Elect

[Guest]

Hi Jugulum,

Out of curiosity, have you ever quoted Matthew 23:37 or 1 John 2:4 or 2 Peter 3:9 in a similar way?

I can't remember if I have or not. It certainly would not surprise me if I have cited these verses in order to give my argument validity. However, I would not go to the extent of stating that these scriptures deliver the "death nail" to Calvinism. These verses have to be considered along with all relevant verses (including Romans 9) in order to determine truth.

Thank you,
Robin

[Guest]

I can't remember if I have or not. It certainly would not surprise me if I have cited these verses in order to give my argument validity. However, I would not go to the extent of stating that these scriptures deliver the "death nail" to Calvinism. These verses have to be considered along with all relevant verses (including Romans 9) in order to determine truth.

Thank you,
Robin

OK, just checking for consistency. They are used that way sometimes, so I wanted to check.

[Guest]

Haas,

Quote: Exactly how God combines his providential control with our willing and significant choices, Scripture does not explain to us.

Exactly! Which is why I am not a Calvinist or an Arminian (dogmatically speaking). There are 'hard determinists' and 'soft determinists'. Nobody as far as I can tell, has the absolute corner on the market of free will and what it means in relation to God's soverienty. Really, the only "free" choice we are given from Genesis to Revelation, is life or death.
If left to our own devices, we would choose death everytime. Why else would we need a Saviour? Think about it.

Peace,
Bob

[Guest]

Hi Traveler,

If left to our own devices, we would choose death everytime. Why else would we need a Saviour? Think about it.

This is a curious statement. Can you explain what you mean by "we would choose death every time"?

Robin

[Guest]

And actually, I don't think the problem is language like "this passage is the death knell of Calvinism/Arminianism". If Calvinist exegesis of Romans 9 is valid, then it is the nail in the coffin for Arminianism, and the reverse if Arminian exegesis of Matt 23:37 is correct.

The problem is when we throw the verses out there like spaghetti against the wall; with no apparent consideration or understanding of how others view the passage; as though simply reading the passage is enough; as though people should simply be bowled over a scripture reference. When it happens, it's very frustrating.

[Guest]

Hi jugulum,

If Calvinist exegesis of Romans 9 is valid, then it is the nail in the coffin for Arminianism, and the reverse if Arminian exegesis of Matt 23:37 is correct.

Well here is the problem. You think that because the Calvinists explanation of Romans 9 is "Valid" that Calvinism is true, where I think that the Arminian's explanation of Romans 9 is Valid, and therefore correct. So we must move on and continue to look at all relevant passages to determine truth. And its best if we don't resolve to just calling some passages mysteries (which Calvinists are famous for).

Robin

[Guest]

If Calvinist exegesis of Romans 9 is valid, then it is the nail in the coffin for Arminianism, and the reverse if Arminian exegesis of Matt 23:37 is correct.

Well here is the problem. You think that because the Calvinists explanation of Romans 9 is "Valid" that Calvinism is true, where I think that the Arminian's explanation of Romans 9 is Valid, and therefore correct. So we must move on and continue to look at all relevant passages to determine truth. And its best if we don't resolve to just calling some passages mysteries (which Calvinists are famous for).

Robin

(edited after posting)

I agree. Though I'm not sure why you call that "the problem" in response to my post. Did you get the impression I was suggesting we can decide these things without looking at all the relevant passages?

I guess I could clarify: When I said the problem wasn't with language like "This passage is the death knell", I was not implying that it's OK to talk about that passage alone and then stop. But when you're talking about one of the potentially decisive passages, and you're giving it an in-depth treatment that takes all sides into account, I think it's fine to say that the passage clearly and conclusively disproves the other side.

[Guest]

Hi Rob,

I had in mind Adam's fall in the sense we would have chose the the 'wrong' tree as well. You know the rest of the story.

Peace,
Bob

[Guest]

Hi Rob,

I had in mind Adam's fall in the sense we would have chose the the 'wrong' tree as well. You know the rest of the story.

Peace,
Bob

Okay Bob, now I see what you were saying.

Thanks

[Guest]

What follows is ONE of the proof texts which Calvinists frequently throw out for our consideration:

God plans our days before we are born, for David affirms, “In your book were written, every one of them, the days that were formed for me, when as yet there was none of them” (Ps. 139:16).

I took a look at this passage today. I discovered that there are alternate translations.

Thy eyes saw my substance, not yet formed; and in thy book all my members were written, which in continuance were fashioned, when as yet there was none of them. RWebster [bolding mine]

The Revised Webster gives a quite different slant on the passage. It is the body parts, the members, that were written in His book before they existed.

I also studied the passage in the Greek Septuagint (there are several different "versions" of the Septuagint as well. The Septuagint translation of the OT seems to be the one that the NT writers used. I have been wondering whether something has been omitted. It reads like this:

Your eyes saw the unworked of me, and all shall be written in your book (days) they shall be formed in you.

Now the problem is that "days" seems to be sitting in isolation. It is in the accusative case, which means that it is the object of a verb. But there is no verb for which it can be the object. So I'm guessing that there was once such a verb, but that scribes somehow failed to copy it into the text.

If "days" were the subject of the verb "shall be written", it would be in the nominative case.

addendum:

Okay, I've been a bit incomplete in my study of the verse. I took for granted that it was an accusitive plural, because books giving the analytical text stated so. But just now I remembered that the form can also be the genitive singular. In that case the meaning is "of the day". So it would read, "...all shall be written in your book of the day..."
This would make sense. God was writing it in His day book.