figurative, transitive or intransitive):--arise, lift up, raise up (again), rise (again), stand up(-right).
303. ana an-ah' a primary preposition and adverb; properly, up; but
2476. histemi his'-tay-mee a prolonged form of a primary stao stah'-o (of the same meaning, and used for it in certain tenses); to stand (transitively or intransitively),

 

[archierieus]

I appreciate the distinction. This is moving on from the precedence of New Birth to the effectiveness of New Birth, and whether Scripture really talks about a whole process of Illumination separate from New Birth that brings someone to belief.

Agreed. I understand the 'new birth' to take place at conversion, and involving repentance from sins and renouncing a sinful life, and accepting Jesus as Savior. The 'Illumination' as you call it, and I think that is an appropriate term here, would precede the New Birth. Jn. 1, the true Light enlightens every person coming into the world. That enlightenment is from God. It is the initial step leading to conversion. The time from that initial illumination to the New Birth I would compare to gestation in physical birth. Just as in physical birth, there doesn't suddenly pop out a baby without a pregnancy first, so in Spiritual rebirth there is enlightenment or illumination, which ultimately leads to being born again.

On what Scriptural basis would you assert that EVERYONE is drawn, and how would that be consistent with what Jesus is saying in John 6?

John 6:35-37, 42-44 "I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst. 36But I said to you that you have seen me and yet do not believe. 37 All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out."
...
They said, "Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How does he now say, 'I have come down from heaven'?" 43Jesus answered them, "Do not grumble among yourselves. 44No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day."
​

That passage has been addressed in some detail earlier, as well, I think as on the Return of Calvinism thread. Did you have a chance to review those discussions?

 

[Charis kai Dunamis]

Just as in physical birth, there doesn't suddenly pop out a baby without a pregnancy first, so in Spiritual rebirth there is enlightenment or illumination, which ultimately leads to being born again.

"But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised."

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

"But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised."

The natural man also tends to distort the Sacred Scriptures sometimes

2 Peter 3:16 As also in all the Letters/epistolaiV <1992> speaking in them about these-things in which is difficult to understand who-any which the un-learned and un-steadfast are wresting/twisting as also the rest of Writingstoward the own of them destruction/apwleian <684>. [this form of # 684 used reve 17:8, 11]