Arminian confusion

[eternomade]

Right the word "choose" is not there, the same as none of the 5 points of TULIP are there.

Do you believe in Total Depravity? Or in other words, do you believe everyone has the ability to believe the Gospel?

 

[Theo1689]

Right the word "choose" is not there,

Well, since we seem to agree on that point, perhaps it is wise to stop proclaiming the false idea that belief is by "choosing".

the same as none of the 5 points of TULIP are there.

Well, those are separate and independent ideas unrelated to your false claim.
We can discuss them, but history demonstrates you're not willing to do so.

For instance, you claim, "Calvinism wrongly claims an inability to believe."
That suggests that you assert that the natural man DOES have a natural ability to believe.
Perhaps you could show us where SCRIPTURE supports any such thing.
(And of course you won't, because double standards.)

 

[TibiasDad]

TibiasDad said:
This is the where Arminius began his departure from Calvinism, in the book of Romans; he began to see chapter 7 very differently, he then sees the idea of foreknowledge very differently. Thus he sees that while God elects, he he does so by foreseeing who will believe, and that the grace of God can be resisted.

Two questions for you, show me where in Romans 7, where it states what you said. And is Paul a believer or not in Romans 7?

I didn't say anything about Rom 7, I simply said that that was where Arminius began to change his mind about the Calvinistic argument. He then began to interpret foreknowledge differently. Thus, he concluded that "while God elects, he he does so by foreseeing who will believe, and that the grace of God can be resisted."

Now, this said, and to answer your second question, no, Paul is not a believer in Romans 7, as even Wallace points out that Rom 7:14-ff is a use of the historical present tense pointing to his past experience before being saved.

In the Arminian Bible Commentary, Kerrigan quotes Wallace saying,

“For when we were in the flesh, the motions of sins, which were by the law, did work in our members to bring forth fruit unto death.” (Romans 7:5)

When Paul was formerly a slave to sin, he says, “Sin, taking occasion by the commandment … slew me.” (Romans 7:11.) So the sin, by the commandment, killed him. As Paul continues in his narrative he takes us to that exact experience in his past and gives us the account of his own history, whilst that sin was killing him, when he says: “Was that which is good made death unto me? God forbid. But sin, that it might appear sin, κατεργαζομένη (present tense – “IS WORKING”) death in me by that which is good.” (Romans 7:13) It is in this instance when the present tense begins to be used to describe his past experience. The KJV translates κατεργαζομένη as “working,” but other versions completely conceal the verb tense here by presenting it as a past tense verb (NKJV, NIV, HSCB, etc.). The reason why Paul switches to the present tense is to take us back, as it were, so that we may watch this past event as it unfolds. This is normal in Greek and is referred to as the Historical Present Tense. “The historical present is used fairly frequently in narrative literature to describe a past event. … The reason for the use of the historical present is usually to portray an event vividly, as though the reader were in the midst of the scene as it unfolds. … The historic present may be used to describe a past event, either for the sake of vividness or to highlight some aspect of the narrative.” – Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, p. 531 (Emphasis mine)


As such, Paul is saying that as an unconverted Jewish Pharisee, he read, understood, and desired to obey what he understood to be true. But he could not because of the sinful nature within him. He had learned that "you shall not covet", he desired to not covet, but he could not cease coveting. He was a slave to sin, unable to stop himself from sinning, but in chapters 6 and 8, he is set free and no longer a slave. (Rom 6:6-7, 8:1-4) He could not be set free from slavery to sin in the present tense in Rom 6 and 8, and, at the same time be a slave to sin in the present tense in chapter 7!

Doug

 

[Ladodgers6]

TibiasDad said:
This is the where Arminius began his departure from Calvinism, in the book of Romans; he began to see chapter 7 very differently, he then sees the idea of foreknowledge very differently. Thus he sees that while God elects, he he does so by foreseeing who will believe, and that the grace of God can be resisted.

Since you brought this up, how does this happen? Are these sinners, saved through the Gospel, or is it the Universal Prevenient Grace that doesn't regenerate cause them to believe. Just seeking clarification.

I didn't say anything about Rom 7, I simply said that that was where Arminius began to change his mind about the Calvinistic argument. He then began to interpret foreknowledge differently. Thus, he concluded that "while God elects, he he does so by foreseeing who will believe, and that the grace of God can be resisted."

Okay, as I said before, provide the support for this statement with Scripture. Where is this taught in Scripture, you are the one quoting Arminus, so please again provide the reference.

 

[Theo1689]

TibiasDad said:
This is the where Arminius began his departure from Calvinism, in the book of Romans; he began to see chapter 7 very differently, he then sees the idea of foreknowledge very differently. Thus he sees that while God elects, he he does so by foreseeing who will believe, and that the grace of God can be resisted.

Well, there are three problems here...

1) Scripture teaches that the elect were chosen based on WHO God foreknew, not "what" God foreknew about them. "Foreseeing who WILL BELIEVE" is foreseeing "something" about people, and that's not what Scripture teaches.

2) Arminius apparently didn't understand the meaning of "proginosko", since most modern lexicons define the term as "choose in advance", when the object is a person (why would you want to base your theology on an errant understanding of the meaning?)

3) If God saves people based on "foreseen faith" (a phrase and concept found NOWHERE in the Bible), then that makes God "a respecter of persons", since He saves them "with respect to their foreseen faith". This contradicts Rom. 4:1-5, Rom. 9:11-13, as well as all the "God is not a respecter of persons" passages.

Now, this said, and to answer your second question, no, Paul is not a believer in Romans 7, as even Wallace points out that Rom 7:14-ff is a use of the historical present tense pointing to his past experience before being saved.

"As even Wallace points out"?
I think it's somewhat lame to interpret a passage in the present, as if it were in the past, especially since what directly precedes it was EXPLICITLY in the past. Why change from past to present if the intent was to continue in the past?

 

[TibiasDad]

You are confusing Justification & Sanctification, here Doug. And when you do this, you have a Works-Righteousness attempt to merit Salvation.

No I am not because Paul is not referring to his Christian experience in Rom 7:14.

I'll explain, when Adam broke the Covenant of Work with disobedience, the sanction of sin, death, and exile fell on Adam & Eve, and their progeny (the whole human race) in solidarity. All mankind is now under the curse of death, and the Law, which exposes sin, and that convicts all sinners to condemnation, period! Which is why God sent a Second or a Last Adam to fulfill God's Covenant of Works (Sinai Covenant/10 commandment) with Perfect Law-Keeping that will merit Eternal Life for his people, and also paid for the penalty of sin on his own head for his people to pay for the justice of God against Law-Breakers & sin. Christ also removed the curse of the Law, by becoming a curse for us!

First of all, the "Covenant of Works" is a systematic theology construct, not a biblical one. There was never a covenant of "works" because it has always been a covenant of faith and trust. It has always been by faith not by works.

A sinner can never even attempt to save him/herself under the Law, because of our sin. But the Law also serves as a school master to drive sinners to a Redeemer; namely Jesus Christ. A sinner is declared perfectly righteous, the moment they believe in the Gospel, apart from any works, before and after their conversion; a once and for all, one time event.

Okay… have I ever said anything different in principle?

Sanctification which is also imputed to through Faith in the Gospel, which produces good works, because we receive newness in the Spirit, and are no longer un the condemnation of the Law (Romans 8). But always remembering that our good works as believers are the fruit of Sanctification, not the cause of it. We don't expect anything in return when we help and love our neighbors.

I agree completely!

Doug

 

[Carbon]

No I am not because Paul is not referring to his Christian experience in Rom 7:14.

Sure he is. But you can’t except it, you have an excuse? Wesleyan perfectionism?

 

[Theo1689]

No I am not because Paul is not referring to his Christian experience in Rom 7:14.

How do you know that?
Did Paul tell you personnally?

I find this kind of exchange INCREDIBLY offensive. "Okay, we don't need to argue about it, Doug has already let us know, Paul was not referring to his Christian experience in Rom. 7:14, Doug says it, that settles it, because Doug knows better than anyone".

Rom. 7:14 For we know that the law is spiritual, but I am of the flesh, sold under sin.

"I am of the flesh". Was Paul no longer of flesh?!
"sold" - this is in PERFECT tense, which refers to a completed past action with ENDURING effects into the present. Why use the perfect tense if the effects are no longer valid?

 

[Theo1689]

Now, this said, and to answer your second question, no, Paul is not a believer in Romans 7, as even Wallace points out that Rom 7:14-ff is a use of the historical present tense pointing to his past experience before being saved.

You appear to be greatly mistaken.
I wonder if you will be humble enough to accept correction.

In the Arminian Bible Commentary, Kerrigan quotes Wallace saying,

So you're using secondary sources?!
How amateur are you?
Why wouldn't you use the primary sources?
You kind of need to, in order to check the accuracy and the context of the quote.

“For when we were in the flesh, the motions of sins, which were by the law, did work in our members to bring forth fruit unto death.” (Romans 7:5)

When Paul was formerly a slave to sin, he says, “Sin, taking occasion by the commandment … slew me.” (Romans 7:11.) So the sin, by the commandment, killed him. As Paul continues in his narrative he takes us to that exact experience in his past and gives us the account of his own history, whilst that sin was killing him, when he says: “Was that which is good made death unto me? God forbid. But sin, that it might appear sin, κατεργαζομένη (present tense – “IS WORKING”) death in me by that which is good.” (Romans 7:13) It is in this instance when the present tense begins to be used to describe his past experience. The KJV translates κατεργαζομένη as “working,” but other versions completely conceal the verb tense here by presenting it as a past tense verb (NKJV, NIV, HSCB, etc.). The reason why Paul switches to the present tense is to take us back, as it were, so that we may watch this past event as it unfolds. This is normal in Greek and is referred to as the Historical Present Tense.

This is nowhere found in Wallace's text, so I have to assume it was authored by Kerrigan (whoever he is).

Then we get to Wallace's actual quote:

“The historical present is used fairly frequently in narrative literature to describe a past event.

That comes from page 526, not page. 531.
And then we get the famous "ellipses"...

… The reason for the use of the historical present is usually to portray an event vividly, as though the reader were in the midst of the scene as it unfolds. …

This is also from page 526, and is just a general description of its usage, and not a commentary on Rom. 7.
Then more of the magical "ellipses"...

The historic present may be used to describe a past event, either for the sake of vividness or to highlight some aspect of the narrative.” – Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, p. 531 (Emphasis mine)

This is also from page 526, not page 531.
And it is NOT a specific commentary or application by Wallace to Rom. 7.


Btw, Daniel Wallace continues:

"The historical present occurs mostly in less educated writers as a function of colloquial, vivid speech. More literary authors, as well as those who aspire to a distanced historical reporting, tend to avoid it. John has it 162 times, Mark 151 times. Matthew has 93 at most, while Luke has a mere 11, mostly found in the parables of Jesus (with another 13 in Acts). The historical present is preeminently the storyteller’s tool and as such occurs exclusively (or almost exclusively) in narrative literature."
-- Daniel Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, pg. 528


Would you classify Paul as a "less educated writer"?

Continuing, we then read:

"Because the historical present occurs in narrative, it is natural that it be used only in the third person. As well, since it is used for vividness or highlighting, it is equally natural that it use verbs of action. λέγω is by far the most predominant verb used as a historical present (in fact, in the references mentioned above [i.e., from John 4 and 20], fifteen of the twenty-three historical presents are the verb λέγω). ἔρχομαι comes in a distant second (in the references mentioned above from John 4 and 20, of the eight non-λέγω historical presents, five are ἔρχομαι)."
"Significantly, the one verb that is not used as a historical present is the equative verb (εἰμί). Also, when γίνομαι functions as an equative verb, it is not used as a historical present. However, it may function as other than an equative verb at times."
-- ibid, pg. 529

ONLY in the THIRD person.
ONLY with "action" verbs.
NEVER used with "ειμι".


Wallace continues:

"Since time is an element of tense only absolutely in the indicative, it stands to reason that the historical present can only legitimately be used in the indicative mood. Since the participle takes its cue from the main verb with reference to time, it is not really correct to say that the participle can be a historical present—even when it is related to a historical present main verb."
-- ibid, pg. 529

"Sold" in Rom. 7:14 is a perfect participle, and therefore cannot be "historical present".


It is only AFTER all this text that Wallace actually begins discussion application of the historical present in specific Biblical texts. First he lists a number of "clear examples" (pp. 529-30), in which Rom. 7 is NOT included. Then he lists a number of "Debatable Texts", in which Rom. 7 IS included (John 8:58, John 5;2, Rom 7:14-24).

Only HERE does Wallace speak specifically about the relevance of the "historical present" to Rom. 7:14-24:

"Romans 7:14-24"
"Throughout this section of Romans, Paul speaks in the first person singular in the present tense. For example, in 7:15 he declares, “For that which I am doing I do not understand; for I am not practicing what I would like to do, but I am doing the very thing I hate” (ὃ γὰρ κατεργάζομαι οὐ γινώσκω· οὐ γὰρ ὁ ; θέλω τοῦτο πράσσω, ἀλλ’ ὃ μισῶ τοῦτο ποιῶ). Some would see the presents here as dramatic or historical presents. But since Paul is speaking in the first person, this label is not at all likely. In other words, one cannot appeal to the idiom of the historical present for support of the view that Paul is referring to his past, non-Christian life in this text. If one wants to hold the view that Paul is either not describing himself in this text, or else he is speaking corporately (so as to include himself only in a general way), syntax is not the route to get there."
-- ibid, pp. 531-2



So explain to us all once again how Daniel Wallace allegedly claims that Rom. 7 is an example of the use of the historical present?

 

[Terry43]

John 7:37-39 fairly standard understanding in Christianity - come , drink, receive Spirit

Who will come?

 

[Ladodgers6]

No I am not because Paul is not referring to his Christian experience in Rom 7:14. (Tibias)

How do you know that?
Did Paul tell you personnally?

I find this kind of exchange INCREDIBLY offensive. "Okay, we don't need to argue about it, Doug has already let us know, Paul was not referring to his Christian experience in Rom. 7:14, Doug says it, that settles it, because Doug knows better than anyone".

Rom. 7:14 For we know that the law is spiritual, but I am of the flesh, sold under sin.

"I am of the flesh". Was Paul no longer of flesh?!
"sold" - this is in PERFECT tense, which refers to a completed past action with ENDURING effects into the present. Why use the perfect tense if the effects are no longer valid?

If I had a quarter for every time I heard this, watch out Bill Gates! This is easily resolved with Scripture: (1) The Apostle is named Paul, not Saul anymore, and (2) is the Delight in the Law.

Romans 7:22 For I delight in the Law of God according to the inward man.

Now let's cross reference this with more Scripture. In Psalm 1 we read this:

The Way of the Righteous and the Wicked


1 Blessed is the man
who walks not in the counsel of the wicked,
nor stands in the way of sinners,
nor sits in the seat of scoffers;
2 but his delight is in the law of the LORD,
and on his law he meditates day and night.
3 He is like a tree
planted by streams of water
that yields its fruit in its season,
and its leaf does not wither.
In all that he does, he prospers.


4 The wicked are not so,
but are like chaff that the wind drives away.
5 Therefore the wicked will not stand in the judgment,
nor sinners in the congregation of the righteous;
6 for the LORD knows the way of the righteous,
but the way of the wicked will perish.​

 

[Theo1689]

I didn't say anything about Rom 7, I simply said that that was where Arminius began to change his mind about the Calvinistic argument. He then began to interpret foreknowledge differently.

This seems somewhat disingenuous.
You are quoting sources which present a particular view of Rom. 7. You either agree with them, or you don't. If you agree, why not simply admit it? If you don't agree with your own sources, why do you quote them in the first place?

Thus, he concluded that "while God elects, he he does so by foreseeing who will believe, and that the grace of God can be resisted."

Completely anti-Biblical.

Now, this said, and to answer your second question, no, Paul is not a believer in Romans 7, as even Wallace points out that Rom 7:14-ff is a use of the historical present tense pointing to his past experience before being saved.

As I pointed out earlier today, this is a complete MISREPRESENTATION of Wallace, who holds the exact OPPOSITE position than what is quoted here:

"Throughout this section of Romans, Paul speaks in the first person singular in the present tense. For example, in 7:15 he declares, “For that which I am doing I do not understand; for I am not practicing what I would like to do, but I am doing the very thing I hate” (ὃ γὰρ κατεργάζομαι οὐ γινώσκω· οὐ γὰρ ὁ ; θέλω τοῦτο πράσσω, ἀλλ’ ὃ μισῶ τοῦτο ποιῶ). Some would see the presents here as dramatic or historical presents. But since Paul is speaking in the first person, this label is not at all likely. In other words, one cannot appeal to the idiom of the historical present for support of the view that Paul is referring to his past, non-Christian life in this text."
-- Daniel Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, pp. 531-2


This is why using secondary sources is so unreliable. If you can't check the original sources, you cannot check for accuracy or context.

In the Arminian Bible Commentary, Kerrigan quotes Wallace saying,

Just so you know, "The Arminian Bible Commentary" is not a Bible commentary, it is simply a collection of arguments based on proof-texts relevant to the Arminian-Calvinist debate. This is what we read on Amazon's webpage:

"Note: This is a parallel commentary specifically covering verses that pertain the the Calvinist/Arminian debate. This is not a commentary on every verse in the Bible or on passages unrelated to the aforementioned subject matter."
"Can we lose our salvation? What does the Bible say? The Arminian Bible Commentary focuses in on this key issue and is designed for quick and easy access to explanations from scholars and men of faith on commonly misunderstood texts."

Apparently, all this is, is a "How-to" book, to help Arminians defend their theology and attack Calvinist theology, without having to think on their own. But as we saw with the Wallace quote, it is very biased and very unreliable and inaccurate.

I wonder why Doug bought this book? Can't he come up with arguments by himself? As for me, when I want to grow in the faith, I don't buy Calvinist books, I buy Arminian books, to see their arguments.

As for "Kerrigan", I have no clue who the author, "Jason Kerrigan". I don't know if he's a theologian, or a pastor, all I know is when I do a Google search on his name, the only hits that come up are bookstores.

This is normal in Greek and is referred to as the Historical Present Tense. “The historical present is used fairly frequently in narrative literature to describe a past event. … The reason for the use of the historical present is usually to portray an event vividly, as though the reader were in the midst of the scene as it unfolds. … The historic present may be used to describe a past event, either for the sake of vividness or to highlight some aspect of the narrative.” – Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, p. 531 (Emphasis mine)

Again, this is NOT in reference to Rom. 7, and later in his text Wallace explicitly DENIES that Rom. 7 is "historic present".

 

[preacher4truth]

This seems somewhat disingenuous.
You are quoting sources which present a particular view of Rom. 7. You either agree with them, or you don't. If you agree, why not simply admit it? If you don't agree with your own sources, why do you quote them in the first place?



Completely anti-Biblical.



As I pointed out earlier today, this is a complete MISREPRESENTATION of Wallace, who holds the exact OPPOSITE position than what is quoted here:

"Throughout this section of Romans, Paul speaks in the first person singular in the present tense. For example, in 7:15 he declares, “For that which I am doing I do not understand; for I am not practicing what I would like to do, but I am doing the very thing I hate” (ὃ γὰρ κατεργάζομαι οὐ γινώσκω· οὐ γὰρ ὁ ; θέλω τοῦτο πράσσω, ἀλλ’ ὃ μισῶ τοῦτο ποιῶ). Some would see the presents here as dramatic or historical presents. But since Paul is speaking in the first person, this label is not at all likely. In other words, one cannot appeal to the idiom of the historical present for support of the view that Paul is referring to his past, non-Christian life in this text."
-- Daniel Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, pp. 531-2


This is why using secondary sources is so unreliable. If you can't check the original sources, you cannot check for accuracy or context.



Just so you know, "The Arminian Bible Commentary" is not a Bible commentary, it is simply a collection of arguments based on proof-texts relevant to the Arminian-Calvinist debate. This is what we read on Amazon's webpage:

"Note: This is a parallel commentary specifically covering verses that pertain the the Calvinist/Arminian debate. This is not a commentary on every verse in the Bible or on passages unrelated to the aforementioned subject matter."
"Can we lose our salvation? What does the Bible say? The Arminian Bible Commentary focuses in on this key issue and is designed for quick and easy access to explanations from scholars and men of faith on commonly misunderstood texts."

Apparently, all this is, is a "How-to" book, to help Arminians defend their theology and attack Calvinist theology, without having to think on their own. But as we saw with the Wallace quote, it is very biased and very unreliable and inaccurate.

I wonder why Doug bought this book? Can't he come up with arguments by himself? As for me, when I want to grow in the faith, I don't buy Calvinist books, I buy Arminian books, to see their arguments.

As for "Kerrigan", I have no clue who the author, "Jason Kerrigan". I don't know if he's a theologian, or a pastor, all I know is when I do a Google search on his name, the only hits that come up are bookstores.



Again, this is NOT in reference to Rom. 7, and later in his text Wallace explicitly DENIES that Rom. 7 is "historic present".

Wonderful! Now if only @TibiasDad would receive and accept being refuted.

 

[TibiasDad]

Well, there are three problems here...

1) Scripture teaches that the elect were chosen based on WHO God foreknew, not "what" God foreknew about them. "Foreseeing who WILL BELIEVE" is foreseeing "something" about people, and that's not what Scripture teaches.

God doesn’t foresee a what, that which he foresees are people who believe and continue to do so. And since believing is the divine mandate for “not perishing” but having “life everlasting” it is a necessary quality that creates a distinctive.

2) Arminius apparently didn't understand the meaning of "proginosko", since most modern lexicons define the term as "choose in advance", when the object is a person (why would you want to base your theology on an errant understanding of the meaning?)

I would imagine that Arminius was as intelligent and informed as Calvin or Beza. He made his decisions and interpretations from a throughly Reformed perspective so I doubt that his departure from that perspective came easily nor in an uninformed manner.

As for “most modern lexicons”, is it wise to assume that “most” makes right? But “most” also means that the are credible arguments for other meanings. Even lexicons can have a biased slant to the meaning of words in a given context.

3) If God saves people based on "foreseen faith" (a phrase and concept found NOWHERE in the Bible), then that makes God "a respecter of persons", since He saves them "with respect to their foreseen faith". This contradicts Rom. 4:1-5, Rom. 9:11-13, as well as all the "God is not a respecter of persons" passages.

As we have both said many times, Trinity isn't found either, but we believe it. It is evident in the whole of scripture implicitly.
Respecter of persons has to do with class standards, rich/poor, Jew/Gentile, smart/stupid, white/black, etc. God commands belief, repentance, obedience, so these are necessary conditions on which God finds favor.

"As even Wallace points out"?
I think it's somewhat lame to interpret a passage in the present, as if it were in the past, especially since what directly precedes it was EXPLICITLY in the past. Why change from past to present if the intent was to continue in the past?

1) So Wallace is lame…?

2) The fact that what precedes it is explicitly in the past is why the historical present is the logical way to interpret it. The entire context of Romans 6-8 is that believers are set free from sin’s power and control of the believer! And these realities are present tense realities, so the question in my mind is how can Paul be free from sin in the present tense in Romans 6 and 8 while being a present tense slave to sin in chapter 7, unable to to do the good that he wants to do? He cannot be free from sin and a slave to sin at the same time. He cannot be able to overcome sin and be incapable of overcoming sin at the same time. But this is what it would mean if you interpret Rom 7:14-ff as Paul’s actual state of being when he penned those words!


Doug

 

[Theo1689]

God doesn’t foresee a what, that which he foresees are people who believe

You said that what God foresees is the "believing" that the people do.
That's a "what".
But God foresees PEOPLE, not "their actions".

I would imagine that Arminius was as intelligent and informed as Calvin or Beza. He made his decisions and interpretations from a throughly Reformed perspective so I doubt that his departure from that perspective came easily nor in an uninformed manner.

Wow.
So you're claiming we've had ZERO advancement in our understanding of Koine Greek in 400 + years?!

Incredible!

As for “most modern lexicons”, is it wise to assume that “most” makes right? But “most” also means that the are credible arguments for other meanings. Even lexicons can have a biased slant to the meaning of words in a given context.

Sorry, but you truly have no clue what you're talking about.
There are two kinds of lexicons.... Comprehensive, and glosses.
All the comprehensive ones define "proginosko" as "choose in advance", when the object is people.
NONE of them dispute that.
It's simply that the gloss-type lexicons are not as precise, and that's why heretics like them so much, so they can twist the definitions.

As we have both said many times, Trinity isn't found either, but we believe it. It is evident in the whole of scripture implicitly.

Yep, and this is the standard non sequitur argument heretics ALWAYS use when they can't defend their anti-Biblical arguments.

The Trinity is BIBLICAL.
The idea of "God chooses people based on foreseen faith" is NOT Biblical.

Respecter of persons has to do with class standards, rich/poor, Jew/Gentile, smart/stupid, white/black, etc. God commands belief, repentance, obedience, so these are necessary conditions on which God finds favor.

So you to REDEFINE "respector of persons" to exclude the one thing you actually believe God IS a respector of persons about.

This is called, "cherry picking".

1) So Wallace is lame…?

<sigh>

I never said that.
And since YOU brought it up, let's remind you what Wallace ACTUALLY taught about Rom. 7:

"Throughout this section of Romans, Paul speaks in the first person singular in the present tense. For example, in 7:15 he declares, “For that which I am doing I do not understand; for I am not practicing what I would like to do, but I am doing the very thing I hate” (ὃ γὰρ κατεργάζομαι οὐ γινώσκω· οὐ γὰρ ὁ ; θέλω τοῦτο πράσσω, ἀλλ’ ὃ μισῶ τοῦτο ποιῶ). Some would see the presents here as dramatic or historical presents. But since Paul is speaking in the first person, this label is not at all likely. In other words, one cannot appeal to the idiom of the historical present for support of the view that Paul is referring to his past, non-Christian life in this text."
-- Daniel Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, pp. 531-2

Why did you MISREPRESENT Dr. Wallace, Doug?
Do you not care about the truth at ALL?!

2) The fact that what precedes it is explicitly in the past is why the historical present is the logical way to interpret it.

Dr. Wallace DISAGREES with you.

"Throughout this section of Romans, Paul speaks in the first person singular in the present tense. For example, in 7:15 he declares, “For that which I am doing I do not understand; for I am not practicing what I would like to do, but I am doing the very thing I hate” (ὃ γὰρ κατεργάζομαι οὐ γινώσκω· οὐ γὰρ ὁ ; θέλω τοῦτο πράσσω, ἀλλ’ ὃ μισῶ τοῦτο ποιῶ). Some would see the presents here as dramatic or historical presents. But since Paul is speaking in the first person, this label is not at all likely. In other words, one cannot appeal to the idiom of the historical present for support of the view that Paul is referring to his past, non-Christian life in this text."
-- Daniel Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, pp. 531-2

Why did you MISREPRESENT Dr. Wallace, Doug?
Do you not care about the truth at ALL?!



It's sad that you have no integrity, and that you will misrepresent Greek scholars, because your false theology is more important to you than representing people honestly.

 

[TibiasDad]

This seems somewhat disingenuous.
You are quoting sources which present a particular view of Rom. 7. You either agree with them, or you don't. If you agree, why not simply admit it? If you don't agree with your own sources, why do you quote them in the first place?



Completely anti-Biblical.



As I pointed out earlier today, this is a complete MISREPRESENTATION of Wallace, who holds the exact OPPOSITE position than what is quoted here:

"Throughout this section of Romans, Paul speaks in the first person singular in the present tense. For example, in 7:15 he declares, “For that which I am doing I do not understand; for I am not practicing what I would like to do, but I am doing the very thing I hate” (ὃ γὰρ κατεργάζομαι οὐ γινώσκω· οὐ γὰρ ὁ ; θέλω τοῦτο πράσσω, ἀλλ’ ὃ μισῶ τοῦτο ποιῶ). Some would see the presents here as dramatic or historical presents. But since Paul is speaking in the first person, this label is not at all likely. In other words, one cannot appeal to the idiom of the historical present for support of the view that Paul is referring to his past, non-Christian life in this text."
-- Daniel Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, pp. 531-2


This is why using secondary sources is so unreliable. If you can't check the original sources, you cannot check for accuracy or context.



Just so you know, "The Arminian Bible Commentary" is not a Bible commentary, it is simply a collection of arguments based on proof-texts relevant to the Arminian-Calvinist debate. This is what we read on Amazon's webpage:

"Note: This is a parallel commentary specifically covering verses that pertain the the Calvinist/Arminian debate. This is not a commentary on every verse in the Bible or on passages unrelated to the aforementioned subject matter."
"Can we lose our salvation? What does the Bible say? The Arminian Bible Commentary focuses in on this key issue and is designed for quick and easy access to explanations from scholars and men of faith on commonly misunderstood texts."

Apparently, all this is, is a "How-to" book, to help Arminians defend their theology and attack Calvinist theology, without having to think on their own. But as we saw with the Wallace quote, it is very biased and very unreliable and inaccurate.

I wonder why Doug bought this book? Can't he come up with arguments by himself? As for me, when I want to grow in the faith, I don't buy Calvinist books, I buy Arminian books, to see their arguments.

As for "Kerrigan", I have no clue who the author, "Jason Kerrigan". I don't know if he's a theologian, or a pastor, all I know is when I do a Google search on his name, the only hits that come up are bookstores.



Again, this is NOT in reference to Rom. 7, and later in his text Wallace explicitly DENIES that Rom. 7 is "historic present".

I take your words seriously, and if the quote is unjustified, and I have in turn unknowingly stated something that is inaccurate, then I apologize.

As for the Arminian Bible, I know it is not a critical commentary, but it does give insight as to what other commentators have said specifically about a certain passage. I don't think its proof-texting, however, for they deal with the key passages that Calvinistic arguments are won't to quote as supporting their positions. They are only showing the Arminian perspectives of those same passages.

What, if I may ask, is the Wallace quotation in reference to, if not Romans 7? And how do you reconcile the present tense state of being free from slavery to sin in Rom 6 and 8, and yet being equally a present tense slave to sin in the last half of chapter 7? (He is free in the first part of chapter 7 in the same way that a spouse is free if their husband/wife dies.)


Doug

 

[Theo1689]

What, if I may ask, is the Wallace quotation in reference to, if not Romans 7?

1) The Wallace quote that you quoted from Kerrigan was from Wallace's treatment of the "historic present".

2) In that SAME section, Wallace EXPLICITLY denied that Rom. 7 was NOT an example of "historic present", and he gave the following reasons:
a) Historic presents are in the THIRD person, not the first;
b) Historic presents use ACTION verbs, not "eimi" ("be");
c) Historic presents do NOT use participles (eg. "sold").

And how do you reconcile the present tense state of being free from slavery to sin in Rom 6 and 8, and yet being equally a present tense slave to sin in the last half of chapter 7? (He is free in the first part of chapter 7 in the same way that a spouse is free if their husband/wife dies.)

So you are using rationalization to try to justify misrepresenting Wallace?!
Do you have no scruples whatsoever?!

Rom. 7:14 does NOT say "slaves to sin".
Can you provide ANY translation that renders 7:14 as "slaves to sin"?
(Yeah, I didn't think so.)

I'm going to keep quoting this to you until you repent:

"Throughout this section of Romans, Paul speaks in the first person singular in the present tense. For example, in 7:15 he declares, “For that which I am doing I do not understand; for I am not practicing what I would like to do, but I am doing the very thing I hate” (ὃ γὰρ κατεργάζομαι οὐ γινώσκω· οὐ γὰρ ὁ ; θέλω τοῦτο πράσσω, ἀλλ’ ὃ μισῶ τοῦτο ποιῶ). Some would see the presents here as dramatic or historical presents. But since Paul is speaking in the first person, this label is not at all likely. In other words, one cannot appeal to the idiom of the historical present for support of the view that Paul is referring to his past, non-Christian life in this text."
-- Daniel Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, pp. 531-2

Why did you MISREPRESENT Dr. Wallace, Doug?
Do you not care about the truth at ALL?!

 

[Theo1689]

I take your words seriously, and if the quote is unjustified, and I have in turn unknowingly stated something that is inaccurate, then I apologize.

You remind me of dishonest court attorneys who make false statements in court, only to be objected to, and the judge warning the jury to disregard what was said. But they can't, they already heard it, and the seed was planted. As the saying goes, "You can't unring the bell."

I would FAR prefer you actually CHECK your sources for accuracy before quoting them, instead of quoting them in ignorance (I'm being charitable here), simply because they support your view, and then having to "apologize" after the fact.

How about not committing the sin in the first place, instead of committing the sin and then asking for forgiveness?

 

[TibiasDad]

1) The Wallace quote that you quoted from Kerrigan was from Wallace's treatment of the "historic present".

2) In that SAME section, Wallace EXPLICITLY denied that Rom. 7 was NOT an example of "historic present", and he gave the following reasons:
a) Historic presents are in the THIRD person, not the first;
b) Historic presents use ACTION verbs, not "eimi" ("be");
c) Historic presents do NOT use participles (eg. "sold").

So then, it is an actual quote by Wallace about the historical present tense? The quotation is not misquoted in itself?

So when he quotes Wallace as saying:

“Was that which is good made death unto me? God forbid. But sin, that it might appear sin, κατεργαζομένη (present tense – “IS WORKING”) death in me by that which is good.” (Romans 7:13) It is in this instance when the present tense begins to be used to describe his past experience. The KJV translates κατεργαζομένη as “working,” but other versions completely conceal the verb tense here by presenting it as a past tense verb (NKJV, NIV, HSCB, etc.). The reason why Paul switches to the present tense is to take us back, as it were, so that we may watch this past event as it unfolds. This is normal in Greek and is referred to as the Historical Present Tense.

Does he not a) use an action verb, κατεργαζομένη, and b) is he not quoting Romans 7:13 as a quintessential example of the historical present tense?

Rom. 7:14 does NOT say "slaves to sin".
Can you provide ANY translation that renders 7:14 as "slaves to sin"?
(Yeah, I didn't think so.)

I don't recall ever specifying 7:14 as saying literally "slaves to sin", my exact wording was "yet being equally a present tense slave to sin in the last half of chapter 7?", by this making a general statement of fact about his condition. However here is the the particular section to which I was referring:

14We know that the law is spiritual; but I am unspiritual, sold as a slave to sin. 15I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do. 16And if I do what I do not want to do, I agree that the law is good. 17As it is, it is no longer I myself who do it, but it is sin living in me. 18For I know that good itself does not dwell in me, that is, in my sinful nature. c For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. 19For I do not do the good I want to do, but the evil I do not want to do—this I keep on doing. 20Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it. (NIV)

The NET translates 7:14 as, "For we know that the law is spiritual--but I am unspiritual, sold into slavery to sin.

If he is actually saying that he was, at the time he penned these words, "sold into slavery to sin"/"sold as a slave to sin", then his words about the believer that "anyone who has died has been set free from sin" (6:7), and, "You have been set free from sin and have become slaves to righteousness" (6:18) and "now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves of God" (6:22), and that "through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit who gives life has set you a free from the law of sin and death" (8:2) are either meaningless or did not apply to Rom 7:14-ff Paul.

Similarly, if Paul is talking about his actual present tense condition in 7:15-16a, saying, "I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do. And if I do what I do not want to do...", then he is also referring to himself as being free from righteousness as he described the Romans pre-regenerated lives in 6:20, saying, "When you were slaves to sin, you were free from the control of righteousness.", and places himself outside of the parameters in which "... the righteous requirement of the law might be fully met in us, who do not live according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.

In other words, since he was presently unable to "...do the good I want to do, but the evil I do not want to do—this I keep on doing", then he was not presently among those to whom he earlier admonished, "We are those who have died to sin; how can we live in it any longer? Nor could he be living according to the Spirit, for he is claiming that " the righteous requirements of the law " was not being "fully met" in his present state! (Which would appear to make himself a liar saying that he too cannot live any longer in sin, and yet he he incapable of stopping himself from "doing the evil I do not want to do"! Or is he saying 'do as I say, not as I do'? Not very Apostolic of him to say 'I cannot presently stop sinning, but you can and should!')

Incidentally, "I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do. And if I do what I do not want to do..." is a very activity laden statement.

ὃ γὰρ κατεργάζομαι οὐ γινώσκω· οὐ γὰρ ὃ θέλω τοῦτο πράσσω, ἀλλ’ ὃ μισῶ τοῦτο ποιῶ. The highlighted verbs all being Present, Indicative, Active or Middle.

The rest of the verses are equally laden with actions of doing, agreeing, knowing, desiring/wanting.


Doug

 

[Ladodgers6]

TibiasDad said:
This is the where Arminius began his departure from Calvinism, in the book of Romans; he began to see chapter 7 very differently, he then sees the idea of foreknowledge very differently. Thus he sees that while God elects, he he does so by foreseeing who will believe, and that the grace of God can be resisted.


I didn't say anything about Rom 7, I simply said that that was where Arminius began to change his mind about the Calvinistic argument. He then began to interpret foreknowledge differently. Thus, he concluded that "while God elects, he he does so by foreseeing who will believe, and that the grace of God can be resisted."

He changed it because it contradict his premises! Here's why, this is a fatal error, you have been saying all along, there's nothing a man/women can do to earn anything in Salvation. You're gonna reply that he can chose or resist (reject) Salvation. As sinner Doug we are already resisting God, with our heart of stone, futile minds. Even Arminius acknowledge this fact, and understood, that sinners need to be regenerated, because in this lapse and sinful state, man is not capable, and of himself, either to think, to will, or to do that which is really good; but it is necessary for him to be regenerated and renewed in his intellect (futile minds), affection/will (heart of stone), and in ALL his/hers powers, by God in Christ through the Holy Spirit, that he may be qualified rightly to understand, esteem, consider, will, and perform whatever is truly good.

The most important part, that I was waiting for you to address is: 'by God in Christ through the Holy Spirit.' This is Regeneration prior to Faith, Doug. This is clear cut, because now that this event of being reborn by the Spirit; the sinner now understand, by his/hers, renewed Minds & Hearts, and believes by the Grace of God!

I really don't understand how you can argue with this. God brings us out of the darkness into the light, by his Power, and Mercy. We're dead Doug and God comes to save us and raise us up from the dead, and we want to resist God for doing this Loving Divine Act out of sheer Mercy? I beg to differ, we run to Christ, who came to save the ungodly; especially like me! His Sheep hear his voice, and they follow him!