Honzo February 23rd, 2008
A while ago Hank did a five part post series on his translation process of John 3:16. I was translating the verse again tonight and came across some questions while I was trying to knock the participle in the side to give it legs. I thought I would give ole Hank’s translation another look over for some help in this department.
Here is the verse:
οὕτως γὰρ ἠγάπησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν κόσμον ὥστε τὸν υἱὸν τὸν μονογενῆ ἔδωκεν ἵνα πᾶς ὁ πιστεύων εἰς αὐτὸν μὴ ἀπόληται ἀλλ’ ἔχῃ ζωὴν αἰώνιον (link to zhubert version)
Do you think the ὁ before the participle πιστεύων is indicating that the participle is in the attributive position relative to πᾶς and means that we need to translate the present active participle as a relative clause for πᾶς, clarifying everyone of what group we are talking about (Smyth 2050A) (i.e. everyone who is believing in him)?
Also, the participle is timeless, it either will denote the stage of action (here continuous because it is present) or action relative to the main verb (here at the same time as God giving and loving, because they are both in the aorist) when used in indirect discourse (Smyth 2043). I am thinking it is not in indirect discourse, but I really don’t know what indirect discourse means for Smyth. So, I think that the participle here is only indicating aspect, not time. Therefore, the participle here is indicating that everyone that is continually trusting in Jesus are the members of the world which are being given everlasting life.
I wonder how that impacts the H/C/A/O debate?
What do you all think? I am one week into the Greek participle, so I am pretty green here.
Hank January 31st, 2008
I felt like we were just going to go down the same path as in another post about the historicity of Adam and whether or not sin and righteousness is imputed (I would say both are imputed because that is the very parallel that Paul is drawing out in Romans 5:12-21, and thus for this parallel to work Adam must be historical and his sin must be an actual event in history) on the Myth thread. So I just went ahead and posted this so that we could devote an entire thread to OS, picking up some where Brad left off, and Adam being historical.
By my reading of Calvin’s Institutes, he would not say that there is a specific gene, like modern science would understand "genetic," that contains sin. Rather Calvin points to Romans 8:20 and says that humanity is part of the creation (ἡ κτίσις ) that was subjected to futility. He also understands original sin not to be sin itself but rather it is the corruption (cf Romans 8:21 ESV "bondage to corruption") of the imagio dei that all humans have. Thus we who are in the image of Adam bear that corrupted image as well (Notice the parallel of "futility" [ματαιότητι] in 8:20 and "bondage to corruption" [τῆς δουλείας τῆς φθορᾶς] in Romans 8:21), being part of the created order. Thus it was Adam’s sin that corrupted humanity’s being the image of God and it is God’s curse that confines all of creation under that corruption. Therefore the corruption of sin rules over all of the creation, including human beings and their wills–which is precisely what (that is the human will) Calvin argues to be what makes humans the bearers of the image of God. The creation is enslaved or in bondage (Gk. δουλείας) to the corruption that is removed when the bodies of the sons of God are redeemed. I think "genetic" is too much of a caricature of the Reformed view of OS, at least from Calvin’s point of view expounded in The Institutes that is.
tom December 28th, 2007
What I find interesting in the following logical syllogism is that the Calvinist, in order to avoid being a universalist (5), has to to deny premise 1 or redefine God’s love - which is to deny premise 2. If Calvinists were honest about this, Calvinism would die out fairly quickly in churches because the denial of 1 or 2 goes against what most church people consider God’s fundamental attribute. In other words, complete openness on this subject would be the death of Calvinism.
P1.God truly loves all persons.
P2.To truly love someone is to desire their well being and to promote their true flourishing as much as you can.
P3.The true well being and true flourishing of all persons is to be found in a right relationship with God, a saving relationship in which we love and obey him.
P4.God could determine all persons freely to accept a right relationship with himself and be saved.
5.Therefore, all will be saved.
tom September 26th, 2007
I hijacked this from my philosophy class, tweaked it for this audience, and now give it to you in hopes of actually getting somewhere in the Calvinism/Arminianism debate.
1. Just before 11 p.m., Patrick enters a room where a big party is bumping. Planning to stay for an hour or two, depending on how many chicks were there. Unknown to him, the front door at the party was connected to a timer that locked the door at 11p.m, and would unlock again at 1a.m. Chicks aside, all sorts of interesting philosophical/theological discussions were going on at the party. Patrick, being somewhat inclined to theological debates, was in the midst of a discussion of Calvinism vs. Arminiansism and the issue of free will. A few times, when the Calvinists got all riled up, Patrick thought about leaving, and even headed for the door once or twice. But each time, he found himself engaged in another conversation and ended up staying for the entire two hours. Then, exactly at 1a.m. just as the door unlocked, he walked out, thinking about the nature of human freedom. Things were winding down at the party anyway and a bit later all the chicks left as well.
2. Penelope visits her psychiatrist, Dr. Finney. As a part of her treatment, he places her under hypnosis. While under hypnosis, he instructs her that at 11p.m. she will enter a bumping party and stay for exactly two hours. Sure enough, that night at 11.p.m. she enters a party where the guests are discussion fascinating topics such as the sinners prayer and the nature Unconditional Election. A chemistry major in college, she was fascinated by such a discussion as it was much more exciting than protons and electrons. Her excitement leaves her with no desire to leave the party. A few times she thought about leaving, but every time she thought of a good reason to stay. Then abruptly, just before 1.am. she suddenly felt the urge to leave, and exactly at 1 she walked out the door, leaving behind a spirited debate about Predestination.
Who has the greater degree of freedom? How do you define freedom and how does it play out in your decision? These examples, I think, will show the huge differences between Calvinistic understandings of freedom and Arminian/Open Theist understanding of freedom.
Honzo September 12th, 2007
Does God wants bond-slaves:
God does not want people to be “in love” with Him. This carnal phrase is a sick way to refer to our Lord. God desires bond-slaves who worship Him and adore Him as their sovereign Master, not who are in love with Him as one is with their lover.
or does God want “lovers?”
Yes, according to this post, God prefers slaves rather than people who are in love with Him. That would come as a surprise to Jesus, I guess, who in John 15:15 said,
“I no longer call you servants, because a servant does not know his master’s business. Instead, I have called you friends, for everything that I learned from my Father I have made known to you.”
It also misses the point of much of the Biblical narrative. It seems to me that even in the Old Testament, God was looking for people who loved them with all their hearts. When David wrote,
As the deer pants for streams of water,
so my soul pants for you, O God.
My soul thirsts for God, for the living God.
When can I go and meet with God?
was it sickening to God? Too wishy-washy and touchy-feely?
Honzo August 22nd, 2007
Original sin is a polyvalent term. It is used in many ways and with many meanings by many Christians.
How do you define this loaded term? Please give your definition and then after your definition, please feel free to elaborate as to why you employ that definition.
Honzo August 4th, 2007
Came across this at Rose’s Reasonings via the Contemporary Calvinist. I thought it also pertained to Hank’s recent question about God.
Rose’s Reasonings :: Another Quote
“…free will, though it makes evil possible, is also the only thing that makes possible any love or goodness or joy worth having.”
–The Case for Christianity, C. S. Lewis
I never even considered that people might not have a free will until I came across Calvinism, quite some time after my conversion. For me - I see free will and choice as the whole reason that the LORD did not create man confirmed in holiness, or without the choice to disobey. I had always read of the Garden of Eden and the one tree that the first couple must not eat of … and thought that God must want them to have something that they can do to show that they trust and love Him. It made evil possible, but IF they had obeyed, it also provided the opportunity for love, goodness, trust and joy …. a two-way relationship.
Read through the 51 comments for good discussion.
I have a clarifying question to our many Calvinist authors and readers. In your (the Calvinistic) system of thought, Adam and Eve had free moral will until the fall, then they (and the rest of mankind) somehow became so morally corrupt that they (Adam, Eve, and the rest of humanity) is completely unable to want to choose God. Is that the case? I think I have seen Puritan Bob and Brad both say something to that effect. If it is, then I think part of Rose’s quote contains a bit of a false dilemma.
However, even if that is the case, the (real) two-way relationship and free-will within that relationship still seems necessary in understanding what God has revealed to us.
Hank July 28th, 2007
This is probably not going to be the last post in this series, because I want to address the idea of “divine rape” in God’s effectual call and irresistible grace. This fifth post is going to be on Predestination and Prayer. In Part 4, I argued that Calvinism does not hinder prayer, but that God ordained that his saving, effectual call of his election comes through our preaching of the gospel in 1 Thessalonians 1:4-5 and 2 Thessalonians 2:13-14; and this calling of his elect is the joy of the entire Triune God in Luke 10:21-22–Father, Son, Spirit. In Part 3 I argued that Calvinism does not give license to live however but that it gives the foundation and confidence to live the life of holiness we are called to live for (Hebrews 12:12-17; 2 Thessalonians 2:13-15; Ephesians 1:4; Philippians 2:12-13; 1 Corinthians 15:8-10). In Part 2, I argued that election is unconditional from Romans 9:11 and from 1 Corinthians 1:20-31 that Calvinism’s unconditional election and effectual call is designed to cut human pride out from under itself and give all glory and honor for salvation to God. In Part 1, I argued that many objections against Five-point Calvinism (TULIP) comes from people assuming it is the same as Hyper-Calvinism, it would be the same thing as assuming Arminianism is either Open Theism or Pelagianism; if this confusion would stop, many objections would cease, and so I tried to demonstrate the difference between the biblical Five-point and Hyper-Calvinism. So let us turn to Predestination and Prayer.
Continue Reading »
Hank July 21st, 2007
Today I want to discuss the next objection on my list, Election and Evangelism. Let me review the series so far. In the first post, I tried to distinguish historic, five-point Calvinism from hyper-Calvinism. In the second post, I showed that election in a Reformed soteriology is not a source of pride and arrogance, but is a humbling action of God that reveals his glory, from Romans 9:11 and 1 Corinthians 1:20-31. In the third post, I argued that election does not diminish our pursuit of obedience and holiness, but rather grounds our pursuit and gives us confidence that we will be obedience.
Continue Reading »
Hank July 18th, 2007
I came across this interesting article at Alpha and Omega Ministries. It considers 2 Peter 2:1 and whether or not it teaches one can be bought by Jesus and still lose their salvation. The exegesis of this text is very well done and worth the read. I commend it to the readers here to consider, both, its conclusions and as an example of good exegesis. I really like James White and his work in defending the faith from Mormonism and Jehovah’s Witness and other religions and atheism, as well as his work in considering if Roman Catholicism is biblical, and in defending Reformed theology. He is very fair to the other side, allowing them to define the terms that they use and such, as well as staying to historical-grammatical exegesis of Scripture when examining a biblical passage. He is well worth the consideration of all the authors here at Theology for the Masses to read.