« Brewton-Parker College to file an appeal on latest SACS report | Main | Time to stop Social Media Abusers »

2014.06.24

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Norm Miller

Mr. Krainis:

Bravo!

Norm Miller

peter lumpkins

Josh,

Amen. I completely agree. And therefore, John 3:17's use of kosmos, by your own reasoning, cannot refer to "everyone", but instead refers to those who will be saved, I.e. The Elect in it's totality, or "world of the elect" as you insist on rather confusingly putting it. No Greek scholar was necessary for you to come to the correct conclusion. Hence my belief that God does not love all people salvificly, as His intention was to save some, not all. Oh my. Really? First, you can “completely agree” with me because you misunderstand what I was actually saying. While God giving His Son was not intended to save everybody, the giving of His Son WAS INTENDED to be a vicarious sacrifice for the entire world so that whosoever believed in Him would not perish but have eternal life. Second, speaking of “world” as “world of the elect” I’m afraid is not an invention of my confusion. Instead, it’s an invention of Calvinism. For example,

No other world can be meant in these passages but the world of the elect… the world of those whose sins Christ is said to have borne, in his own body on the tree, that they being dead to sin might live unto righteousness—those who are said to be blessed, on account of the taking away of their sins” (James R. Willson and Francis Turrettin, A Historical Sketch of Opinions on the Atonement, Interspersed with Biographical Notices of the Leading Doctors (Philadelphia: Edward Earle; William Fry), 1817. 326; emphasis added).

Third, yes I guess you can AND MUST reject Greek scholarship when Greek scholarship does not assist you—that is, if you are bound by your theological tradition to make a passage work.

However It does amaze me that you are willing to base the interpretation of scripture on the opinions of men like Thayer who denied the inerrancy of scripture, and not Godly Christian men like Pink, who believed in letting Scripture speak for itself, in a NON-contradictory way. So let me get this straight, Josh. It amazes you one establishes his or her biblical position on broadly-based scholarship and not on a godly preacher? Is this really what amazes you? Nor do you apparently know much about Pink.

Well, while the non-Calvinists in this thread have appealed to non-orthodox scholars, philosophical conspiracy theories, anecdotes about the doughnut preferences of children, theological strawman arguments, demands for personal disclosure, and opportunities to put down bugbear Calvinist authors, I have tried to argue directly, consistently, and solely from scripture. I am sure I have not fully succeeded, but at least I'm slightly more prepared for the next conversation. No, Josh I don’t think you are.

In fact, I think you will be less successful even in your own estimation. Anyone who would dismiss Greek scholarship and accept instead the conclusions of two Baptist Hyper-Calvinists only reveals what most drives his theology. What you’ve just profiled in the parting description of your experience are the tears of a sore loser. Because you didn’t persuade all us raving, semi-Pelagian, Arminian loving Open Theists to drink up from your newly acquired cup of Calvinistic kool-aid, you will tell us what for when you leave.

Have a great day, Josh

With that, I am…

Peter

Lydia

John,

That is the best example of the differing ways Romans is read that I have ever seen. Thank you.

Joshua David Kelso

John - Still mine, clearly.

For one, I don't see how your philosophy of "God's hardening is the result of man's actions" is anything other than completely disproved by Romans 9:10-13.

And I find it amazing that all those years ago, Paul foresaw yours and Lydias and Andrews and Peters objection/question, and gave you an answer: v20.

Andrew:

"Are you really suggesting that Jesus' words do not apply to all men?"

Are you really suggesting that Jesus' death drew ALL MEN? You don't even realize you are saying Jesus was wrong:

"The point is you can't expect people who haven't heard to respond. Kind of common sense really!"

So Jesus was either wrong (which you don't believe), or you believe His use of "all" was modified, just like I do.

Like Peter, you've been forced to admit by your own logic that my interpretation is the correct one.

Lydia -

"Yes, using your determinist god filter. You start with that foundation so you cannot possibly see another view that is not univeralism. I believe man has volition so determinism is not my foundational filter for reading scripture. Determinism is your starting point.

And since you have no volition, not sure why should trust anything you say at all. :o)"

Lydia, I never said I have no volition. You really need to stop misrepresenting people's positions. Man has a will that is totally enslaved to his sinful nature. An enslavement I no longer under the power of, by God's grace.

I will direct you all, once again, to my earlier comment:

The way I see it, you desperately want a verse that says "Election follows, and is dependent upon, belief", while what the text actually says, in many different places, is that "Belief follows, and is dependent upon, election."

So who is really enslaved to a man-made philosophy here, the one who's presupposition is simply a reaction to what scripture teaches, or the one who keeps demanding that every text needs a Pelagian Philosopher-King to explain to the masses what the text "actually" means?

I know you would love for me to fit the model of brainwashed New Calvinism Disciple, but I don't. I grew up in the same theological environment as the rest of you, and got tired of all the contradictions it taught, and people reacting exactly like you when I showed them that scripture didn't agree with their presuppositions.

Andrew Barker

Josh: "Are you really suggesting that Jesus' words do not apply to all men?"

Are you really suggesting that Jesus' death drew ALL MEN? You don't even realize you are saying Jesus was wrong:

You're so wrapped up in your little Calvinist bubble, that your view of the rest of the world is distorted. I'm more than happy to accept the words of Jesus as written. But I'm not going to read more into them than is meant. The draw of the cross is universal but not all will respond.

You've done the same with Lydia's comments. You wrote The way I see it, you desperately want a verse that says "Election follows, and is dependent upon, belief", while what the text actually says, in many different places, is that "Belief follows, and is dependent upon, election."

Well, I'm going to ask you to provide scriptural backing for this assertion and no doubt you will come up with a few verses. But they will without fail be verses which say what you want them to say only when viewed through Reformed Calvinistic glasses.

peter lumpkins

Josh,

"Like Peter, you've been forced to admit by your own logic that my interpretation is the correct one."

Josh, after I've thoroughly answered your questions, and frankly have shown how your view not only embraces one of the key claims of Hyper-Calvinists but also how you completely misunderstood my point about about how if God INTENDED to save everyone at the cross He miserably failed at the cross, and for you now to suggest to Andrew I was forced to admit by my own logic that your interpretation is the correct one, remains unconscionable.

Here's the deal: if you want continue on this site, then you will cease your false--not to mention nonsensical--assertions about how you've forced anyone (much less me since you've obviously ignored most of what I've logged) to concede your interpretation is the right one.

With that, I am...
Peter

Lydia

"Lydia, I never said I have no volition."

Josh, I know you never SAID it. You wouldn't. It is simply that you are unable to take your own assumptions to their logical practical conclusions.


"The way I see it, you desperately want a verse that says "Election follows, and is dependent upon, belief", while what the text actually says, in many different places, is that "Belief follows, and is dependent upon, election."

No, I don't desperately want a "verse" that says that explicitly. I simply do not start at the same root assumptions you do concerning the attributes of Yahweh. I believe HE really does want a love (not forced) relationship with His image bearers.

"So who is really enslaved to a man-made philosophy here, the one who's presupposition is simply a reaction to what scripture teaches, or the one who keeps demanding that every text needs a Pelagian Philosopher-King to explain to the masses what the text "actually" means?"

Where does the Holy Spirit fit into your assumption? And where does historical context fit into your assumption?

"I know you would love for me to fit the model of brainwashed New Calvinism Disciple, but I don't. I grew up in the same theological environment as the rest of you, and got tired of all the contradictions it taught, and people reacting exactly like you when I showed them that scripture didn't agree with their presuppositions.
"

I can relate to this. At one time I thought Calvinism was the answer to the shallow seeker world of easy believism and sins as "mistakes". But, as a lover of history, I knew something was very wrong at the root of Calvinistic thought so. They are somewhat alike, actually, except they approach it differently. The seekers taught cheap grace and the Calvinists teach a grace that is exclusive to some pre determined elect, chosen before they were born or Adam sinned. The result is often the same: Both are scary because they do not see living out the kingdom ' "on earth" as it is in heaven' as being possible for believers here and now.

I am surrounded by YRR like you who came out of the seeker world to follow Piper, Mohler, Mahaney, Driscoll, Keller, etc, etc. So in effect, you do sound like the typical New Calvinist disciple to me. Why? You said it in your own words:

"....and got tired of all the contradictions it taught, and people reacting exactly like you when I showed them that scripture didn't agree with their presuppositions."

Whether you realize it or not, you are communicating that belief in Calvinism is the way of a true believer.

Your goal, it seems by that statement, is to "convert" believers to Calvinism. Otherwise why would they beleive what you call "contradictions" in scripture?

Josh, I am surrounded by this thinking. I cannot swing a dead cat without hitting a YRR who thinks like you about Non Cals.

Hint: That is NOT love for people. If the history of Calvinistic systematic theology had brought about love for people, justice and living out the kingdom here and now, you might have a better argument. But the history of Calvinistic thinking, which ebbs and flows throughtout history, is an evil bloody mess. In this country alone, we can start with the Puritans who hung Quakers and burned women. Guess what happened to their descendents? For the most part, they became Unitarians!

And I believe people live out what they believe even if they are not aware of it. The fruit of your doctrine historically and even now (thank goodness burning heretics is illegal!) is scary stuff: Authoritarian, cold, tyrannical, etc.

I believe Christianity is predicated on love relationships with God and each other. Calvinism totally obliderates that. Love is one of those words that has becoming meaningless but I believe that word encompasses justice, mercy, compassion, integrity, honesty, transparancy and my favorite OT word: HESED.


John Krainis

Very briefly Josh,

“I don't see how your philosophy of "God's hardening is the result of man's actions" is anything other than completely disproved by Romans 9:10-13.”

Josh, first, you mis-stated my “philosophy”, and second, if it were my philosophy, I’m not seeing how Ro 9:10-13 disproves it. I do think a discussion about “hardening” would be helpful, because the concept seems quite unhospitable to Calvinism.

“And I find it amazing that all those years ago, Paul foresaw yours and Lydias and Andrews and Peters objection/question, and gave you an answer: v20.”

Again Josh, you are being heedless of the context. Paul in Romans 9 addresses the momentous, once-in-history shift taking place in the First Century, as, in Jesus’ words, “the kingdom of God is taken” from the Israelites and given to Gentiles. You however think he was speaking about people who disagree with Calvinistic election.

If you want to move this discussion forward, you have to do more than show that God is sovereign - that is a given. Your task is to show that God chooses to exercise His Romans 9 sovereignty in unilaterally pre-determining which humans are saved and which are damned.

The comments to this entry are closed.