Theo1689
Well-known member
Because of a poster starting a thread depending on the subjunctive ("would"), and the "hina" clause (although I doubt he would recognize that if he tripped over it), this caused me to look up some old podcasts of James White addressing comments by a YTer named "Kerrigan Skelly".
In this (very long, sorry) podcast (1 1/2 hrs), he addresses how 1 John 5:1 teaches that regeneration precedes faith, as I have done many times in this forum.
He addresses a good exegesis of Rom. 8:28-30 (the Golden Chain of Redemption), and why it can't be broken.
He demonstrates why "analogies" are very inaccurate (since human females are too unpredictable to be examples of "foreknowledge").
And he demonstrates the proper way to do Bible studies (eg. you don't just look up all the usages of "know" or "foreknow", if you want to understand the meaning of an instance where God is foreknowing people, you study other passages where God is the subject, and people are the object, because guess what, men are not deity, and we don't "foreknow" in the same way He does.
Rom. 8:28-30 - The "Golden Chain".
There are two comments by me, and one based on the exegesis by Dr. White.
The first is about "logic". There are many Arminians here who base their arguments on "logic", but what they refer to "logic" are only invalid "rationalizations". They make up analogies which support their view, and then CLAIM that their analogies are "similar" to what Scripture teaches, and we're supposed to blindly accept their assertions. As I've said in the past, anyone can invent ANY "analogy" to support any theology. I was privileged to take a course in formal logic in my undergrand. This was not a one-hour "seminar", this was an entire course, 3 hours per week for 12 weeks, and we studied FORMAL logic. I loved it, since I'm a logical thinking person, and I earned an A+. We learned rules of logic like 'modus ponens", and "modus tollens" (look them up), logical fallacies, etc. etc. So let's see how FORMAL logic addresses Scripture:
Rom. 8:29 For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. 30 And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified.
So basically, the rule of "modus ponens" asserts the following argument.
Premise 1: "P" (is true).
Premise 2: "P implies Q" (if P is true, then Q must be true)
----------------
Conclusion: Therefore Q (is true).
So Rom. 8:28-30 reduces to:
P1: Foreknown implies predestined;
P2: Predestined implies called;
P3: Called implies justified;
P4: justified implies glorified.
-----------------
Conclusion: Foreknown implies glorified.
This is why the "golden chain" is unbroken. It is like an express train. If you get on at the beginning, you will make it all the way to the end, and nobody can get to the end unless they got on at the beginning. In the video, Kerrigan Skelly tries to "break" the "broken chain", but TRUE FORMAL LOGIC (in contrast to "rationalization") proves that it cannot be broken.
All who are foreknown WILL reach glorification.
And how can Arminians disagree? Omniscience teaches that God "foreknows" those who will be saved (and therefore "glorified").
The second point, the one brought up by Dr. White, is fascinating. I know I've heard it before, but I guess i didn't register with me the first time. Because of my increased understanding of Koine, it resonates more with me now. I lov the concept of "bookending" in Greek. Greek is an inflected language, and so word order is not NEARLY as important in Greek as it is in English, which is much less inflected. So you can do other things with word order in Greek, such as provide emphasis, or more precisely link qualifiers to nouns.
Rom. 8:28 reads:
Rom. 8:28 And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose.
This verse tells us two things about "those who love God":
1) all things work together for good for them;
2) they are called according to [God's] purpose.
Now the Arminian-Calvinist debate can be differentiated here by two contrasting interpretations:
1) they are called because they (first choose) to love God (Arminianism, Kerrigan's position), or
2) they love God because they are called according to His purpose (Calvinism)
But what is interesting, and what Dr. White points out, is that the phrase, "those who are called according to His purpose" is rendered in the Greek as:
"τοῖς ........ κατὰ ... πρόθεσιν .. κλητοῖς", which translates to:
"the (according to purpose) called-ones".
We start with "tois kletois" ("the called ones").
And then the Greek places "according to [His] purpose" in between the article and the noun, to clarify that this phrase modifies this noun. This is not something we do in English, as it sounds awkward, but it is both possible and common in the Greek.
So those who love God do so, love God BECAUSE they are called by God to do so, which is His purpose.
I guess this is why he goes on a tangent to 1 John 5:1, which demonstrates that regeneration precedes faith. I've made this argument many times before, but when you compare 1 John 2:29, 1 John 4:7, and 1 John 5:1:
1John 2:29 ... everyone who ..... practices righteousness....... has been born of [God].
1John 4:7 ......... whoever ...................... loves ....................... has been born of God ...
1John 5:1 Everyone who ... believes that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God,
These are all parallel passages, and so one is left with two choices:
1) one must (a) practice righteousness, (b) love others, and (c) believe that Jesus is the Christ in order to be born of God, or regenerated (which is clearly "works salvation"; or
2) one must be regenerated in order to (a) practice righteousness, (b) love others, and (c) believe that Jesus is the Christ.
Any other option is a hopelessly inconsistent hermeneutic.
Enjoy:
In this (very long, sorry) podcast (1 1/2 hrs), he addresses how 1 John 5:1 teaches that regeneration precedes faith, as I have done many times in this forum.
He addresses a good exegesis of Rom. 8:28-30 (the Golden Chain of Redemption), and why it can't be broken.
He demonstrates why "analogies" are very inaccurate (since human females are too unpredictable to be examples of "foreknowledge").
And he demonstrates the proper way to do Bible studies (eg. you don't just look up all the usages of "know" or "foreknow", if you want to understand the meaning of an instance where God is foreknowing people, you study other passages where God is the subject, and people are the object, because guess what, men are not deity, and we don't "foreknow" in the same way He does.
Rom. 8:28-30 - The "Golden Chain".
There are two comments by me, and one based on the exegesis by Dr. White.
The first is about "logic". There are many Arminians here who base their arguments on "logic", but what they refer to "logic" are only invalid "rationalizations". They make up analogies which support their view, and then CLAIM that their analogies are "similar" to what Scripture teaches, and we're supposed to blindly accept their assertions. As I've said in the past, anyone can invent ANY "analogy" to support any theology. I was privileged to take a course in formal logic in my undergrand. This was not a one-hour "seminar", this was an entire course, 3 hours per week for 12 weeks, and we studied FORMAL logic. I loved it, since I'm a logical thinking person, and I earned an A+. We learned rules of logic like 'modus ponens", and "modus tollens" (look them up), logical fallacies, etc. etc. So let's see how FORMAL logic addresses Scripture:
Rom. 8:29 For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. 30 And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified.
So basically, the rule of "modus ponens" asserts the following argument.
Premise 1: "P" (is true).
Premise 2: "P implies Q" (if P is true, then Q must be true)
----------------
Conclusion: Therefore Q (is true).
So Rom. 8:28-30 reduces to:
P1: Foreknown implies predestined;
P2: Predestined implies called;
P3: Called implies justified;
P4: justified implies glorified.
-----------------
Conclusion: Foreknown implies glorified.
This is why the "golden chain" is unbroken. It is like an express train. If you get on at the beginning, you will make it all the way to the end, and nobody can get to the end unless they got on at the beginning. In the video, Kerrigan Skelly tries to "break" the "broken chain", but TRUE FORMAL LOGIC (in contrast to "rationalization") proves that it cannot be broken.
All who are foreknown WILL reach glorification.
And how can Arminians disagree? Omniscience teaches that God "foreknows" those who will be saved (and therefore "glorified").
The second point, the one brought up by Dr. White, is fascinating. I know I've heard it before, but I guess i didn't register with me the first time. Because of my increased understanding of Koine, it resonates more with me now. I lov the concept of "bookending" in Greek. Greek is an inflected language, and so word order is not NEARLY as important in Greek as it is in English, which is much less inflected. So you can do other things with word order in Greek, such as provide emphasis, or more precisely link qualifiers to nouns.
Rom. 8:28 reads:
Rom. 8:28 And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose.
This verse tells us two things about "those who love God":
1) all things work together for good for them;
2) they are called according to [God's] purpose.
Now the Arminian-Calvinist debate can be differentiated here by two contrasting interpretations:
1) they are called because they (first choose) to love God (Arminianism, Kerrigan's position), or
2) they love God because they are called according to His purpose (Calvinism)
But what is interesting, and what Dr. White points out, is that the phrase, "those who are called according to His purpose" is rendered in the Greek as:
"τοῖς ........ κατὰ ... πρόθεσιν .. κλητοῖς", which translates to:
"the (according to purpose) called-ones".
We start with "tois kletois" ("the called ones").
And then the Greek places "according to [His] purpose" in between the article and the noun, to clarify that this phrase modifies this noun. This is not something we do in English, as it sounds awkward, but it is both possible and common in the Greek.
So those who love God do so, love God BECAUSE they are called by God to do so, which is His purpose.
I guess this is why he goes on a tangent to 1 John 5:1, which demonstrates that regeneration precedes faith. I've made this argument many times before, but when you compare 1 John 2:29, 1 John 4:7, and 1 John 5:1:
1John 2:29 ... everyone who ..... practices righteousness....... has been born of [God].
1John 4:7 ......... whoever ...................... loves ....................... has been born of God ...
1John 5:1 Everyone who ... believes that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God,
These are all parallel passages, and so one is left with two choices:
1) one must (a) practice righteousness, (b) love others, and (c) believe that Jesus is the Christ in order to be born of God, or regenerated (which is clearly "works salvation"; or
2) one must be regenerated in order to (a) practice righteousness, (b) love others, and (c) believe that Jesus is the Christ.
Any other option is a hopelessly inconsistent hermeneutic.
Enjoy:
Last edited:
