John 1:9 "enlightens every man"

You will not find that anywhere in all of Holy Writ.

If you are referencing Acts 13:48 with the above assertion -- you must have a hyper-Arminian edition.

On the contrary -- all of those who are appointed (ordained, chosen) for eternal life became believers. They were appointed before the creation of the world. Their appointment caused them to believe.

 

You and Mexdeaf are doing a good job when EdSutton's LC isn't on duty.

 

Oops, I meant Language Cop, not English Cop. You are too kind.

 

The Benefactor is consistent with his peers, the modern Arminians, in that he takes this verse and makes it say something he wants it to say.
He should start reading about life, light, Christ, God, whole world in darkness, the world comprehendeth it not, from verse 1 all the way through 10 so he can better understand this chapter and this writer, John, is NOT saying what HE wants it to say.

 

What I find is 1 verse Acts 13:48 that says something and no where else in the bible is that phrase repeated. So it seems logical to me, that the rest of the scriptures still stands. God has foreordained the boundaries, that any whom would come to faith in Christ and are saved will be elected and appointed to eternal life. Makes perfect sense. Salvation offered to all men, only some believe, bottom line.

Actually I'm behind the 8 ball when it come to hyper, Arminianism and editions. I don't read much and didn't copy an answer from some commentator, that's the way it makes sense to me. IF I did get some ideas I do have my favorite teachers to explain it, maybe they are hyper's and have such and such editions, I have no idea which.

Darren

 

Benefactor,

You wrote:

In this passage, there is no "View" to defend. You proposed an interpretation of this passage which, although put forward in a very popular Bible translation, is simply not correct. There is no "interpretation" necessary; what we are disagreeing about is not a theological system built around Calvinism or Arminianism. No, what we are disagreeing about is the text itself.

You seem to want to make the text say something it clearly doesn't. Your interpretation of John 1:9 is, frankly, non sequitur to the rest of John's Gospel. That is not an issue of interpretation; it is an issue of reading.

Continuing to have this discussion would be akin debating Shakespeare's Hamlet. Proverbially, we are not debating the meaning of "To be or not to be." Instead, we would be debating if these words actually appeared on the page. That is what we are doing with John 1:9.

It is clear that you deeply desire this text, in your incorrect interpretation, to support a universal atonement. As I have said before, you are free to argue for that interpretation (as some of my well-respected 4-point Calvinist friends do); you just cannot twist this passage to make it say what you want it to say.

Also, let me say that it is bizarre that in a subsequent post you accuse me of mis-quoting you. Generally speaking, I quote text of the person of whom I am answering. If I don't quote the exact word, I certainly allude to the idea presented. If you look at the post I wrote instead of posts other people quoted, you would have seen that I did, in fact, quote you. You can look here at post #52. Perhaps, then, you should direct your request to those who quoted my entire post.

I would have hoped that this discussion could have continued to explore the wonderful nuance of the Greek. Instead you have repeatedly turned to the ad hominem argument rather than answer queries about the text. For that reason, I no longer have the time nor the intention to discuss these matters with you.

I certainly have no desire to convert the world to Calvinism. Every good Calvinist I know loves to consider the minutiae of biblical doctrine every day--this helps us to refine ourselves according to the Scriptures, rather than refining the Scriptures according to ourselves.

My final word of encouragement for the time being is to continue your Greek studies in a formal way.

Blessings,

The Archangel

 

Benefactor,

I don't know why I bother....I have many other things to do which are much more important. But, since I can't seem to quell my curiosity...

You wrote:

And from what text do you get this?

Blessings,

The Archangel

EDIT: P.S. What is "ACRT???"

 

ACRT = Augustinian, Calvinistic, Reform Theology

I figured that is what it meant, but googled it and saw another christian board (christanforums) where this was in the topic. Then I noticed who started the thread - guess who

 

When Jesus said:

Mat 23:37 O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, [thou] that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under [her] wings, and ye would not!

Why didn't He say "ye could not because you were not regenerated"?

 

ALLAN!!!!

Thank you very much, my friend. I hope all is well with you.

Many Blessings,

The Archangel

 

Benefactor,

This is a quick, drive-by post before I run out for a Church thing, so I'm only going to address one thing and (a bit of truth in advertising here) it isn't dealing with the text.

You wrote: "What verse with out any twist, different words, interpretation clearly states where Jesus, Paul, Peter etc. states that salvation comes before faith? This is what ACRT claims..."

You are absolutely incorrect in your assumption. Calvinists do not believe that salvation comes before faith. Calvinists believe regeneration comes before saving faith. We would say that saving faith (or just faith, if you prefer) is the result of regeneration.

But, never would we say that salvation precedes faith and it is a mis-representation (intentional or otherwise) to suggest we believe this.

Gotta run.

Blessings,

The Archangel

 

Jasus actually did say that in John 12:39-40:

Therefore they could not believe, because that Isaiah had said again, lie hath blinded their eyes, and
hardened their hearts; that they should not see with their eyes, nor understand with their heart,
and be converted, and I should heal them.​

 

Wow you all need to get your story straight:

From another thread, in answer to the question, "Now do you teach or believe that a person is first saved and after he is saved he is given the gift of faith so that he will believe?:

 

So you are contending that God is actively involved in mans condemnation/reprobation?
I mean if God blinds them and keeps them from understanding - so they could not be saved (the implications of what this means seem also to be on table, anyway..) - then you have God 'keeping people from being saved and staying in unrepentance, by God's own doing. You do realize this right. You are contending for God's active involvement in their reprobation.

And since I KNOW you don't, just what case you trying to make?

I like what Clarke places at the end of his commentary on this point referencing Augustines own opinion on the matter of this text:

The quote from Isaiah references the fact that Israel had rejected God (yet again) and that in God's commanding of Isaiah to go preach the same messages they had already rejected the Moses and the earlier prophets, was to have the natural effect upon them that had already rejected it - hardening and blinding them.

I might also add John Gills notation as well:

and his comments on Mat 13:15 concerning the same thing and compares the two as being of the same intent:

We must remember and go back to the OT to revisit the story in which the people of God rejected him. He reached out, and the persisted in their rebellion. Therefore He allowed the proclaimation of those same truths they knew, which He had revealed to them, to have it's natural effect upon those who had already rejected it and was hearing it yet again - hardening and blinding. They are blinded because they have rejected the truth already.

 

Actually, no. Pinoy believes in the Sovereign grace doctrines though somewhat differently than mainstream or historical Calvinists.

His view holds in the estimation of mainstream Calvinism a decidedly Hyper-view where some can be saved, rejecting Christ, and believing in other gods because those who are saved are such before they are ever born but have been such from eternity past. This is called eternal salvation, and for them, not to be confused with temporal salvation, in which a person can come to know the truth, reject all other false gods and teachings, and walk in this present world in a relationship with Christ.

If I missed or incorrectly gave your view Pinoy, please correct it.

 

Do McGuffey and Webster "boar" you, as well?

Wouldn't hurt to check on the definition of words you use, at times!

Ed