Sequence is clear in Rom 1:19-22: Man did not seek God, so God initiated the act and made Himself KNOWN. Man responds by either believing or rejecting. Those who reject, their hearts were hardened. On the other hand, those who believe are given the power to become children of God (John 1:12).
In John 1:12 the authority (power) to become children of God was given to the ones already believing. You can reference this video (which I would be honored to receive your feedback) ua-cam.com/video/c2ZsUAtPTvg/v-deo.html Thanks for your reply.
@@CyberDebate It's an unwillingness to notice that which R. C. Sproul stated; namely, that regeneration is NOT prior to faith "temporally," but rather "logically." So, even he (the teacher who popularized the axiom) who acknowledged that in the text (and in time) regeneration DOES NOT occur prior to faith, however, his assertion that it did occur "logically prior" became the mantra, then the Axiom of "Reformed Theology."
Actually: The text to which you make reference does not speak to the relation between faith and regeneration. John 20:31 places the Gospel prior to the Finite Verb "believe," and demonstrates the Present Active Participle "believing" to be subsequent to "believe." 1 John 5:1 notices that the Present Active Participle (Gerundive Noun) to be subsequent to the Perfect Active Participle, "have been previously fathered, (and remaining fathered) out from God..." Ephesians 1:13 states, "In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise," places that they believed "after they heard the word of truth;" then states: "ye were sealed" after that ye believed." The texts seem to correlate very well, that is, they present no contradiction. Am I missing something. Rather, can you help me to understand what I am missing about your assertion? Thanks for your feedback.
@@LandmarkBaptists I am in full agreement with your video illustration, and have often used it, to express the same points, as there is no contradiction between 1 John 5:1 and Eph 1:13. I agree about the correlation. I was simply expressing my desire to see you give the same illustration, you used to explain 1 John 5:1 for Eph 1:13, which I believe also refutes the idea that we must be regenerated before we believe the gospel. Or are you saying that being sealed with the Holy Spirit is not a reference to being regenerated? It's my go to verse when debating those who attempt to make the gospel powerless. (They heard the gospel. They trusted what they heard. They believed what they trusted. They were sealed).
If calvanism were true.... (Predestination). Then God is truly a monster. I think the Bible right in the most simplistic way. Let's study and learn while loving one another.
Ever evaluating, never negating. Thanks for your feedback. Calvinism is simply a "fallible, Soteriological Construct." Anyone can evaluate it, then define, document, and disclose its fallible elements. Just compare it with the Bible.
the best answer to calvanism/arminian is abot and costelo "who's on first". does anybody actually believe theyre going to stand before God and be required to get this right?
John 20:31 uses presents: πιστεύητε, πιστεύοντες. How does the formula works in this case? Another thing is that “life” in that context doesn’t mean New Birth, does it?
The term, "πιστεύσητε" is an Aorist (simple, punctiliar action, NOT Present Tense)...Verb - Aorist Active Subjunctive - 2nd Person Plural Also, in John 3:36, for example, John the Baptist preacher stated: ὁ πιστεύων εἰς τὸν υἱὸν ἔχει ζωὴν αἰώνιον· ὁ δὲ ἀπειθῶν τῷ υἱῷ οὐκ ὄψεται ζωήν ἀλλ᾽ ἡ ὀργὴ τοῦ θεοῦ μένει ἐπ᾽ αὐτόν which translates accordingly: The one who is (already) believing into the Son is (already) having life eternal, but the one who is negating-persuasion will not see life, but rather the wrath of the God is (already) abiding upon him. So, you can notice that the term, Life, can (and does) refer to Life Eternal in the book of John, somewhat interchangeably, but, it is an excellent thing to question.
Sorry for the delayed reply. I had not noticed the notification. In Galatians 2:16 Paul stated, "Believed into Christ Jesus." That is Aorist tense, simple form of Action called punctiliar action. It's in a moment, not an ongoing action. Jesus stated (in John 6:47) "the one who is (already) believing into Him is (already) having eternal life." In John 1:4 the text states: "1:4 ἐν αὐτῷ ζωὴ ἦν" "In Him Life was (always) being." John 3:36 speaks of those who (already) believed into Him, as in the Koine Greek text: ὁ πιστεύων εἰς τὸν υἱὸν ἔχει ζωὴν αἰώνιον· ὁ δὲ ἀπειθῶν τῷ υἱῷ οὐκ ὄψεται ζωήν ἀλλ᾽ ἡ ὀργὴ τοῦ θεοῦ μένει ἐπ᾽ αὐτόν This text translates accordingly: "The one who is (already) believing into the Son is (already) having Life Eternal, but the one who is negating-persuasion by the Son will not see life, but rather, the wrath of the God is (already) abiding upon Him." So, since the one who is believing (a gerundive noun = the believer) into the Son is (already) having eternal life (Calvinists nor Arminians teach this: They both teach one must "endure to the end" and then "discover" after they die whether or not they were one of the "Elect," and if they "truly endured till the end)... ...thus, the one who is (already) believing "the believer" into Him had already (previously) been fathered out from God (by means of the Gospel), that is, thru the Gospel. Paul stated clearly in the Aorist tense both in Galatians 2:16 "believed into Christ Jesus." Do you advocate that "life" is found outside of Christ Jesus, the way that the reformed tradition teaches; namely, "Regeneration precedes faith?" (Occurs outside of Christ and apart from the Gospel)... P.S. Since (according to Galatians 2:16) Paul "believed into Christ Jesus" in order that he might be justified, did he (already) have eternal life prior to being justified out from Jesus Christ's faithfulness? P.S.S. I personally am not aware of a text that teaches "life outside of Christ Jesus, the Way, the Truth & the Life," do you? If so, how do you obtain it "outside of Christ Jesus," for the only means of obtaining eternal life is to "believe into Him" for it, correct? P.S.S. Are you saying that being "generated, regenerated" is not that which results in life eternal? Thanks for your excellent replies. I shall be more diligent to notice "all" my notifications, thanks for your patience with me.
Theology is interesting but our doctrine must be each person reading and studying the Word of God themselves and if truly born again the Holy spirit will reveal the truth to them. Please read: [If we truely believe in our heart (Jesus Christ knows) the gospel of salvation (I Cor. 15:1-4), repent and put our faith in Jesus Christ, Jesus Christ seals us with the Holy Spirit of promise. We are then Christ's and he will never leave us nor forsake us, please read: [WAY OF HOPE & PEACE John 3:16 For God so loved the world (all people), that he gave his only begotten Son (Jesus Christ), that whosoever believes in him should not perish (condemned to hell), but have everlasting life. John 3:36 He that believes on the Son (Jesus Christ) has everlasting life: and he that believes not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abides on him. John 14:6 Jesus said to him (us), I am the way, the truth, and the life (eternal life): no man comes to the Father, but by me. Eph. 2:8-9 For by Grace (from God) are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast. Eph. 1:13 In whom (Jesus) you also trusted, after that you heard the Word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that you believed, you were sealed with that Holy Spirit of promise, Rom. 3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; Rom. 5:1 Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ:] Satan wants a person to believe that they can lose their salvation because then it is not by Christ alone but by Christ plus something you must also do to maintain it! That is called Christ plus your works which is not acceptable by a Holy and righteous God. Salvation is by the work of our Lord alone (Eph. 2:8-9).
Did you watch the video? I have numerous videos demonstrating that it is impossible for one to lose their salvation...Am I missing something in your reply. The Bible does NOT support Calvinism, Lutheranism, Arminianism, Molinism, or even Pelagianism: Those are all "Fallible Relgious Constructs." I'll read, and re-read your reply to ascertain what I might not be understanding. Thanks for your reply.
@@LandmarkBaptists I'm sorry, it was not clear. I agree with your testimony. I paste this scripture in the comment sections of many videos hoping that through the Word of God that the Holy Spirit will work in hearts of many readers that may read it. Your testimony is great and I praise the Lord that you are secure in his redemption.
What's an example of a Calvinist not being primed to accept the continual act of believing? The whole idea of perseverance of the saints is those who persevere in believing unto the end are those who are the remnant called out from the nations.
Calvinism attribute the birth prior to believing correctly, yet without pointing out that birth does not occur prior to believe [A huge matter in the KOINE text]. The KOINE text simply states that the purpose of the Gospel to be written is in order that one might believe (simple, punctiliar action) and that the result of the "birth out from God" precedes believing )continuous kind of action). This is that which alone, when ignored, or unknown has led to ever expanding Calvinism and Arminianism. No Calvinist indicates that "birth out from God" precedes believING, because it does not wish to acknowledge that "birth out from God" does not precede "believe." See John 20:31 & 1 John 5:1. It has never before been demonstrated as the solution; for, neither side (Calvin/Arminianism) acknowledges the distinction between "believING & believe." I wouldn't acknowledge it either; neither could I, if I were using the Bible to support either Calvinism or Arminianism. I am KOINE, I am not Calvinist nor Arminian.
What is this guy saying? Is he saying that everyone on the planet who hears the Gospel therefore has the tool to believe in a point in time which triggers the new birth?
This brief video about "Repentance and Faith" expresses the radical relationship between the two...ua-cam.com/video/EYhkR2O5iT0/v-deo.html Thanks for your feedback, and question.
@JosephBelloo Would you agree that we actually only need verses 3 & 4 there in 1 Cor, as far as salvation is concerned. That continual belief is not even required, this verse is talking about the fact that if you do not believe that he is risen, then you have believed in vain.
I like to ask this to reformed believers. Which one would you use as proof of Jesus existing and his godhood, Calvin or Early church fathers like Clement or Polycarp? The answer 99 percent of the time is the early church right? Ok. So if that be so, how come you believe Calvins theology over theirs, which is free will? (read against Heresies) Something to think about.
+Leoji67 The issue is posited by a "high" Calvinist, Dr. James White, who briefly discusses an element within the subject: ua-cam.com/video/H5_WvgOxq8A/v-deo.html You can review it at this link.
Regeneration is found only 1 Peter 1. Paul speaks only once of the regeneration but in a different sense, more cosmically that of the new era, the new generation. Paul's preferred way of speaking about the believer seems to be toward the renewed mind or the new creation IN Christ. Paul is hardly consistent, and we may assume he felt little need to be. John speaks of the new birth, firstly as a play on words in John 3--"born from above" and then in the epistles in a more expansive way. I don't need to give you the Greek as you already know it, nor the fact that the Greek makes no distinction between the feminine birthing and the male begetting.
Thanks for your excellent feedback: I shall view and re-view the material in light of your astute observation, thanks so much. I enjoy collaborative reasoning and collective learning.
@@LandmarkBaptists So, because you're so amazing, I'm going to give you the words I have in mind, hopefully saving you some time: 1. "anagennaó" Strong's G 313. This is the word Peter uses, two occurrences both in 1 Peter 1. 2. "palaggenesia" Strong's G 3824. This is the word Paul uses (only once) in Titus 3:5. 3. And John uses the phrase "born from above" (John 3:3) playing on the double meaning of the Greek "anothen." The only English equivalent would be the stage direction--"take it from the top," meaning do it all over again. The Greek here is "gennethe anothen" Strong's G 1080 plus G 509. And, of course, John speaks in the epistle of he who is born of God not continuing in sin etc. May revelation, joy, peace, and all good things abound to you and your household of faith according to the promise: "Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and you shall be saved, you and your house."
@@duncescotus2342 Thanks again for the feedback. I have documented it, so that I might review it offline. Your willingness to do the work will allow me to immediately engage the results. Thanks for the knowledge.
If the continuation of belief is the result of the new birth, then how is that not a violation of libertarian free will? Also just because the new birth precedes continual belief does not necessarily mean that initial belief comes before the new birth because a continuation of belief presupposes that belief had an initial starting point.
That which is born of Spirit (capitalized) is spirit (lower case)...In Koine Greek it states (much more simply): τὸ γεγεννημένον ἐκ τοῦ πνεύματος πνεῦμά ἐστιν "...the thing which has been generated out from the Spirit (is always being generated out from Spirit) is spirit. John 3:6b So, as you can notice in 1 John 5:1a "Everyone who is believing [a gerundive noun for "believer"] that Jesus is the Christ has been (previously) fathered out from the God (and is always being fathered) out from the God... Always being the Believer is not the same as the Believer always believing (finite verb: actions), but, the one who is believing is always the one who "believed into Christ" for everlasting life. That which is begotten (fathered) [generated/produced] into me by the Spirit is always being generated by the Spirit. That is what drives deceivers/persecutors; namely, to STOP the ones who are always believers (once we believed) to STOP believing (words and deeds) as in Luke 8:13b that speaks of those "which for a while believe, and in time of temptation fall away." Notice, the trials pressured them to STOP believing (a finite verb: actions), that is, STOP producing fruit (the topic of the parable). One's free-will (man is a causal-being/agent [nothing change that, we were created causal beings by God Himself], is NOT violated when he is fathered from above, even though he is always being fathered from above, for the very reason that Luke 8:13 indicated: Pressures and Trials can (and do) cause one to STOP acting according to that which is fathered out from God. Also, in the book of Galatians, they were "bewitched." So, because "believers" (the ones who are believing) can (and are) susceptible to both trials/persecutions, along with deception, that would be more indicative (proof) of one's continued causal-agency (free will), not the violation nor the absence of it. Thanks for your excellent reply, and well reasoned feedback. I'll be honored to collaborate until we both can enjoy greater understanding.
@@LandmarkBaptists You refer to free will as causal agency. Are you referring to the compatibilism view of free will? I believe when you say being fathered out it is referring to "effectual grace".
@@4jchan No, causal-agency is that which the Hebrew language emphasizes. No, being fathered out from God refers to that which occurs when one has been persuaded by means of the Gospel to "believe into Christ Jesus," as Paul explicitly stated in Galatians 2:16 2:16 εἰδότες ὅτι οὐ δικαιοῦται ἄνθρωπος ἐξ ἔργων νόμου ἐὰν μὴ διὰ πίστεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ καὶ ἡμεῖς εἰς Χριστὸν Ἰησοῦν ἐπιστεύσαμεν ἵνα δικαιωθῶμεν ἐκ πίστεως Χριστοῦ καὶ οὐκ ἐξ ἔργων νόμου διότι οὐ δικαιωθήσεται ἐξ ἔργων νόμου πᾶσα σάρξ "As ones who have noticed (and continue to notice) that no kind of man is being justified out from any kind of works of any kind of law, except through (by means of) Jesus Christ's faithfulness, even we ourselves "BELIEVED into Christ Jesus, in order that we might be justified out from Christ's faithfulness, and not out from works of law, because on account of (this): Not any kind of flesh will be justified out from any kind of works of any kind of law." So, for Paul, and anyone who believes "into Christ," it is because they have been persuaded by the gospel to do so. Thanks for your replies, and especially, your patience with me.
Jonathan: (#3 is the reply about Ephesians 2:8-9) Here's the replies, Wow! I'm learning why so few post videos: These interrogations could be intimidating. #1 He died in the place of every sinner culpable for their sins, and in the place of no one less did He receive the wrath from God: I'm not aware of a human (except the Son of God) that was, nor is culpable for the sins placed upon Jesus. All are guilty, all sins of every man were laid upon Him. Of course, some religious people construct "common grace," or "prevenient grace," etc., etc., endless to deal with what Christ resolved by His atonement. #2 The New Birth is distinguished from salvation. The KOINE order, however, is the Gospel, it being written down for the purpose for one to believe, then (as John wrote in I John 5:1) birth out from God, then believing (ing form of believe-continual action), ...of course mind-after the message (repentance) occurs simultaneously with punctiliar believe, that is, mind-after the right-announcement and believe are not capable of being divided, since KOINE conjoined them. #3 Ones who, having been previously saved by the Grace through faith, are continuing to be saved by the Grace through faith...This is not out from yourselves...The Grace is a personification of the Christ (first chapter of Ephesians); faith refers to the Faith of Christ. The "that" to which your question refers is according to KOINE all that is contained in the verbal substantive: the periphrastic participle (Periphrasis is exactly what it sounds like it is. Peri, the Greek preposition περί meaning around (with the accusative) and phrasis, φράσις , a phrase, are put together to refer to a round about way of phrasing something, or we might say, a sort of circumlocution. In fact, that is what the Greek compound περίφρασις meant.) #4 No such thing in KOINE as prevenient, resistible, irresistible, or common grace...those phrases don't occur. # 5 See the videos. No such thing as a "will" as you state. The "wills of the flesh and of the mind" (in Ephesians) are that to which KOINE refers. # 6 See the video on the Preposition and the Rapture. # 7 No such terms like Pre, Mid, or Post exist in the KOINE text...see video on the Preposition and the Rapture. Like the Christians who are presently fleeing in the Middle East, all we have done is obey Christ...flee.
The debate does not come down to those verses or that formula. And even the formula properly written in Koine does not refute either one. You are so far away from the Calvinism/Arminianism debate, and the verses they center around, that you aren't even anywhere near it! Please actually study this topic and the verses that the debates are centered around. Calvinism and Arminianism are opposites so it's illogical and irrational to say you have disproven both. It's not even possible.
Keap16: I'm not a student of either...about this you are correct; and, I've never actually studied to "Negate" either Arminianism or Calvinism. The Seminary I attended taught us to search the Scriptures, study them: They gave me tools for researching the Bible. I agree that to a Calvinist or an Arminian, anything that is not according to either would be rational. Thanks for your reply, I'll include it into our class discussion. We are studying the adverse effects of "double dissonance:" The converging negativity that is incited when one dares to assert themselves independently of the mental, religious constructs called Calvinism and Arminianism.
Keap16 I reference the ONE that made issue of these verses, omitting some things, Dr. James White asserted many. ua-cam.com/video/H5_WvgOxq8A/v-deo.html
Keap16 When you review this video by Dr. James White, then you will notice the original source of this type of argument, Thanks. ua-cam.com/video/H5_WvgOxq8A/v-deo.html
Both stand on an assumption of what is meant by foreknow/predestine etc. What is Paul talking about regarding the clay/potter? VESSELS! What is a vessel? Flesh. Man. Consider this
So where do I go from here. It seems nearly all churches are pointing to either calvanism or arminianism and without realising I never believed anything but the Koine' and I just thought everyone else did too. No wonder I always had problems getting my point across
An example in John 5 records that Jesus stated to a group of religionists that as ones who received glory from one another they weren't able to believe, and; also, that was the basis of their not wanting (desiring) to come to Him...I'm certain the motives for individuals who deliberately decide (judge) to refuse to cause themselves to believe (support) that Jesus is the Christ are as numerable as the number of individuals who refuse to cause themselves to believe.
I personally agree that humans have free will. Calvinists quote Romans 9 (i do not deny that this passage can be easily interpreted this way, but based on the context at which this takes place I believe that it is not talking about personal salvation but how the Jews were angry that Gentiles were being saved when they thought Israel was supposed to be the chosen nation, again just my interpretation). However a look at Romans 1, specifically verse 18 on, I believe, answers the question of whether everyone can be saved its just a matter of personal choice, "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifested in them for God has shown it to them" verse 18 and 19. God reveals himself to all but some suppress this in unrighteousness. It goes on to say that even the Godhead is revealed to humans in this way so the people that suppress it are without excuse. Even though I have an opinion in this, I have realised that this ultimately is a useless argument that has unnecessarily divide the Body of Christ. Do both sides believe we are saved by faith in Jesus through the Grace of God? Yes. Do both sides promote evangelism? Yes. Do both sides accept the Trinity? Yes. Do both sides believe that there are people going to Heaven and people going to Hell? Yes. The only difference is that they have different views on whether God picks people to be saved or if it's based on the choice of humans. Also keep in mind that our minds are finite and God is infinite! Maybe both Calvinism and Armenianism are both right. Maybe free will and the Calvinist version of predestination coexist. It would make no sense to us but perfect sense to God in his unlimited knowledge. I'm just tired of seeing so much energy being wasted in these arguements when there are people out there that don't know God and they need us to introduce them.
Agreed: When I undertook the "Apologetics and Outreach" initiative, I did so for the sake of so many congregants who were completely exasperated by the entire matter! Thus, for their sakes I addressed it. Thanks for your feedback!
@@TheBrownsberg "Calvinsim" is a "fallible," religious construct. The "Gospel of the Grace of God" is infallible. Do you not know the difference? The Bible teaches that men are "causal beings." What's the problem with that? It's from the Biblical Hebrew according to the inflectional morphemes. Do you read the Bible languages or the English Bible, the KJV?
I am not being hostile or emotional, but I am trying to point out that taking two verses from different books and creating a concept not explicitly provided by the author then calling it "inspired". If your students read these comments let's discuss, I would love to hear you address Eph 2:8-9 or the textual variant issue in John I brought up. It may be quite educational. By the way, I was raised in a view very similar to yours and came around to Calvinism via study of the scriptures in context.
You need only consult other post about Ephesians 2:8-9. John deliberately utilized the perfect tense in 1 John 5:1 to demonstrate the antecedent action of generation prior to continuous (present tense) believing: It was one of his many uses of the perfect antedating the present tense of other actions like "doing the righteousness, loving, overcoming, etc.," Again, I'm not capable of engaging except the text. My students have posed many great observations, I merely the KOINE texts: They would otherwise never learn the texts were they only exposed to systemic mental constructs. Comments on Ephesians 2:8-9 are posted beneath the video "A review of a lesson for Calvinists and Arminians."
Absolutely true, you are! IAmKOINE.org has hundreds. It is not feasible (for me) to cover a "host of verses" in one video; but, here's another one: ua-cam.com/video/O7MQbrt_XM4/v-deo.html
John 20:31 has a variant where it uses the perfect tense in the earliest manuscripts, which pretty much kills your formula in this video. Even if it didn't, where do you get off creating contexts piecemeal from different books and calling it an inspired formula? Ephesians 2:8-9 clearly teaches faith is a gift and not something man does and John's usage is consistent with that fact. Finally your claim that Calvinists object to the ing just highlights that you don't understand what perseverance of the saints means. Since saving faith is a faith from God that results in eternal life it is a faith that continues because God is faithful.
Jonathan: Of the source of your animosity I am aware; however, "where do I get off creating contexts" is not something to which I am allowed to respond, further, John is the author of the texts of which he wrote concerning the relation of the kind of action in the verb "believe" and the purpose of the gospel, and birth or generation. I find many with the same emotional reaction when it occurs to them to have not consulted the texts prior to constructing fallible mental constructs: Calvinism or Arminianism, or Molinism, or etc.,...I serve as a teacher on the local assembly in my hometown, and young students follow these lessons, so I can't and would not be able or willing to banter in any manner that would reproach the Christ on Whose behalf I gladly serve. Thanks for your reply. If you would like to discuss a text, or grammar, or syntax, or etymology, or context, then I would be glad to do so; for, anything less would be less, indeed. I use these posts in class to demonstrate to the students the ill disposition of those consigned to support mental constructs.
I am not sure how your tool solves the problem. Also, I continue to be distracted by what I feel are a few erroneous comments. First, regarding the "believing" I do not know of anyone who tends to dim the light on believing. It is a continual action and is recognized in the verses. I know many who consider themselves monergists (in other words Calvanist) and recognize believing. Second, there really are no 2, 3, or 4 point Calvinist. The reformed concept (Calvanistic concept) requires understanding all 5 points. I would even take it further and add the requirement or at least emphasize more clearly the requirement of the sovereignty of God. I think it comes down to the one point. It all comes down to synergism vs monergism. Does God save or does he provide the opportunity to be saved.
Calvinism states that regeneration precedes faith; however, the KOINE text says that regeneration precedes believing (overlooked is "ing"). No text in KOINE indicates "birth" prior to "believe" the simple point of faith as John 20:31 states. And 1 John 5:1 places "birth out form God" ahead of believING: A big deal in the common text called: KOINE. Calvinism and Arminianism are just examples of how much can be built by ignoring such a thing as "kind of action." It's an expression of facts never before expressed in the supposed "unsolvable" Calvin-Arminian riddle. Calvinism nor Arminianism are based upon the simple reality (The KOINE Greek reality) that kind of action is relevant in the relation of "birth out form God" and believ(ING). No one is prepared to respond to the assertion; for, until now it has never been proffered as a solution, rather a demonstration of the errors of both Calvinism and Arminianism, that is, deviations form the KOINE text.
AT 6:19 you say that the Arminian teaching is that man has the ability to believe. I'm not sure what you mean by that, but Arminius never taught that man is born with the ability to believe. His view of "depravity" is similar to Calvin's--we are born dead in sin. Only when God gives the grace to believe can a person believe. Where Calvin and Arminius disagreed was that Arminius believe man could resist the grace to believe--his will was "freed" to believe (or not). Also, re: "believing", Arminius made no final conclusion re: eternal security. See Arminius scholar Roger Olson--peterlumpkins.typepad.com/peter_lumpkins/2013/07/roger-olson-an-interview-revisited-part-3.html
+jimmme5880 I would NOT know how your words came to be "lined-out," maybe someday I will know that about computers, but not today. You speak very correctly to Arminian's actual teaching; sadly, such Arminius scholars aren't reflected in that which is projected as "Arminianism." Like all "fallible religious constructs," much of their content is "Pop-content," to which KOINE is very sufficient at nullifying. Thanks for the link.
This also doesn't answer whether the initial "believe" comes about through a libertarian choice, fore seen before the creation of the world, or through predestination, so that it can't be said that I make a libertarian choice to believe before the next steps come.
The Hebrew language teaches agent-causation; i.e., Genesis 15:6 "And he (Abraham) caused (himself) to believe in YHVH and He accounted it to him for righteousness." The Hiphil is neither "libertarian nor compatibilistic" it is the Hebrew language. It, like KOINE idles down the energetic discussions that are sustained only by ignoring KOINE and the Hebrew. The texts are very much a disappointment for building abstract, philosophical constructs like Calvinism and Arminianism.
I must be a complete moron. Can you give me a good starting place to understanding "Koine" or what you're referencing? Do you mean Koine Greek and it's objective study? Just give me a starting place please.
Actually, the starting place is located in a Bible class at Landmark Missionary Baptist Church in Jacksonville, Arkansas. So, as one who is "just now" encountering these videos, then as you correctly ask: "Give me a starting place, please." The video about Calvinism simply reflects the clear distinction that the (highly inflected) very wordy Koine Greek language between the "Finite Verb" BELIEVE, and the "Present Active Participle" BELIEVING...So, for most of the Class, the use of Koine Greek is a longtime practice for them, so, many of the videos on this channel presuppose a working knowledge of the languages. Go to this link for a good example of the use of Koine Greek: iamkoine.org/uploads/3/4/5/9/34593438/koineapologetics_complete.pdf Thanks for your interest in this outreach ministry.
@@zachariahstanfield4903 Landmark Baptist Church House is in Jacksonville, Arkansas. No, you don't have to be present with us in class, or in the Assembly to view, and re-view the video lessons on this UA-cam channel...there are over 700 videos.
You said that this formula defeated Calvinism/Arminianism .You know what, this video didn't even touch on the arguements I've heard. The big difference I see is Arminianism folks don't want to give up the fleshly will, where as Calvinists believe backed by scripture that God did the choosing in eternity past. They have differences on the gifts as well.I understand the why's and wherefores of both, and true Christians from both camps will be saved. I wonder what persuasion the thief on the cross was......Just a question. I believe you put yourself into the midst of an argument that doesn't really matter. Nothing wrong with doing it though, after all scripture says steel sharpens steel. MAY GOD BLESS YOU.
I was never in the middle of the argument; many good Christians have been, however, suffering a severe angst about the contradiction from which they could not appear to be delivered. Thanks for you feedback.
Landmark, You injected your opinion, even using, highly sophisticated tools as micrometers and math equations and english literature, to prove your point. I found it very complicated as did others. Scripture says a child can understand, when knowledge of God eludes the sophisticated, my paraphrase. When people have severe angst as you put it, I think it may be one of two reasons, either they don't fully trust God yet, or possibly they have their theology askew....only God knows the human heart, as you know. I believe God put parallels in scripture, that only seem to oppose, that don't intersect, but not to the seriousness of damnation. What that does from my view point is makes us dig deeper into the richness of His word. I don't think Peter new any formulas, and he even said of himself that he was a simple man. The thief on the cross certainly didn't have a formula, he only knew he deserved death and Christ didn't, that seemed suffice for his salvation, Jesus even told him so. I think one of the big problems or mistakes or sins if you will of many Christians is, making God in our own image rather than visa versa.....probably one of those unrealized sins that many of us have from time to time on various matters. Anyway Landmark thank you for your feedback.
Yes, indeed. The endless contradictions are sustained more between our ears than in the Scriptures. Errors of omission are so common that research at Cornell University concluded a study, disclosing that when we commit such errors we are completely unaware of them. Using evaluative methods have demonstrated that it is very common for errors of omission to be committed; as such, the error often presents itself even in the field of Hermeneutics. To date, the distinction between those things "fallible," (like confessions, constructs, or traditions), and those things "infallible," (the Scriptures) is no longer made. Every Christian believes that the Bible alone is infallible; but, a greater amount of energy appears to be vested in using the "infallible" to support the "fallible." Thanks for your reply.
The best video I've seen to date with history was utube June 2015 by Ryan Reeves ( Dutch revolt and Arminianism) I think you would find it quite informative. Sometimes I comment on Bishop Barron's website on utube R/C He is so educated it makes him near hopeless. Let me know what you think. I learn from your posts, mainly because you're not angry when critiqued. God Bless.
Koine means "common," (but it is, as you say 'equal to correct)." By its use we can all be more correct as we study it. I try to use the Koine as an "objective determinant," as well as the Biblical Hebrew...It provides parameters according to which I might be restrained by the truth. Thanks for your feedback.
The embarrassing difficulty is easily dissolved when the "kind of action" is noticed in the Koine Text. Koine places a great emphasis on "kind of action." The axiom of reformed theology states that "regeneration precedes faith." It doe not according to the Koine text. It's a problem which requires no more than 5th grade grammar to demonstrably solve. You can go to this link and notice the "High Calvinist," Dr. James R. White attempt to place regeneration prior to faith: He did not distinguish between the finite verb "believe," and the present active participle "believing." ua-cam.com/video/wcluvgmfYNg/v-deo.html
Dr. David M. Berman: Koine does not believe in "limited or unlimited" atonement. The Bible clearly distinguishes between atonement and redemption, a distinction that is not necessarily made by either Calvinist or Arminians. Thanks for your reply. The PDF, "The Case for Koine," speaks definitively to the unnecessary confusion about atonement and redemption. Within the Koine Confession as well is this clarified. Again, thanks for your reply.
With respect atonement is made for all redemption is based on the free will of the individual. Romans chapter 1 is quite clear about the fact that unbelievers can hold the truth even in their unbelief. Creation bears witness of the creator and so all are without excuse. Calvin's position that God from eternity past had willed to create some for the purpose of internal life in heaven and some for the purpose of eternal damnation in hell is simply a reaction to Plegian teaching and in his reaction he went so far to his own error. In fact the Bible says that he'll was not even created for man but rather for the devil and his fallen Angels. Jesus said if I be lifted up when speaking about him going to the cross I will draw all men unto me. Whether we receive that are not is a decision he's given us. I do appreciate your response and the kind manner in which you responded.
What about this verse? What kind of belief can the unborn have? The unbeliever does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him. And he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned. 1 Corinthians 2:14
I would refer you to Acts 13:48 That text states that the ones who, having been favorably disposed [1833 New Hampshire]; appointed [Calvinists], or ordained [KJV-only]. In this text it places "favorably disposed [my personal favorite], appointed, and/or ordained prior to "Believe," not regenerated. Thanks for your good question.
@@LandmarkBaptists Those in acts 13 were believers same as in Galatians 3. Same as in Romans 8:28. I actually do not like the translation in the NET Bible i gave you. Psukikos does not necessarily mean unbeliever. It's where the word physical comes from. So your diagram really is the Calvinist position it just depends on the status of the 1st position you call believe.
@@billyr9162 Thanks for the clarification: Arminians have often accused me of being a "Calvinist," and numerous Calvinists have accused me of being Arminian; but, few have positied outwardly from a text, or elucidated according to any Bible word or text. Thanks for using the text.
@@LandmarkBaptists Haha.. I'm not either. Calvinist get closer but I think they miss allot. Arminians just miss most. The real meat is in the Greek words. Not just memorize what Greek word goes with what English word but deep diving into the Greek language.
@@TheBrownsberg Who's the "they" to whom you are referring? And, what is "kive?" And, what was "false" in the video? And why are you using the term, "reprobate?" Do you know what that term means?
Hahaha... with respect, you seem nice. You violated your own rule. You see the mechanism that you are unable to name that caused you to use John 20 as a precursor to I John 5 is a ridiculous assumption that has no basis in any meaningful discussion on the subject at hand. There is simply no reason that a didactic text such as I John 5 that places the initiative and power with God to somehow then be overturned by a text dealing with miracles and the testimony to Christ's divinity and believing in God as a result of that. You failed to mention that John 20, if you read the context, is not speaking of salvific belief but of belief that Christ rose. What's the distinction you ask? In verses 24-28 Jesus is talking to his disciples who are having a hard time believing that it is him and that he was raised from the dead. The belief he was trying to evoke was not one of salvation, but rather simply that he rose. Otherwise you have Jesus saying something like this, "Thomas, even though you believed that I was the son of God before, it was not enough. You weren't saved before, and unless you believe now, those old beliefs account for nothing." It just doesn't make sense. The two texts simply cannot be juxtaposed, as they are far too different in contexts that would need to show explicit didactic teaching as to the antecedents of belief. The new birth is not mentioned in John 20 there as a result of believing. Belief unto salvation is the SAME belief as the present participle of "believing.' No one ever truly believed in Christ who did not also continue believing in him.
+Vic Rockhill Your statement: "No one ever truly believed in Christ who did not also continue believing in him" is absolutely correct; all that was demonstrated from the text is that the continuation follows the New Birth which "new birth" is antecedent to the continuation. That is emphasized in KOINE Greek, that is, both the "punctiliar and linear" kinds of action. I don't know to which rule you are referencing, but thanks for the very accurate and astute observations. The Gospel precedes "believe," and "birth" precedes "Beliv-ING:" It's a big deal in KOINE.
+Vic Rockhill The issue is posited by a "high" Calvinist, Dr. James White, who briefly discusses an element within the subject: ua-cam.com/video/H5_WvgOxq8A/v-deo.html You can review it at this link.
The specific topic (Regeneration precedes Faith) is addressed by a High Calvinist Dr. James White in this link ua-cam.com/video/H5_WvgOxq8A/v-deo.html I look forward to your feedback after you have a chance to review the topic.
i can see why ppl without a grasp of english studies would not understand this, and this might be arminians and calvanists escape hatch is, "I DONT KNOW WHY GOD DOES WHAT HE DOES"
Calvinists are pretty vocal about how they know everything about why everyone else is wrong. Until they're painted into a corner BY SCRIPTURE and don't have a memorized line or can't appeal to philosophy....then they pull the ripcord on "It's A Mystery". The mastermind of their philosophically influenced theology perfected the technique and since his words were equal to God's nobody could challenge his theological perfection.
Forgot to add that since telling Calvin he was wrong put you in very real danger of torture and death, nobody pointed out all his mistakes to him. So without correction he continued with one error upon another, like a tiramisu cake. In the end he had made the most thoroughly camouflaged, works righteousness religion in the West.
I don't have any published material. Growing up Netherland Reformed I was immersed in Calvinism/Reformed every day plus they were KJV-only on top of it. In my teens I started to have doubts about some of the things I was hearing. By 20 I had zero interest in religion and more or less stayed that way for a good 30 years. Also the "pillars of piety" in the church were anything but pious under that thin veneer. In the last two years I got into organized Bible study at our church. The KJV-only brainwashing was removed and the Bible came alive!! I was fascinated by what was being revealed. By nature I'm a curious person so I have to investigate anything that looks interesting, probably why police work and forensics were a good skill honers. So I'd do my Bible lesson but I'd get off on rabbit trails and discover new things. But as the Bible revealed itself and its amazing depth of knowledge I began to see disturbing contradictions between the Bible and Calvinism/Reformed. Last fall I enrolled in a local BSF class (Bible Study Foundation) at the suggestion of Bryan Melvin (author of Hells Dominion). There is tons more I could add because now I see God was working to set the stage to draw me back, but I didn't realize it 10 years ago!! Now I see all these "unrelated" events are coming together for a purpose. So amazing how God works! A couple months ago I posted something on a KJV-only thread and got attacked. I never intended to enter the combat arena of KJV-onlyism but I did it without conscious thinking. Now I started with Calvin the Man and that was an eye opener. Then lately I started posting about Calvin, again without conscious decision to do so. I had prayed to God to use me in whatever way He needed because He knows me better than I do. I'm feeling more and more confident but as an investigator you learn to carefully filter your sources before making bold statements. I can immediately tell if I'm dealing with a new Calvinist because they have a pattern. Hard to explain but growing up in the swamp you get to know the alligators.
I wonder why Paul didn't go into that substructure when he was speaking to the jews about his convertion. Fact is he wasn't saved until that moment with Annanias.
Why is it that whenever somebody "solves" the tension between Calvinism and Arminianism they end up being an Arminian that believes in once saved always saved? OSAS Arminianism is the most common form of Arminianism these days, so you are not nearly as unique as you seem to think you are.
Johnathan: Of my thinking myself to be unique, I have no knowledge: I'm not clergy, neither a professional religionist, rather only an observer that the KOINE text is not consulted in the matter of faith (a point of faith, a punctiliar action) and the continuation of it (continuous action). The tension resolved by KOINE is this very fact: No text places regeneration prior to the punctiliar action (Aorist tense) rather only prior to continuous action (Present tense). Calvinism lacks a text that antedates regeneration prior to Aorist, and Arminianism refuses to attribute the continuation of faith to regeneration. It's only unique in that no one has heretofore noticed this, that is, made this observation. No one has ever denoted this in the novel Calvin-Arminian discourse. I'm not an Arminian; however, I've been accused of being one by Calvinists, and accused of being a Calvinist by Arminians: They share a mutual interest in accusing (categorizing) anyone that lives outside their mental constructs. I don't know why they don't accuse others of being ignorant of the KOINE texts, but that is obvious that they are, or they would not accuse someone of being Calvinist or Arminian, they would simply discuss the texts which they cannot do. Thanks for your reply.
@@LandmarkBaptists Im pretty sure many arminians believe in the perseverance of the saints, the remonstrants said "we are not sure if we can lose salvation or not" because some believed one and others the other. This video only proposes that you are either arminian or semipelagian, depends on whether you hold the doctrine of total depravity to be true or not.
@@underoath005 Thanks for your feedback. Acknowledging the Koine Greek texts' emphasis on "kind of action" (according to its inflectional morphemes) indicates conclusions and holds implications independently of the categories like "semipelagian." For example, the causal agency of man established by the inflectional morphemes in Biblical Hebrew. Some say Free Will, the Bible says: "Causal Agency:" Men cause themselves to believe or to disbelieve. In Koine the text has a term for "believe G4100" and a term for "disbelieve" G569...I look forward to a continued dialogue with you, thanks again.
1 John 5:1 “Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: and every one that loveth him that begat loveth him also that is begotten of him.” King James Version (KJV)
The video demonstrated as well as "noticed" that on the one hand "Calvinism" denies that a person can believe prior to regeneration, while on the other hand, Arminianism says that a regenerated person will not continue to believe: The Bible teaches the opposite on both accounts. Help me understand what made you think the video was intended to "reconcile" Calvinism and Arminainism? That is, if you don't mind.
@@soundwaynes3885 As a social scientist, might I ask: "Why did you bother to engage the post?" I'm intrigued by the presumption that you have intuitive knowledge of an unseen video.
The video demonstrated as well as "noticed" that on the one hand "Calvinism" denies that a person can believe prior to regeneration, while on the other hand, Arminianism says that a regenerated person will not continue to believe: The Bible teaches the opposite on both accounts. So, you are somewhat "correct" in that this video only addressed a core "fragment" of both Calvinism and Arminianism. Thanks for your feedback.
On this website "Baptismal Regeneration" is demonstrated to be impossible: Something Martin Luther actually taught (Lutherans still do); infant baptism is not found in any KOINE Greek text. What's the "perceived connection" between the deconstruction of the abstract, absurd assertion, "Regeneration precedes Faith" and infant baptism? Our website only defines, documents and discloses the fallible elements within fallible religious constructs like "Calvinism, Arminianism, etc., Thanks for your feedback. I am looking forward to your rationale about the "infant" baptism assertion; for, this website has been (and remains) very thorough.
LandmarkBaptists ....my background is...I was baptized as an infant in a Lutheran Church. Tradition. With the idea of a baptism to be after a decision of coming to faith in Christ...I was told I needed to be baptised again cuz that was the first act of obedience...Now that I read my Bible myself and not just listen to sermons... I recognize there is one baptism for the remission of sins and there were folks that had been baptised by water...but then got baptised through Spirit....does that count as 2 baptisms then?? Seems that anyone can argue as to whether a baptism saves or not...and if it does ...then there is the method of water baptism... Sprinkles, pouring on, dunking forward or backward...etc. One cannot schedule a baptism by the Holy Spirit ... I look at infant baptism is something that as parents that want to substitutionally atone for their child....I do not feel the need to get rebaptised when it is the blood that was shed that saved me and not the baptism by water whichever method it was done.... Thoughts?
Initially, the concerns and confusion often surrounding "baptism" is at first an issue of 'water' baptism being super-imposed onto a text when that is not the topic. Often this occurs because of the 'predisposition' of each of us to "read into" any type of document, even the Bible. If one were to think 'stone' each time the verb 'cast' were used, it would be quite an unusual interpretation when it came to casting demons outwardly. But, when it comes to the verb "baptize," we often 'assume' water baptism to be under discussion. So, the text: baptized for remission of sins actually translates "baptized into remission of sins," which is not an equivalent expression to the text which says that John "baptized Jesus into the Jordan (River)." Nevertheless, we often cannot consider the actual agency of a passive voice use of the verb baptize without thinking of water. Start there, I would, and we'll go from there. Thanks for your feedback.
One of the problems I have with this is that it would latterly read, 1JN 5:1 Who ever (presently continually) believes that Jesus is the Christ has already been born of God. So the new birth precedes believing. In John 3 Jesus said you must be born again..... unless you are born again you can not see the kingdom of God. So unless you are born of God like John said, you won't understand the kingdom of God because you can't even see it. When I went to Bible College I was taught the tools of interpretation and Hermeneutics', the Art and Science of Interpretation. I learned Greek also. I was not nor ever took any course on Calvinism. I just learned a little in Systematic Theology. These are my conclusions.I think you need to do exegetical studies on John 3 and 1 John 5
+Fat Mann The KEV (PDF) version on the IAmKOINE website reads accordingly, "Everyone who is believing that Jesus is the Christ has been generated out from the God and everyone who is loving the One Who generates is also loving the one who, having been generated, remains generated out from the God." I don't know to what your statement: "One of the problems I have with this is that it would latterly read, 1JN 5:1 Who ever (presently continually) believes that Jesus is the Christ has already been born of God. So the new birth precedes believing" refers. Thanks for the feedback. I'm completing a seven year compilation of feedback concerning the actions (reactions) by adherents when omitted elements of their constructs are introduced. Did you find the KEV to be lacking in its literal translation of 1 John 5:1?
I didn't mean to sound too condescending, I just have seen so many people try to debunk Calvinism. And as I have said I went to a Bible College that gave me the tools to interpret the Scriptures and I have to say I have never herd of the Konia formula. Not to say that it's wrong because I don't know enough about that method. I will have to look at John 5 again and look at the tenses of the verbs. Having said that. My college was considered the Greatest secret in the New York Metropolitan Area. I say that not to impress you but it impresses me. I have had three Greek professors. One knew 24 different dialect's and I never herd of this method. They prepared me to annualize methods like this, but I don't know enough about it.. I will have to get back to you after I study John 5 more. Also I appreciate you not wigging out on me when I disagreed with you. It shows your maturity. On Thanksgiving I have disagreed with some young man who was teaching the Scriptures about the Spirit vs the Soul and I even told him that though he was wrong his heart was in the right place. He came back at me with a 110 + line of accusing me of being unspiritual because I disagreed with him. It was so bad that a third party man got involved and told him to apologize to me. This young man wigged out on him. He seemed offended because I called him son. I call young men more than half my age son. Anyway, thank you for your input and though I disagree with your conclusion I respect your study and efforts.
+Fat Mann The www.IAMKOINE.org website is the Apologetics and Outreach ministry of Landmark Missionary Baptist Church in Jacksonville. The video that you commented on, like the other resources on this site do not intend to "debunk" Calvinism. The construct "Calvinism," like Arminianism and Molinism, etc., is fallible (that is, unlike the Scriptures, Calvinism is NOT inspired). Nothing about being neither Calvinist nor Arminian requires the "debunking" of either. I don't know with what you disagree about my "conclusion." The video merely depicts omissive elements in the Calvinistic construct. We are a Landmark Missionary Baptist Church whose long 2000 year history includes all types of Baptists, including Calvinistic; especially, J. R. Graves (the Particular Redemption advocate: the core of Calvinism itself.) Please review James White's video at this link ua-cam.com/video/H5_WvgOxq8A/v-deo.html (Notice that he correctly observes that birth antedates "believing," but he did not note that the birth (perfect tense) only antedated the present tense form of believe, not the Aorist. It is only a result of evaluating the fallible construct Calvinism with the Divine, infallible Construct The Scriptures. Thanks for your feedback.
I do agree that Calvinism is not inspired and I thought I had explained to you that in my college we were not taught Calvinism or Arminianism but we were taught how to study the Scriptures with tools like the original languages. We were also taught sound Hermeneutical techniques such as Exegesis not Eisegesis. Having said that I have looked up 1John 5:1 again and the problem I have with your conclusion is that Born of God is in the perfect tense. Which precedes the believing. I remembered it before from Charles Ryrie's Book on the Holy Spirit where he makes the case that in order to believe you must be Born of God. James White also draws this conclusion. So I am not alone. So it negates your formula.
+Fat Mann Thanks for responding again: I think I "get what you're saying," but I only noted that neither James White nor Charles Ryrie notice that "born again" precedes "believing-present tense; not believe-aorist tense." The video does not deny that "Born of God" precedes "believing;" rather it notices that "Born of God" does NOT precede "Believe-aorist, punctiliar action." That was the entire point of the video, that "born of God" does precede "believing, but NOT believe:" A big deal in the KOINE text. Check out the brief PDF at www.iamkoine.org/uploads/3/2/9/5/3295485/the_case_for_koine_final.pdf I wrote it, in order that the distinctions between Constructs and the KOINE texts might be acknowledged, NOT in order that grand confessions or constructs like Calvinism might be debunked. Also, my intention for my PhD is to evaluate "source bias and avoidance" as it presents itself among those, like myself, who are historically confessional (our ABA confession is the New Hampshire Confession). I am NOT an adversary to the work; however, you will notice when you perform a cursory reading of "The Case for KOINE" that my research is about the "unnecessary" tensions among Baptists; for, as you noticed: Look how "close" your assertion "I remembered it before from Charles Ryrie's Book on the Holy Spirit where he makes the case that in order to believe you must be Born of God. James White also draws this conclusion" actually is to: "everyone who is believING (notice the ING: it's a big deal in KOINE Greek) has been (previously) generated out from the God." Very close, indeed. Our Apologetics and Outreach site is NOT in opposition to or with Calvinism nor Arminianism; rather, perplexed that "source bias and avoidance are somewhat prevalent even among Christians." Did you NOTICE that I translated the perfect tense correctly, and that James White stated that "Born of God" precedes "believing," but neither he nor Charles Ryrie note that the text does NOT say that "Born of God" precedes "believe?" It is quite subtle in the English, but NOT in KOINE. Again, thanks for your feedback: It helps me understand the "blind spots" like those that prevent the distinction between "Believing (present tense) and Believe (aorist)."
We are all predestined to hell. No one is predestined to heaven. No one. Only way out is to put your trust in God. Trust the work of Christ not the supposed other work of election.
The ones who "hate" are not of God. Regardless of where you fall and you do fall somewhere, the essential doctrines are summed up best in the five soles of the reformation. All other doctrines are nonessential and should be handled with grace. Debated with respect, those who use this debate as a forum for hatred don't have the Spirit in them. So while the debate has gone on for around 1700 years and will continue on till Christ returns, there is no animosity between "Calvinism" (which could be called Augustinianism) and "Arminianism" (or semi-Pelagianism) just spirited debate. PS Please excuse all spelling errors as mild dyslexia rears its ugly head and spell check leaves me high and dry. ☺
+Bob Patrick It doesnt apear that anyone on hear is hating and thats a good thing. The essential doctrines though go far above what TULIP or Calvinism tries to assert. It is a very complex but organized way of explaining what is Salvation. But there are many other essential doctrines outside of Calvinism that need to be rightly divided and defended such as the Trinity, Heaven and Hell, the inerrancy of Scripture for starters. I will have to read some of the other posts here.
@@scotpederson5932 Jesus said to be as a little child to enter into his Kingdom. This seems to drift from that simple action that is required for salvation....believe on him. Nothing you said, in particular, just the entire convoluted debates on Arminianism vs Calvinism. I wonder what Jesus would honestly think about doctrines that are formed out of the scriptures. He said to the unbelieving Pharisees to search the scriptures to "think" they have eternal life. I think people can study themselves right out of that childlike faith and accepting the peace Christ said he gives to us.
@@destroyingtheworksofthedev9349 yes you are describing the What. What happens at salvation. Calvinists and some Armenians try to describe the how. How it happens. Then there are those who don't fall into either camp because they consider the How as non essential. Some like me believe in the Twin Truths of God's sovereignty and mans responsibility. It is a mystery because both truths are in the bible.
@@scotpederson5932 Right I used to think the same but it seems God is 100% sovereign and we have the illusion of free will. What is the causality of our decisions? If a leaf falls off the tree, did God not take part? I'm starting to think even the most minute details we think we decide, God has preordained it all. We can't override his coordination with our feeble attempts at planning, or we would thwart his plan.
@@destroyingtheworksofthedev9349 it's a mystery my friend. The Bible is loaded with passages about God's will, predestined, chosen, as well as man being stiffnecked, refusing to believe as well as man asking Jesus for mercy by exercising their faith. All the Glory goes to God because Christ paid for our sins but man is also given the grace to believe as a little child with the faith of a mustard seed. Surgeon called these 2 truths of Sovereignty and Responsibility as friends. He knew it was a mystery that man cannot reconcile.
So the first believe is not a lasting saving belief. It says that in John 10 as well. Some believed Him but they were not born again. Glad someone understand the word Mathias and how it relates to learning. I don't find many who get that.
I was completely unaware that the "fallible soteriological" construct called, "Arminianism" teaches that faith continues after "regeneration." Could you cite the source or the link, so that I can review that. For, according to my limited knowledge of both "Fallible Soteriological Constructs" (Calvinism & Arminianism), neither make the distinction between the Finite Verb "believe" nor the participle "believing." Also, are you saying that the Bible (the Infallible Word of God) supports one or both of the "fallible Soteriological Constructs" known as Calvinism and Arminianism? That would be (and is) impossible that the infallible would (or could) be subordinated to a "proof-text" position. Would not the Calvinist, and the Arminian be obliged to support the "infallible" Scriptures? Do you (personally) use the (infallible) Bible to "support" fallible constructs? If so, to what end? Why? As a Biblicist, I find "fallible constructs" to be (like all mental models) useful, but wrong. I don't know of any inspired text which supports an uninspired assertion, so, I cannot agree that the text is capable of being "branded" as "Calvinism, Arminianism, Lutheranism, or Molinism" for example.
@@LandmarkBaptists of course those terms are not biblical, those are only associated with the theologians who made them famous however an Arminian is automatically anybody who does not hold to Calvinism, you may not associate with both but the moment you start explaining soteriology and you make "believe" a human action and "believing" a continues act then you are talking Arminianism without identifying as one, in this video you made the first mistake of attacking straw man, you were supposed to show a video that proves that both sects teach those verses differently but yet you are asking me to give you a link or reference lol
@@fernandopaulus9088 I'm unaware of the criteria according to which you are evaluating the video. Are you saying the antecedent to the pronoun "ye" in John 20:31 "...that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name" is not a "human?"
Some years ago my number three son asked the question; how many centuries was the church around before Calvin? what he pointed out was that both the doctrines try and get into the mindset of the apostles who wrote the scripture under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.
Mumble jumble. Calvinism is not in the bible. Just read the bible. You'll find the pattern. People heard the word, believed and obeyed. And rejoiced that their sins were forgiven. Don't need this Greek and Math gibberish.
Agreed: I would never have taken the time for Apologetics, but for the sake of those that could not see from a point of view from which religious contradictions disappear. Many people often ask the same questions year-after-year; so, for those who always asked me, I answered in a once-for-all fashion; but, as you say Math and Greek can be just gibberish. The power of the gospel never required that it be accompanied by either Math or Greek. Thanks for your feedback.
Why do you people argue about calvinist they believe if you aren’t a calvinist you are going to Hell I am a born again Christian I asked Jesus Christ to come into my heart at the age of 15 and I’m still saved calvinist believe they are the only ones who are going to Heaven John 3:16 for God so love the world that he gave his only begotten son that who so ever believes in him will not perish but have ever lasting life so stop arguing and turn from your wicked life and get out and witness to the unbelievers because you don’t know who will except Christ we are all sinners and we all sin Christ died for us all doesn’t mean all people are going to except Christ but we don’t know who will or want God hates it when his children fight about calvinism and Arminian preach the Gospel not Calvinism or Arminianism we are to witness because we don’t know who will or want believe I believe what John 3:16 says
Amen you are absolutely right calvinism isn’t in the Bible that’s why I don’t worship calvinism or Arminisam I love Jesus Christ and I love people who wants everyone to be saved that is why you get out and witness to the lost God will hold every Christian accountable for not spreading the Gospel
I get what he is saying and he is rightly speaking about Koine Greek but i am alarmed Koine is lifted up as an alernative camp from Calvinism or Arminianism. Koine is spoken of here as a mysterious solution but Koine is the style of Greek the New Testament is written in. It was a street Greek language which the known world spoke in like we today speak in Emglish. There was also classical Greek but God used the common street version to speak to all men. It is a great language because of it's structure we can know what the writer meant. This teaching is correct on Exegeting this text but it is not a profound complex formula , it is simple Greek
Agreed: It's quite offensive to many who have constructed abstract, philosophical, and very complex constructs from it...like the Fallible, philosophical (and very complex) constructs like the multi-variate forms of both Calvinism and Arminianism. It's called "project creep" in the real world; namely, when drift from the original plan or project leads so far away as to no longer recognize the original. Are you a Hyper-Calvinist, or High-Calvinist, or Moderate-Calvinist, or 1, or 2, or 3, or 4, or 5 point Calvinist? Koine is not an "alternative camp" to fallible constructs, rather Koine Greek is that which was here for the common people to read and to live by. I think it is more the Western Mind that superimposes the abstract, complex, and certainly fallible "constructs," like Calvinism and Arminianism, or Molinism, or Traditionalism...The Scriptures for many are used as proof texts for constructs that did not even exist 500 years ago. Thanks for your feedback. This is a language-based apologetic and outreach website. If you'd like a good read that demonstrates the error of omission between two popular constructs called Young versus Old Earth read the PDF at IAmKOINE.org. www.iamkoine.org/uploads/3/4/5/9/34593438/correct_time_finale_bdot_4_23_19.pdf It's almost exhilarating to notice all the problems that the Bible Languages solve with a Historical Hermeneutical Approach.
Your astute reply has disclosed an oversight n my part; namely, that no one uses other English translations/Bibles either. As you can notice: The King James Bible John 20:31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name. The New King James Bible John 20:31 but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name. The Revised Standard Version John 20:31 but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in his name. The NET Bible John 20:31 But these are recorded so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name. The samples, when compared, that is, compared with the King James Bible demonstrate that advocates of the NKJV, RSV, and the NET Bibles don't NOTICE the clear distinction between "believe [the finite verb] and believing [the Present Active Participle]. Thanks for your feedback. I shall produce a video (if the Lord wills) demonstrating that most don't USE the King James Bible for "solving" the feigned flummox within the fallible religious construct called Calvinism, any more than they USE the NKJV, the RSV, nor even the NET. An amazing "eye opener," indeed! Thanks for shedding light on a Blind Spot of mine, that is, a former "Blind Spot."
Sequence is clear in Rom 1:19-22: Man did not seek God, so God initiated the act and made Himself KNOWN. Man responds by either believing or rejecting. Those who reject, their hearts were hardened. On the other hand, those who believe are given the power to become children of God (John 1:12).
In John 1:12 the authority (power) to become children of God was given to the ones already believing. You can reference this video (which I would be honored to receive your feedback) ua-cam.com/video/c2ZsUAtPTvg/v-deo.html Thanks for your reply.
LandmarkBaptists An interpretation which our Calvinistic friends will not accept. They believe it is the other way around!
@@CyberDebate It's an unwillingness to notice that which R. C. Sproul stated; namely, that regeneration is NOT prior to faith "temporally," but rather "logically." So, even he (the teacher who popularized the axiom) who acknowledged that in the text (and in time) regeneration DOES NOT occur prior to faith, however, his assertion that it did occur "logically prior" became the mantra, then the Axiom of "Reformed Theology."
LandmarkBaptists Tried hard to find the book of Sproul in the Bible, couldn’t :)
@@CyberDebate Well stated.
Would love to see this formula applied to Eph 1:13, which is the verse I generally use when debating both Calvinists and Arminianists.
Actually: The text to which you make reference does not speak to the relation between faith and regeneration. John 20:31 places the Gospel prior to the Finite Verb "believe," and demonstrates the Present Active Participle "believing" to be subsequent to "believe." 1 John 5:1 notices that the Present Active Participle (Gerundive Noun) to be subsequent to the Perfect Active Participle, "have been previously fathered, (and remaining fathered) out from God..." Ephesians 1:13 states, "In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise," places that they believed "after they heard the word of truth;" then states: "ye were sealed" after that ye believed." The texts seem to correlate very well, that is, they present no contradiction. Am I missing something. Rather, can you help me to understand what I am missing about your assertion? Thanks for your feedback.
@@LandmarkBaptists I am in full agreement with your video illustration, and have often used it, to express the same points, as there is no contradiction between 1 John 5:1 and Eph 1:13. I agree about the correlation. I was simply expressing my desire to see you give the same illustration, you used to explain 1 John 5:1 for Eph 1:13, which I believe also refutes the idea that we must be regenerated before we believe the gospel. Or are you saying that being sealed with the Holy Spirit is not a reference to being regenerated?
It's my go to verse when debating those who attempt to make the gospel powerless. (They heard the gospel. They trusted what they heard. They believed what they trusted. They were sealed).
If calvanism were true.... (Predestination). Then God is truly a monster.
I think the Bible right in the most simplistic way. Let's study and learn while loving one another.
Ever evaluating, never negating. Thanks for your feedback. Calvinism is simply a "fallible, Soteriological Construct." Anyone can evaluate it, then define, document, and disclose its fallible elements. Just compare it with the Bible.
the best answer to calvanism/arminian is abot and costelo "who's on first". does anybody actually believe theyre going to stand before God and be required to get this right?
Excellent Point: Thanks for your feedback!
I'm reformed and I don't believe that for sure! I love remembering this and also pointing this out to others.
John 20:31 uses presents: πιστεύητε, πιστεύοντες. How does the formula works in this case? Another thing is that “life” in that context doesn’t mean New Birth, does it?
The term, "πιστεύσητε" is an Aorist (simple, punctiliar action, NOT Present Tense)...Verb - Aorist Active Subjunctive - 2nd Person Plural
Also, in John 3:36, for example, John the Baptist preacher stated: ὁ πιστεύων εἰς τὸν υἱὸν ἔχει ζωὴν αἰώνιον· ὁ δὲ ἀπειθῶν τῷ υἱῷ οὐκ ὄψεται ζωήν ἀλλ᾽ ἡ ὀργὴ τοῦ θεοῦ μένει ἐπ᾽ αὐτόν which translates accordingly: The one who is (already) believing into the Son is (already) having life eternal, but the one who is negating-persuasion will not see life, but rather the wrath of the God is (already) abiding upon him.
So, you can notice that the term, Life, can (and does) refer to Life Eternal in the book of John, somewhat interchangeably, but, it is an excellent thing to question.
What verse in the New Testament states that by a punctual believing (aorist) leads to be born?
Sorry for the delayed reply. I had not noticed the notification.
In Galatians 2:16 Paul stated, "Believed into Christ Jesus." That is Aorist tense, simple form of Action called punctiliar action. It's in a moment, not an ongoing action.
Jesus stated (in John 6:47) "the one who is (already) believing into Him is (already) having eternal life."
In John 1:4 the text states: "1:4 ἐν αὐτῷ ζωὴ ἦν"
"In Him Life was (always) being."
John 3:36 speaks of those who (already) believed into Him, as in the Koine Greek text:
ὁ πιστεύων εἰς τὸν υἱὸν ἔχει ζωὴν αἰώνιον· ὁ δὲ ἀπειθῶν τῷ υἱῷ οὐκ ὄψεται ζωήν ἀλλ᾽ ἡ ὀργὴ τοῦ θεοῦ μένει ἐπ᾽ αὐτόν
This text translates accordingly:
"The one who is (already) believing into the Son is (already) having Life Eternal, but the one who is negating-persuasion by the Son will not see life, but rather, the wrath of the God is (already) abiding upon Him."
So, since the one who is believing (a gerundive noun = the believer) into the Son is (already) having eternal life (Calvinists nor Arminians teach this: They both teach one must "endure to the end" and then "discover" after they die whether or not they were one of the "Elect," and if they "truly endured till the end)...
...thus, the one who is (already) believing "the believer" into Him had already (previously) been fathered out from God (by means of the Gospel), that is, thru the Gospel.
Paul stated clearly in the Aorist tense both in Galatians 2:16 "believed into Christ Jesus."
Do you advocate that "life" is found outside of Christ Jesus, the way that the reformed tradition teaches; namely, "Regeneration precedes faith?" (Occurs outside of Christ and apart from the Gospel)...
P.S. Since (according to Galatians 2:16) Paul "believed into Christ Jesus" in order that he might be justified, did he (already) have eternal life prior to being justified out from Jesus Christ's faithfulness?
P.S.S. I personally am not aware of a text that teaches "life outside of Christ Jesus, the Way, the Truth & the Life," do you?
If so, how do you obtain it "outside of Christ Jesus," for the only means of obtaining eternal life is to "believe into Him" for it, correct?
P.S.S. Are you saying that being "generated, regenerated" is not that which results in life eternal?
Thanks for your excellent replies. I shall be more diligent to notice "all" my notifications, thanks for your patience with me.
Theology is interesting but our doctrine must be each person reading and studying the Word of God themselves and if truly born again the Holy spirit will reveal the truth to them. Please read: [If we truely believe in our heart (Jesus Christ knows) the gospel of salvation (I Cor. 15:1-4), repent and put our faith in Jesus Christ, Jesus Christ seals us with the Holy Spirit of promise. We are then Christ's and he will never leave us nor forsake us, please read: [WAY OF HOPE & PEACE John 3:16 For God so loved the world (all people), that he gave his only begotten Son (Jesus Christ), that whosoever believes in him should not perish (condemned to hell), but have everlasting life. John 3:36 He that believes on the Son (Jesus Christ) has everlasting life: and he that believes not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abides on him. John 14:6 Jesus said to him (us), I am the way, the truth, and the life (eternal life): no man comes to the Father, but by me. Eph. 2:8-9 For by Grace (from God) are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast. Eph. 1:13 In whom (Jesus) you also trusted, after that you heard the Word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that you believed, you were sealed with that Holy Spirit of promise, Rom. 3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; Rom. 5:1 Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ:] Satan wants a person to believe that they can lose their salvation because then it is not by Christ alone but by Christ plus something you must also do to maintain it! That is called Christ plus your works which is not acceptable by a Holy and righteous God. Salvation is by the work of our Lord alone (Eph. 2:8-9).
Did you watch the video? I have numerous videos demonstrating that it is impossible for one to lose their salvation...Am I missing something in your reply. The Bible does NOT support Calvinism, Lutheranism, Arminianism, Molinism, or even Pelagianism: Those are all "Fallible Relgious Constructs." I'll read, and re-read your reply to ascertain what I might not be understanding. Thanks for your reply.
@@LandmarkBaptists I'm sorry, it was not clear. I agree with your testimony. I paste this scripture in the comment sections of many videos hoping that through the Word of God that the Holy Spirit will work in hearts of many readers that may read it. Your testimony is great and I praise the Lord that you are secure in his redemption.
What's an example of a Calvinist not being primed to accept the continual act of believing? The whole idea of perseverance of the saints is those who persevere in believing unto the end are those who are the remnant called out from the nations.
Calvinism attribute the birth prior to believing correctly, yet without pointing out that birth does not occur prior to believe [A huge matter in the KOINE text]. The KOINE text simply states that the purpose of the Gospel to be written is in order that one might believe (simple, punctiliar action) and that the result of the "birth out from God" precedes believing )continuous kind of action). This is that which alone, when ignored, or unknown has led to ever expanding Calvinism and Arminianism. No Calvinist indicates that "birth out from God" precedes believING, because it does not wish to acknowledge that "birth out from God" does not precede "believe." See John 20:31 & 1 John 5:1. It has never before been demonstrated as the solution; for, neither side (Calvin/Arminianism) acknowledges the distinction between "believING & believe." I wouldn't acknowledge it either; neither could I, if I were using the Bible to support either Calvinism or Arminianism. I am KOINE, I am not Calvinist nor Arminian.
Wonderful video and awesome engagement in the comment section, plenty to glean from for the discerning, God be magnified.
I just uploaded my first-ever video from the article by Dr. Thomas M. Strouse. FYI
What is this guy saying? Is he saying that everyone on the planet who hears the Gospel therefore has the tool to believe in a point in time which triggers the new birth?
Just a question: what does it mean to repent? Does it mean turning from sin or sorrow for sin? Or does it actually not involve those?
This brief video about "Repentance and Faith" expresses the radical relationship between the two...ua-cam.com/video/EYhkR2O5iT0/v-deo.html Thanks for your feedback, and question.
@JosephBelloo Would you agree that we actually only need verses 3 & 4 there in 1 Cor, as far as salvation is concerned. That continual belief is not even required, this verse is talking about the fact that if you do not believe that he is risen, then you have believed in vain.
Repentance has nothing to do with anyone "turning from their sins", and everything to do with turning to God, because we can't turn from our sins.
I like to ask this to reformed believers. Which one would you use as proof of Jesus existing and his godhood, Calvin or Early church fathers like Clement or Polycarp? The answer 99 percent of the time is the early church right? Ok. So if that be so, how come you believe Calvins theology over theirs, which is free will? (read against Heresies) Something to think about.
Thanks for the feedback. I would be curious to hear about more of the Calvinists' answers to your insightful question. Thanks for your feedback.
The bible
Can you explain how your "formula" brings peace? I don't see how it defeats either perspective. Were you supporting the Molinist view?
.
+Leoji67
The issue is posited by a "high" Calvinist, Dr. James White, who briefly discusses an element within the subject: ua-cam.com/video/H5_WvgOxq8A/v-deo.html You can review it at this link.
Regeneration is found only 1 Peter 1. Paul speaks only once of the regeneration but in a different sense, more cosmically that of the new era, the new generation. Paul's preferred way of speaking about the believer seems to be toward the renewed mind or the new creation IN Christ. Paul is hardly consistent, and we may assume he felt little need to be. John speaks of the new birth, firstly as a play on words in John 3--"born from above" and then in the epistles in a more expansive way.
I don't need to give you the Greek as you already know it, nor the fact that the Greek makes no distinction between the feminine birthing and the male begetting.
Thanks for your excellent feedback: I shall view and re-view the material in light of your astute observation, thanks so much. I enjoy collaborative reasoning and collective learning.
@@LandmarkBaptists Not what I feared, and more than I could hope for. You are awesome, brother(s)!
@@LandmarkBaptists So, because you're so amazing, I'm going to give you the words I have in mind, hopefully saving you some time:
1. "anagennaó" Strong's G 313. This is the word Peter uses, two occurrences both in 1 Peter 1.
2. "palaggenesia" Strong's G 3824. This is the word Paul uses (only once) in Titus 3:5.
3. And John uses the phrase "born from above" (John 3:3) playing on the double meaning of the Greek "anothen." The only English equivalent would be the stage direction--"take it from the top," meaning do it all over again.
The Greek here is "gennethe anothen" Strong's G 1080 plus G 509.
And, of course, John speaks in the epistle of he who is born of God not continuing in sin etc.
May revelation, joy, peace, and all good things abound to you and your household of faith according to the promise:
"Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and you shall be saved, you and your house."
@@duncescotus2342 Thanks again for the feedback. I have documented it, so that I might review it offline. Your willingness to do the work will allow me to immediately engage the results. Thanks for the knowledge.
@@LandmarkBaptists No, thank you, the pleasure is all mine. Any knowledge is of the Lord.
If the continuation of belief is the result of the new birth, then how is that not a violation of libertarian free will?
Also just because the new birth precedes continual belief does not necessarily mean that initial belief comes before the new birth because a continuation of belief presupposes that belief had an initial starting point.
That which is born of Spirit (capitalized) is spirit (lower case)...In Koine Greek it states (much more simply): τὸ γεγεννημένον ἐκ τοῦ πνεύματος πνεῦμά ἐστιν "...the thing which has been generated out from the Spirit (is always being generated out from Spirit) is spirit. John 3:6b
So, as you can notice in 1 John 5:1a "Everyone who is believing [a gerundive noun for "believer"] that Jesus is the Christ has been (previously) fathered out from the God (and is always being fathered) out from the God...
Always being the Believer is not the same as the Believer always believing (finite verb: actions), but, the one who is believing is always the one who "believed into Christ" for everlasting life.
That which is begotten (fathered) [generated/produced] into me by the Spirit is always being generated by the Spirit.
That is what drives deceivers/persecutors; namely, to STOP the ones who are always believers (once we believed) to STOP believing (words and deeds) as in Luke 8:13b that speaks of those "which for a while believe, and in time of temptation fall away."
Notice, the trials pressured them to STOP believing (a finite verb: actions), that is, STOP producing fruit (the topic of the parable).
One's free-will (man is a causal-being/agent [nothing change that, we were created causal beings by God Himself], is NOT violated when he is fathered from above, even though he is always being fathered from above, for the very reason that Luke 8:13 indicated: Pressures and Trials can (and do) cause one to STOP acting according to that which is fathered out from God.
Also, in the book of Galatians, they were "bewitched."
So, because "believers" (the ones who are believing) can (and are) susceptible to both trials/persecutions, along with deception, that would be more indicative (proof) of one's continued causal-agency (free will), not the violation nor the absence of it.
Thanks for your excellent reply, and well reasoned feedback.
I'll be honored to collaborate until we both can enjoy greater understanding.
@@LandmarkBaptists You refer to free will as causal agency. Are you referring to the compatibilism view of free will?
I believe when you say being fathered out it is referring to "effectual grace".
@@4jchan No, causal-agency is that which the Hebrew language emphasizes. No, being fathered out from God refers to that which occurs when one has been persuaded by means of the Gospel to "believe into Christ Jesus," as Paul explicitly stated in Galatians 2:16 2:16 εἰδότες ὅτι οὐ δικαιοῦται ἄνθρωπος ἐξ ἔργων νόμου ἐὰν μὴ διὰ πίστεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ καὶ ἡμεῖς εἰς Χριστὸν Ἰησοῦν ἐπιστεύσαμεν ἵνα δικαιωθῶμεν ἐκ πίστεως Χριστοῦ καὶ οὐκ ἐξ ἔργων νόμου διότι οὐ δικαιωθήσεται ἐξ ἔργων νόμου πᾶσα σάρξ
"As ones who have noticed (and continue to notice) that no kind of man is being justified out from any kind of works of any kind of law, except through (by means of) Jesus Christ's faithfulness, even we ourselves "BELIEVED into Christ Jesus, in order that we might be justified out from Christ's faithfulness, and not out from works of law, because on account of (this): Not any kind of flesh will be justified out from any kind of works of any kind of law."
So, for Paul, and anyone who believes "into Christ," it is because they have been persuaded by the gospel to do so.
Thanks for your replies, and especially, your patience with me.
I don't see how this proves anything in relation to the two beliefs.
+Bungalo Bill
This "brief" PDF might help: www.iamkoine.org/uploads/3/4/5/9/34593438/the_case_for_koine_final.pdf
its not meant to prove either of the two, it instructs how to unpack scripture with the discipline of english language.
Looked at that video and the comments but still see no dealing with faith as a gift in Ephesians 2:8-9... Maybe I missed it?
Jonathan: (#3 is the reply about Ephesians 2:8-9)
Here's the replies,
Wow! I'm learning why so few post videos: These interrogations could be intimidating.
#1 He died in the place of every sinner culpable for their sins, and in the place of no one less did He receive the wrath from God: I'm not aware of a human (except the Son of God) that was, nor is culpable for the sins placed upon Jesus. All are guilty, all sins of every man were laid upon Him. Of course, some religious people construct "common grace," or "prevenient grace," etc., etc., endless to deal with what Christ resolved by His atonement.
#2 The New Birth is distinguished from salvation. The KOINE order, however, is the Gospel, it being written down for the purpose for one to believe, then (as John wrote in I John 5:1) birth out from God, then believing (ing form of believe-continual action), ...of course mind-after the message (repentance) occurs simultaneously with punctiliar believe, that is, mind-after the right-announcement and believe are not capable of being divided, since KOINE conjoined them.
#3 Ones who, having been previously saved by the Grace through faith, are continuing to be saved by the Grace through faith...This is not out from yourselves...The Grace is a personification of the Christ (first chapter of Ephesians); faith refers to the Faith of Christ. The "that" to which your question refers is according to KOINE all that is contained in the verbal substantive: the periphrastic participle (Periphrasis is exactly what it sounds like it is. Peri, the Greek preposition περί meaning around (with the accusative) and phrasis, φράσις , a phrase, are put together to refer to a round about way of phrasing something, or we might say, a sort of circumlocution. In fact, that is what the Greek compound περίφρασις meant.)
#4 No such thing in KOINE as prevenient, resistible, irresistible, or common grace...those phrases don't occur.
# 5 See the videos. No such thing as a "will" as you state. The "wills of the flesh and of the mind" (in Ephesians) are that to which KOINE refers.
# 6 See the video on the Preposition and the Rapture.
# 7 No such terms like Pre, Mid, or Post exist in the KOINE text...see video on the Preposition and the Rapture. Like the Christians who are presently fleeing in the Middle East, all we have done is obey Christ...flee.
The debate does not come down to those verses or that formula. And even the formula properly written in Koine does not refute either one.
You are so far away from the Calvinism/Arminianism debate, and the verses they center around, that you aren't even anywhere near it! Please actually study this topic and the verses that the debates are centered around.
Calvinism and Arminianism are opposites so it's illogical and irrational to say you have disproven both. It's not even possible.
Keap16:
I'm not a student of either...about this you are correct; and, I've never actually studied to "Negate" either Arminianism or Calvinism. The Seminary I attended taught us to search the Scriptures, study them: They gave me tools for researching the Bible. I agree that to a Calvinist or an Arminian, anything that is not according to either would be rational. Thanks for your reply, I'll include it into our class discussion. We are studying the adverse effects of "double dissonance:" The converging negativity that is incited when one dares to assert themselves independently of the mental, religious constructs called Calvinism and Arminianism.
Keap16 I reference the ONE that made issue of these verses, omitting some things, Dr. James White asserted many.
ua-cam.com/video/H5_WvgOxq8A/v-deo.html
Keap16 When you review this video by Dr. James White, then you will notice the original source of this type of argument, Thanks.
ua-cam.com/video/H5_WvgOxq8A/v-deo.html
Both stand on an assumption of what is meant by foreknow/predestine etc.
What is Paul talking about regarding the clay/potter? VESSELS! What is a vessel?
Flesh. Man.
Consider this
So where do I go from here. It seems nearly all churches are pointing to either calvanism or arminianism and without realising I never believed anything but the Koine' and I just thought everyone else did too. No wonder I always had problems getting my point across
So true, I'm glad to have the platform like UA-cam in order that Koine might have a place among the endless banter about Calvinism and Arminianism.
If the gospel has the power make one believe, why do some hear it and believe while another hears and rejects it?
An example in John 5 records that Jesus stated to a group of religionists that as ones who received glory from one another they weren't able to believe, and; also, that was the basis of their not wanting (desiring) to come to Him...I'm certain the motives for individuals who deliberately decide (judge) to refuse to cause themselves to believe (support) that Jesus is the Christ are as numerable as the number of individuals who refuse to cause themselves to believe.
If you don’t know, just say that
I personally agree that humans have free will. Calvinists quote Romans 9 (i do not deny that this passage can be easily interpreted this way, but based on the context at which this takes place I believe that it is not talking about personal salvation but how the Jews were angry that Gentiles were being saved when they thought Israel was supposed to be the chosen nation, again just my interpretation). However a look at Romans 1, specifically verse 18 on, I believe, answers the question of whether everyone can be saved its just a matter of personal choice, "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifested in them for God has shown it to them" verse 18 and 19. God reveals himself to all but some suppress this in unrighteousness. It goes on to say that even the Godhead is revealed to humans in this way so the people that suppress it are without excuse. Even though I have an opinion in this, I have realised that this ultimately is a useless argument that has unnecessarily divide the Body of Christ. Do both sides believe we are saved by faith in Jesus through the Grace of God? Yes. Do both sides promote evangelism? Yes. Do both sides accept the Trinity? Yes. Do both sides believe that there are people going to Heaven and people going to Hell? Yes. The only difference is that they have different views on whether God picks people to be saved or if it's based on the choice of humans. Also keep in mind that our minds are finite and God is infinite! Maybe both Calvinism and Armenianism are both right. Maybe free will and the Calvinist version of predestination coexist. It would make no sense to us but perfect sense to God in his unlimited knowledge. I'm just tired of seeing so much energy being wasted in these arguements when there are people out there that don't know God and they need us to introduce them.
Agreed: When I undertook the "Apologetics and Outreach" initiative, I did so for the sake of so many congregants who were completely exasperated by the entire matter! Thus, for their sakes I addressed it. Thanks for your feedback!
@@TheBrownsberg "Calvinsim" is a "fallible," religious construct. The "Gospel of the Grace of God" is infallible. Do you not know the difference? The Bible teaches that men are "causal beings." What's the problem with that? It's from the Biblical Hebrew according to the inflectional morphemes. Do you read the Bible languages or the English Bible, the KJV?
I am not being hostile or emotional, but I am trying to point out that taking two verses from different books and creating a concept not explicitly provided by the author then calling it "inspired".
If your students read these comments let's discuss, I would love to hear you address Eph 2:8-9 or the textual variant issue in John I brought up.
It may be quite educational.
By the way, I was raised in a view very similar to yours and came around to Calvinism via study of the scriptures in context.
You need only consult other post about Ephesians 2:8-9. John deliberately utilized the perfect tense in 1 John 5:1 to demonstrate the antecedent action of generation prior to continuous (present tense) believing: It was one of his many uses of the perfect antedating the present tense of other actions like "doing the righteousness, loving, overcoming, etc.," Again, I'm not capable of engaging except the text. My students have posed many great observations, I merely the KOINE texts: They would otherwise never learn the texts were they only exposed to systemic mental constructs. Comments on Ephesians 2:8-9 are posted beneath the video "A review of a lesson for Calvinists and Arminians."
Context destroys Calvinism, probably destroyed those who said "I am of Appollos" and "I am of Paul" too.
you left out a host of verses that you are not addressing
Absolutely true, you are! IAmKOINE.org has hundreds. It is not feasible (for me) to cover a "host of verses" in one video; but, here's another one: ua-cam.com/video/O7MQbrt_XM4/v-deo.html
John 20:31 has a variant where it uses the perfect tense in the earliest manuscripts, which pretty much kills your formula in this video.
Even if it didn't, where do you get off creating contexts piecemeal from different books and calling it an inspired formula?
Ephesians 2:8-9 clearly teaches faith is a gift and not something man does and John's usage is consistent with that fact.
Finally your claim that Calvinists object to the ing just highlights that you don't understand what perseverance of the saints means. Since saving faith is a faith from God that results in eternal life it is a faith that continues because God is faithful.
Jonathan:
Of the source of your animosity I am aware; however, "where do I get off creating contexts" is not something to which I am allowed to respond, further, John is the author of the texts of which he wrote concerning the relation of the kind of action in the verb "believe" and the purpose of the gospel, and birth or generation. I find many with the same emotional reaction when it occurs to them to have not consulted the texts prior to constructing fallible mental constructs: Calvinism or Arminianism, or Molinism, or etc.,...I serve as a teacher on the local assembly in my hometown, and young students follow these lessons, so I can't and would not be able or willing to banter in any manner that would reproach the Christ on Whose behalf I gladly serve. Thanks for your reply. If you would like to discuss a text, or grammar, or syntax, or etymology, or context, then I would be glad to do so; for, anything less would be less, indeed. I use these posts in class to demonstrate to the students the ill disposition of those consigned to support mental constructs.
LandmarkBaptists my takeaway is that you are using language to measure scripture instead of scripture itself. Just my two cents.
I am not sure how your tool solves the problem. Also, I continue to be distracted by what I feel are a few erroneous comments. First, regarding the "believing" I do not know of anyone who tends to dim the light on believing. It is a continual action and is recognized in the verses. I know many who consider themselves monergists (in other words Calvanist) and recognize believing. Second, there really are no 2, 3, or 4 point Calvinist. The reformed concept (Calvanistic concept) requires understanding all 5 points. I would even take it further and add the requirement or at least emphasize more clearly the requirement of the sovereignty of God. I think it comes down to the one point. It all comes down to synergism vs monergism. Does God save or does he provide the opportunity to be saved.
Calvinism states that regeneration precedes faith; however, the KOINE text says that regeneration precedes believing (overlooked is "ing"). No text in KOINE indicates "birth" prior to "believe" the simple point of faith as John 20:31 states. And 1 John 5:1 places "birth out form God" ahead of believING: A big deal in the common text called: KOINE. Calvinism and Arminianism are just examples of how much can be built by ignoring such a thing as "kind of action." It's an expression of facts never before expressed in the supposed "unsolvable" Calvin-Arminian riddle. Calvinism nor Arminianism are based upon the simple reality (The KOINE Greek reality) that kind of action is relevant in the relation of "birth out form God" and believ(ING). No one is prepared to respond to the assertion; for, until now it has never been proffered as a solution, rather a demonstration of the errors of both Calvinism and Arminianism, that is, deviations form the KOINE text.
AT 6:19 you say that the Arminian teaching is that man has the ability to believe. I'm not sure what you mean by that, but Arminius never taught that man is born with the ability to believe. His view of "depravity" is similar to Calvin's--we are born dead in sin. Only when God gives the grace to believe can a person believe. Where Calvin and Arminius disagreed was that Arminius believe man could resist the grace to believe--his will was "freed" to believe (or not). Also, re: "believing", Arminius made no final conclusion re: eternal security. See Arminius scholar Roger Olson--peterlumpkins.typepad.com/peter_lumpkins/2013/07/roger-olson-an-interview-revisited-part-3.html
jimmme5880
I don't know why some of the words in my post were lined out. They should remain as I wrote them.
+jimmme5880 I would NOT know how your words came to be "lined-out," maybe someday I will know that about computers, but not today. You speak very correctly to Arminian's actual teaching; sadly, such Arminius scholars aren't reflected in that which is projected as "Arminianism." Like all "fallible religious constructs," much of their content is "Pop-content," to which KOINE is very sufficient at nullifying. Thanks for the link.
This also doesn't answer whether the initial "believe" comes about through a libertarian choice, fore seen before the creation of the world, or through predestination, so that it can't be said that I make a libertarian choice to believe before the next steps come.
The Hebrew language teaches agent-causation; i.e., Genesis 15:6 "And he (Abraham) caused (himself) to believe in YHVH and He accounted it to him for righteousness." The Hiphil is neither "libertarian nor compatibilistic" it is the Hebrew language. It, like KOINE idles down the energetic discussions that are sustained only by ignoring KOINE and the Hebrew. The texts are very much a disappointment for building abstract, philosophical constructs like Calvinism and Arminianism.
I must be a complete moron. Can you give me a good starting place to understanding "Koine" or what you're referencing? Do you mean Koine Greek and it's objective study? Just give me a starting place please.
Actually, the starting place is located in a Bible class at Landmark Missionary Baptist Church in Jacksonville, Arkansas. So, as one who is "just now" encountering these videos, then as you correctly ask: "Give me a starting place, please." The video about Calvinism simply reflects the clear distinction that the (highly inflected) very wordy Koine Greek language between the "Finite Verb" BELIEVE, and the "Present Active Participle" BELIEVING...So, for most of the Class, the use of Koine Greek is a longtime practice for them, so, many of the videos on this channel presuppose a working knowledge of the languages. Go to this link for a good example of the use of Koine Greek: iamkoine.org/uploads/3/4/5/9/34593438/koineapologetics_complete.pdf
Thanks for your interest in this outreach ministry.
@@LandmarkBaptists so do I have to be in Arkansas to do this because I am not located in Arkansas.
@@zachariahstanfield4903 Landmark Baptist Church House is in Jacksonville, Arkansas. No, you don't have to be present with us in class, or in the Assembly to view, and re-view the video lessons on this UA-cam channel...there are over 700 videos.
You said that this formula defeated Calvinism/Arminianism .You know what, this video didn't even touch on the arguements I've heard. The big difference I see is Arminianism folks don't want to give up the fleshly will, where as Calvinists believe backed by scripture that God did the choosing in eternity past. They have differences on the gifts as well.I understand the why's and wherefores of both, and true Christians from both camps will be saved. I wonder what persuasion the thief on the cross was......Just a question. I believe you put yourself into the midst of an argument that doesn't really matter. Nothing wrong with doing it though, after all scripture says steel sharpens steel. MAY GOD BLESS YOU.
I was never in the middle of the argument; many good Christians have been, however, suffering a severe angst about the contradiction from which they could not appear to be delivered. Thanks for you feedback.
Landmark, You injected your opinion, even using, highly sophisticated tools as micrometers and math equations and english literature, to prove your point. I found it very complicated as did others. Scripture says a child can understand, when knowledge of God eludes the sophisticated, my paraphrase. When people have severe angst as you put it, I think it may be one of two reasons, either they don't fully trust God yet, or possibly they have their theology askew....only God knows the human heart, as you know. I believe God put parallels in scripture, that only seem to oppose, that don't intersect, but not to the seriousness of damnation. What that does from my view point is makes us dig deeper into the richness of His word. I don't think Peter new any formulas, and he even said of himself that he was a simple man. The thief on the cross certainly didn't have a formula, he only knew he deserved death and Christ didn't, that seemed suffice for his salvation, Jesus even told him so. I think one of the big problems or mistakes or sins if you will of many Christians is, making God in our own image rather than visa versa.....probably one of those unrealized sins that many of us have from time to time on various matters. Anyway Landmark thank you for your feedback.
Yes, indeed. The endless contradictions are sustained more between our ears than in the Scriptures. Errors of omission are so common that research at Cornell University concluded a study, disclosing that when we commit such errors we are completely unaware of them. Using evaluative methods have demonstrated that it is very common for errors of omission to be committed; as such, the error often presents itself even in the field of Hermeneutics. To date, the distinction between those things "fallible," (like confessions, constructs, or traditions), and those things "infallible," (the Scriptures) is no longer made. Every Christian believes that the Bible alone is infallible; but, a greater amount of energy appears to be vested in using the "infallible" to support the "fallible." Thanks for your reply.
The best video I've seen to date with history was utube June 2015 by Ryan Reeves ( Dutch revolt and Arminianism) I think you would find it quite informative. Sometimes I comment on Bishop Barron's website on utube R/C He is so educated it makes him near hopeless. Let me know what you think. I learn from your posts, mainly because you're not angry when critiqued. God Bless.
I will review it, thanks.
I'm koine and didn't even know it. I think "koine" is equal to "correct". 😇
Koine means "common," (but it is, as you say 'equal to correct)." By its use we can all be more correct as we study it. I try to use the Koine as an "objective determinant," as well as the Biblical Hebrew...It provides parameters according to which I might be restrained by the truth. Thanks for your feedback.
@@LandmarkBaptists Makes good sense to me. Appreciate the teachings.
It's hasn't solved anything as far as I can tell.. They've been arguing for a long time and I don't see no end in sight..lol
The embarrassing difficulty is easily dissolved when the "kind of action" is noticed in the Koine Text. Koine places a great emphasis on "kind of action." The axiom of reformed theology states that "regeneration precedes faith." It doe not according to the Koine text. It's a problem which requires no more than 5th grade grammar to demonstrably solve. You can go to this link and notice the "High Calvinist," Dr. James R. White attempt to place regeneration prior to faith: He did not distinguish between the finite verb "believe," and the present active participle "believing." ua-cam.com/video/wcluvgmfYNg/v-deo.html
Unfortunately this solves nothing the question with Calvinism is limited atonement. I do not believe in limited atonement.
Dr. David M. Berman:
Koine does not believe in "limited or unlimited" atonement. The Bible clearly distinguishes between atonement and redemption, a distinction that is not necessarily made by either Calvinist or Arminians. Thanks for your reply. The PDF, "The Case for Koine," speaks definitively to the unnecessary confusion about atonement and redemption. Within the Koine Confession as well is this clarified. Again, thanks for your reply.
With respect atonement is made for all redemption is based on the free will of the individual. Romans chapter 1 is quite clear about the fact that unbelievers can hold the truth even in their unbelief. Creation bears witness of the creator and so all are without excuse. Calvin's position that God from eternity past had willed to create some for the purpose of internal life in heaven and some for the purpose of eternal damnation in hell is simply a reaction to Plegian teaching and in his reaction he went so far to his own error. In fact the Bible says that he'll was not even created for man but rather for the devil and his fallen Angels. Jesus said if I be lifted up when speaking about him going to the cross I will draw all men unto me. Whether we receive that are not is a decision he's given us. I do appreciate your response and the kind manner in which you responded.
Dr. David M. Berman
Thanks for taking the time to contribute: The Youth in KOINE-U will benefit greatly from your expertise.
What about this verse? What kind of belief can the unborn have?
The unbeliever does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him. And he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned.
1 Corinthians 2:14
I would refer you to Acts 13:48 That text states that the ones who, having been favorably disposed [1833 New Hampshire]; appointed [Calvinists], or ordained [KJV-only]. In this text it places "favorably disposed [my personal favorite], appointed, and/or ordained prior to "Believe," not regenerated. Thanks for your good question.
@@LandmarkBaptists
Those in acts 13 were believers same as in Galatians 3. Same as in Romans 8:28.
I actually do not like the translation in the NET Bible i gave you. Psukikos does not necessarily mean unbeliever. It's where the word physical comes from.
So your diagram really is the Calvinist position it just depends on the status of the 1st position you call believe.
@@billyr9162 Thanks for the clarification: Arminians have often accused me of being a "Calvinist," and numerous Calvinists have accused me of being Arminian; but, few have positied outwardly from a text, or elucidated according to any Bible word or text. Thanks for using the text.
@@LandmarkBaptists
Haha.. I'm not either. Calvinist get closer but I think they miss allot. Arminians just miss most. The real meat is in the Greek words. Not just memorize what Greek word goes with what English word but deep diving into the Greek language.
@@TheBrownsberg Who's the "they" to whom you are referring? And, what is "kive?" And, what was "false" in the video? And why are you using the term, "reprobate?" Do you know what that term means?
Hahaha... with respect, you seem nice. You violated your own rule. You see the mechanism that you are unable to name that caused you to use John 20 as a precursor to I John 5 is a ridiculous assumption that has no basis in any meaningful discussion on the subject at hand. There is simply no reason that a didactic text such as I John 5 that places the initiative and power with God to somehow then be overturned by a text dealing with miracles and the testimony to Christ's divinity and believing in God as a result of that. You failed to mention that John 20, if you read the context, is not speaking of salvific belief but of belief that Christ rose. What's the distinction you ask? In verses 24-28 Jesus is talking to his disciples who are having a hard time believing that it is him and that he was raised from the dead. The belief he was trying to evoke was not one of salvation, but rather simply that he rose. Otherwise you have Jesus saying something like this, "Thomas, even though you believed that I was the son of God before, it was not enough. You weren't saved before, and unless you believe now, those old beliefs account for nothing." It just doesn't make sense. The two texts simply cannot be juxtaposed, as they are far too different in contexts that would need to show explicit didactic teaching as to the antecedents of belief. The new birth is not mentioned in John 20 there as a result of believing. Belief unto salvation is the SAME belief as the present participle of "believing.' No one ever truly believed in Christ who did not also continue believing in him.
+Vic Rockhill Your statement: "No one ever truly believed in Christ who did not also continue believing in him" is absolutely correct; all that was demonstrated from the text is that the continuation follows the New Birth which "new birth" is antecedent to the continuation. That is emphasized in KOINE Greek, that is, both the "punctiliar and linear" kinds of action. I don't know to which rule you are referencing, but thanks for the very accurate and astute observations. The Gospel precedes "believe," and "birth" precedes "Beliv-ING:" It's a big deal in KOINE.
+Vic Rockhill The issue is posited by a "high" Calvinist, Dr. James White, who briefly discusses an element within the subject: ua-cam.com/video/H5_WvgOxq8A/v-deo.html You can review it at this link.
I have no idea what you are trying to communicate.
The specific topic (Regeneration precedes Faith) is addressed by a High Calvinist Dr. James White in this link ua-cam.com/video/H5_WvgOxq8A/v-deo.html I look forward to your feedback after you have a chance to review the topic.
i can see why ppl without a grasp of english studies would not understand this, and this might be arminians and calvanists escape hatch is, "I DONT KNOW WHY GOD DOES WHAT HE DOES"
Calvinists are pretty vocal about how they know everything about why everyone else is wrong. Until they're painted into a corner BY SCRIPTURE and don't have a memorized line or can't appeal to philosophy....then they pull the ripcord on "It's A Mystery". The mastermind of their philosophically influenced theology perfected the technique and since his words were equal to God's nobody could challenge his theological perfection.
Well stated: Succinctly expressed.
Forgot to add that since telling Calvin he was wrong put you in very real danger of torture and death, nobody pointed out all his mistakes to him. So without correction he continued with one error upon another, like a tiramisu cake. In the end he had made the most thoroughly camouflaged, works righteousness religion in the West.
Again: Well stated. Do you publish works (videos or articles) about such contradictions in Calvinism?
I don't have any published material. Growing up Netherland Reformed I was immersed in Calvinism/Reformed every day plus they were KJV-only on top of it. In my teens I started to have doubts about some of the things I was hearing. By 20 I had zero interest in religion and more or less stayed that way for a good 30 years. Also the "pillars of piety" in the church were anything but pious under that thin veneer.
In the last two years I got into organized Bible study at our church. The KJV-only brainwashing was removed and the Bible came alive!! I was fascinated by what was being revealed. By nature I'm a curious person so I have to investigate anything that looks interesting, probably why police work and forensics were a good skill honers. So I'd do my Bible lesson but I'd get off on rabbit trails and discover new things. But as the Bible revealed itself and its amazing depth of knowledge I began to see disturbing contradictions between the Bible and Calvinism/Reformed. Last fall I enrolled in a local BSF class (Bible Study Foundation) at the suggestion of Bryan Melvin (author of Hells Dominion).
There is tons more I could add because now I see God was working to set the stage to draw me back, but I didn't realize it 10 years ago!! Now I see all these "unrelated" events are coming together for a purpose. So amazing how God works! A couple months ago I posted something on a KJV-only thread and got attacked. I never intended to enter the combat arena of KJV-onlyism but I did it without conscious thinking. Now I started with Calvin the Man and that was an eye opener. Then lately I started posting about Calvin, again without conscious decision to do so. I had prayed to God to use me in whatever way He needed because He knows me better than I do. I'm feeling more and more confident but as an investigator you learn to carefully filter your sources before making bold statements. I can immediately tell if I'm dealing with a new Calvinist because they have a pattern. Hard to explain but growing up in the swamp you get to know the alligators.
Great illustration, now if you could include baptism as part of the new birth as Paul did in Acts 22.
ua-cam.com/video/7gzBFpPGAoA/v-deo.html
I wonder why Paul didn't go into that substructure when he was speaking to the jews about his convertion. Fact is he wasn't saved until that moment with Annanias.
Why is it that whenever somebody "solves" the tension between Calvinism and Arminianism they end up being an Arminian that believes in once saved always saved?
OSAS Arminianism is the most common form of Arminianism these days, so you are not nearly as unique as you seem to think you are.
Johnathan:
Of my thinking myself to be unique, I have no knowledge: I'm not clergy, neither a professional religionist, rather only an observer that the KOINE text is not consulted in the matter of faith (a point of faith, a punctiliar action) and the continuation of it (continuous action). The tension resolved by KOINE is this very fact: No text places regeneration prior to the punctiliar action (Aorist tense) rather only prior to continuous action (Present tense). Calvinism lacks a text that antedates regeneration prior to Aorist, and Arminianism refuses to attribute the continuation of faith to regeneration. It's only unique in that no one has heretofore noticed this, that is, made this observation. No one has ever denoted this in the novel Calvin-Arminian discourse. I'm not an Arminian; however, I've been accused of being one by Calvinists, and accused of being a Calvinist by Arminians: They share a mutual interest in accusing (categorizing) anyone that lives outside their mental constructs. I don't know why they don't accuse others of being ignorant of the KOINE texts, but that is obvious that they are, or they would not accuse someone of being Calvinist or Arminian, they would simply discuss the texts which they cannot do. Thanks for your reply.
@@LandmarkBaptists Im pretty sure many arminians believe in the perseverance of the saints, the remonstrants said "we are not sure if we can lose salvation or not" because some believed one and others the other. This video only proposes that you are either arminian or semipelagian, depends on whether you hold the doctrine of total depravity to be true or not.
@@underoath005 Thanks for your feedback. Acknowledging the Koine Greek texts' emphasis on "kind of action" (according to its inflectional morphemes) indicates conclusions and holds implications independently of the categories like "semipelagian." For example, the causal agency of man established by the inflectional morphemes in Biblical Hebrew. Some say Free Will, the Bible says: "Causal Agency:" Men cause themselves to believe or to disbelieve. In Koine the text has a term for "believe G4100" and a term for "disbelieve" G569...I look forward to a continued dialogue with you, thanks again.
1 John 5:1
“Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: and every one that loveth him that begat loveth him also that is begotten of him.”
King James Version (KJV)
500 years of the reformation with Luther not Calvin
Thanks, I've never been that precise with all the historic Catholics and Protestants. Forgive.
@@LandmarkBaptists blessings
you cannot reconcile calvinsim and arminianism its be like you can be a gay and a christian at the same time
The video demonstrated as well as "noticed" that on the one hand "Calvinism" denies that a person can believe prior to regeneration, while on the other hand, Arminianism says that a regenerated person will not continue to believe: The Bible teaches the opposite on both accounts. Help me understand what made you think the video was intended to "reconcile" Calvinism and Arminainism? That is, if you don't mind.
@@LandmarkBaptists i saw the title thats all.. i know if i watching the video will leads to nothing
@@soundwaynes3885 As a social scientist, might I ask: "Why did you bother to engage the post?" I'm intrigued by the presumption that you have intuitive knowledge of an unseen video.
@@LandmarkBaptists its not intuitive its just i based all my presumption from the title alone which defies logic.. ok i watch later
You’re not solving the debate, just avoiding it. Which is perfectly fine!
The video demonstrated as well as "noticed" that on the one hand "Calvinism" denies that a person can believe prior to regeneration, while on the other hand, Arminianism says that a regenerated person will not continue to believe: The Bible teaches the opposite on both accounts. So, you are somewhat "correct" in that this video only addressed a core "fragment" of both Calvinism and Arminianism. Thanks for your feedback.
This misapplication is what created false doctrines such as infant baptism.
On this website "Baptismal Regeneration" is demonstrated to be impossible: Something Martin Luther actually taught (Lutherans still do); infant baptism is not found in any KOINE Greek text. What's the "perceived connection" between the deconstruction of the abstract, absurd assertion, "Regeneration precedes Faith" and infant baptism? Our website only defines, documents and discloses the fallible elements within fallible religious constructs like "Calvinism, Arminianism, etc., Thanks for your feedback. I am looking forward to your rationale about the "infant" baptism assertion; for, this website has been (and remains) very thorough.
LandmarkBaptists ....my background is...I was baptized as an infant in a Lutheran Church. Tradition. With the idea of a baptism to be after a decision of coming to faith in Christ...I was told I needed to be baptised again cuz that was the first act of obedience...Now that I read my Bible myself and not just listen to sermons... I recognize there is one baptism for the remission of sins and there were folks that had been baptised by water...but then got baptised through Spirit....does that count as 2 baptisms then??
Seems that anyone can argue as to whether a baptism saves or not...and if it does ...then there is the method of water baptism... Sprinkles, pouring on, dunking forward or backward...etc. One cannot schedule a baptism by the Holy Spirit ...
I look at infant baptism is something that as parents that want to substitutionally atone for their child....I do not feel the need to get rebaptised when it is the blood that was shed that saved me and not the baptism by water whichever method it was done....
Thoughts?
Initially, the concerns and confusion often surrounding "baptism" is at first an issue of 'water' baptism being super-imposed onto a text when that is not the topic. Often this occurs because of the 'predisposition' of each of us to "read into" any type of document, even the Bible. If one were to think 'stone' each time the verb 'cast' were used, it would be quite an unusual interpretation when it came to casting demons outwardly. But, when it comes to the verb "baptize," we often 'assume' water baptism to be under discussion. So, the text: baptized for remission of sins actually translates "baptized into remission of sins," which is not an equivalent expression to the text which says that John "baptized Jesus into the Jordan (River)." Nevertheless, we often cannot consider the actual agency of a passive voice use of the verb baptize without thinking of water. Start there, I would, and we'll go from there. Thanks for your feedback.
One of the problems I have with this is that it would latterly read, 1JN 5:1 Who ever (presently continually) believes that Jesus is the Christ has already been born of God. So the new birth precedes believing. In John 3 Jesus said you must be born again..... unless you are born again you can not see the kingdom of God. So unless you are born of God like John said, you won't understand the kingdom of God because you can't even see it. When I went to Bible College I was taught the tools of interpretation and Hermeneutics', the Art and Science of Interpretation. I learned Greek also. I was not nor ever took any course on Calvinism. I just learned a little in Systematic Theology. These are my conclusions.I think you need to do exegetical studies on John 3 and 1 John 5
+Fat Mann
The KEV (PDF) version on the IAmKOINE website reads accordingly, "Everyone who is believing that Jesus is the Christ has been generated out from the God and everyone who is loving the One Who generates is also loving the one who, having been generated, remains generated out from the God."
I don't know to what your statement: "One of the problems I have with this is that it would latterly read, 1JN 5:1 Who ever (presently continually) believes that Jesus is the Christ has already been born of God. So the new birth precedes believing" refers. Thanks for the feedback. I'm completing a seven year compilation of feedback concerning the actions (reactions) by adherents when omitted elements of their constructs are introduced. Did you find the KEV to be lacking in its literal translation of 1 John 5:1?
I didn't mean to sound too condescending, I just have seen so many people try to debunk Calvinism. And as I have said I went to a Bible College that gave me the tools to interpret the Scriptures and I have to say I have never herd of the Konia formula. Not to say that it's wrong because I don't know enough about that method. I will have to look at John 5 again and look at the tenses of the verbs. Having said that. My college was considered the Greatest secret in the New York Metropolitan Area. I say that not to impress you but it impresses me. I have had three Greek professors. One knew 24 different dialect's and I never herd of this method. They prepared me to annualize methods like this, but I don't know enough about it..
I will have to get back to you after I study John 5 more. Also I appreciate you not wigging out on me when I disagreed with you. It shows your maturity. On Thanksgiving I have disagreed with some young man who was teaching the Scriptures about the Spirit vs the Soul and I even told him that though he was wrong his heart was in the right place. He came back at me with a 110 + line of accusing me of being unspiritual because I disagreed with him. It was so bad that a third party man got involved and told him to apologize to me. This young man wigged out on him. He seemed offended because I called him son. I call young men more than half my age son.
Anyway, thank you for your input and though I disagree with your conclusion I respect your study and efforts.
+Fat Mann
The www.IAMKOINE.org website is the Apologetics and Outreach ministry of Landmark Missionary Baptist Church in Jacksonville. The video that you commented on, like the other resources on this site do not intend to "debunk" Calvinism. The construct "Calvinism," like Arminianism and Molinism, etc., is fallible (that is, unlike the Scriptures, Calvinism is NOT inspired). Nothing about being neither Calvinist nor Arminian requires the "debunking" of either. I don't know with what you disagree about my "conclusion." The video merely depicts omissive elements in the Calvinistic construct. We are a Landmark Missionary Baptist Church whose long 2000 year history includes all types of Baptists, including Calvinistic; especially, J. R. Graves (the Particular Redemption advocate: the core of Calvinism itself.) Please review James White's video at this link ua-cam.com/video/H5_WvgOxq8A/v-deo.html (Notice that he correctly observes that birth antedates "believing," but he did not note that the birth (perfect tense) only antedated the present tense form of believe, not the Aorist. It is only a result of evaluating the fallible construct Calvinism with the Divine, infallible Construct The Scriptures. Thanks for your feedback.
I do agree that Calvinism is not inspired and I thought I had explained to you that in my college we were not taught Calvinism or Arminianism but we were taught how to study the Scriptures with tools like the original languages. We were also taught sound Hermeneutical techniques such as Exegesis not Eisegesis. Having said that I have looked up 1John 5:1 again and the problem I have with your conclusion is that Born of God is in the perfect tense. Which precedes the believing. I remembered it before from Charles Ryrie's Book on the Holy Spirit where he makes the case that in order to believe you must be Born of God. James White also draws this conclusion. So I am not alone. So it negates your formula.
+Fat Mann
Thanks for responding again: I think I "get what you're saying," but I only noted that neither James White nor Charles Ryrie notice that "born again" precedes "believing-present tense; not believe-aorist tense." The video does not deny that "Born of God" precedes "believing;" rather it notices that "Born of God" does NOT precede "Believe-aorist, punctiliar action." That was the entire point of the video, that "born of God" does precede "believing, but NOT believe:" A big deal in the KOINE text. Check out the brief PDF at www.iamkoine.org/uploads/3/2/9/5/3295485/the_case_for_koine_final.pdf I wrote it, in order that the distinctions between Constructs and the KOINE texts might be acknowledged, NOT in order that grand confessions or constructs like Calvinism might be debunked. Also, my intention for my PhD is to evaluate "source bias and avoidance" as it presents itself among those, like myself, who are historically confessional (our ABA confession is the New Hampshire Confession). I am NOT an adversary to the work; however, you will notice when you perform a cursory reading of "The Case for KOINE" that my research is about the "unnecessary" tensions among Baptists; for, as you noticed: Look how "close" your assertion "I remembered it before from Charles Ryrie's Book on the Holy Spirit where he makes the case that in order to believe you must be Born of God. James White also draws this conclusion" actually is to: "everyone who is believING (notice the ING: it's a big deal in KOINE Greek) has been (previously) generated out from the God." Very close, indeed. Our Apologetics and Outreach site is NOT in opposition to or with Calvinism nor Arminianism; rather, perplexed that "source bias and avoidance are somewhat prevalent even among Christians." Did you NOTICE that I translated the perfect tense correctly, and that James White stated that "Born of God" precedes "believing," but neither he nor Charles Ryrie note that the text does NOT say that "Born of God" precedes "believe?" It is quite subtle in the English, but NOT in KOINE. Again, thanks for your feedback: It helps me understand the "blind spots" like those that prevent the distinction between "Believing (present tense) and Believe (aorist)."
We are all predestined to hell. No one is predestined to heaven. No one. Only way out is to put your trust in God. Trust the work of Christ not the supposed other work of election.
We preach the Gospel of "trust in Christ alone for Eternal life," I am confident you do as well, that is, by your reply? Thanks for your feedback.
The ones who "hate" are not of God. Regardless of where you fall and you do fall somewhere, the essential doctrines are summed up best in the five soles of the reformation. All other doctrines are nonessential and should be handled with grace. Debated with respect, those who use this debate as a forum for hatred don't have the Spirit in them. So while the debate has gone on for around 1700 years and will continue on till Christ returns, there is no animosity between "Calvinism" (which could be called Augustinianism) and "Arminianism" (or semi-Pelagianism) just spirited debate. PS Please excuse all spelling errors as mild dyslexia rears its ugly head and spell check leaves me high and dry. ☺
+Bob Patrick It doesnt apear that anyone on hear is hating and thats a good thing. The essential doctrines though go far above what TULIP or Calvinism tries to assert. It is a very complex but organized way of explaining what is Salvation. But there are many other essential doctrines outside of Calvinism that need to be rightly divided and defended such as the Trinity, Heaven and Hell, the inerrancy of Scripture for starters.
I will have to read some of the other posts here.
@@scotpederson5932 Jesus said to be as a little child to enter into his Kingdom. This seems to drift from that simple action that is required for salvation....believe on him. Nothing you said, in particular, just the entire convoluted debates on Arminianism vs Calvinism. I wonder what Jesus would honestly think about doctrines that are formed out of the scriptures. He said to the unbelieving Pharisees to search the scriptures to "think" they have eternal life. I think people can study themselves right out of that childlike faith and accepting the peace Christ said he gives to us.
@@destroyingtheworksofthedev9349 yes you are describing the What. What happens at salvation. Calvinists and some Armenians try to describe the how. How it happens. Then there are those who don't fall into either camp because they consider the How as non essential. Some like me believe in the Twin Truths of God's sovereignty and mans responsibility. It is a mystery because both truths are in the bible.
@@scotpederson5932 Right I used to think the same but it seems God is 100% sovereign and we have the illusion of free will. What is the causality of our decisions? If a leaf falls off the tree, did God not take part? I'm starting to think even the most minute details we think we decide, God has preordained it all. We can't override his coordination with our feeble attempts at planning, or we would thwart his plan.
@@destroyingtheworksofthedev9349 it's a mystery my friend. The Bible is loaded with passages about God's will, predestined, chosen, as well as man being stiffnecked, refusing to believe as well as man asking Jesus for mercy by exercising their faith. All the Glory goes to God because Christ paid for our sins but man is also given the grace to believe as a little child with the faith of a mustard seed. Surgeon called these 2 truths of Sovereignty and Responsibility as friends. He knew it was a mystery that man cannot reconcile.
So the first believe is not a lasting saving belief. It says that in John 10 as well. Some believed Him but they were not born again.
Glad someone understand the word Mathias and how it relates to learning.
I don't find many who get that.
You actually described the Arminian position lol
I was completely unaware that the "fallible soteriological" construct called, "Arminianism" teaches that faith continues after "regeneration." Could you cite the source or the link, so that I can review that. For, according to my limited knowledge of both "Fallible Soteriological Constructs" (Calvinism & Arminianism), neither make the distinction between the Finite Verb "believe" nor the participle "believing." Also, are you saying that the Bible (the Infallible Word of God) supports one or both of the "fallible Soteriological Constructs" known as Calvinism and Arminianism? That would be (and is) impossible that the infallible would (or could) be subordinated to a "proof-text" position. Would not the Calvinist, and the Arminian be obliged to support the "infallible" Scriptures? Do you (personally) use the (infallible) Bible to "support" fallible constructs? If so, to what end? Why? As a Biblicist, I find "fallible constructs" to be (like all mental models) useful, but wrong. I don't know of any inspired text which supports an uninspired assertion, so, I cannot agree that the text is capable of being "branded" as "Calvinism, Arminianism, Lutheranism, or Molinism" for example.
@@LandmarkBaptists of course those terms are not biblical, those are only associated with the theologians who made them famous however an Arminian is automatically anybody who does not hold to Calvinism, you may not associate with both but the moment you start explaining soteriology and you make "believe" a human action and "believing" a continues act then you are talking Arminianism without identifying as one, in this video you made the first mistake of attacking straw man, you were supposed to show a video that proves that both sects teach those verses differently but yet you are asking me to give you a link or reference lol
@@fernandopaulus9088 I'm unaware of the criteria according to which you are evaluating the video. Are you saying the antecedent to the pronoun "ye" in John 20:31 "...that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name" is not a "human?"
Some years ago my number three son asked the question; how many centuries was the church around before Calvin? what he pointed out was that both the doctrines try and get into the mindset of the apostles who wrote the scripture under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.
Mumble jumble. Calvinism is not in the bible. Just read the bible. You'll find the pattern. People heard the word, believed and obeyed. And rejoiced that their sins were forgiven. Don't need this Greek and Math gibberish.
Agreed: I would never have taken the time for Apologetics, but for the sake of those that could not see from a point of view from which religious contradictions disappear. Many people often ask the same questions year-after-year; so, for those who always asked me, I answered in a once-for-all fashion; but, as you say Math and Greek can be just gibberish. The power of the gospel never required that it be accompanied by either Math or Greek. Thanks for your feedback.
Why do you people argue about calvinist they believe if you aren’t a calvinist you are going to Hell I am a born again Christian I asked Jesus Christ to come into my heart at the age of 15 and I’m still saved calvinist believe they are the only ones who are going to Heaven John 3:16 for God so love the world that he gave his only begotten son that who so ever believes in him will not perish but have ever lasting life so stop arguing and turn from your wicked life and get out and witness to the unbelievers because you don’t know who will except Christ we are all sinners and we all sin Christ died for us all doesn’t mean all people are going to except Christ but we don’t know who will or want God hates it when his children fight about calvinism and Arminian preach the Gospel not Calvinism or Arminianism we are to witness because we don’t know who will or want believe I believe what John 3:16 says
Amen you are absolutely right calvinism isn’t in the Bible that’s why I don’t worship calvinism or Arminisam I love Jesus Christ and I love people who wants everyone to be saved that is why you get out and witness to the lost God will hold every Christian accountable for not spreading the Gospel
I get what he is saying and he is rightly speaking about Koine Greek but i am alarmed Koine is lifted up as an alernative camp from Calvinism or Arminianism. Koine is spoken of here as a mysterious solution but Koine is the style of Greek the New Testament is written in. It was a street Greek language which the known world spoke in like we today speak in Emglish. There was also classical Greek but God used the common street version to speak to all men. It is a great language because of it's structure we can know what the writer meant. This teaching is correct on Exegeting this text but it is not a profound complex formula , it is simple Greek
Agreed: It's quite offensive to many who have constructed abstract, philosophical, and very complex constructs from it...like the Fallible, philosophical (and very complex) constructs like the multi-variate forms of both Calvinism and Arminianism. It's called "project creep" in the real world; namely, when drift from the original plan or project leads so far away as to no longer recognize the original. Are you a Hyper-Calvinist, or High-Calvinist, or Moderate-Calvinist, or 1, or 2, or 3, or 4, or 5 point Calvinist? Koine is not an "alternative camp" to fallible constructs, rather Koine Greek is that which was here for the common people to read and to live by. I think it is more the Western Mind that superimposes the abstract, complex, and certainly fallible "constructs," like Calvinism and Arminianism, or Molinism, or Traditionalism...The Scriptures for many are used as proof texts for constructs that did not even exist 500 years ago. Thanks for your feedback. This is a language-based apologetic and outreach website. If you'd like a good read that demonstrates the error of omission between two popular constructs called Young versus Old Earth read the PDF at IAmKOINE.org. www.iamkoine.org/uploads/3/4/5/9/34593438/correct_time_finale_bdot_4_23_19.pdf It's almost exhilarating to notice all the problems that the Bible Languages solve with a Historical Hermeneutical Approach.
Must be a KING JAMES CULT
Your astute reply has disclosed an oversight n my part; namely, that no one uses other English translations/Bibles either. As you can notice:
The King James Bible
John 20:31
But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.
The New King James Bible
John 20:31
but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name.
The Revised Standard Version
John 20:31
but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in his name.
The NET Bible
John 20:31
But these are recorded so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.
The samples, when compared, that is, compared with the King James Bible demonstrate that advocates of the NKJV, RSV, and the NET Bibles don't NOTICE the clear distinction between "believe [the finite verb] and believing [the Present Active Participle]. Thanks for your feedback. I shall produce a video (if the Lord wills) demonstrating that most don't USE the King James Bible for "solving" the feigned flummox within the fallible religious construct called Calvinism, any more than they USE the NKJV, the RSV, nor even the NET.
An amazing "eye opener," indeed! Thanks for shedding light on a Blind Spot of mine, that is, a former "Blind Spot."
..wtf.. ..I just talk to my dad.. ..n my dads name is jesus..