1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Jesus was a Calvinist?

Discussion in '2003 Archive' started by superdave, Apr 11, 2003.

  1. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry <b>Moderator</b>
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    I will not jump in here deep. But I will make a couple of comments. Bill, you would do well to take some Greek courses and learn about the subjunctive. You are way off base here, at least as far as what I have read.

    The "as many as you have given me" is clearly a subset of all flesh. Your argument that it is "all" destroys your arminianism. It leads either to calvinism or universalism. This is so patently obvious from the text it is remarkable that it is so easily missed by someone who has "studied" as you much as you have.

    As the question: Who gets eternal life? Answer: All those whom the Father has given to Christ. Question: Do all men have eternal life? Answer: No. Undeniable conclusion: God did not give all men to Christ. Of course, I am quite sure you will find a way to deny it since Scripture seems to be only an obstacle to you, rather than a guidebook for belief.
     
  2. Yelsew

    Yelsew Guest

    Pastor Larry,
    Do you believe that we are the spoils in a war between good and evil?

    If YES, do you believe that God gave us the unequaled capability and responsibility to choose which side we will join?

    If your answer is NO to the 2nd question, then you belie your yes answer to the 1st question.

    If your answer to the 1st question is NO, then for what reason did God create mankind?

    Why would God create mankind, place sin in mankind, so that God could selectively redeem from the whole of mankind only those whom he sovereignly selects? Picking his choices out of the muck and mire of sin, washing them off while leaving them in the midst of the much and mire only to be collected at some future time. For what purpose?

    Would you do that to your children? Let's say you have a dozen children and all of them get dirty. From among your "dirty dozen" children you elect that only 3 should receive your favor and be cleaned leaving the rest dirty?

    The doctrine of Election as presented by Calvinism does not depict the image of God "the Father" that the Holy Scriptures presents.
     
  3. William C

    William C New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2003
    Messages:
    1,562
    Likes Received:
    0
    Larry, it is funny that you condemn my use of the subjunctive in this text but yet you don't even address it.

    If Jesus were thinking Calvinistically he would have said, "For you granted him authority over all people that he CAN give eternal life to all that God has given him."

    But look at what is missing in that translation. THE SUBJUNCTIVE (that you never addressed).

    Maybe your the one who needs to take a class. Let me give you a lesson on the subjunctive:

    5792 Mood - Subjunctive

    The subjunctive mood is the mood of possibility and
    potentiality. The action described may or may not occur,
    depending upon circumstances. Conditional sentences of the third class ("ean" + the subjunctive) are all of this type, as well as many commands following conditional purpose clauses, such as those beginning with "hina."


    Looky there, the word "hina" or "so that" is right there before the subjunctive. This is Greek 101, Larry. My professors taught me that when a conjunction is followed by a subjunctive verb you have what is called by those who know Greek a "Indefinite Clause," which expresses an indefinite potential act or a possible conditional clause.

    Therefore, if we understand "pas" to mean "all" in the second part of this verse it would not be supporting Universalism because the verb "give" is an "indefinite clause" which means there is a potential for the salvation of all, not the assurance of their salvation.

    Because of this subjunctive "all who have been given" cannot be in reference to "the elect" of Calvinism because according to you the elects salvation is not merely a potential "might" or "may" it is a must, which is not ever supported by a subjunctive.

    (Maybe if Augustine had known Greek he wouldn't have made the same errors you all are making today. [​IMG] )

    Thanks for coming to class today. [​IMG]
     
  4. Frogman

    Frogman <img src="http://www.churches.net/churches/fubc/Fr

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2001
    Messages:
    5,492
    Likes Received:
    0
    The physically handicapped do have "ears to hear", because "hearing the word of God" is not an auditory experience, it is of the spirit.

    The OT people may have been "the people of God", but there are many indications they were not "the people of God" if you get the drift, for they were of the seed of Adam whose sin of disobedience toward God is in every seed of Adam. Thus God did many things to them for their disobedience to cause them to repent thus restoring them.
    </font>[/QUOTE]Don't say anything to contradict your historical position, ok.

    Bro. Dallas
     
  5. Frogman

    Frogman <img src="http://www.churches.net/churches/fubc/Fr

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2001
    Messages:
    5,492
    Likes Received:
    0
    Well, he was until he began reading the Scriptures and found a more compelling understanding of it. That's what ticked Calvin off so much. </font>[/QUOTE]So then came the move to Armeinia? (look, I mispelled it [​IMG] )

    Bro.Dallas

    [ April 13, 2003, 03:34 AM: Message edited by: Frogman ]
     
  6. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry <b>Moderator</b>
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    No.

    For his own glory (rev 4:11; 1 Cor 10:31; etc).

    He didn't. He did not place sin in mankind. You err, not knowing the Scriptures (to quote someone far greater than any of us).

    For his own glory, for the salvation of his chosen ones.

    I am not God. I don't think God does that to his children. Those who are not "cleaned up" (as you put it) are not cleaned up because of their refusal to come to Christ for cleansing. We have said that all along because Scripture says that.

    Sure it does. You just misunderstand both Scripture and Calvinism, something you have thorougly convinced us of.
     
  7. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry <b>Moderator</b>
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    Why is that funny? Do you not think that I have better things to do than to go over to my office, look up the references (i.e., do your homework for you) and then report back to you? When I have time, I will give you the evidence.

    That is not what he would say at all. He would say exactly what he said. "Can" is nowhere in the verse and no Calvinist needs it to be there.

    The subjunctive has a number of different uses, not all of which involve possibility. Christ did not make salvation possible; he actually saved people, as the text plainly says: those who the FAther gave to him. That is what we believe.

    You are going to quote STrong for me? Do us a favor. Get out Wallace's Greek Grammar (the standard seminary work today) and look up the subjunctive and then let's talk about it. As it stands tonight, I do not have the time to answer you. When you get out the works, you will see that you are wrong on your understanding of this verse. But you will not admit it becuase you have shown that your theology is not driven by the text but rather by what your mind thinks. I reject that method of theology and I am very tired of those of you who come in here and sit in judgment on teh text of Scripture and God's revelation.

    Don't be smart aleck. It is not helpful, especially when you are incorrect in your teaching.
     
  8. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry <b>Moderator</b>
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    I am going to do what I said I wasn’t going to do. I was going to put it off, but I did a quick search and refuting you was so easy, I couldn’t pass it up tonight. Look at your own statement:

    Who were your professors?? Why don’t you give us a quick run down of your credentials in the area of Greek. While you are putting that together, let me point out your very simple mistake. When you have hina+subjunctive, it is not an indefinite clause usually (if ever); it is a purpose clause. The purpose clause

    This material is something you could have easily looked up, had you taken the time to do so. It is an explicit refutation of your limited understanding of the subjunctive. My suspicion is that your teachers did not teach you that but that you either misunderstood or are far enough removed so that you have conflated somethings.
    This is a prime case where you are not willing to let the verse say what it does. Your theology demands that you adjust Scripture. If God gave all men to Christ and Christ saves all men that the Father gives, then you have universalism. As point (e) says above, The subjunctive mood in a purpose clause actually functions more like a verb in the indicative mood rather than the optative mood. It is not stating the possibility or probability of an action but instead telling the intention of the primary action.

    This is false, which you would know if you had studied the subjunctive.

    Overall Bill, you continue to disappoint us with your singleminded devotion to a system rather than to Scripture, with your unwillingness to think critically about the issues that you are espousing, with your willingness to adjust the text of Scripture to fit your system. I appeal to you again to submit your mind to Scripture rather than sitting in judgment on Scripture.
     
  9. Yelsew

    Yelsew Guest

    Pastor Larry,
    And how does the doctrine of election bring glory to God?

    Then you are very naive, and you limit God's ability keep his creation pure and holy. If you think that God does not have the power to prevent sin from being part of creation then you give sin a place of power higher than that of God. Does God make man sin? No but he does allow man to sin. Hence Grace.

    A Calvinist copout!

    Wait just a minute, most Calvinist say that man cannot come to Christ, but that they must be regenerated first. Isn't regeneration being "cleaned up"? Calvinist doctrine doctrine of election says God does just that! Are you saying that is not Calvinist doctrine or that you are not a Calvinist?

    Calvinism has at its core the doctrine of election, my illustration of the "dirty dozen" depicts Election in its ugliness.
     
  10. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry <b>Moderator</b>
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    Read Eph 1 and Rom 9-11. It exalts the wisdom and knowledge of God beyond our comprehension. Scripture is clear about this.

    I haven't limited God at all. He could have kept his creation pure and holy. I think he did have the power to do that. When you accuse me of not believing that, you are making stuff up. The only reason I can think that you would do this is to try to draw a distinction between us when we really agree.

    How is quoting Scripture a calvinist copout?? I will take that accusation anyday. I will always gladly copout with the word of God as my final word.

    Yes that is Calvinist doctrine, it is what Scripture teaches, and it is what I believe. But man freely rejects Christ. He does not want to come to Christ. Yelsew, you have been here long enough to quit playing this charade. You know what we believe.

    At the core of calvinism is the glory of God. Your dirty dozen is a silly little attempt to blame God for something when he fact he is God, he can do whatever he pleases. He does not answer to you for it. Election, far from being ugly, is among the most beautiful doctrines of Scripture for it took the hopeless and gave them hope for no reason of themselves but only because God is God. If that is ugly, I will gladly be ugly.
     
  11. npetreley

    npetreley New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2002
    Messages:
    7,359
    Likes Received:
    2
    Pastor Larry, thank you for looking up the explanation of the purpose clause.
     
  12. BobRyan

    BobRyan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    32,913
    Likes Received:
    71
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    How in the world can Pastor Larry and I BOTH be arguing with Yelsew???

    As I understand it - Pastor Larry is basically anti-Bob or else I am anti-Larry when it comes to Calvinism.

    So what is the deal with Yelsew. He appears not to believe in limitted atonement and also does accept that mankind is free to choose - even in his lost state - whom he will serve. AND Yelsew appears to reject the irresistable grace idea.

    A respectible arminian if ever I saw one - I would think from reading this thread.

    What am I missing Yelsew? No "U" no "L" no "I" -- what is left for us to differ over? Perserverance? (I actually agree with some parts of the Calvinist position there).

    Total depravity? (I accept the total depravity concept of Calvinist).

    OSAS!! oooops!! Was that all?

    In Christ,

    Bob
     
  13. William C

    William C New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2003
    Messages:
    1,562
    Likes Received:
    0
    Larry,

    You need to get off your high horse. IF you knew Greek you know that the subjunctive can be interpreted as a possible conditional clause or an indefinite clause dependant upon your theological bias which is exactly why you have some translators who use the word "may" or "might" in this text while others use "shall" or "should". Don't pretend that you and your Calvinistic sources have a monopoly on all correct interpretations of the Koine Greek language. There are several sources that disagree with you.

    The reason I find this debate funny is that I don't even hold to the this translation of the text that I'm defending here. I began by saying that this was another viable Arminian translation of this text. Look back at my post and you will see that I believe "all the the Father gives" is in reference to the apostles, not "all people" like some Arminians, so I'm not going to waist anymore time defending another possible translation with you.

    I believe it is quite clear that Jesus is refering to those who have been entrusted to come to him while he was here on earth in the flesh and not all of future humanity that "comes" to him in a spiritual sense as you assume.
     
  14. Frogman

    Frogman <img src="http://www.churches.net/churches/fubc/Fr

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2001
    Messages:
    5,492
    Likes Received:
    0
    Be careful stepping off that horse Larry [​IMG] [​IMG] [​IMG] :rolleyes:

    Bro. Dallas
     
  15. russell55

    russell55 New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2002
    Messages:
    2,424
    Likes Received:
    0
    This is not really true. It's not a theological bias thing, but a grammar thing, and the choice of "may" over "should" in translation makes absolutely no difference in the meaning. Means exactly the same thing either way, and people who insist otherwise don't understand even English grammar.

    Here's an example, using the same sort of form found in the verse in John 17 (in English, because every one here ought to be able to handle that and they're pretty much the same in either language):

    I have bought groceries, so that I may feed those who are in my house.

    The purpose for buying the groceries is to feed the household. Because of the structure of the sentence, even with the word the word "may", if the groceries are bought, that those in the house will be fed is not an iffy thing, it's a sure thing.

    Same thing in John 17:

    God has given Christ authority so that He may give eternal life to those God has given Him.

    Because of the stucture of the sentence, even with the word "may", if the authority is given, that those God has given Christ will have eternal life is not an iffy thing, but a sure thing.
     
  16. Yelsew

    Yelsew Guest

    Limited Atonement? NO! Jesus is the Once for All Sacrifice (atonement) for the sins of the world. If "limited" means only one time for all, then YES I believe in limited atonement, BUT that is not how Calvinist doctrine teaches it. Calvinist doctrine teaches that only the sins of the elect are atoned for. So? NO!

    Free to choose? YES! God made us that way, and expects us to use free choice to choose between good and evil.

    Irresistible Grace? What is irresistible Grace? Is that different from Prevenient Grace? How about Saving Grace? Dinner Grace? Bedtime grace? Is it something that God hands out like candy and you can't refuse it? Is it available only to the Elect? In other words an acceptable definition is necessary.

    Perseverance? Who's? If one is elect, there is no need for perseverance for, according to Calvinists, the elect will be saved, regardless. If one is not elect, he better hold on for dear life to an elect person so that when Jesus Comes to snatch the Bride of Christ into the air to be with him (2 Thes 2:1-9) he'll get snatched up too. The elect will be saved regardless.

    Total depravity? NO! With Total depravity there could be no good done by the unsaved, and the evidence indicates otherwise.

    OSAS? From whose perspective? God never leaves us nor forsakes us. We on the other hand may walk away from salvation and God does not save the unwilling!

    That about summarizes Yelsew. Your attempts to proselytize will be considered!
     
  17. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry <b>Moderator</b>
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    I am not anti-Bob. When I read something you say that is against Scripture, sometimes I respond to it. I don't respond all of those times since I don't have that kind of time. But rest assured, I am not anti-Bob. In fact, I don't even read all of what you say.
     
  18. KenH

    KenH Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    41,907
    Likes Received:
    1,469
    Faith:
    Baptist
    According to your viewpoint, how can God be just to punish His Son for the sins of all people and then punish these same people a second time for the same sins? Under what standard of justice do you believe God can do such a thing as this? We do not do such a thing under our own justice system. Are you saying that the our justice system is on a higher plane than God's justice? Perish the thought, Yelsew, perish the thought!
     
  19. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry <b>Moderator</b>
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    Name one.

    My horse is not high. You brought grammar into this so I merely asked you to defend 1) your credentials and 2) your understanding. You have done neither. If you don't agree with the position you are arguing, then why argue it? The purpose clause hina+subjunctive is not translated as a possibility. I gave you the proof. I could cite others I am sure, if I took the time to look them up.

    This is simply wrong. God gave many more than the apostles to Christ. If he didn't then no one else would be saved. When you first started this line of argument, I assumed you were kidding. YOu should have been. Why don't you give us the names of some writers who agree with you on this position so we can see if their arguments make any more sense than yours do.

    Your belief is inadequate to deal with the text of Scripture. The text is much clearer than your position will allow it to be.
     
  20. Frogman

    Frogman <img src="http://www.churches.net/churches/fubc/Fr

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2001
    Messages:
    5,492
    Likes Received:
    0
    According to your viewpoint, how can God be just to punish His Son for the sins of all people and then punish these same people a second time for the same sins? Under what standard of justice do you believe God can do such a thing as this? We do not do such a thing under our own justice system. Are you saying that the our justice system is on a higher plane than God's justice? Perish the thought, Yelsew, perish the thought! </font>[/QUOTE]Amen!! Excellent post Ken

    Bro. Dallas
     
Loading...