Calvinism Refuted

[heymikey80]

But it is not. It is descriptive rather than precedental.

There'd be no tense change then, the indefinite tense would be expected (e.g., 1 Pt 1:3). But actually the perfect tense is used, and it's normally used by the writer with a distinct expectation for what it means.

The one who believes is born of God. That is, being born of God means you are a believer in Jesus as Messiah. If you are truly born of God you will be a believer in Jesus. The emphasis is on believing in Jesus as Messiah, which was at issue when John was writing.

No, the emphasis is on the source of righteous action, love, faith, overcoming. The emphasis isn't on belief. Believing isn't even mentioned 'til the letter's half over.

The point John is making is the source:

If you know that he is righteous, you may be sure that everyone who practices righteousness has been born of him. 1 John 2:29

No one born of God makes a practice of sinning, for God’s seed abides in him, and he cannot keep on sinning because he has been born of God. 1 John 3:9

In this the children of God and the children of the devil are manifest: Whoever does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor is he who does not love his brother. 1 John 3:10

Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits, whether they are of God; because many false prophets have gone out into the world. 1 John 4:1

Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God, and whoever loves has been born of God and knows God. 1 John 4:7

of Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ has been bornGod, and everyone who loves the Father loves whoever has been born of him. 1 John 5:1

For everyone who has been born of God overcomes the world. 1 John 5:4

We know that everyone who has been born of God does not keep on sinning, but he who was born of God protects him, and the evil one does not touch him. 1 John 5:18
​

If this weren't the source, John's point would be lost.

 

[the particular baptist]

Reps to Mickey

 

[archierieus]

There'd be no tense change then, the indefinite tense would be expected (e.g., 1 Pt 1:3). But actually the perfect tense is used, and it's normally used by the writer with a distinct expectation for what it means.

Tense change would be neither here nor there in this case. Two different actions are described. As for the writer's expectation, that may be where the issue arises. The writer is addressing a specific concern, but different than the one you seem to be emphasizing. John is dealing with a heresy. He is not giving an exposition about the chronology of belief in Jesus and being born of God. That may be found elsewhere in Scripture, however.

No, the emphasis is on the source of righteous action, love, faith, overcoming. The emphasis isn't on belief. Believing isn't even mentioned 'til the letter's half over.

Different issue. In ch. 5, John is specifically addressing a heresy which had crept into the church of his day. John's letter deals with quite a variety of issues.

If this weren't the source, John's point would be lost.

Different point. John is dealing with a heresy in ch. 5.

 

[Hammster]

Romans 8:32 He who did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all, how will he not also with him graciously give us all things?


This is listed as a proof text in the OP, and recently reposted by Mr. Pate. I just picked one at random, and may do some more, to try to demonstrate that this isn't a proof text to refute Calvinism, but does the opposite.

One thing that I have noticed, and have pointed out time and time again (along with others) is that the anti-Calvinists routinely use single verses pulled out of context to make their points. And usually without any exposition. They think that the verses stand on their own. Too bad that most can't seem to see these things in context.

Mr. Pate (and any who do not disagree with the OP) obviously think that this verse is stating that since God did not spare His own Son, He will give us all things. I am not exactly sure what "all" things Mr. Pate seems to think that we will all receive, but apparently that isn't important.

But, like another poster on here, he seems to have trouble looking at the whole verse, and can only see half of it. He has highlighted "us all" in the OP and cannot go any further than that.

So, to take this to its logical conclusion, God is for everybody, because in v. 31, Paul says "What then shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who can be against us? " So nobody can be against anybody because God is for every single person on the earth.

And I have no idea how Mr. Pate would place v. 33 in with it?

Who shall bring any charge against God's elect? It is God who justifies.

And all of this tails the part of the chapter which we still are waiting some kind of response to, which is verses 29 and 30. Maybe I should repost them since they must not be in everybody's bible.

Rom 8:29 For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers.
Rom 8:30 And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified.

And, just so that everything is in context, here is some more.


Rom 8:28 And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose.
Rom 8:29 For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers.
Rom 8:30 And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified.
Rom 8:31 What then shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who can be against us?
Rom 8:32 He who did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all, how will he not also with him graciously give us all things?
Rom 8:33 Who shall bring any charge against God's elect? It is God who justifies.

 

[&Abel]

Deuteronomy 30

15"See, (S)I have set before you today life and prosperity, and death and adversity; 16in that I command you today (T)to love the LORD your God, to walk in His ways and to keep His commandments and His statutes and His judgments, that you (U)may live and multiply, and that the LORD your God may bless you in the land where you are entering to possess it.
17"But if your heart turns away and you will not obey, but are drawn away and worship other gods and serve them,
18I declare to you today that (V)you shall surely perish. You will not prolong your days in the land where you are crossing the Jordan to enter and possess it.
19"(W)I call heaven and earth to witness against you today, that I have set before you life and death, (X)the blessing and the curse. So choose life in order that you may live, you and your descendants,
20(Y)by loving the LORD your God, by obeying His voice, and (Z)by holding fast to Him; (AA)for this is your life and the length of your days, that you may live in (AB)the land which the LORD swore to your fathers, to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, to give them."

 

[&Abel]

Romans 8:32 He who did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all, how will he not also with him graciously give us all things?


This is listed as a proof text in the OP, and recently reposted by Mr. Pate. I just picked one at random, and may do some more, to try to demonstrate that this isn't a proof text to refute Calvinism, but does the opposite.

One thing that I have noticed, and have pointed out time and time again (along with others) is that the anti-Calvinists routinely use single verses pulled out of context to make their points. And usually without any exposition. They think that the verses stand on their own. Too bad that most can't seem to see these things in context.

Mr. Pate (and any who do not disagree with the OP) obviously think that this verse is stating that since God did not spare His own Son, He will give us all things. I am not exactly sure what "all" things Mr. Pate seems to think that we will all receive, but apparently that isn't important.

But, like another poster on here, he seems to have trouble looking at the whole verse, and can only see half of it. He has highlighted "us all" in the OP and cannot go any further than that.

So, to take this to its logical conclusion, God is for everybody, because in v. 31, Paul says "What then shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who can be against us? " So nobody can be against anybody because God is for every single person on the earth.

And I have no idea how Mr. Pate would place v. 33 in with it?

Who shall bring any charge against God's elect? It is God who justifies.

And all of this tails the part of the chapter which we still are waiting some kind of response to, which is verses 29 and 30. Maybe I should repost them since they must not be in everybody's bible.

Rom 8:29 For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers.
Rom 8:30 And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified.

And, just so that everything is in context, here is some more.


Rom 8:28 And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose.
Rom 8:29 For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers.
Rom 8:30 And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified.
Rom 8:31 What then shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who can be against us?
Rom 8:32 He who did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all, how will he not also with him graciously give us all things?
Rom 8:33 Who shall bring any charge against God's elect? It is God who justifies.

1 Peter 1

1(A)Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who reside as (B)aliens, (C)scattered throughout (D)Pontus, (E)Galatia, (F)Cappadocia, (G)Asia, and (H)Bithynia, (I)who are chosen 2according to the (J)foreknowledge of God the Father, (K)by the sanctifying work of the Spirit, to (L)obey Jesus Christ and be (M)sprinkled with His blood: (N)May grace and peace be yours in the fullest measure.


Romans 11


2God (D)has not rejected His people whom He (E)foreknew (F)Or do you not know what the Scripture says in the passage about Elijah, how he pleads with God against Israel?

Romans 8

29For those whom He (BI)foreknew, He also (BJ)predestined to become (BK)conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the (BL)firstborn among many brethren;
30and these whom He (BM)predestined, He also (BN)called; and these whom He called, He also (BO)justified; and these whom He justified, He also (BP)glorified.



so what do we have here, we have a call that is based on predestination and predestination that is based on foreknowledge


we also see God talking in a present tense of things that have not yet happened

 

[Hammster]

1 Peter 1

1(A)Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who reside as (B)aliens, (C)scattered throughout (D)Pontus, (E)Galatia, (F)Cappadocia, (G)Asia, and (H)Bithynia, (I)who are chosen 2according to the (J)foreknowledge of God the Father, (K)by the sanctifying work of the Spirit, to (L)obey Jesus Christ and be (M)sprinkled with His blood: (N)May grace and peace be yours in the fullest measure.


Romans 11


2God (D)has not rejected His people whom He (E)foreknew (F)Or do you not know what the Scripture says in the passage about Elijah, how he pleads with God against Israel?

Romans 8

29For those whom He (BI)foreknew, He also (BJ)predestined to become (BK)conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the (BL)firstborn among many brethren;
30and these whom He (BM)predestined, He also (BN)called; and these whom He called, He also (BO)justified; and these whom He justified, He also (BP)glorified.



so what do we have here, we have a call that is based on predestination and predestination that is based on foreknowledge


we also see God talking in a present tense of things that have not yet happened

Once again, I am sure that you have a point somewhere.

 

[&Abel]

1 Peter 1

19but with precious (BM)blood, as of a (BN)lamb unblemished and spotless, the blood of Christ.
20For He was (BO)foreknown before (BP)the foundation of the world, but has (BQ)appeared in these last times (BR)for the sake of you
21who through Him are (BS)believers in God, who raised Him from the dead and (BT)gave Him glory, so that your faith and (BU)hope are in God.
22Since you have (BV)in obedience to the truth (BW)purified your souls for a (BX)sincere love of the brethren, fervently love one another from [b]the heart,
23for you have been (BY)born again (BZ)not of seed which is perishable but imperishable, that is, through the living and enduring (CA)word of God.

 

[&Abel]

Acts 2

22"Men of Israel, listen to these words: (W)Jesus the Nazarene, (X)a man attested to you by God with miracles and (Y)wonders and signs which God performed through Him in your midst, just as you yourselves know--
23this Man, delivered over by the (Z)predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God, (AA)you nailed to a cross by the hands of godless men and put Him to death.
24"But (AB)God raised Him up again, putting an end to the agony of death, since it (AC)was impossible for Him to be held in its power.

 

[PETE_]

Acts 2

22"Men of Israel, listen to these words: (W)Jesus the Nazarene, (X)a man attested to you by God with miracles and (Y)wonders and signs which God performed through Him in your midst, just as you yourselves know--
23this Man, delivered over by the (Z)predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God, (AA)you nailed to a cross by the hands of godless men and put Him to death.
24"But (AB)God raised Him up again, putting an end to the agony of death, since it (AC)was impossible for Him to be held in its power.

Foreknowledge is the translation of prognosis (προγνοσις) (the noun) (Acts 2:23; I Pet. 1:2). Proginoskō (Προγινοσκω), the verb, is translated foreknow (Rom. 8:29), foreknew (Rom. 11:2), and foreordained (I Pet. 1:20). Proginoskō (Προγινοσκω) in classical Greek meant “to know, perceive, learn, or understand beforehand.” It implied a previous knowledge of a thing. It is used in its purely classical sense in Acts 26:5 and II Peter 3:17. But both prognosis (προγνοσις) and proginoskō (προγινοσκω) in other places in the New Testament have by their use in relationship to God, acquired an additional content of meaning.
The first occurrence of either one, the usage of which determines the usage of both in other places in the New Testament is in Acts 2:23, where prognosis (προγνοσις) is used. These words, when used of God in the New Testament, signify more than merely the fact of knowing something beforehand. That is a self-evident attribute of the omniscient God. The Bible wastes no space on self-evident facts. The words determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God (Acts 2:23), are in a construction in Greek which shows that the word foreknowledge refers to the same act that the words determinate counsel refer to, and is a farther description of that act. The word counsel refers to the results of a consultation between individuals, the word determinate describing this consultation as one that had for its purpose the fixing of limits upon, thus determining the destiny of someone, here, that of the Lord Jesus. In the councils of the Trinity, it was decided that the Lord Jesus should be given over into the hands of wicked men. The word prognosis (προγνοσις) refers to the same act, and therefore includes in it the idea in the words determinate counsel. It adds, however the idea of the foreordination of the Person whose destiny was decided upon in the council referred to. This word did not have this meaning in classical Greek. It was inevitable that when words of a pagan people were brought over into the New Testament, they often acquired an additional content of meaning by reason of the advanced conceptions of Christianity and its supernatural character. The translators of the Authorized Version used the word foreordained in I Pet. 1:20. The translation should be foreordination in Acts 2:23 and I Pet. 1:2, and foreordained in Rom. 8:29, 11:2.​

http://www.christianforums.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=51364886#_ftn1http://www.christianforums.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=51364886#_ftnref1Wuest, Kenneth S.: Wuest's Word Studies from the Greek New Testament : For the English Reader. Grand Rapids : Eerdmans, 1997, c1984, S. Studies in the Vocabulary of the Greek New Testament: p.34-36

 

[heymikey80]

Tense change would be neither here nor there in this case. Two different actions are described.

It's only neither here nor there in this case so that the conclusion desired, would carry.

The tense is painfully clear. The tense means what it means (time). The tense is against the position.

Splitting the actions in two is a non sequitur -- unless you mean to split believing from being born of God. Then you'd have John not speaking in full sentences.

Thus a violation of grammar. Again.

As for the writer's expectation, that may be where the issue arises. The writer is addressing a specific concern, but different than the one you seem to be emphasizing. John is dealing with a heresy. He is not giving an exposition about the chronology of belief in Jesus and being born of God. That may be found elsewhere in Scripture, however.

John is explaining how to determine who's a heretic and who's not. That's why he's talking so pervasively about how to tell who's been born of God.

Different issue. In ch. 5, John is specifically addressing a heresy which had crept into the church of his day. John's letter deals with quite a variety of issues.

That's quite an assumption, to consider John's letter to be so gerrymandered that he's implicitly addressing a specific heresy, using the exact same terms he's using elsewhere in the book.

At this rate we'll be "dividing the word" down to individual ... words.

No, the idea doesn't hold up in context. That's why the arguments are getting so outlandish. The grammar's against it. The context's against it. The terminology's against it.

Reasonable exegesis is against it.

 

[MamaZ]

The ones of whom Jesus said they are of 'your father the devil' were the spiritual leaders of His chosen people, His elect, refer back to Ex. 19:3 - 8 and to the special calling of the tribe of Levi to minister as priests and oversee His temple.

They were the religious leaders of the time preaching more tradition that truth of scripture making null the word of God. They were hypocrites from the very beginning. Killing the prophets of God and such.. But God through His great Mercy has chosen a remenant of Jewish people that indeed are His. We see those spoken about in the scriptures and even in the tribulation they will be saved.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

They were the religious leaders of the time preaching more tradition that truth of scripture making null the word of God. They were hypocrites from the very beginning. Killing the prophets of God and such.. But God through His great Mercy has chosen a remenant of Jewish people that indeed are His. We see those spoken about in the scriptures and even in the tribulation they will be saved.

I believe that is already passed for the OC Jewish nation.
All the Jews got left now is just to come to Jesus.

 

[&Abel]

Foreknowledge is the translation of prognosis (προγνοσις) (the noun) (Acts 2:23; I Pet. 1:2). Proginoskō (Προγινοσκω), the verb, is translated foreknow (Rom. 8:29), foreknew (Rom. 11:2), and foreordained (I Pet. 1:20). Proginoskō (Προγινοσκω) in classical Greek meant “to know, perceive, learn, or understand beforehand.” It implied a previous knowledge of a thing. It is used in its purely classical sense in Acts 26:5 and II Peter 3:17. But both prognosis (προγνοσις) and proginoskō (προγινοσκω) in other places in the New Testament have by their use in relationship to God, acquired an additional content of meaning.
The first occurrence of either one, the usage of which determines the usage of both in other places in the New Testament is in Acts 2:23, where prognosis (προγνοσις) is used. These words, when used of God in the New Testament, signify more than merely the fact of knowing something beforehand. That is a self-evident attribute of the omniscient God. The Bible wastes no space on self-evident facts. The words determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God (Acts 2:23), are in a construction in Greek which shows that the word foreknowledge refers to the same act that the words determinate counsel refer to, and is a farther description of that act. The word counsel refers to the results of a consultation between individuals, the word determinate describing this consultation as one that had for its purpose the fixing of limits upon, thus determining the destiny of someone, here, that of the Lord Jesus. In the councils of the Trinity, it was decided that the Lord Jesus should be given over into the hands of wicked men. The word prognosis (προγνοσις) refers to the same act, and therefore includes in it the idea in the words determinate counsel. It adds, however the idea of the foreordination of the Person whose destiny was decided upon in the council referred to. This word did not have this meaning in classical Greek. It was inevitable that when words of a pagan people were brought over into the New Testament, they often acquired an additional content of meaning by reason of the advanced conceptions of Christianity and its supernatural character. The translators of the Authorized Version used the word foreordained in I Pet. 1:20. The translation should be foreordination in Acts 2:23 and I Pet. 1:2, and foreordained in Rom. 8:29, 11:2.​

Wuest, Kenneth S.: Wuest's Word Studies from the Greek New Testament : For the English Reader. Grand Rapids : Eerdmans, 1997, c1984, S. Studies in the Vocabulary of the Greek New Testament: p.34-36

Prognosis (older Greek πρόγνωσις, modern Greek πρόγνωση - literally fore-knowing, foreseeing) is a medical term denoting the doctor's prediction of how a patient will progress, and whether there is a chance of recovery. This word is often used in medical reports dictating a physician's view on a case.

Prognosis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

a medical doctor is not foreordaining a disease he's predicting the outcome with or without treatment

 

[PETE_]

Prognosis (older Greek πρόγνωσις, modern Greek πρόγνωση - literally fore-knowing, foreseeing) is a medical term denoting the doctor's prediction of how a patient will progress, and whether there is a chance of recovery. This word is often used in medical reports dictating a physician's view on a case.

Prognosis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

a medical doctor is not foreordaining a disease he's predicting the outcome with or without treatment

Greek scholar or Wikipedia?

Who ya got?

 

[PETE_]

So, was Christ's sacrifice on the cross only predicted or was it foreordained?

 

[drstevej]

Prognosis (older Greek πρόγνωσις, modern Greek πρόγνωση - literally fore-knowing, foreseeing) is a medical term denoting the doctor's prediction of how a patient will progress, and whether there is a chance of recovery. This word is often used in medical reports dictating a physician's view on a case.

Prognosis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

a medical doctor is not foreordaining a disease he's predicting the outcome with or without treatment

The Good Physician doesn't have to guess.

WikipediA ... is the best thing ever. Anyone in the world can write anything they want about any subject. So you know you are getting the best possible information.

– Michael Scott, The Office

 

[&Abel]

I honestly don't know who to trust in this case

I was looking over various websites and majority are biased Calvinist perspectives

lets move on for now, I posted a verse from Deuteronomy 30

 

[&Abel]

Deuteronomy 30

15"See, (S)I have set before you today life and prosperity, and death and adversity; 16in that I command you today (T)to love the LORD your God, to walk in His ways and to keep His commandments and His statutes and His judgments, that you (U)may live and multiply, and that the LORD your God may bless you in the land where you are entering to possess it.
17"But if your heart turns away and you will not obey, but are drawn away and worship other gods and serve them,
18I declare to you today that (V)you shall surely perish. You will not prolong your days in the land where you are crossing the Jordan to enter and possess it.
19"(W)I call heaven and earth to witness against you today, that I have set before you life and death, (X)the blessing and the curse. So choose life in order that you may live, you and your descendants,
20(Y)by loving the LORD your God, by obeying His voice, and (Z)by holding fast to Him; (AA)for this is your life and the length of your days, that you may live in (AB)the land which the LORD swore to your fathers, to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, to give them."

 

[&Abel]

do you believe God genuinely wanted the jews to follow Him?

because they didn't

so either they were preordained to fail and did the will of God, or God knew they would fail and so it fit with His overall knowledge of the outcome but He still did not will for them to rebel against Him