Calvinism: Why is it so unpopular on CF?

[Jacquo]

First of all let me remind you that this is the ask a Calvinist room not the debate a Calvinist room. Second you present nothing new. I guess you have done a better job than centuries of those who have hated the truth of God and tried to discredit it. When you become a Greek scholar then maybe you will be listened to.

Dear mlqurgw,

This thread is called "Calvinism: Why is it so unpopular on CF?"

But, even if a greater umbrella title of "Ask a Calvinist" is present, does it mean limit questions to accept this belief?

I think not.

As to Greek and new input I have referred all to my research in detail - and here I would appreciate if this is read by all so I need not repeat myself too often - the evidence is plain that the correlation is strong between eklektos and the emphasis on quality.

Here is my original link again:http://www.jarom.net/eklektos.php

You are all free to look up the Septuagint and all the references and to compare them with the Hebrew parallels in our bibles; whatever any previous lexicon says, the proof of the pudding is in the reading.

Regards,

Jac

 

[Jacquo]

Guess I dont follow your question as I see no difficulty with this passage. It shows how and why God removed Saul from being over the kingdom because of his gross disobedience. We're talking consequences here, just as follow acts of disobedience for any of us. Even David experienced great and painful consequences for his sin, though he was a man after God's own heart! None of this negates God's sovereignty! His decree stands and will come to fulfillment. Though He is pained by disobedience and/or rejection He remains sovereign! You must allow scripture and a most holy God to speak to you through His word and not listen to the logic of human thinking! Dont put God in a box and decide how He must think or act! We submit to Him and His will and thought, not the reverse! May He show you His truth through the light of scripture and prayer!

Dear McWilliams,

So, though the scripture says "God would have established ..[Saul's] kingdom over Israel forever":

Your belief makes you say that God would NOT have established Saul's kingdom over Israel forever.

Regards,

Jac

 

[Jacquo]

i've taken a look at your source. The first observation is that he is a secondary source, presuming to understand Greek and Hebrew/Aramaic, when he's had no training in any of those languages. Secondarily, he presumes to 'correct' Scholars who read the sources in the original languages, and furthermore presumes to crawl into the mind of the Patriarchs who authored the OT, as well as the 72 scholars who compiled the LXX, and discern their 'intention'.

And somehow in the midst of all that, he has supposedly discovered a "truth" missed for over 2000 years.

Pardon me while i have a well needed laugh over that idea....OK, back to business.

First off, "IT" will not be found in lexicons because what you are attempting to read into the construction does not exist in either the New Testament or the Septuagent.

TEACHABLE MOMENT:

Perhaps you have heard of GRAMCORD? It is a computer programme first done on a Unix maniframe. It stands for GRAMmatical ConCORDance. GRAMCORD is a HUGE database programme that has all of the Judeo/Christian documents within it. One can call up all of the instances of a particular word in either Greek, Aramaic of Hebrew (and some others such as Chaldee, Coptic, etc). One could call up every instance of any particular grammatical structure that exists in those writings...including the Septuagent as well. For example. If i had a copy of GRAMCORD (at $750 for the cheapest version that runs on a PC), i could call up every instance of the genitive absolute in both the New Testament and the Septuagent. It is through the very kind of research that you mention above (done by hand through painful years of study) that these scholars have placed the definition of terms in the Lexicons.

This has already been done, and the results catalogued. This makes your claims laughable, as well as inaccurate.


Unfortunately you are labouring under a misapprehension. The lion's share of the original audience of much of the New Testament writings were GENTILES, not Jews. Even among many of the Jews, Hebrew was not used to the extent that Greek was used, and certainly not much outside of Israel. While there were Jewish communities in many of the places the New Testament mentions, those Jews would have undoubtedly spoken Greek in day-to-day life. It simply would be wrong to assume that the meaning was somehow confused. Especially in light of the fact that the Greek language has a word...a form of dovkimo", that conveys the meaning you have read into the text by this "cherry picking" method that you have utilised.

Regretabbly Jac, you have, unwittingly, to quote Hank Hannegraaff, "taken scripture out of context, to become a pretext for abhorrant doctrine". i strongly recommend that you get some rudimentary instruction in the Greek and Hebrew languages before you presume to pontificate on how scholars who think in the particular language they were trained in while they are using it have somehow "gotten it wrong".

Dear Calvinist Dark Lord,

Hmmm, I think I have replied already to this today.

But please allow me to ask you a question,
First a passage:

. . . God withdrew from him, in order to test him, that He might know all that was in his heart.
2 Chronicles 32:31

Who wants to know?

Regards,

Jac

Unless otherwise stated Bible quotes are from the New King James Version.
© copyright Thomas Nelson Inc. 1979,1980,1982.

P.S. apologies to anyone else I have not replied to directly.

 

[Calvinist Dark Lord]

Dear Calvinist Dark Lord,

Hmmm, I think I have replied already to this today.

i'm sorry, but you've replied to none of it. What you have consistently maintained is your own article, which has no peer review, and no scholarly qualification with which to make said judgements.

Frankly no matter how many times you repeat an argument, it carries no more weight than the first time. As rebuttal has been presented, it is now your responsibility to deal with that rebuttal by new evidence. To simply "repeat the mantra" is no good.

But please allow me to ask you a question,
First a passage:

. . . God withdrew from him, in order to test him, that He might know all that was in his heart.
2 Chronicles 32:31

Who wants to know?

Regards,

Jac

Unless otherwise stated Bible quotes are from the New King James Version.
© copyright Thomas Nelson Inc. 1979,1980,1982.

P.S. apologies to anyone else I have not replied to directly.

i'll be happy to answer that when you answer this question:

Does God know All things that have happened, are happening, and will happen exhaustively?

In short:

GOD IS OMNISCIENT, True or False?

 

[Rick Otto]

"...even if a greater umbrella title of "Ask a Calvinist" is present, does it mean limit questions to accept this belief?"

Of course not!!
It means limit ANSWERS to those FROM Calvinists.

You know,... I used to object to being called "Calvinist" since I believe it is true to scripture, but I confess to succumbing to the temptation of enjoying using it to label myself sometimes.

Good spin on that pitch, tho. You almost suckered ME, were that possible.

 

[Rick Otto]

"Your belief makes you say..."

This is provocation, unless your just hamfisted with assertion.

"So, though the scripture says "God would have established ..[Saul's] kingdom over Israel forever":

Would have = IF.
This isn't enough to negate predestination.
Rather, it points to the consequences of 2ndary causes impacting the "2ndry causers" without indicting the motive of the primary cause agent.
Don't mess with with "The Predestination Nation"!
(I just made that up - don't ask me what it means!)

Mrs. M. may be suggesting God chose Saul to be a great lesson of the kind that only failure can provide. I'd be surprised if you hadn't imagined that already.

 

[McWilliams]

Thanks Rick!
When God is doing this testing to show what is in his heart, it isnt to show God what is in his heart but us! God knows all but we so often fool ourselves as to our motives that God puts us to the test to reveal the inner workings of our heart, such as He will do with any who play games with His word rather than believe the words of a holy God. Gods Word is true, for believing, not for twisting and game playing, trying to trip up others who trust His word fully. Rom 3:4 "For what if some did not believe? shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect? God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar, as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged."

 

[McWilliams]

Actually Saul's disobedience cost him his life because God killed him for it. Big lessons here!
1 Chron.10:13 So Saul died for his transgression which he committed against the Lord, even against the word of the Lord, which he kept not, and also for asking counsel of one that had a familiar spirit, to enquire of it;
v.14 And enquired not of the Lord: therefore he slew him, and turned the kingdom unto David the son of Jesse.

 

[heymikey80]

Dear Woody,

At least I need to commend you for looking up what respources you had to hand to check out eklektos.

However if you read my post 190 preceding yours of 195 you would have full access to the research I mention.

You will not find it in Lexicons because the authors of these have not checked as I have every place where the word is found in the Septuagint: the bible Jesus and the apostles quoted from. It's use can be verified by comparing the Hebrew word the writers of the Septuagint translated it from in the approriate verses in our bibles. Thus is revealed the meaning.

In a sense it is a kind of sola scriptura research by-passing the - in this case - inaccurate and incorrect lexicons (very rare for Strongs btw).

Regards,

Jac

Sorry, Jac. This statement is simply not true, nor is the website correct.

Bauer/Arndt/Gingrich does indeed research the Septuagint, as well as early New Testament literature for discerning exemplars of the meanings of words. There isn't even a hint of "fitness" in the term "chosen" as a result of their research. Their primary meaning found in New Testament and early Christian literature:

"1. chosen, select: a. generally of angels (...[2 refs]). Of the Messiah ([14 refs]).
​

b. esp. of those God has chosen from the generality of mankind and drawn to himself ([3 refs]). Hence of the Christians in particular (as in the OT of the Israelites [8 refs, plus 2 scholarly texts]) chosen [53 refs]." B/A/G 1979
​

One thing that is probably tripping up interpretations via translation is that Greek can use nouns in two different ways, one emphasizing the product of the the stem ("chosen", the "predicated" sense) the other pointing out the kind of operation ("choosing", "selection", the "subjective" sense). Choices can certainly be made on the basis of fitness, but the emphasis here is flatly on the choice or the chosen.

I have studied Greek though it was years ago. I try to keep up with the linguistic principles, but the vocab's mostly gone.

I do have a question, but it's more for the Reformed debate board. I'd suggest you post your website there, I can ask the question from there. This board is for questions for Calvinists, not debates about Calvinism.

 

[heymikey80]

Dear inchristalone221,

I think you will find that the verse in question is never in a context which discusses salvation. Most of the time it is called to a task.

Regards,

Jac

Eh, it's only in two verses, and one in context speaks to salvation:

And when the king came in to see the guests, he saw there a man which had not on a wedding garment: And he saith unto him, Friend, how camest thou in hither not having a wedding garment? And he was speechless. Then said the king to the servants, Bind him hand and foot, and take him away, and cast him into outer darkness, there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth. For many are called, but few are chosen. Mt 22:11-14
​

This is the parable of the Wedding Feast -- where the Kingdom is like a long wedding feast for the return of God the Groom for His Bride.

An allied verse in context goes this way:

Therefore, brethren, be all the more diligent to make certain about His calling and choosing you; for as long as you practice these things, you will never stumble; for in this way the entrance into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ will be abundantly supplied to you. 2 Pt 1:10-11
​

So yes, there are supports for the idea that "many are called, but few are chosen" is referring to salvation. The phrase doesn't happen very often, but when it does, it's at least 50% in the context of salvation, not fitness for a specific task.

 

[heymikey80]

Dear McWilliams,

So, though the scripture says "God would have established ..[Saul's] kingdom over Israel forever":

Your belief makes you say that God would NOT have established Saul's kingdom over Israel forever.

God's quite willing to describe the conditions under which He will establish Saul's kingdom forever.

God's also willing to say when Saul is actually fulfilling those obligations.

But God knew whether Saul would fulfil those obligations. He didn't, and God knew that beforehand. Samuel's warnings from God to the people before God anointed Saul make this clear. Moses' warnings from God to the people before Saul was even a consideration make this clear.