Calvinism vs Arminian is a worldview debate

[twin1954]

The word eis (for) can be substitituted with the word because. It ties the passages together.

 

[Patmos]

Kittles Theological Dictionary of the New Testament defines "predestinate" as:

"This comparatively rare and late word is used in the Greek Bible only six times in the NT in the sense “to foreordain” “to predestinate.” Since God is eternal and has ordained everything before time, proopizein is a stronger form of opizein (to set bounds to). The synonyms and textual history show that the reference in proginwskien is the same. Rom. 8:29; ouv proginw kai prowpisen summorfouv tnv eikonov tou niou autou, Rom. 8:30; ous...prowpisen (A: proegnw) toutov kai ekalesen. The omniscient God has determined everything in advance, both persons and things in salvation history, with Jesus Christ as the goal. When Herod and Pilate work together with the Gentiles and the mob against Christ, it may be said: “h boulh [sou] prowrisen genesqai, Acts 4:28. Herein lies the hidden wisdom of God in a mystery, “hn prowrisen o qeoV pro twn aiwnwn eiV doxan hmwn,” 1 Cor. 2:7, cf. IV, 819. The goal of our predestination is divine sonship through Jesus Christ: “proorisaV hmaV eiV uioqesian dia ihsou cristou ,” Eph. 1:5. That we have our inheritance in Christ rests in the fact that we are proopisqentev kata proqesin tou ta panta energountov, Eph. 1:11."



Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, Edited by: Gerhard Kittel, Translated by: Geoffery W. Bromiley, Vol. V, “proopizw”, p. 456, K. L. Schmidt.

The rules in Greek are almost the same as in English.

In Romans 8:28-29 we read:

"And we know that in all things God works for the of those who love him, have been called according to his purpose. For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers and sisters."

A lot of debate has, and still does rage, on these verses. What people fail to see is one little word. At the start of verse 29, we see the word "for", in the Greek it is "eis". It is a conjuction, and as in English, in Greek it is used the same way. It links verse 28 to verse 29.

Why did God "foreknow" those He predestinated? Because He "called" them first! We know this because conjunctions link words and phrases together. The little word "for' links those who are called with those who are foreknown.

But what really amazes me above all else is that people want to say this or that about predestination on Rom. 8:29, but they all fail to see what the goal is of predestination.

"to be conformed to the image of his Son".

The object of "predestination" in Rom. 8:29 is "to be conformed to the image of his Son".

God Bless

Till all are one.

Kittles Theological Dictionary of the New Testament defines "predestinate" as:

"This comparatively rare and late word is used in the Greek Bible only six times in the NT in the sense “to foreordain” “to predestinate.” Since God is eternal and has ordained everything before time, proopizein is a stronger form of opizein (to set bounds to). The synonyms and textual history show that the reference in proginwskien is the same. Rom. 8:29; ouv proginw kai prowpisen summorfouv tnv eikonov tou niou autou, Rom. 8:30; ous...prowpisen (A: proegnw) toutov kai ekalesen. The omniscient God has determined everything in advance, both persons and things in salvation history, with Jesus Christ as the goal. When Herod and Pilate work together with the Gentiles and the mob against Christ, it may be said: “h boulh [sou] prowrisen genesqai, Acts 4:28. Herein lies the hidden wisdom of God in a mystery, “hn prowrisen o qeoV pro twn aiwnwn eiV doxan hmwn,” 1 Cor. 2:7, cf. IV, 819. The goal of our predestination is divine sonship through Jesus Christ: “proorisaV hmaV eiV uioqesian dia ihsou cristou ,” Eph. 1:5. That we have our inheritance in Christ rests in the fact that we are proopisqentev kata proqesin tou ta panta energountov, Eph. 1:11."

Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, Edited by: Gerhard Kittel, Translated by: Geoffery W. Bromiley, Vol. V, “proopizw”, p. 456, K. L. Schmidt.

The rules in Greek are almost the same as in English.

In Romans 8:28-29 we read:

"And we know that in all things God works for the of those who love him, have been called according to his purpose. For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers and sisters."

A lot of debate has, and still does rage, on these verses. What people fail to see is one little word. At the start of verse 29, we see the word "for", in the Greek it is "eis". It is a conjuction, and as in English, in Greek it is used the same way. It links verse 28 to verse 29.

Why did God "foreknow" those He predestinated? Because He "called" them first! We know this because conjunctions link words and phrases together. The little word "for' links those who are called with those who are foreknown.

But what really amazes me above all else is that people want to say this or that about predestination on Rom. 8:29, but they all fail to see what the goal is of predestination.

"to be conformed to the image of his Son".

The object of "predestination" in Rom. 8:29 is "to be conformed to the image of his Son".

God Bless

Till all are one.

The object of "predestination" in Rom. 8:29 is "to be conformed to the image of his Son.

A huge thank you DeaconDean

 

[DeaconDean]

The word eis (for) can be substitituted with the word because. It ties the passages together.

I would agree to a certain extent.

"eis" translated as "because of" is very rarely used. Catholics like to use this in the example of Acts 2:38.

"Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost."

B.H. Carroll provides us an excellent example of how and when "eis" should rarely be translated "because of". (cf. The Theory of Baptismal Regeneration, B.H. Carroll)

In the instance of Rom. 8:29, "because of" would be acceptable. "they" (the elect) were called, and "because of" that, He (God) foreknew them and "predestinated" them to be conformed to the image of His Son.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[twin1954]

I would agree to a certain extent.

"eis" translated as "because of" is very rarely used. Catholics like to use this in the example of Acts 2:38.

"Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost."

B.H. Carroll provides us an excellent example of how and when "eis" should rarely be translated "because of". (cf. The Theory of Baptismal Regeneration, B.H. Carroll)

In the instance of Rom. 8:29, "because of" would be acceptable. "they" (the elect) were called, and "because of" that, He (God) foreknew them and "predestinated" them to be conformed to the image of His Son.

God Bless

Till all are one.

The word ought to be substituted in Rom.4:25 as well. The Greek has the word gar but the KJV has the word for.

 

[DeaconDean]

The word ought to be substituted in Rom.4:25 as well. The Greek has the word gar but the KJV has the word for.

Let me look into that one.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[DeaconDean]

The word ought to be substituted in Rom.4:25 as well. The Greek has the word gar but the KJV has the word for.

I'm not seeing it brother.

"ὃς παρεδόθη διὰ τὰ παραπτώματα ἡμῶν καὶ ἠγέρθη διὰ τὴν δικαίωσιν ἡμῶν." Rom. 4:25 (GNT)

However, I can see where "διὰ" can be translated "on account of" our offenses, and raised "διὰ" (used with an accusative, used of causation which is not direct and immediate in the production of a result, on account of, because of, for the sake of, with a view to*) our justification.

The New Analytical Greek Lexicon, Wesley J. Pershbacher, Hendrickson Publishing, Peabody, Mass., 01962, Copyright 1990, p. 90

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[twin1954]

I'm not seeing it brother.

"ὃς παρεδόθη διὰ τὰ παραπτώματα ἡμῶν καὶ ἠγέρθη διὰ τὴν δικαίωσιν ἡμῶν." Rom. 4:25 (GNT)

However, I can see where "διὰ" can be translated "on account of" our offenses, and raised "διὰ" (used with an accusative, used of causation which is not direct and immediate in the production of a result, on account of, because of, for the sake of, with a view to*) our justification.

The New Analytical Greek Lexicon, Wesley J. Pershbacher, Hendrickson Publishing, Peabody, Mass., 01962, Copyright 1990, p. 90

God Bless

Till all are one.

I am in Florida and don't have my Greek NT with me so I had to rely on Strongs. Still the word for in the verse should be translated because in order for the passage to make sense.

 

[mikedsjr]

I would agree to a certain extent.

"eis" translated as "because of" is very rarely used. Catholics like to use this in the example of Acts 2:38.

Rarely used doesn't mean you pick and choose based on your tradition when to allow it.

 

[DeaconDean]

Rarely used doesn't mean you pick and choose based on your tradition when to allow it.

your right, but...

"The men of Nineveh shall rise in judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it: because they repented at the preaching of Jonas; and, behold, a greater than Jonas is here." -Mt. 12:41 (KJV)

"ἄνδρες Νινευῖται ἀναστήσονται ἐν τῇ κρίσ ει μετὰ τῆς γενεᾶςταύτης καὶ κατακρινοῦσιν αὐτήν: ὅτι μετενόησαν εἰς τὸ κήρυγμα Ἰωνᾶ, καὶ ἰδοὺ πλεῖον Ἰωνᾶ ὧδε." -Mt. 12:41 (GNT)

If we take it as you say:

"Rarely used doesn't mean you pick and choose based on your tradition when to allow it."

Then the Gospel lies. "eis" translated "for" makes this verse say that the people of Nineveh repented "for" (in order to) Jonah to preach.

Which is not the case. The people repented "at", "because of" the preaching of Jonah.

It has a rare meaning here. If means that here, then it must mean it at other places too.

To quote B.H. Carroll:

"To illustrate the power of the local context in determining the meaning of the Greek preposition, eis (here we have the preposition with the accusative case after it), we now cite most pertinent New Testament examples: Matthew 12:41: "They repented eis the preaching of Jonah." Because eis ordinarily means in order to, must we so render it here? It is a fact, according to chapter 3 of Jonah, and did our Lord so mean it? If so, they failed in the object of their repentance, because Jonah never preached to them after they repented -- not a word. The only preaching he did preceded the repentance, and was the cause of the repentance. Therefore, Dr. Broadus teaches in his Commentary on Matthew that eis here must have its rare meaning - because of. They repented because of, eis, the preaching of Jonah. But they say we must make the ordinary meaning the meaning in every case."

Source

I want to ask you one question.

Why were you baptized?

Were you baptized "εἰς" (because of) Jesus' commandment?

Were you baptized "εἰς" (because of) what the scriptures say and teach?

Were you baptized "εἰς" (because of) your salvation in Christ?

Or, were you baptized "εἰς" (for) the remission of sins? In other words, were you baptized "εἰς" (in order to) have your sins forgiven?

If you answer yes, to any of the first three, then the rare use of "εἰς" (because of) is not only correct, I am correct.

If you answer yes to the last, then you cannot rightfully call yourself a Baptist.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[mikedsjr]

I can rightfully call myself a Baptist because that is the only type of church I've ever attended and still do.

We use the ESV in church and Matthew 12:41 says
The men of Nineveh will rise up at the judgment with this generation and condemn it, for they repented at the preaching of Jonah, and behold, something greater than Jonah is here.

The verse uses "for" without varying far from how you understand it.

The issue is whether a person truly had saving faith. If they do they will get baptized. You can say whatever about some of my recent theological shifts, but I assure you as a baptist I would question someone truly were saved if they refused to be baptized. I'm not sure why you want to ignore how closely baptism is tied to salvation. I'm not going beyond the SB faith and message, where it is spoken of as an "act of obedience" and a "sign of faith". If a person is unwilling to go through with baptism, they're signifying they wish not to be a part of the church.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[DeaconDean]

I can rightfully call myself a Baptist because that is the only type of church I've ever attended and still do.

We use the ESV in church and Matthew 12:41 says
The men of Nineveh will rise up at the judgment with this generation and condemn it, for they repented at the preaching of Jonah, and behold, something greater than Jonah is here.

The verse uses "for" without varying far from how you understand it.

The issue is whether a person truly had saving faith. If they do they will get baptized. You can say whatever about some of my recent theological shifts, but I assure you as a baptist I would question someone truly were saved if they refused to be baptized. I'm not sure why you want to ignore how closely baptism is tied to salvation. I'm not going beyond the SB faith and message, where it is spoken of as an "act of obedience" and a "sign of faith". If a person is unwilling to go through with baptism, they're signifying they wish not to be a part of the church.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Here again, the debate over the "for" aligns itself with Acts 2:38.

If the word has a rare meaning in Mt. 12:41, it is also possible it has a rare meaning in Acts 2:38.

The issue is, were you baptized out of obedience, the command of Jesus, or were you baptized so you could have your sins forgiven. Which the point of some denominations.

My grandmother was deathly scared of water. She was a Godly woman, saved of which I never doubted for as long as I could remember.

She was a Presbyterian, by faith, and conviction.

However, she was baptized at a very late date.

Not that she wasn't saved, just deathly scared of water that was over her head.

So please be more careful making statements like:

"If a person is unwilling to go through with baptism, they're signifying they wish not to be a part of the church."

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[Pedrito]

In Post #142 on Page 8, twin1954 replied to a comment of mine in Post #141 on the same page.

My comment was regarding a prayer which had been proposed to reflect the Calvinist worldview.

“Please God, don't let my loved ones perish in Hell”

My comment was:

In Post #78 on Page 4 I pointed out:
Actually, that sort of prayer does not reflect a Calvinist worldview at all.

A Calvinist does not know whom God has fore-chosen for salvation. Therefore, a Calvinist praying such a prayer could well be praying against God's will, and probably is.

I wonder what God might think of that?

twin1954's reply to my comment (my comment was not reproduced in his post) was:

No it is a Calvinist seeking for God to do what He promised and praying that their loved ones are God's elect. You build another straw man.

Well, let's have a closer look.

If it is true that God has already preselected (predetermined, predestined, elected) those people who will be saved from eternal torture in Hell, then one of two things is true.

1. The person being prayed for is not one of those predestined to be saved from eternal torture in Hell.

In that case, the idea that “it is a Calvinist seeking for God to do what He promised and praying that their loved ones are God's elect”, is without any shadow of a doubt, in opposition to God's revealed will and purpose. The person never can be one of God's elect.

It is therefore a dangerous and meaningless prayer.

2. The person being prayed for is one of those predestined to be saved from eternal torture in Hell.

In that case the prayer is unnecessary and equally meaningless.

So for a Calvinist, the prayer “Please God, don't let my loved ones perish in Hell” is, at the very least, meaningless. That is true whichever way you look at it. That style of prayer also borders on being offensive to God. Or maybe it actually is.


Is it only I that finds the apparent inconsistencies associated with that doctrinal perspective, troubling?