Arminian Weaknesses reflect Calvinism

Yes, now that you mention it, words do have meaning. Let's take "Foreknew," for example.

The word is προγινώσκω. In the entire Pauline corpus, this word is used only twice. In the entirety of the New Testament, it is used a total of five times.

Now, you may be committing what is called "the root fallacy" where you think the lexical definition is what give a particular word an immutable definition. As it is well known, the lexical definition is not the final arbiter of meaning, the usage is.

For example, I used the word "gerrymandering" while discussing your mishandling of the grammar of 2 Thessalonians 2:13. In using the word I raised the possibility that you were intending to misrepresent the grammar intentionally. Now, I don't think that to be the case; I think you are mistaken or (perhaps) unlearned in your grammar. Neither of these things rises to the level of deception...but I digress.

"Gerrymandering" is a word that refers to the re-drawing of congressional districts for political gain. Now, did my use of the word intend that exact meaning? No. I in no way, shape, or form think you are trying perpetrate a crime against the People of the United States. I merely raised the possibility that you were, either knowingly or unknowingly, tinkering with the grammar to support your errant opinion.

So, as this example shows, the lexical meaning is not the final authority on exact meaning, usage is. As they say, "Context is king."

It is the same situation with Paul's use of προγινώσκω. Paul's two uses are Romans 8:29 and Romans 11:2. Both uses are the same inflected form--Aorist Active Indicative, 3rd person Singular. I'll list the verses with the word προγινώσκω is in bold type:

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 (Romans 8:29 ESV)

God has not rejected his people whom he foreknew...(Romans 11:2)
​

Now, Paul's usage of the exact same word in Romans 11 is quite instructive. He is talking about Israel and he uses the word προγινώσκω as an antonym (meaning an opposite) to the word "rejected" (ἀπωθέομαι). Clearly ἀπωθέομαι means "reject" and προγινώσκω is clearly used here as an antonym to that word. Therefore, προγινώσκω means "chose."

Why, you might ask? Because God did not merely know Israel before hand; He chose them. The Old Testament is replete with reference after reference to God's actively choosing Israel (and not for any preceding thing they had done, by the way).

So, Paul's usage is quite clear: προγινώσκω means "chose."

The other three uses of this word occur twice in the Petrine letters and once in the Book of Acts. Now, is it possible that Peter intended a different meaning? Is it possible that Luke meant to convey something other than "chose?" Sure, though it is highly unlikely. But, when dealing with the Pauline writings, especially Romans (since it is the only place the word exists in the Pauline corpus), Paul intends to convey the meaning "chose."

Words do have meanings, but those meanings are ultimately determined by the authors. Paul, in his use of this word, is quite clear that he intends it to mean "chose."

The Archangel

 

I believe my response along with the quote from Piper did answer your question. I'm not sure how it doesn't answer your question. I consider my Calvinistic friends brethren in the faith and I treat them as such. As I said, we just disagree on this subject.

Hmmm, how could I have come to that conclusion? You say my posts make you sick. You accuse me of being obsessed. You call my arguments "half-cocked." Sorry, I just must have misinterpreted your intent, those just sounded like personal attacks to me. I guess I interpret your posts like I interpret the scriptures. Maybe you could give me the "right" interpretation of such statements?

Only if I'm wrong, which obviously I don't believe I am. If I'm correct, then my actions on this board in properly interpreting the Calvinistic proof texts and revealing the false arguments is quite noble. The same reasons you have engaged me in this thread, I presume.

I'm preoccupied with truth, the controversy is caused by those who reject the truth. To presume you hold the truth is question begging.

 

Yet, you presume you hold the truth when, in fact, you could be quite wrong. You, sir, are also "begging the question."

The Archangel

 

Communication is a two-way street. Messages are sent, returned, interpreted, misinterpreted. It is wise to reserve judgment until meaning has been negotiated.

That statement, btw, is the basic definition of communication.

I tend to allow the other person to define their meaning, not define it for them. So, if you tell me you don't mean such and such by what you said, I accept that. Can you do the same?

Hopefully you have read some parts or the whole of Pilgrims Progress. Wouldn't you agree that we do not want to be like Valiant for Truth? Do I love the truth and have interest in it being defended? Yes, of course. But when I am talking wtih someone in person, or via a discussion board, I am far more interested in the person. In fact, I am more intersted in their walk with Christ than I am in winning any kind of debate with them.

Those of us who have some educational pedigrees ought to use our education to serve our brethren. And we ought to regard the least educated (in such formal ways) as better than ourselves, and certainly not regard them as deficient. Rather, those who seem to be "nothing' we ought to give more honor. Do they not have the Holy Spirit the same as we do?

Just some thoughts.

 

Id prefer to be preoccupied with Christ.

 

Why didn't Paul just say "chose"?

 

How is it that this only works in your favor... :wavey:

 

He did... in Greek.

 

Gotcha...every translator who translated it into english got it wrong. Also, the antonym for reject is not chose (the premise The Archangel built his argument on), it's accept.

 

An antonym for reject CAN be chose, for if one rejects they do not chose.

 

Granted, if it is the intent of defining reject to mean "not choose".

 

So, in essence, what you are saying is that you assign meaning to words and not the author.

Your attempt to "arrive at the meaning of a word" is based not on the author's usage, but on your attempted discernment of that word's meaning. This is exegetical and syntactical Russian roulette.

The author's usage is the final arbiter of meaning--unless, of course, you are seeking to apply a Derridan concept of Deconstruction where the reader, not the author, is, ultimately, the final arbiter of meaning and truth.

It seems if you are not doing that in the outright, that you have taken one giant leap in that direction.

The Archangel

 

This is a keen observation. Our every intent in the interpretation of Scripture should be the author's meaning. Now, this may include lexical studies, parallel passages, and a host of other factors, but to arrive at the author's meaning is true exegesis.

 

Van,

What he shared was actually correct. And the Usus Loquendi is also important. What principles of hermeneutics do you use?

 

It really does not "work perfectly." Once you consider the form of the Aorist Active Indicative, it becomes next to impossible to impose a passive meaning on this verb.

Remember, grammar has meaning--there is a subject and a verb. This is the nature of language and the meaning and point of a sentence in Greek is easily found in the main verb. In Romans 8:29 and 11:2, the verb is an active verb--meaning the subject is performing the action (or has performed the action in the past). What the text is telling us--through the use of the Aorist Active Indicative form--is that God actively chose. To "foreknow" something as you are wanting to suggest is not an active action; it is inherently passive in that it is dependent on the action or the belief of another person that acts upon the subject.

This is precisely why in 1 Peter 1:20, in reference to Christ, you see the Perfect Passive Participle in Peter's dichotomic phrase referring to Christ. Christ--being foreknown--shows that He was acted upon, presumably by the Father. So, Christ being sent was God's choice--hence the passive form.

The fact (and it is a fact) that the subject in Romans 8:29 and Romans 11:2 is Himself performing the action all but rules out your interpretation that it is simply knowing something beforehand.

The Archangel

 

Ironically, the worst place for a ship to be during a storm is "in port." Hence the US Atlantic Fleet puts out to sea whenever a hurricane threatens Norfolk, VA.

The method you present is common; but that doesn't make it correct. Seeing the author's usage is paramount to defining the proper meaning. A word study is a fine study--if it is done correctly. To study a word, devoid of its forms and usage, only creates confusion and error--as it has clearly done in your case.

I'm not "turning it into choose" for that is what it clearly means. The reason that the word can be spoken of as "an intimate relationship" is because of the Hebrew word "Yada" and its corresponding usage. There is a wide semantic range with "yada" and it can (and does in places) mean "to choose."

Paul, being "the pharisee of pharisees," of course, knew this and since he was well-steeped in the Old Testament (and the Hebrew, being a pharisee) we can expect him to use the word in this manner, which he, of course, does.

The Archangel