John 3:16-17

Based on double election, no, as I think you both agree. But Hyper-Calvinism IMO is based on acceptance of supralapsarianism.

Actually, from what I can determine, reading some of Calvin's stuff, his stance on some of the points of the TULIP were fairly mild compared to Calvinism (not just Hyper-Calvinism) today. An argument can be made that John Calvin did not believe in limited atonement... or at least, not as taught in Calvinism today. I read an excellent article by Ron Rhodes by it as well.

BD

 

supralapsarianism.........maybe

This maybe to simple, but Hyper-Calvinism can be placed under a larger group.

"Doctrine set on doctrine is wrong"

In this case doctrine set from Calvins doctrine is Hyper-calvin.

The bottom line is...all teaching must go back to the Word of God. We can study Calvin as he was gifted in writing and can say things better then most. But if this is our source of setting doctrine, we follow a man, not God.

I hold dearly to Calvin's teachings, yet it is only because the teaching itself is found in Gods Word. The doctrine of mans sin nature can be supported nearly in all books of the Bible. The doctrine of Gods sovereignty can be found in all books of the Bible. If we set new doctrine based on these 2 doctrines above, we are removed one step from the Bible and this is where man goes wrong. All doctrine must come from the Bible.


In Christ..james

 

Greetings BadDog nice to meet you. 8)

Do you mean that an infralapsarin would tend towards Arminianism whereas a supra would tend towards hyper? I would agree with that because the infras have the will of man deciding a thing and what's the point if those being saved will be anyway.

I've read some of the stuff you wrote but loads of it was Greek to me. Good stuff man.

It is not what Calvin says or not it is about scripture. He showed me the way but I have not studied him in depth nor any other teacher. A number of books here or there is all and I avoid arguments that have to do with men but scripture is the killing ground.

john.

 

In one breath you say "it is about scripture", and the next "He (Calvin) showed me the way". That about sums up calvinism: man made.

 

John 3:161-18 talks about "whosoever believes." That is completely consistent with Calvinism. Anyone who believes will be saved. The question you are meaning to ask is about why some believe and some don't. That has nothing to do with John 3:16-18.

 

It's about scripture webdog, beat me up with scripture and stop harping on about what you think about Calvin.

Since there in scripture you have no chance.

john.

 

"pas" - All, any whoever, whole. This is not consistent with the only use being "anyone who believes", but whoever.

WHOEVER, pron. [who and ever.] Any one without exception; any person whatever. The person who trespasses shall be punished, whoever he may be.

 

Hello webdog.

I'm a working class Englishman I don't dabble I pass pas on to the other Dog. He's bad man. Sharp teeth I think. 'pron.' can go the same way. You have enough trouble with English don't try to confuse me with misunderstandings in Greek.

john.

 

You claim I misunderstood "pas", enlighten me. If I have that much trouble with english, you seem to understand it pretty well. What does that say?

 

Hello webdog.

Like I said I have no time to argue Greek with you because I am not an expert and even then they argue among themselves. In the church I would rather speak five intelligible words to instruct others than ten thousand words in a tongue.

JN 3:16 "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

God loved the world, as opposed to Israel, which He was willing to cutoff, because He loved me and there was no sacrifice too great pay so that He could claim me, His Pearl of precious price. If He loved everyman then love failed. 'World' is a word imposed with your meaning and it is meaningless to say God's love has failed because He failed to give any atonement to Eli's household. He forgives not in many cases and those He forgives not are hated by Him.

Just as it is written: "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated." You deny scripture.

john.

 

Don't tell me I deny scripture after the eisegettical diatribe you just gave!

 

Answer with scripture: so is my word that goes out from my mouth: It will not return to me empty, but will accomplish what I desire and achieve the purpose for which I sent it. Then we will be usful.

john.

 

Greetings all

Actually, the Greek word "pas" has at least two functions. First, it has the simple meaning of "all." Second, when combined with a present participle, it is one of several markers for Gnomic Truths. Gnomic means general or timeless.

"Whosoever" is not restricted to the present continuous facet of believing. It is a timeless generic truth that all can freely take or refuse.

It matches the Hebraic tenses that Jesus used in His illustration of the brazen serpent. A one time LOOK at the brazen serpent was sufficient for total permanent salvation from death. Whosoever will may believe!

Lloyd

 

"pas" - All, any whoever, whole. This is not consistent with the only use being "anyone who believes", but whoever.

WHOEVER, pron. [who and ever.] Any one without exception; any person whatever. The person who trespasses shall be punished, whoever he may be. </font>[/QUOTE]Yes, you are correct. Which is what I said. Pas is modified by pisteountes. Would you like to define that for us as well? Or shall I? To save you the trouble, I will define it. It is the participial form of pisteuo, which means to believe. Therefore, the ones that have eternal life are "all who believe." Those who don't believe are not included in the promise. Anyone who believes, without exception, will be saved. And that is what Calvinism teaches.

With respect to supralapsarianism, the standard order of decrees is
1 save elect reprobate others
2 create elect and reprobate
3 permit the fall of both
4 provide salvation for the elect.

That is usually a double election position. Most calvinists, in my experience, are not supras.

Infralapsarianism is
1. create man
2. permit the fall
3. elect some
4. Provide salvation.

Sublapsarianism is
1. create man
2. permit the fall
3. provide salvation for all
4. Elect some.

Erickson's theology has a good discussion of this.

It is also incorrect to say that all Calvinism is hypercalvinism, or that the decree to elect some is also a decree to elect others to hell. Those are routinely put forth, but have been shown to be wrong. Remember folks, John P is admittedly towards the hyper end of Calvinism. Most Calvinists, here and elsewhere, don't agree with JOhn.

 

Hey Pastor Larry.

I. Setup for Question:
Grudem's Systematic Theology is the heir apparent for Calvinistic theology. Before him, Berkhof's Systematic Theology was the standard from the mid 40's. I have heard that Erickson's theology was the standard from the time of its writing (Late 19th century??).

II. Question
What were the standard (exemplary, etc.) theologies before Erickson?

Lloyd

 

Hello Pastor Larry.

I would say causes for that 'permit'.

john.

 

Incorrect on several accounts. Grudem's Systematic is not the heir apparent for anything. It is pretty much a Bible college level text, good. Erickson's theology was first published in 83, which makes its late 20th century. It is now in its third edition. It is moderately Calvinistic I suppose. If you want a very Calvinistic modern theology, get Robert Reymond's. His is off hte charts Calvinistic. As far as standards, depends on who you ask. Strong has always been a standard. Hodge is good. There are a number of them.

Hodge, Strong, Berkhof, Shedd ... A number of them. I don't recall them all.

 

Do you mean that an infralapsarin would tend towards Arminianism whereas a supra would tend towards hyper? I would agree with that because the infras have the will of man deciding a thing and what's the point if those being saved will be anyway.

I've read some of the stuff you wrote but loads of it was Greek to me. Good stuff man.

It is not what Calvin says or not it is about scripture. He showed me the way but I have not studied him in depth nor any other teacher. A number of books here or there is all and I avoid arguments that have to do with men but scripture is the killing ground.

john. </font>[/QUOTE]Thx John.

Well, as I understand it, it has to do with the timing regarding God's election. In supralapsarianism it is held that God decreed both election and reprobation before the fall. Supralapsarianism differs from infralapsarianism on the relation of God's decree to human sin. Supralapsarianism basically says that God planned for man to fall - it was His will for Adam and Eve to sin. Perhaps that's putting it a bit strongly, but I think that Hyper-Calnvinists take election to a higher level than Calvinists. That's how I distinguish between them.

I am not Reformed, but I do believe in election (as well as free-agency). Often-times Calvinists come close to accepting many of my thoughts, but HyperCs... no way.

FWIW,

BD

 

Cool BadDog.

I apologise in advance for disagreeing with you then. I haven't read anything of yours that hasn't delighted me even if I couldn't understand most of it.

God's word goes out of His mouth it is worth a lot.

I like symmetry and recognise that we have been privileged beyond most Christians, seemingly, and I praise the Lord for the freedom we have in Christ. To make mistakes is decreed. For our good.

According to my wife I'm not reformed either.

john.

 

ascund,

Nicely put. Perhaps you can explain what you mean about "gnomic truth." Are you referring to the gnomic or habitual present?

In John 3:16 John the Baptizer (or Jesus) used the bronze snake on a pole desert experience to illustrate believing in Christ for eternal life. Obviously, the look need last only a moment, and be healed permanently.

And an idea that some put forth is that believing in John's gospel is almost always in the present tense, which is linear in aspect. But there is a large distinction between "linear" to "continuous," which I believe is the gnomic present tense you are referring to. (I think.)

Also, the usual form in John's gospel was something like:
PAS hO PISTEUWN ("all who believe")

An articular participle has stronger adjectival qualities and behaves much like a noun (constantive), and hence this is essentially is not so much a verbal as identifying the ones who believe. IOW, the aspect of the present tense is much less in such a case. (According to Dr. Wallace in his grammar.)

But even if it should be considered to be linear in aspect, that does not mean that the one believing in the present will continue to believe... forever. That was not what John was saying. In John 1:12, 13 receive is in the aorist tense and essentially equated with "believe." Hence, we should assume a one-time believing, and perhaps even a point-in-time type of aspect. Robertson in his grammmar as well as Wallace say that the present tense in the indicative mood has both linear and punctiliar aspect/kind.

(Sorry for those not familiar with Greek grammar.)

Could you elaborate on the use of PAS with the articular participle? It was very interesting.

Thx,

BD