ECT Grace is unconditional but not universal

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

Did God unconditionally choose whom He would save and whom He would not save?

You keep asking wrong questions from your presuppositional position in a false binary.

you make hints, but I don't actually see anything definitive.

That's because all that I've posted about nouns and verbs and Greek noun forms eludes you because you don't want to hear anything else than what you cling to.

You haven't once addressed grammar or anything exegetical, only conceptual constructs.

Assertion.

No. That would be your posts. I've clearly and repeatedly outlined the nouns and verbs that you keep interposing.

You have decided that most of those that read English bibles have no clue as to what was in the original Greek.

And this is true in many ways. I teach comparative language structure every week for several hours. Every last person who comes to even one two-hour teaching session leaves saying they didn't realize they had no idea what scripture actually said before coming to teaching.

That's quite a statement.

It's based on years of seeing the errors that are blatantly in defiance of basic linguistic grammatical form and structure between donor and receptor languages.

 

[Sonnet]

You keep asking wrong questions from your presuppositional position in a false binary.



That's because all that I've posted about nouns and verbs and Greek noun forms eludes you because you don't want to hear anything else than what you cling to.

You haven't once addressed grammar or anything exegetical, only conceptual constructs.



No. That would be your posts. I've clearly and repeatedly outlined the nouns and verbs that you keep interposing.



And this is true in many ways. I teach comparative language structure every week for several hours. Every last person who comes to even one two-hour teaching session leaves saying they didn't realize they had no idea what scripture actually said before coming to teaching.



It's based on years of seeing the errors that are blatantly in defiance of basic linguistic grammatical form and structure between donor and receptor languages.

Until you make an explicit statement about your stance regarding these matters then there is no point proceeding.

 

[Sonnet]

You keep asking wrong questions from your presuppositional position in a false binary.

You wont answer the question.

That's because all that I've posted about nouns and verbs and Greek noun forms eludes you because you don't want to hear anything else than what you cling to.

It's your presuppositions that lead you to your understanding. Christ most certainly made salvation available for all men as scripture teaches repeatedly.

And this is true in many ways. I teach comparative language structure every week for several hours. Every last person who comes to even one two-hour teaching session leaves saying they didn't realize they had no idea what scripture actually said before coming to teaching.

It's appears to be some form on monergism through the back door.

The Gospel is only good news if, and only if, all men have access to salvation.

Or are you inadvertently arguing that you yourself might have no access?

 

[Sonnet]

Brief article here does a nice job for a wiki.

Basically, both Calvinists and Arminians use compatiblism to understand any sort of freewill and God's sovereignty and determinism. The Calvinist, in answering, tends to diminish free-will in explanation and the Arminian and others tend to diminish God's foreknowledge in trying to balance any conflict between the two (three linked articles to this point).

The way I illustrate it is thus: If I 'could' get an Almanac from the future, everything in it is certain and I have exhaustive definite foreknowledge of everything there. However, I had no way of influencing those events. My knowledge alone does not necessitate that it will happen. It is logic trying to work both ways on a time-scale but it is like trying to do mathematics backwards without changing the function. For instance: 1+1=2 In order to prove that, it is not 2+1=1 but rather 2-1 Similarly, compatiblism seeks to prove by changing the needed function for reverse. In no way can you say you didn't have a will when you chose and it was recorded in the almanac. My getting it from the future is not a derivative function and can be logically demonstrated. God, being infinite, must have multiple functions to conceive of His infinite ability. "We" have not capability being finite, to overtly estimate what is infinite. It does, suggest, and I think rightfully as a Calvinist, that we certainly do have a limited free will, though all concede this at some point in discussion. I just think it is a LOT less than many others seem to think. -Lon

Thanks.

I meant that man is not capable of explaining how compatibilism is possible. Sorry for the confusion.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

Synergism is not man acting on his own.

Faith is a noun, and acting is a verb; so acting isn't in view here.

Still waiting for clarification.

I'm a Reconciliationist, who applies lexical and exegetical truth to all false binaries of doctrine. I've clarified at length the issues with substituting verbs for nouns and English difficulties in translating Greek noun forms. You just refuse to listen and understand.

Calvinists assert that only the elect 'hear'.

And I assert that (the verb) hearing isn't (the noun) hearing. You still ignore everything I outlined and its simple profundity.

Synergism has already been mentioned.

I know. And it's impossible. Synergism is a mutal contingency. God's incommunicable attribute of Necessity means He is non-contingent.

See above.

You still think nouns are verbs, evidently. Faith is a noun. Nouns aren't synergistic as action.

Please explain God's election then.

Why not start with basic lexicography?

Eklektos means chosen, elect; and it comes from eklegomai. Eklegomai is from ek (out of/from) and lego (to speak intelligently; logos comes from lego); to choose, select, choose for oneself (not necessarily implying the rejection of what is not chosen but giving favor to the chosen subject, keeping in view the relation to be established between him and the object. It involved preference and choice from among many. (from Spiros Zodhiates)

Election is literally choosing for oneself by that which comes out of/from one's logos. Refer back to my previous comments on Epistemology. The will is the stretching forth of the mind (in tension) toward the object as subject. Only a renewed mind could choose God. And man's boule/boulema/boulomai (will) is not God's thelo/thelema (will). Did you know there is a vast difference in God's will and man's will?

Rather, your presupposition of Calvinism (or the equivalent) has led you to your position.

No. First, I'm not a Calvinist; and second, I was an Arminian for 28 years. Then I was saved. But the real problem is you assume you have no presuppositional position AND that I've not spent two decades divesting myself of mine and reconciling all positions.

I spent time outlining the grammatical difficulties in simple terms. You just blew that off and went on your way.

I assert God's sovereignty. I also believe that your position regarding man's inability to choose makes god's creation totally worthless. I challenge you to show otherwise.

Why would you challenge me to show the inverse of what you've merely declared from your non-exegetical conceptualizations? You want to usurp God's sovereignty and verb your way to salvation. Faith is a noun. Salavation is in the noun.

Romans 4:1-4.

Already debunked your false presuppositions from this passage.

John 12:32.

All is an anarthrous adjectival noun. If you knew what Greek anarthrous nouns were, you wouldn't proof-text this passage for your fallacious self-salvation.

Romans 10:1ff.

I suppose you're referring specifically to v4? Every noun, predicate, and adjective in that verse is an anarthrous construct except the articular participle believeth. "Every one" is anarthrous. And pisteuo as an articular participle refutes what you're attempting to argue.

Englishizers are just maddening. You think English glosses determine in arrears what the Greek text is saying from your own modern conceptualizations.

If you came to only a handful of comparative language sessions, you'd be stabbing yourself in the eye with an ink pen in no time over your beligerent contentiousness in ignorance.

Since "before the foundation of the world..." is scriptural, why would you have a problem with it?

Are you speaking of Revelation 13:8? 1Peter 1:20?

In Rev. 13:8, it's "slain from (apo) the foundation of the world", and apo does not mean before. It governs the genitive and expresses what is strictly the idea of the genitive case. It means from in a very specific sense.

In 1Peter 1:20, it's "foreordained before (pro) the foundation of the world", and pro again governs the genitive and is used of both place and time. It indicates precedence and preference, among other facets of meaning.

For a timeless God, there is no "when"; so there is no "before" in the strictest sense. Anything that alludes to such is figurative by degree.

Please define what the 'many problems' are.

There's not room in this venue. And you haven't bothered to learn the basics of nouns versus verbs that I spent time outlining.

Since you are the one claiming you have the understanding then you should explain why that is so.

I've done so on the most basic level of providing an excursus on nouns and verbs, and a brief look at Greek anarthrous nouns. Since you've ignored that, I don't think further explanation would be anything but a waste of my time, and it would make you further accountable for something you still reject. And you insist God needs your Synergistic assistance to save you.

Faith is a noun. Nouns aren't verbs. If we are saved by faith, then it isn't our believing (the verb) that saves us. And it certainly isn't our own volition TO do the action of believing that saves us.

Your Pelagianism makes God as Creator worthless. But more than that, it makes you an anti-exegete who debates lexicography and grammar with concepts of your own mind (noema). Noema is rendered devices. We're not to be ignorant of Satan's devices. Unfortunately, you are. But you're far from alone. Sigh.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

Until you make an explicit statement about your stance regarding these matters then there is no point proceeding.

I have. You ignored it. And it's because you still can't process the difference between nouns and verbs.

Maybe work on that.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

You wont answer the question.

I have. You refuse to understand it. Unless and until you decide to examine the difference between nouns and verbs, you'll never understand.

It's your presuppositions that lead you to your understanding.

I've divested myself of my presuppositions. You presume otherwise because you're trapped by your own first language and its inadequacies in translation.

Christ most certainly made salvation available for all men as scripture teaches repeatedly.

Of course.

It's appears to be some form on monergism through the back door.

There's no back door. It's Monergism. And Calvinists don't fully know what Monergism is.

The Gospel is only good news if, and only if, all men have access to salvation.

They do. Jesus Christ was made (poieo) sin (singular anarthrous). If you (and all the Calvinists) knew what that meant, there would be no debate whatsoever.

Or are you inadvertently arguing that you yourself might have no access?

Nope.

 

[Sonnet]

Faith is a noun, and acting is a verb; so acting isn't in view here.

That doesn't help your argument.

I'm a Reconciliationist, who applies lexical and exegetical truth to all false binaries of doctrine. I've clarified at length the issues with substituting verbs for nouns and English difficulties in translating Greek noun forms. You just refuse to listen and understand.

Please define Reconciliationist.
Your interpretation of scripture is in conflict with the translations we have.

And I assert that (the verb) hearing isn't (the noun) hearing. You still ignore everything I outlined and its simple profundity.

To whom was Jesus speaking when said:
He replied, “Because the knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of heaven has been given to you, but not to them.
?

I know. And it's impossible. Synergism is a mutual contingency. God's incommunicable attribute of Necessity means He is non-contingent.

Would need defining.

You still think nouns are verbs, evidently. Faith is a noun. Nouns aren't synergistic as action.

Your preclusion of anything of man to do that which scripture invites of him is astonishing.
Your interpretation is a done deal and man just robotically follows.

Why not start with basic lexicography?

Eklektos means chosen, elect; and it comes from eklegomai. Eklegomai is from ek (out of/from) and lego (to speak intelligently; logos comes from lego); to choose, select, choose for oneself (not necessarily implying the rejection of what is not chosen but giving favor to the chosen subject, keeping in view the relation to be established between him and the object. It involved preference and choice from among many. (from Spiros Zodhiates)

Election is literally choosing for oneself by that which comes out of/from one's logos. Refer back to my previous comments on Epistemology. The will is the stretching forth of the mind (in tension) toward the object as subject. Only a renewed mind could choose God. And man's boule/boulema/boulomai (will) is not God's thelo/thelema (will). Did you know there is a vast difference in God's will and man's will?

I meant in terms of electing unto salvation!

No. First, I'm not a Calvinist; and second, I was an Arminian for 28 years. Then I was saved. But the real problem is you assume you have no presuppositional position AND that I've not spent two decades divesting myself of mine and reconciling all positions.

Since you have provided no reconciliation of compatibilism, then you are in the same boat as the rest of us.

I presuppose that we may make a choice to believe else we casnnot be held responsible. How God remains sovereign I do not know.

I spent time outlining the grammatical difficulties in simple terms. You just blew that off and went on your way.

Your interpretation of scripture leads to Calvinistic election and reprobation.

Why would you challenge me to show the inverse of what you've merely declared from your non-exegetical conceptualizations? You want to usurp God's sovereignty and verb your way to salvation. Faith is a noun. Salavation is in the noun.

See above. A worthless creation.

Already debunked your false presuppositions from this passage.

No you haven't

All is an anarthrous adjectival noun. If you knew what Greek anarthrous nouns were, you wouldn't proof-text this passage for your fallacious self-salvation.

I'll go with what the words actually say. Nothing you have said renders 'all' to mean something else that fits your theology.

I suppose you're referring specifically to v4? Every noun, predicate, and adjective in that verse is an anarthrous construct except the articular participle believeth. "Every one" is anarthrous. And pisteuo as an articular participle refutes what you're attempting to argue.

No, all the verses from 1-13.

Englishizers are just maddening. You think English glosses determine in arrears what the Greek text is saying from your own modern conceptualizations.

If you came to only a handful of comparative language sessions, you'd be stabbing yourself in the eye with an ink pen in no time over your beligerent contentiousness in ignorance.

Now you are getting angry.

Are you speaking of Revelation 13:8? 1Peter 1:20?

In Rev. 13:8, it's "slain from (apo) the foundation of the world", and apo does not mean before. It governs the genitive and expresses what is strictly the idea of the genitive case. It means from in a very specific sense.

In 1Peter 1:20, it's "foreordained before (pro) the foundation of the world", and pro again governs the genitive and is used of both place and time. It indicates precedence and preference, among other facets of meaning.

Rather Ephesians 1:4.


For a timeless God, there is no "when"; so there is no "before" in the strictest sense. Anything that alludes to such is figurative by degree.[/QUOTE]

Of course.

There's not room in this venue. And you haven't bothered to learn the basics of nouns versus verbs that I spent time outlining.

I've done so on the most basic level of providing an excursus on nouns and verbs, and a brief look at Greek anarthrous nouns. Since you've ignored that, I don't think further explanation would be anything but a waste of my time, and it would make you further accountable for something you still reject. And you insist God needs your Synergistic assistance to save you.

Remember Paul's curse on those that preach a different Gospel?
By all means prove what you are asserting...you haven't so far.

Faith is a noun. Nouns aren't verbs. If we are saved by faith, then it isn't our believing (the verb) that saves us. And it certainly isn't our own volition TO do the action of believing that saves us.

Your Pelagianism makes God as Creator worthless. But more than that, it makes you an anti-exegete who debates lexicography and grammar with concepts of your own mind (noema). Noema is rendered devices. We're not to be ignorant of Satan's devices. Unfortunately, you are. But you're far from alone. Sigh.

Your definition of how a man comes to faith in God allows you to accuse me of Pelagianism.

 

[Sonnet]

Of course.

To:
Christ most certainly made salvation available for all men as scripture teaches repeatedly.

Please expatiate.

 

[TulipBee]

If one returns to the same sin. I would question whether they were truly repentant and truly born again.

I think of it as throwing a ball in the air and the gravity will make the ball fall back. The ball was free to fly for a little bit but the weight made it fall back. We may be able to obey a little bit for a minute but our sins will drag us back.

 

[TulipBee]

Canons of Dort
Article 7: Election
Election is God’s unchangeable purpose by which he did the following:
Before the foundation of the world, by sheer grace, according to the free good pleasure of his will, God chose in Christ to salvation a definite number of particular people out of the entire human race, which had fallen by its own fault from its original innocence into sin and ruin. Those chosen were neither better nor more deserving than the others, but lay with them in the common misery. God did this in Christ, whom he also appointed from eternity to be the mediator, the head of all those chosen, and the foundation of their salvation.
And so God decreed to give to Christ those chosen for salvation, and to call and draw them effectively into Christ’s fellowship through the Word and Spirit. In other words, God decreed to grant them true faith in Christ, to justify them, to sanctify them, and finally, after powerfully preserving them in the fellowship of the Son, to glorify them.
God did all this in order to demonstrate his mercy, to the praise of the riches of God’s glorious grace.
As Scripture says, “God chose us in Christ, before the foundation of the world, so that we should be holy and blameless before him with love; he predestined us whom he adopted as his children through Jesus Christ, in himself, according to the good pleasure of his will, to the praise of his glorious grace, by which he freely made us pleasing to himself in his beloved” (Eph. 1:4-6). And elsewhere, “Those whom he predestined, he also called; and those whom he called, he also justified; and those whom he justified, he also glorified” (Rom. 8:30).

Thoughts?

I think of this: As Scripture says, “God chose us in Christ, before the foundation of the world, so that we should be holy and blameless before him with love; he predestined us whom he adopted as his children through Jesus Christ, in himself, according to the good pleasure of his will, to the praise of his glorious grace, by which he freely made us pleasing to himself in his beloved” (Eph. 1:4-6). And elsewhere, “Those whom he predestined, he also called; and those whom he called, he also justified; and those whom he justified, he also glorified” (Rom. 8:30).

 

[Cross Reference]

If one returns to the same sin. I would question whether they were truly repentant and truly born again.

What to do with this passage in which I place my hope:

11 It is a trustworthy statement: For if we died with Him, we will also live with Him;
12 If we endure, we will also reign with Him; If we deny Him, He also will deny us;
13 If we are faithless, He remains faithful, for He cannot deny Himself.
2 Timothy 2:11-13 (NASB)

 

[Cross Reference]

I think of it as throwing a ball in the air and the gravity will make the ball fall back. The ball was free to fly for a little bit but the weight made it fall back. We may be able to obey a little bit for a minute but our sins will drag us back.

Claiming Christ as savior people use that as an excuse to sin, don't they? Why would they do that?

 

[TulipBee]

Claiming Christ as savior people use that as an excuse to sin, don't they? Why would they do that?

The ball falling back shows that sin makes the sinner sinner and in need of christ. Only God decides which ball will continue to go upwards without falling back down to earth. There is no gravity in Christ.

 

[Cross Reference]

The ball falling back shows that sin makes the sinner sinner and in need of christ. Only God decides which ball will continue to go upwards without falling back down to earth. There is no gravity in Christ.

And if i said that, in this, the will of man is greater than the will of God, you say what?

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

Who started that "theory" that True Believers in Christ (Those who are part of the Body of Christ) use their faith in Christ as a "license to sin?" No one NEEDS a license to sin. People do just fine without that "license" on their own. Only an unbeliever (unsaved person) believes that nonsense. Everyone sins. However, those who are truly a child of God are not held accountable for those sins because Christ took care of the sins of ALL humanity on the cross. The "true" child of God (member of the Body of Christ) will not be judged or punished (eternal damnation) for their sins. The unsaved (rejectors of the Gospel) will stand before God and be judged by their WORKS. Revelation 20:13 "And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.


What "member of the Body of Christ," thinks they have a licence to sin? The answer would be, zero.

 

[TulipBee]

And if i said that, in this, the will of man is greater than the will of God, you say what?

Mans will can't go far. You might be able to get away with God moving men in everyway. I might accept that

 

[Cross Reference]

Who started that "theory" that True Believers in Christ (Those who are part of the Body of Christ) use their faith in Christ as a "license to sin?" No one NEEDS a license to sin. People do just fine without that "license" on their own. Only an unbeliever (unsaved person) believes that nonsense. Everyone sins. However, those who are truly a child of God are not held accountable for those sins because Christ took care of the sins of ALL humanity on the cross. The "true" child of God (member of the Body of Christ) will not be judged or punished (eternal damnation) for their sins. The unsaved (rejectors of the Gospel) will stand before God and be judged by their WORKS. Revelation 20:13 "And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.


What "member of the Body of Christ," thinks they have a licence to sin? The answer would be, zero.

However, if one, like you believes his past, present and futures sins are all forgiven in advance, why not sin? What have you to lose?

 

[Nang]

Grace and forgiveness bestowed by God is not a license to continue in unrepentant sin.

 

[patrick jane]

Grace and forgiveness bestowed by God is not a license to continue in unrepentant sin.

Sure it is. Because you think that's what everybody does ?