Why do Arminians...

[FreeGrace2]

Actually, my question assumes that there are things that the jailer had learned that aren't given in the text. So to assume that Paul was a synergist based on the text is wishful thinking.

It couldn't be any more clear.

The jailer asked what he MUST DO to be saved.

What does "must do" mean to you?

And Paul's answer was equally straight forward. Believe on Christ and you will be saved.

The verse clearly indicates that in order to be saved, one MUST believe. Therefore, salvation is conditioned upon believing in Christ.

If my explanation is incorrect, please resist throwing out your one-liners, and explain how it is incorrect.

If your response consists of either a one-liner quip, or just more questions, rather than an explanation of why I'm incorrect, then I'll know that my explanation cannot be corrected, because it isn't incorrect.

 

[FreeGrace2]

They both mean choose. But you seem to think they mean something different.

Why all the dodging? When would you "choose" to use the word 'elect' rather than 'choose'? Or does it make no difference to you?

 

[Hammster]

It couldn't be any more clear.

The jailer asked what he MUST DO to be saved.

What does "must do" mean to you?

And Paul's answer was equally straight forward. Believe on Christ and you will be saved.

The verse clearly indicates that in order to be saved, one MUST believe. Therefore, salvation is conditioned upon believing in Christ.

If my explanation is incorrect, please resist throwing out your one-liners, and explain how it is incorrect.

If your response consists of either a one-liner quip, or just more questions, rather than an explanation of why I'm incorrect, then I'll know that my explanation cannot be corrected, because it isn't incorrect.

We are justified by faith. So we must do something (believe) to be justified. Regeneration is at God's discretion we don't do anything to be born again. So you cannot prove one way or another when he was regenerated, only justified.

 

[Hammster]

Why all the dodging? When would you "choose" to use the word 'elect' rather than 'choose'? Or does it make no difference to you?

If they both mean the same thing, why does it matter? It doesn't.

 

[FreeGrace2]

We are justified by faith. So we must do something (believe) to be justified. Regeneration is at God's discretion we don't do anything to be born again. So you cannot prove one way or another when he was regenerated, only justified.

That wasn't even close to the issue, which is being dodged blatantly. I didn't bring up justification, or regeneration, so these comments are totally irrelevant.

I wasn't trying to prove anything about the order of regeneration and justification. It is quite baffling why that was even brought up.

The issue is what the jailer asked, and Paul's reply. So, let's just stay on track and focus on that issue. The point is clear; salvation is conditioned upon belief in Christ.

Can this be refuted, not just disagreed with? That means backing up your refutation with Scripture that says what is claimed. The dodging and irrelevant comments don't help your case at all.

 

[FreeGrace2]

If they both mean the same thing, why does it matter? It doesn't.

Why all the dodging of my question, which was this:
"When would you "choose" to use the word 'elect' rather than 'choose'? Or does it make no difference to you?"

Seems quite an obvious unwilingness to answer the question.

The question still stands, and I'll ask it in a different way, if more clarification is necessary.

Do they mean exactly the same thing all the time, or are there times when one word should be used rather than the other one?

Please answer and quit dodging.

 

[Skala]

So, unable to answer a simple question:

Are all choices an election?

There's nothing difficult about it. They either are, or are not.

Yes. All choices are an election.

e·lec·tion [ih-lek-shuhn] Show IPA
noun
1.the selection of a person or persons for office by vote.
2.a public vote upon a proposition submitted.
3.the act of electing.

e·lect [ih-lekt] Show IPA
verb (used with object)
1.to choose or select by vote, as for an office: to elect a mayor. Antonyms: reject.
2.to determine in favor of (a method, course of action, etc.). Antonyms: reject.
3.to pick out; choose: First-year students may elect French, Spanish, or German.

Election | Define Election at Dictionary.com
Elect | Define Elect at Dictionary.com

 

[Hammster]

That wasn't even close to the issue, which is being dodged blatantly. I didn't bring up justification, or regeneration, so these comments are totally irrelevant.

I wasn't trying to prove anything about the order of regeneration and justification. It is quite baffling why that was even brought up.

The issue is what the jailer asked, and Paul's reply. So, let's just stay on track and focus on that issue. The point is clear; salvation is conditioned upon belief in Christ.

Can this be refuted, not just disagreed with? That means backing up your refutation with Scripture that says what is claimed. The dodging and irrelevant comments don't help your case at all.

You're trying to prove that Paul was a synergist. I brought up issues that cannot be defended from the text due to lack of information. It seems that you want to assume information that's not there.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Yes. All choices are an election.

e·lec·tion [ih-lek-shuhn] Show IPA
noun
1.the selection of a person or persons for office by vote.
2.a public vote upon a proposition submitted.
3.the act of electing.

e·lect [ih-lekt] Show IPA
verb (used with object)
1.to choose or select by vote, as for an office: to elect a mayor. Antonyms: reject.
2.to determine in favor of (a method, course of action, etc.). Antonyms: reject.
3.to pick out; choose: First-year students may elect French, Spanish, or German.

Election | Define Election at Dictionary.com
Elect | Define Elect at Dictionary.com

Your own definitions show the difference, you you've missed it.

election is about a specific purpose of selecting or choosing, as in for an office or position.

Simple choosing would involve everyday common things, like picking out your socks, tie, food, etc. No one "elects" those things. How hysterical.

 

[FreeGrace2]

You're trying to prove that Paul was a synergist.

I actually did prove it, by his own words. According to your definition of it.

I brought up issues that cannot be defended from the text due to lack of information. It seems that you want to assume information that's not there.

Such "issues" are only a smokescreen to again dodge the issue of HOW one is saved, which is by grace, and THROUGH faith.

No one gets saved apart from believing. That is Scriptural. And cannot be refuted. And, according to your definition of synergism, Paul was one.

 

[Skala]

Your own definitions show the difference, you you've missed it.

election is about a specific purpose of selecting or choosing, as in for an office or position.

Simple choosing would involve everyday common things, like picking out your socks, tie, food, etc. No one "elects" those things. How hysterical.

You're missing the fact that the word "election" has more than one definition. Definition #1 was "electing into office". But definition #3 which I bolded says "The act of electing".

If you look at what it means to "elect" something (the dictionary provided a clickable link for convenience), it brings you to the word "elect" which means to "select or choose".

You lost this argument friend. You're no longer arguing against me, but the dictionary.

You can't win vs. the dictionary.

e·lec·tion [ih-lek-shuhn] Show IPA
noun
1.the selection of a person or persons for office by vote.
2.a public vote upon a proposition submitted.
3.the act of electing.

e·lect [ih-lekt] Show IPA
verb (used with object)
1.to choose or select by vote, as for an office: to elect a mayor. Antonyms: reject.
2.to determine in favor of (a method, course of action, etc.). Antonyms: reject.
3.to pick out; choose: First-year students may elect French, Spanish, or German.

Election | Define Election at Dictionary.com
Elect | Define Elect at Dictionary.com

How hysterical.

Yes. It is hysterical that you have no idea how your own language works.

You asked "Are all choices an election?"

Since one of the definitions of "election" is "the act of electing", that means a synonymous question would be:

"Are all choices an act of electing?"

Since the definition of "the act of electing" is "to choose", that means a synonymous question would be:

"Are all choices the act of choosing?"

So, FG2, are all choices the act of choosing?

Yes or no?

 

[Hammster]

Why all the dodging of my question, which was this:
"When would you "choose" to use the word 'elect' rather than 'choose'? Or does it make no difference to you?"

Seems quite an obvious unwilingness to answer the question.

The question still stands, and I'll ask it in a different way, if more clarification is necessary.

Do they mean exactly the same thing all the time, or are there times when one word should be used rather than the other one?

Please answer and quit dodging.

They both mean choose. One happens to translated "choose" sometimes, other times it's transliterated as "elect". The other word is translated as choose. If there's no difference in their definitions, then they all mean the same thing. I have no idea why different words are used. You seem to think that you do, but won't say. It's like you're looking for a gotcha moment.

 

[Hammster]

I actually did prove it, by his own words. According to your definition of it.


Such "issues" are only a smokescreen to again dodge the issue of HOW one is saved, which is by grace, and THROUGH faith.

No one gets saved apart from believing. That is Scriptural. And cannot be refuted. And, according to your definition of synergism, Paul was one.

Scripture says we are justified by faith. You'll find that in the didactic parts. So a Calvinist can say that one must believe on the Lord Jesus Christ to be saved and still be consistent. So you haven't proven that Paul was a synergist.

 

[Charis kai Dunamis]

"When would you "choose" to use the word 'elect' rather than 'choose'? Or does it make no difference to you?"

The real question shouldn't be about English, but about the etymological scope and context of the Greek terms which mean something synonymous with choose/elect. The three which seem most relevant are ἐκλεκτός, ἐκλογή and ἐκλέγομαι, which all belong to the same family sharing the root of ἐκ coupled with λέγω. ἐκ, being a preposition for out of or from, in addition to λέγω, a verb for will, desire, purpose, etc. makes it quite clear that the idea of each word and its variants carry the main idea of from the will, with ἐκλεκτός functioning as adjectival (but carrying a verbal form or implying an action, c.f Col 3:12, God's chosen ones), ἐκλογή functioning as a noun (c.f. Rom 11:7, the elect), and ἐκλέγομαι functioning as a verb (c.f. Luke 10:42, Mary has chosen).

Do they mean exactly the same thing all the time, or are there times when one word should be used rather than the other one?

I'm assuming your question would actually be better stated "should we translate these words the same every time, or is there a time when one [English] word should be used rather than another one?" Really the main difficulty here is that we have a family of words in greek that differ based on their function, NOT their meaning, and yet in English we have multiple words that have a slightly different meaning/scope based on culture/context. For example, the term elect seems to be a formal variant of the idea behind the word choice, since it is often used regarding political offices and the choosing of a corporate body. It can also carry the concept of having weighed many different options, having surveyed all of the possible choices, and thus electing to go with a particular action. However I don't believe one can argue that the foundational idea of both elect and choice reflect anything but an action of the will, whether that be via a single individual or corporate entity. Even though using them synonymously may cause the speaker/reader to sound awkwardly less or more formal at times, the concepts driving each word are similar and thus can be exchanged.

 

[stan1953]

Of course that assumes that your view is correct (free will confession), which you may believe to be true, but Calvinists see it differently. Why have such a problem with that? How does that threaten anyone? I say threaten because the reactions show all the earmarks of people feeling threatened by the Calvinist view. Calvinists are threatening no one.

It is.
The questions you ask are disingenuous given you feel the same way. If you don't want to participate, DON'T.
I interact for the same reason I do on any forum. Unlike you, I don't come on and snipe at people judgementally or with frustration.

Trying to browbeat us into accepting the synergist view is counter-productive and not very Christ-like. And simple reading through the posts shows that this is taking place. it's been that way for years now, and not a single convert to the synergist camp. Rather, several synergists (including Hammster) have become Calvinists, and we didn't have to browbeat them into it. They came willingly. Their eyes were opened to the truth.

The way you continually judge those that don't agree with you is not Christ like. Maybe you could actually CONTRIBUTE and stop all the judging.

 

[stan1953]

The real question shouldn't be about English, but about the etymological scope and context of the Greek terms which mean something synonymous with choose/elect. The three which seem most relevant are ἐκλεκτός, ἐκλογή and ἐκλέγομαι, which all belong to the same family sharing the root of ἐκ coupled with λέγω. ἐκ, being a preposition for out of or from, in addition to λέγω, a verb for will, desire, purpose, etc. makes it quite clear that the idea of each word and its variants carry the main idea of from the will, with ἐκλεκτός functioning as adjectival (but carrying a verbal form or implying an action, c.f Col 3:12, God's chosen ones), ἐκλογή functioning as a noun (c.f. Rom 11:7, the elect), and ἐκλέγομαι functioning as a verb (c.f. Luke 10:42, Mary has chosen).

I'm assuming your question would actually be better stated "should we translate these words the same every time, or is there a time when one [English] word should be used rather than another one?" Really the main difficulty here is that we have a family of words in greek that differ based on their function, NOT their meaning, and yet in English we have multiple words that have a slightly different meaning/scope based on culture/context. For example, the term elect seems to be a formal variant of the idea behind the word choice, since it is often used regarding political offices and the choosing of a corporate body. It can also carry the concept of having weighed many different options, having surveyed all of the possible choices, and thus electing to go with a particular action. However I don't believe one can argue that the foundational idea of both elect and choice reflect anything but an action of the will, whether that be via a single individual or corporate entity. Even though using them synonymously may cause the speaker/reader to sound awkwardly less or more formal at times, the concepts driving each word are similar and thus can be exchanged.

What I fail to understand is WHY so many try to define the connotation of Greek words when they have been, by CREDENTIALED scholars. I recently argued with a person on another forum who refused to accept the English word DRAW, as in "I will draw all men to myself", or "Unless the Father draws them", and insisted the word should be DRAG. This of course is to support their RT POV of election, and would not listen to reason, despite the fact that ALL English Bibles today, even the KJV, use the word draw.
Proper hermeneutical exegesis and trusting that what is translated is properly done, often seems to suffer in the light of doctrinal bias.

 

[Hammster]

What I fail to understand is WHY so many try to define the connotation of Greek words when they have been, by CREDENTIALED scholars. I recently argued with a person on another forum who refused to accept the English word DRAW, as in "I will draw all men to myself", or "Unless the Father draws them", and insisted the word should be DRAG. This of course is to support their RT POV of election, and would not listen to reason, despite the fact that ALL English Bibles today, even the KJV, use the word draw.
Proper hermeneutical exegesis and trusting that what is translated is properly done, often seems to suffer in the light of doctrinal bias.

How about instead of drag, we understand it as drawing a sword, or drawing water from a well with a bucket?

 

[Skala]

How about instead of drag, we understand it as drawing a sword, or drawing water from a well with a bucket?

I wonder if that's what the word helkuo means?
Does anyone know?

 

[Skala]

What I fail to understand is WHY so many try to define the connotation of Greek words when they have been, by CREDENTIALED scholars. I recently argued with a person on another forum who refused to accept the English word DRAW, as in "I will draw all men to myself", or "Unless the Father draws them", and insisted the word should be DRAG.

The quickest way to get tot he bottom of this would be to look up the Greek word that the apostle John (and Peter and James) used for "draw", and see what its definition is.

Go ahead. Try it.

This of course is to support their RT POV of election

What's the "non-RT" or "correct" POV of election? Please explain it to me.

and would not listen to reason, despite the fact that ALL English Bibles today, even the KJV, use the word draw.
Proper hermeneutical exegesis and trusting that what is translated is properly done, often seems to suffer in the light of doctrinal bias.

Nobody has a problem with the word draw. We're just saying the word means something other than you think it means. Again, the quickest way to solve this issue is look at the Greek word and see what it means. Want me to do the work for you? Don't worry. I'm used to doing all the footwork and thinking for synergists. It will just take a second, as I've done this about 938,509,385,093 times, since synergists never bother to actually look at what the word actually means, they just like to toss around it and keep insisting it means what they say it means. As always, it's up to the Calvinist to spend some extra time to take a deeper look. Here we go:

The Greek word for draw is helkuo, which is the same word the author (John, and elsewhere, Peter and James) used for the following:

1) drawing fish with a net (John 21:6, 21:11)
2) drawing a sword from a sheath (John 18:10)
3) dragging the apostles into the marketplaces (Acts 16:19)
4) dragged Paul out of the temple (Acts 21:30)
5) The rich oppress you and drag you into court (James 2:6)

The meaning of the word is clear, to effectually do something. It doesn't mean to "woo" or "attract" or "persuade". Instead it is a more powerful word that gets results. When you "draw" fish with a net, you are capturing them and dragging them into the boat. When you draw a sword, you don't say "Come here sword, Please come, I hope you come". You grab it and forcibly pull it from its sheath.

Anyone who says "draw" means to "woo" or persuade is missing the meaning of the word.

The fact is, if someone is drawn to Jesus, they come to Jesus. They believe in Jesus.

Praise God's grace that He drew us to Jesus, so that we would be saved. Right brother?

 

[stan1953]

ἕλκω / helkō, does NOT convey drag. This is a typical RT rendering, and is contextually wrong.
Trench writes:

These words differ, and the difference between them is not theologically unimportant. We best represent this difference in English, when we render σύρειν, ‘to drag,’ ἑλκύειν, ‘to draw.’ In σύρειν, as in our ‘drag,’ there lies always the notion of force, as when Plutarch (De Lib. Ed. 8) speaks of the headlong course of a river, πάντα αύρων καὶ πάντα παραφέρων: and it will follow, that where persons, and not merely things, are in question, σύρειν will involve the notion of violence (Acts 8:3; 14:19; 17:6; cf. κατασύρειν, Luke 12:58). But in ἑλκύειν this notion of force or violence does not of necessity lie. It may be there (Acts 16:19; 21:30; Jam. 2:6; cf. Homer, Il. xi. 258; xxiv. 52, 417; Aristophanes, Equit. 710; Euripides, Troad. 70: Αἰὰς εἷλκε Κασάνδραν βίᾳ but not of necessity (thus Plato, Rep. 6:494 e: ἐὰν ἕλκηται πρὸς φιλοσοφίαν: cf. vii. 538 d), any more than in our ‘draw,’ which we use of a mental and moral attraction, or in the Latin ‘traho’ (‘trahit sua quemque voluptas’).
Only by keeping in mind the difference which thus exists between these, can we vindicate from erroneous interpretation two doctrinally important passages in the Gospel of St. John. The first is 12:32: “I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men [πάντας ἑλκύσω] unto Me.” But how does a crucified, and thus an exalted, Saviour draw all men unto Him? Not by force, for the will is incapable of force, but by the divine attractions of his love. Again (6:44): “No man can come to Me, except the Father which hath sent Me draw him” (ἑλκύσῃ αὐτό&#957. Now as many as feel bound to deny any such ‘gratia irresistibilis’ as turns man into a machine, and by which, willing or unwilling, he is dragged to God, must at once allow, must indeed assert, that this ἑλκύσῃ can mean no more than the potent allurements, the allective force of love, the attracting of men by the Father to the Son; compare Jer. 31:3, “With loving-kindness have I drawn thee” (εἵλκυσά σ&#949, and Cant. 1:3, 4. Did we find αύρειν on either of these occasions (not that this would be possible), the assertors of a ‘gratia irresistibilis’1 might then urge the declarations of our Lord as leaving no room for any other meaning but theirs; but not as they now stand.
In agreement with all this, in ἑλκύειν is predominantly the sense of a drawing to a certain point, in σύρειν merely of dragging after one; thus Lucian (De Merc. Cond. 3), likening a man to a fish already hooked and dragged through the water, describes him as συρόμενον καὶ πρὸς ἀνάγκην ἀγόμενον. Not seldom there will lie in αύρειν the notion of this dragging being upon the ground, inasmuch as that will trail upon the ground (cf. σύρμα, σύρδην, and Isai. 3:16), which is forcibly dragged along with no will of its own; a dead body, for example (Philo, In Flac. 21). We may compare John 21:6, 11 with ver. 8 of the same chapter, in confirmation of what has just been affirmed. At ver. 6 and 11 ἑλκύειν is used; for there a drawing of the net to a certain point is intended; by the disciples to themselves in the ship, by Peter to himself upon the shore. But at ver. 8 ἑλκύειν gives place to σύρειν: for nothing is there intended but the dragging of the net, which had been fastened to the ship, after it through the water. Our Version has maintained the distinction; so too the German of De Wette, by aid of ‘ziehen’ (==ἑλκύει&#957 and ‘nachschleppen’ (==σύρειν but neither the Vulgate, nor Beza, both employing ‘traho’ throughout.
​