Proof for Calvinism!
James White just spent a while on this in a recent video (skip the first 2/5 of the vid) but we can shorten his points to this: doesn't 1 John 5:1 indicate via grammar and syntax that a Christian believes as a result of their being born by God?
The argument is that the same grammar and syntax is used in 1 John 2:29 & 4:7 and can only be taken by protestants that the participle (the one doing righteousness; the one loving) is a result of their being born by God.
Here is the text in Greek
2:29:
...everyone who practices righteousness has been born of him.
...πᾶς ὁ ποιῶν τὴν δικαιοσύνην ἐξ αὐτοῦ γεγέννηται
4:7:
...whoever loves has been born of God...
...πᾶς ὁ ἀγαπῶν ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ γεγέννηται...
5:1
Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God...
Πᾶς ὁ πιστεύων ὅτι ᾿Ιησοῦς ἐστιν ὁ Χριστὸς, ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ γεγέννηται...
What say you, synergists???
Syntax of 1 John 5:1 as a proof for monergism
Discussion in 'Calvinism & Arminianism Debate' started by Greektim, Mar 18, 2016.
Page 1 of 5
-
-
But the crickets chirping is quite telling. Non-Cals are nailed to the wall when it comes to grammar and syntax. They can't get around that one. -
James 2:24. ορατε οτι εξ εργων δικαιουται ανθρωπος και ουκ εκ πιστεως μονον
Once a person becomes justified and saved, his faith and works will continue—at least for a while. -
And the interesting thing is, you didn't address the syntax or grammar. You went with a different tactic citing church history (spurious as it was).
And then you talked about justification??? I'm talking about being born or regeneration. Certainly you understand the difference. -
-
-
-
Sorry, I did not see this post.
Solid as it may be (it's not), that is not the point of this thread. So it is just dodging.
And you haven't addressed the syntax b/c you've said nothing of the present participles and their relationship to the perfect verb. Further, you've not mentioned the semantic range for the verb and why that too restricts the syntax. Maybe in your fantasy world, you addressed the syntax, but not in reality.
Now if you want to talk about your ordo salutis or the historical verity of Calvinism, make a separate thread. Otherwise, stick to the topic of syntax as it regards to 1 Jn 5:1 and similarly constructed verses, please.
I take my apology back from above. You've still not treated the syntactical argument being made. Perhaps it is that you don't understand it? -
-
You won't admit that in these verses, his syntax is indicating that the articular participle is performing its action as a result of the finite perfect passive verb "have been born"???
Nope... instead you argue "new and novel doctrine" and throw out an arbitrary number. I'm not even going to acknowledge this inane idea, since Augustine clearly taught monergism.
Craigbythesea... maybe you should stay there. Cause you're not adding much by way of content here. -
Enough of that, and back to the syntax. I have in my personal library ten fairly recent exegetical commentaries on 1 John written by scholars who were/are fluent in Greek and who could easily understand the syntax used in 1 John 5:1,
Brooke, A. E.
Brown, Raymond E.
Bruce, F. F.
Findlay, George G.
Houlden, J. L.
Lias, John James
Lieu, Judith M.
Marshal, I. Howard
Smalley, Stephen S. (Both his original and his revised editions)
Westcott, B. F.
Last night, I read to see how each of them interpreted 1 John 5:1, and none of them interpret it in the manner that you have interpreted it in this thread. Indeed, they all agree with my position that the weight of the context is far greater than the weight of the syntax in determining the correct understanding of the verse.
Moreover we read in John 1:12,
ὅσοιδὲ ἔλαβοναὐτόν, ἔδωκεναὐτοῖςἐξουσίαντέκναΘεοῦ γενέσθαι, τοῖςπιστεύουσινεἰςτὸ ὄνομααὐτοῦ, -
Unnecessary ad hominem imo. This typically means a person is losing a debate.
-
English-speaking authors usually avoid the problem of what the title means by the simple expedient of referring to it by its Latin title, Retractationes. When it is mentioned in English and in the English translations now available it is invariably referred to as Retractations or Retractions. The first is an affront to English and the second is incorrect. Actually, Augustine had very little to retract, and the meaning of Retractationes is Reconsiderations, Revisions, Second Thoughts, or, as I have called it, Corrections. With the Corrections, Augustine again invented a new literary genre: a summation and criticism of his own writings. He had originally intended to include in his review his books, letters, and sermons. But when he had completed the review of his books in 426 or 427, he was persuaded to publish the whole work as it then stood.
(Jurgens, William A. The Faith of the Early Fathers, Vol. 3, page 163. Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 1979). -
-
Martin Marprelate Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
I have given an somewhat extended quote to avoid being accused of taking a passage out of context.
In the Middle Ages, Predestination was upheld by proto-Protestants like Robert Grosseteste, Thomas Bradwardine and, supremely, by John Wyclif, all many, many years before Calvin. -
26 These things have I written unto you concerning them that seduce you.
27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.
28 And now, little children, abide in him; that, when he shall appear, we may have confidence, and not be ashamed before him at his coming.
We are commanded to make a choice to abide in Him that of course is if we have received Him and how do we receive him, by making a choice. There in, lies the syntax, choose to abide and therefore walk in righteousness, as we see in the next verse, doesn’t following the syntax involve the whole writing not just taking one portion and fitting a syntax to it?
29 If ye know that he is righteous, ye know that every one that doeth righteousness is born of him.
Shouldn't the syntax of the complete writing be what we center in on instead of trying to fit a few verses into the doctrine one believes?
Thus what was John's point, if we have believed we are to continue to walk or Abide in the righteousness that is supplied because we placed our faith in Him, and that abiding occurs when 1 John 1:9 is practiced, confession of sin as believers. -
I'm not saying one way or another that your view of the entire book is wrong. But I am asking you to exegete a few verses within that book. You can't dodge an issue by moving to "the bigger picture". -
preachinjesus Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
While I'm not a Calvinist, nor Reformed, I am a monergist, so the case of synergism is difficult to make biblically (and theologically.) One point about the syntax though, is that it is generally dependent on context and interpretive method. Here, in 1 John, it is more direct than other places...but there can be room for charitable disagreement.
-
As it relates here: 1 John 5:1 indicates (in its own contextual argument) that each one believes as a result (syntax) of their being born by God.
The same grammatical and syntactical structure is found 2 other times and indicates (in its own contextual argument) the same syntactical resultant of the participle ("doing" or "loving") to being born by God.
So whatever these verses have to do with their larger context, the smaller syntactical issues lend to that larger argument. And the smaller issues are about being born by God resulting in doing righteousness, loving, and believing.
Page 1 of 5