Prevenient Grace, No Limited Atonement, 4 Pointer, Calvinist, or not?

[DeaconDean]

Well tell me where I am wrong

Lets begin.

First off, just as in other places in scripture, if "ordained" was "pre" as you desire it to be, the Greek word "fore" would precede it. Just as in 1 Pet. 1:20:

"Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you,"

"προγινώσκω μέν πρό καταβολή κόσμος φανερόω δέ ἐπί ἔσχατος ὁ χρόνος διά ὑμεῖς" -1 Pet. 1:20 (Tischendorf 8th Edition)

Secondly, just exactly what is it, Christians are "predestinated" to?

Thirdly, the fact that "ordained" is in the middle voice, (I believe its a causative verb) and i9ts passive, tells us that the Gentiles had nothing to do with it.

Fourthly, being as its in the middle voice, even the very definition tells us that it something that done for them, on their behalf, in the past, with (current) on-going results.

And, when you include the Greek word "ἦσαν" it further reinforces what I said previously.

Fifthly, not once in any of my responses have I interjected any theology from "Calvinism". It's been purely analytical from the Greek.

Now we can keep at this as long as you wish, but what is clear is that from the scriptures, the Gentiles played no part in their own "appointing/ordaining".

What we can say with absolute certainty is that out of that group who turned out to hear the preaching, a certain group of Gentiles who "were ordained" to eternal life, believed.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[TheBibleIsTruth]

Lets begin.

First off, just as in other places in scripture, if "ordained" was "pre" as you desire it to be, the Greek word "fore" would precede it. Just as in 1 Pet. 1:20:

"Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you,"

"προγινώσκω μέν πρό καταβολή κόσμος φανερόω δέ ἐπί ἔσχατος ὁ χρόνος διά ὑμεῖς" -1 Pet. 1:20 (Tischendorf 8th Edition)

Secondly, just exactly what is it, Christians are "predestinated" to?

Thirdly, the fact that "ordained" is in the middle voice, (I believe its a causative verb) and i9ts passive, tells us that the Gentiles had nothing to do with it.

Fourthly, being as its in the middle voice, even the very definition tells us that it something that done for them, on their behalf, in the past, with (current) on-going results.

And, when you include the Greek word "ἦσαν" it further reinforces what I said previously.

Fifthly, not once in any of my responses have I interjected any theology from "Calvinism". It's been purely analytical from the Greek.

Now we can keep at this as long as you wish, but what is clear is that from the scriptures, the Gentiles played no part in their own "appointing/ordaining".

What we can say with absolute certainty is that out of that group who turned out to hear the preaching, a certain group of Gentiles who "were ordained" to eternal life, believed.

God Bless

Till all are one.

Do we here agree that in the passage and context, "τεταγμένοι", in here used in the "middle" and not "passive" voice? In the Greek it is not always clear on which "voice" is meant, as here it could, I agree, be either "passive", or "middle". When we have a case as such, we must look to the context on what is being expressed. The basic meaning of the "middle voice", is, "that use of the verb which describes the subject as participating in the results of the action". Here we have in verse 46, the Jews "judge THEMSELVES", where they are "participating", "unworthy of eternal life", not as the "Calvinist/Reformed" would have us believe, that it is God who thus judged them as "unworthy". The Greek will not allow for this at any rate. Next, Paul takes the Gospel Message to the gentiles, who, upon hearing it, "they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord", THEIR "response", not something that was done for them! By doing this, they "marshalled" themselves on "God's side". They do NOT save themselves, something that is not possible; but, their "acceptance" of the Gospel Message, caused them to "pass over" to the Lord, and thereby be saved. This is very clear in the great Evangelistic Book of Jonah, where we read after Jonah had preached his Message,

"For word came unto the king of Nineveh, and he arose from his throne, and he laid his robe from him, and covered himself with sackcloth, and sat in ashes. And he caused it to be proclaimed and published through Nineveh by the decree of the king and his nobles, saying, Let neither man nor beast, herd nor flock, taste anything: let them not feed, nor drink water: But let man and beast be covered with sackcloth, and cry mightily unto God: yea, let them turn every one from his evil way (repent), and from the violence that is in their hands.Who can tell if God will turn and relent, and turn away from his fierce anger, that we perish not?" (Jonah 3:3-9)

We see in the following verse, how God reacted to them, "And God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way (repented); and God relented of the disaster, that he had said that he would bring upon them; and he did it not."

They had to "turn" from their sins and "turn" to God, which is the act of true "repentance". This is a classic case for the "middle voice"!

 

[DeaconDean]

Do we here agree that in the passage and context, "τεταγμένοι", in here used in the "middle" and not "passive" voice? In the Greek it is not always clear on which "voice" is meant, as here it could, I agree, be either "passive", or "middle". When we have a case as such, we must look to the context on what is being expressed. The basic meaning of the "middle voice", is, "that use of the verb which describes the subject as participating in the results of the action". Here we have in verse 46, the Jews "judge THEMSELVES", where they are "participating", "unworthy of eternal life", not as the "Calvinist/Reformed" would have use believe, that it is God who thus judged them as "unworthy". The Greek will not allow for this at any rate. Next, Paul takes the Gospel Message to the gentiles, who, upon hearing it, "they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord", THEIR "response", not something that was done for them! By doing this, they "marshalled" themselves on "God's side". They do NOT save themselves, something that is not possible; but, their "acceptance" of the Gospel Message, caused them to "pass over" to the Lord, and thereby be saved. This is very clear in the great Evangelistic Book of Jonah, where we read after Jonah had preached his Message,

I provided a different Greek definition than the one you have.

And I cite:

In Herbert Weir Smyth's book: "A Greek Grammar of Colleges, Part VI, Syntax, Active Voice, Middle Voice" he addresses the "middle voice";

He says:

"The middle voice shows that the action is performed with special reference to the subject: λοῦμαι I wash myself."

Ibid

Post#45

And evidently, you chose to ignore it.

Furthermore, I cited another Lexicon that states it is "passive":

I also have The New Analytical Greek Lexicon, by: Wesley J. Perschbacher.

In it he cites our word as:

"nom, pl., perf., pass., part."

Ibid, p. 405

And, I also said:

If, however, we understand the verb to be in the middle or reflexive voice, meaning that the subject acts upon themselves and both gives and receives the action of the verb, then Dr. Cottrell’s translation would be preferable. The problem is that τεταγμένοι, could be either middle or passive since the form of the verb would be the same in both cases.

Post#45

Did the Gentiles "doing something in which he is interested. He may do something to himself, for himself, or he may act with something belonging to himself?" No.

Did the Gentiles "belong in the sphere of the subject, as his property,?" No.

Did the Gentiles "acting directly on himself?" No.

Did the Gentiles "the subject as acting for himself, with reference to himself, or with something belonging to himself. Self is often here the indirect object.?" No.

Did the Gentiles " the subject has something done by another for himself:?" Yes.

Did the Gentiles "indicate a reciprocal relation?" No.

Did the Gentiles "lays stress on the conscious activity, bodily or mental participation, of the agent?" No.

Did the Gentiles "denote bodily or mental action (feeling and thinking):?" Possibly.

Like I said, within the context of Acts 13:48, everything I posted is true.

But if we take your viewpoint, the Gentiles appointed/ordained themselves by the act of believing.

Context does not support that.

John Gill comments:

"and as many as were ordained unto eternal life believed;
faith is not the cause, or condition of the decree of eternal life, but a means fixed in it, and is a fruit and effect of it, and what certainly follows upon it, as in these persons: some would have the words rendered, "as many as were disposed unto eternal life believed"; which is not countenanced by the ancient versions. The Arabic renders it as we do, and the Syriac thus, "as many as were put, or appointed unto eternal life"; and the Vulgate Latin version, "as many as were pre-ordained". Moreover, the phrase of being "disposed unto", or "for eternal life", is a very unusual, if not a very improper, and an inaccurate one; men are said to be disposed to an habit, or to an act, as to vice or virtue, but not to reward or punishment, as to heaven or hell; nor does it appear that these Gentiles had any good dispositions to eternal life, antecedent to their believing; for though they are said, ( Acts 13:42 ) to entreat the apostles to preach the same things to them the next sabbath, yet the words as there observed, according to their natural order, may be rendered "they", i.e. the apostles, "besought the Gentiles"; and in some copies and versions, the "Gentiles" are not mentioned at all: and as for their being "glad", and "glorifying the word of the Lord", it is not evident that this was before their believing; and if it was, such things have been found in persons, who have had no true, real, and inward dispositions to spiritual things, as in many of our Lord's hearers; besides, admitting that there are, in some, good dispositions to eternal life, previous to faith, and that desiring eternal life, and seeking after it, be accounted such, yet these may be where faith does not follow; as in the young rich ruler, that came to Christ with such an inquiry, and went away sorrowful: as many therefore as are so disposed, do not always believe, faith does not always follow such dispositions; and after all, one would have thought that the Jews themselves, who were externally religious, and were looking for the Messiah, and especially the devout and able women, were more disposed unto eternal life, than the ignorant and idolatrous Gentiles; and yet the latter believed, and the former did not: it follows then, that their faith did not arise from previous dispositions to eternal life, but was the fruit and effect of divine ordination unto it; and the word here used, in various places in this book, signifies determination and appointment, and not disposition of mind; see ( Acts 15:2 ) ( 22:10 ) ( 28:23 )

Source

Sorry.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[TheBibleIsTruth]

I provided a different Greek definition than the one you have.

And I cite:



Post#45

And evidently, you chose to ignore it.

Furthermore, I cited another Lexicon that states it is "passive":



And, I also said:



Post#45

Did the Gentiles "doing something in which he is interested. He may do something to himself, for himself, or he may act with something belonging to himself?" No.

Did the Gentiles "belong in the sphere of the subject, as his property,?" No.

Did the Gentiles "acting directly on himself?" No.

Did the Gentiles "the subject as acting for himself, with reference to himself, or with something belonging to himself. Self is often here the indirect object.?" No.

Did the Gentiles " the subject has something done by another for himself:?" Yes.

Did the Gentiles "indicate a reciprocal relation?" No.

Did the Gentiles "lays stress on the conscious activity, bodily or mental participation, of the agent?" No.

Did the Gentiles "denote bodily or mental action (feeling and thinking):?" Possibly.

Like I said, within the context of Acts 13:48, everything I posted is true.

But if we take your viewpoint, the Gentiles appointed/ordained themselves by the act of believing.

Context does not support that.

John Gill comments:

"and as many as were ordained unto eternal life believed;
faith is not the cause, or condition of the decree of eternal life, but a means fixed in it, and is a fruit and effect of it, and what certainly follows upon it, as in these persons: some would have the words rendered, "as many as were disposed unto eternal life believed"; which is not countenanced by the ancient versions. The Arabic renders it as we do, and the Syriac thus, "as many as were put, or appointed unto eternal life"; and the Vulgate Latin version, "as many as were pre-ordained". Moreover, the phrase of being "disposed unto", or "for eternal life", is a very unusual, if not a very improper, and an inaccurate one; men are said to be disposed to an habit, or to an act, as to vice or virtue, but not to reward or punishment, as to heaven or hell; nor does it appear that these Gentiles had any good dispositions to eternal life, antecedent to their believing; for though they are said, ( Acts 13:42 ) to entreat the apostles to preach the same things to them the next sabbath, yet the words as there observed, according to their natural order, may be rendered "they", i.e. the apostles, "besought the Gentiles"; and in some copies and versions, the "Gentiles" are not mentioned at all: and as for their being "glad", and "glorifying the word of the Lord", it is not evident that this was before their believing; and if it was, such things have been found in persons, who have had no true, real, and inward dispositions to spiritual things, as in many of our Lord's hearers; besides, admitting that there are, in some, good dispositions to eternal life, previous to faith, and that desiring eternal life, and seeking after it, be accounted such, yet these may be where faith does not follow; as in the young rich ruler, that came to Christ with such an inquiry, and went away sorrowful: as many therefore as are so disposed, do not always believe, faith does not always follow such dispositions; and after all, one would have thought that the Jews themselves, who were externally religious, and were looking for the Messiah, and especially the devout and able women, were more disposed unto eternal life, than the ignorant and idolatrous Gentiles; and yet the latter believed, and the former did not: it follows then, that their faith did not arise from previous dispositions to eternal life, but was the fruit and effect of divine ordination unto it; and the word here used, in various places in this book, signifies determination and appointment, and not disposition of mind; see ( Acts 15:2 ) ( 22:10 ) ( 28:23 )

Source

Sorry.

God Bless

Till all are one.

Did you say in an earlier message that you know Greek? Can you not see that what I have said about the middle voice, is EXACTLY what you have quoted from Smyth's grammar! The "action" is that which is done by SELF! Simply put. the Jews REJECTED the Gospel Message, the Gentiles ACCEPTED the same Message. BOTH actions were what they DID! There is little use in quoting from Gill, as he was a Five Point Calvinist! What did you expect him to say? I can also quote from a number of renowned Greek scholars/commentators who would disagree with Gill, but what is the point? There is little point in continuing this, as it is evident from your reasoning that you do so from the "Reformed" perspective, and not actually taking into account the context facts. I say this, because it is abundantly clear, that the Jews ACTED THEMSELVES in REJECTING the Gospel (unless you think God MADE then reject it?), while the Gentiles ACTED THEMSELVES in ACCEPTING. No doubt convicted by the Holy Spirit.

End of...

 

[DeaconDean]

Did you say in an earlier message that you know Greek? Can you not see that what I have said about the middle voice, is EXACTLY what you have quoted from Smyth's grammar! The "action" is that which is done by SELF! Simply put. the Jews REJECTED the Gospel Message, the Gentiles ACCEPTED the same Message. BOTH actions were what they DID! There is little use in quoting from Gill, as he was a Five Point Calvinist! What did you expect him to say? I can also quote from a number of renowned Greek scholars/commentators who would disagree with Gill, but what is the point? There is little point in continuing this, as it is evident from your reasoning that you do so from the "Reformed" perspective, and not actually taking into account the context facts. I say this, because it is abundantly clear, that the Jews ACTED THEMSELVES in REJECTING the Gospel (unless you think God MADE then reject it?), while the Gentiles ACTED THEMSELVES in ACCEPTING. No doubt convicted by the Holy Spirit.

End of...

Like I said a few pages back.

Your a funny person.

You are under the perception that because the Jews rejected the Gospel, that necessitates that the Gentiles accept.

The actions of one, necessitate the actions of the other.

Even the context of that chapter don't agree with that assumption.

For us to accept your POV, in Acts 13, when the scripture uses the word "Jew(s)" we would be forced to accept that that included each and every "Jew". Likewise, the same can be said of the word "Gentile". But there is absolutely nothing in the context to suggest it. The fact alone that Jews were still being saved at this time makes your assumption wrong. Otherwise, why call the First Apostolic Council? (Cf. Acts 15)

Also, the Greek word we're arguing over is still not so clear as to say 100% its one or the other.

An examination shows that of all the definitions given, the absolute best one is the Causative middle. Thus making "ordained" a causative verb.

Did the church in Jerusalem continue on for another 30 years?

Now you can say what you want about me, but you are proving what I said about Arminian theology true.

It is an "I" theology. Look what "I" did. I believed therefore I was ordained/appointed.

People will let God be sovereign everywhere but on His throne. Arminian theology shows that no matter how small it is, they absolutely must play some part in bringing about their own salvation.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[PrettyboyAndy]

In the first place, your use of Mk. 14:24 is questionable at best.

In the Greek, it simply means a number beyond numbering.

Secondly, can you say without exception that the word "world" literally means the entire world? There is no evidence of it.

Have you ever studied "scope and effect"?

Evidently not.

The price for sin was paid for in full by our Lord. The "scope' was to "tone for sin".

However, the effect is that not everybody takes advantage of it.

While the scope of Christ's death was "unlimited", the effect is that it is "limited" to the "elect".

This principle goes back to the Old Testament.

"The Old Testament only knew a limited design to sacrifice and atonement, didn’t it? There was no universal purpose in the Mosaic sacrifices was there? The Egyptians who worshipped their gods, and the Babylonians similarly sacrificing to their idols, and the Assyrians, and the Canaanites, and the Medes, and the Persians prostrating themselves before figures of stone, gold and silver – none of them had their sins purged away by the Jewish sacrifices made at that altar erected outside the tabernacle and later at the temple in Jerusalem. Only Israel’s sins were pardoned on the Day of Atonement when the High Priest entered the Holy of Holies with the blood of the sacrifice. Only the names of the twelve tribes of Israel were carried upon his breastplate. You look in vain for the names of Egypt, or Babylon, or Assyria and the rest. Full atonement was limited to the repentant, obedient, sacrificing people of God wasn’t it?"

Source

Just like those who were "ordained to eternal life" in Acts 13:48, when they preached to the whole town, only a certain number believed.

The Gospel message is to be preached to all men without exception, but only some will accept and believe.

Sorry.

God Bless

Till all are one.

Wow what a post brother very nice!

 

[PrettyboyAndy]

So on one hand no one can say, and on the other hand you have psychic ability to read John Calvin's mind as to what he meant by "the whole human race"? On that note, I certainly believe Christ died for all races of men...of course that doesn't mean literally men alone, as if women and children were not included.

wow! great point, never thought of that!!!

 

[DeaconDean]

Which is worse:

Calvinism: Jesus paid the penalty for sin for all men, but only the elect will accept it.

"Christ’s redeeming work was intended to save the elect only and actually secured salvation for them. His death was a substitutionary endurance of the penalty of sin in the place of certain specified sinners. In addition to putting away the sins of His people, Christ’s redemption secured everything necessary for their salvation, including faith which unites them to Him. The gift of faith is infallibly applied by the Spirit to all for whom Christ died, therefore guaranteeing their salvation."

Arminianism: Jesus death on the cross actually never saved anybody. His death paid the penalty for sin, but His death only made salvation possible?

"Christ’s redeeming work made it possible for everyone to be saved but did not actually secure the salvation of anyone. Although Christ died for all men and for every man, only those who believe on Him are saved. His death enabled God to pardon sinners on the condition that they believe, but it did not actually put away anyone’s sins. Christ’s redemption becomes effective only if man chooses to accept it."

Calvinism is frowned on for its view of "Limited Atonement", but on the other hand, Arminianism "limits" the Atonement also.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[DeaconDean]

Riddle me this:

Textbook definition of "Prevenient Grace":

"The term “prevenient grace” – a distinctly Arminian doctrine – refers to a universal grace which precedes and enables the first stirrings of a good will or inclination toward God and it explains the extent or degree to which the Holy Spirit influences a person prior to their coming to faith in Christ."

Source

If Arminians accept this as their axiom, how can "free-will" be true?

And, how is this much different than what Calvinists believe?

It just don't make sense for Arminians to make the argument for "free-will" if they are following the influence of the Holy Spirit.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[BBAS 64]

I started attended a new Baptist Church, which my wife and kids like. However, the pastor believes in Prevenient Grace, does not believe in Limited Atonement, is only a 4 Pointer, yet he claims to be a Calvinist.

How is that possible? To me he is closer to Arminian or a hybrid mix of the two. But I personally would not consider him to be a Calvinist....

Good Day, Andy

He would be a Christmas Calvinist "NOEL".... Just remind him God is not though with him yet, his real problem is election and that has not struck him yet.... maybe put that bug in his ear.


In Him,

 

[twin1954]

While I believe in a form of previenient Grace it is totally different than the concept attributed to Wesley in which God gives all men a certain amount of grace for them to exercise their fre will to believe.

Prevent grace is the grace that follows the chosen sinner throughout their lives keeping them from destruction and immortal harm bringing then to the time of love when He calls them and gives them life and faith in Christ.

Those who deny particular redemption cannot be Calvinists for they deny all the five points in reality. They cannot truly grasp unconditional election and not grasp particular redemption. Moreover they do not truly understand total depravity while denying particular redemption.

Each of the doctrines of grace are intricately tied together so that either you must believe them all or actually believe none of them.

 

[twin1954]

I started attended a new Baptist Church, which my wife and kids like. However, the pastor believes in Prevenient Grace, does not believe in Limited Atonement, is only a 4 Pointer, yet he claims to be a Calvinist.

How is that possible? To me he is closer to Arminian or a hybrid mix of the two. But I personally would not consider him to be a Calvinist....

The question isn't do they like the church but are you and your family able to worship the one true God and Jesus Christ and are you actually being feed from Christ's pasture there.

 

[PrettyboyAndy]

While I believe in a form of previenient Grace it is totally different than the concept attributed to Wesley in which God gives all men a certain amount of grace for them to exercise their fre will to believe.

Prevent grace is the grace that follows the chosen sinner throughout their lives keeping them from destruction and immortal harm bringing then to the time of love when He calls them and gives them life and faith in Christ.

Those who deny particular redemption cannot be Calvinists for they deny all the five points in reality. They cannot truly grasp unconditional election and not grasp particular redemption. Moreover they do not truly understand total depravity while denying particular redemption.

Each of the doctrines of grace are intricately tied together so that either you must believe them all or actually believe none of them.

Nice post my Calvinist brother

 

[hedrick]

If Arminians accept this as their axiom, how can "free-will" be true?

It's been a long time since I've studied Augustine extensively. But I seem to recall that at least some his writings suggest that without God's grace we are incapable of making any choice for salvation. What God does is regenerate our will to the point where it is capable of truly choosing. At that point we're free, and may react in either way. I think that is a way to reconcile prevenient grace with free will.

Incidentally, this is not a position that personally hold. I also don't think it's Augustine's final position. But it's a logical possibility.

 

[DeaconDean]

It's been a long time since I've studied Augustine extensively. But I seem to recall that at least some his writings suggest that without God's grace we are incapable of making any choice for salvation.

Which is, the scriptural position.

What God does is regenerate our will to the point where it is capable of truly choosing. At that point we're free, and may react in either way.

Yes, that is what I believe.

But, the Arminian position, and indeed James Arminius' position was that man's free-will was only "dented" so to speak. Thus enabling man to make that decision.

Whereas, Calvinism, everything hinges on God and His Sovereignty.

Incidentally, this is not a position that personally hold. I also don't think it's Augustine's final position. But it's a logical possibility.

Augustine came to believe quite a lot of what John Calvin came to believe, only about a millennia earlier.

Augustine, (my point here) was among the first (if I remember correctly) to recognize "predestination, justification by faith, and reprobation".

He was among the first to recognize what most attribute to Calvinism: dual doctrine of election and reprobation. Although, he gave no reason for "reprobation", only that it was God's choice.

God Bless

Till all are one.