I have already said that Faith is not work. Faith is what energizes man to do spiritual work. And faith without work is dead.
Seems you have failed in resolving the Arminians' Dilemma.
Arminians' Dilemma
- Thread starter Samie
- Start date
Seems you have failed in resolving the Arminians' Dilemma.
You said before πίστις is "faithfulness" when talking about baptized believers, otherwise it is "faith". Now you are telling another story.
How can they when Christ EXPLICITLY said apart from Him man can do NOTHING?
Dead Faith.
They are alive but became as dead by not overcoming evil with good. That's why many will be blotted out from the book of life.
Improper comparison. The prodigal IS a family member. Arminians teach that the non-believers are NOT family members, NOT in Christ. Hence, their faith which you say they have, is dead.
For whatever they do amounts to NOTHING. And the Arminians' Dilemma remains unresolved.
I felt obliged to read who Barth is. It appears he is a universalist, just like Bociferous in this forum. I think my position is not the same as Barth's.
Barth believes all will finally make it to eternal life, no matter what. I don't.
I believe that because of what God through Christ has done for humanity in his life, death and resurrection, all had been saved, are being saved, BUT only overcomers will finally make it to heaven and eternity. All others will suffer the wrath of God and finally thrown into the lake of fire.
PneumaPsucheSoma
TOL Subscriber
That doesn't keep his influential theology from affecting how you read scripture in some manner. In fact, if one doesn't know of him and his doctrines, it's not possible to eliminate them specifically from one's worldview.
No. One must understand the explicit distinction between articular and anarthrous nouns, especially when they are coupled in sequence as the same word. English doesn't have anarthrous nouns, instead utilizing the vagueries of indefinite article nouns (which Greek does not have). This is the greatest area of misunderstanding and mistranslation by English speakers as comparative grammar.
All as an anarthrous noun is not all as an articular noun. Same "thing", but different reference for content and context. English speakers have to spend time having their mind renewed on this topic if they are to accurately represent scripture. It's an epidemic in modernity.
Barth is not a Universalist, as many misportray; but he takes a position of universal atonement (not universal salvation) that is beyond unlimited atonement in any form.
His position (on which he wrote over 10 million words in 14 volumes) is that all died with Christ and are alive in Christ to be able to repent. He was attempting to resolve the same seeming paradox you refer to for Arminians and Calvinists, etc.
His problem was that he wasn't a Greek scholar, much like St. Augustine wasn't a Greek scholar (along with many others). None of these understood the difference between articular and anarthrous Greek nouns. And this is also your source of confusion in coming to some gradient of the same conclusions as they did.
That's a misrepresentation. Barth is not easily understood, as he intermixes many views he opposes to illustrate his own; and the distinctions aren't clear. Further, he has been mischaracterized by those who have not copiously read his work, and many have erroneously presumed him to be a full-on Universalist (Universal Reconciliation). He is not.
This is basically aligned with Barth, and it's fallacious. And predominantly because the English heart and mind has been patterned to replace Greek anarthrous nouns with either English definite article nouns or English indefinite article nouns.
This point of grammar is huge, and one who does not understand this cannot validly dismiss it OR readily comprehend it. It's an epistemological foundation of basic lingistic function, and it has been the pattern of thought since the womb and all stages of development into adulthood.
It's not a small issue, and it's the main reason for the proliferation of beliefs within Christendom for the last half millennia or longer.
Scriptures are quite clear that All died when Christ died, and made alive together with Him when He resurrected. Your explanation says:
Granting that Paul was referring merely to his Corinthian audience when he said all died when Christ died, again I ask, was his Corinthian audience already believers when Christ died? If NO, then, since Paul said all died when Christ died, why would the "all" not include all the other non-believers, since Scriptures say elsewhere that Christ died for every man (see Heb 2:9)?
Juvenile stupidity. (And I'm not even an Arminian!)
If you have nothing to contribute relative to the issue of this thread, then please don't clutter this thread with your stupidity.
Last edited:
What's there to contribute? You open the thread with a post based on idiotic proof-texting stupidity that wouldn't convince an average public school third grader. The line of thinking is worth nothing except as a target of ridicule and derision.
If your doctrine is based on such idiocy, I strongly caution you against reading anything that isn't written from an overtly Christian bias. Anything written by even a half witted atheist will undermine your faith with little effort.
Resting in Him,
Clete
PneumaPsucheSoma
TOL Subscriber
"All" is anarthrous, then articular. Do you know the difference between Greek articular and anarthrous nouns? And between those and English definite and indefinite article nouns? Most don't.
Your entire presupposition is contrary to the grammar of the inspired text. No amount of insistence will change the meaning of the text that is not readily apparent in English.
Because you don't understand Greek articular and anarthrous nouns. You cannot presume to build doctrine and translate scripture meaning if you don't know basic grammar of both donor and receptor languages. This has been a long-standing problem for hundreds of years, and exaggerated in the last century. Please don't contribute to it with the fallacy of this OP.
This post makes an excellent point but its not even necessary to be a Greek scholar to understand that Jesus wasn't saying what Calvinists suggest. All that is necessary is a little common sense. Words like "nothing" or "all" almost never mean "Nothing whatsoever" or "every single one without exception".
If the Calvinist line of thinking was valid then we must insist that every last Jew in all of Judea was baptized by John because we are told twice....
Matthew 3:5 Then Jerusalem, all Judea, and all the region around the Jordan went out to him 6 and were baptized by him in the Jordan, confessing their sins.
Mark 1:5 Then all the land of Judea, and those from Jerusalem, went out to him and were all baptized by him in the Jordan River, confessing their sins.
Mark 1:5 Then all the land of Judea, and those from Jerusalem, went out to him and were all baptized by him in the Jordan River, confessing their sins.
Further, we must accept that Jesus got it wrong when He said...
Matthew 13:31“The kingdom of heaven is like a mustard seed, which a man took and sowed in his field, 32 which indeed is the least of all the seeds; but when it is grown it is greater than the herbs and becomes a tree, so that the birds of the air come and nest in its branches.”
If we are to accept the Calvinist thinking then we must also accept that Jesus must have simply forgotten about the orchid seed as well as many other seeds that are smaller than the mustard seed.
I, of course, could give many more examples but I'm short on time and I think I've made the point anyway.
I wasn't kidding when I called the thinking in the opening post juvenile stupidity. It's childish nonsense that countless atheists (and other non-believers) use on a regular basis to undermine the Christian faith and to shipwreck their own souls. It's nothing but superficial, proof-texting stupidity. Even David Koresh could present proof texts to support the notion that he was the Messiah and that it was a good thing to send your daughters in to have sex with him. Now most of those morons are dead and in Hell. Proof-texting kills.
Resting in Him,
Clete
Lon
Well-known member
He's not a Calvinist. Quit scapegoating us for every blessed thing?
Was Paul aware of your anarthrous and articular nouns, PPS?
There's nothing wrong with all died when Christ died. If there's anything wrong, it's your pet doctrine that seems to be wrong because it cannot harmonize with what Paul said. And you have to bring in your anarthrous and articular invention in trying to save your day.
Arminians teach non-believers are separate or apart from Christ. Hence, they are dead, spiritually dead, because Christ is our life (Col 3:4). It is only natural that apart from Christ, man can do NOTHING, being dead. Can the dead do anything?
Amazingly, Arminians require the non-believers, who they said are separate from Christ and therefore dead, to do SOMETHING - to accept the gift of salvation - so they can be in Christ, and be alive. Strange. I don't think any Arminian will tell the unconscious to get up and go to the doctor. Yet they require the spiritually dead to do the spiritual act of accepting the gift. Sigh.
Not able to refute it, Clete says it is stupidity. And PPS tries to rescue the Arminians with his anarthrous and articular inventions. See what are resorted to by these respectable gentlemen?
The Arminians' Dilemma remains unresolved.
Amazingly, Arminians require the non-believers, who they said are separate from Christ and therefore dead, to do SOMETHING - to accept the gift of salvation - so they can be in Christ, and be alive. Strange. I don't think any Arminian will tell the unconscious to get up and go to the doctor. Yet they require the spiritually dead to do the spiritual act of accepting the gift. Sigh.
Not able to refute it, Clete says it is stupidity. And PPS tries to rescue the Arminians with his anarthrous and articular inventions. See what are resorted to by these respectable gentlemen?
The Arminians' Dilemma remains unresolved.
PneumaPsucheSoma
TOL Subscriber
Yes, which is why you don't understand what he said.
It's not my invention. It's the authorship by the Holy Spirit through a human Apostle. You are neither of those.
This is your cognitive dissonance. You will cling to your false belief when it could be easily corrected by basic grammar that gives English speakers fits.
"All" is an anarthrous noun, and then an articular noun in the passage to which you refer. Paul is not saying what you presume he is saying. That's because the Holy Spirit and the Apostle are not saying what you deduce from your mistreatement of that passage.
I don't have a pet doctrine. I just make sure that whatever doctrine that emerges from exegesis of the text isn't grammatical false like what you're attempting to say. Many theologians and non-theologians are victims of their own presuppositions in this manner.
You do not get to be the authority when you're not, just because you think you've made sense of something contrary to what the grammar and words actually say by inspiration of the Holy Spirit.
Don't blame me, blame yourself. And you'll STILL have to get an understanding of Greek articular and anarthrous nouns before you ever comprehend what the Holy Spirit (via Paul) has said in that passage (and all others).
PneumaPsucheSoma
TOL Subscriber
I'm not trying to rescue Arminians or anyone else. Arminians are wrong for many foundational reasons. And so are you. I've tried to help you. You don't want anything but your own false autonomy. So keep it. I don't really care at this point. You won't heed basic admonition to look deeper and see your failing. It's a very elementary point, and you think it's some pinnacle of a solution.
You're as wrong as the Arminians.
PneumaPsucheSoma
TOL Subscriber
Sorry, but that's actually where you're hiding. The difference between articular and anarthrous Greek nouns is HUGE, and is not readily represented in English.
PneumaPsucheSoma
TOL Subscriber
I'm beyond done with you, heretic.