Cheryl Schatz

Mark, you said:

Thanks for the replies. I want comment extensively until you finish dealing with the exegetical issues i have raised in Eph 2.

Well thanks a bunch. That should help me to catch up before I get the next barrage. I wanted to get through all of the posts as soon and if I get too many back right away, I won’t get finished but get distracted again, so I thank you for being kind to my mind 😉

Also, alot of your comments about what i believe confused me. Can you state what it is you think i am saying about Eph 2.

Sure.

In Ephesians 2:1 I understand that you believe that before we are believers we were completely dead in our trespasses and sins so that we cannot respond to God or do anything spiritually good including loving God, fearing God or believing God.

In verse 2 I understand that you believe that the sins that we were dead in were ones that were from satan the god of this world and it is that spirit that works within the reprobate called sons of disobedience.

In verse 3 I understand that you believe that the elect were among the reprobate living only by our own lusts and doing only what we wanted to do (which is only bad choices following our sinful nature). In this state you believe that the elect that had been picked unconditionally by God from eternity past were by nature the same as the children of the devil. You believe that we were all subject to God’s wrath.

In verse 4 I understand that you believe that God alone decides the time when He will show us His mercy and it is because He loved us from eternity past and picked us to be the elect.

In verse 5 I understand that you believe that while we were helpless in our sins and unable to do any spiritual good and unable to respond to God or fear Him, God brought us to life by unconditionally making us born again which brings us to life spiritually so that we can hear the gospel and believe and experience salvation.

In verse 6 I understand that you believe that God raised us up with Christ and “in Christ” seated us in heaven as part of the body of Christ and all this is a gift of God without any faith of our own but only through the gift of God that assures that that we will believe and continue to believe.

In verse 7 I understand that you believe that in the future ages that God will show the elect as the ones who were unconditionally picked by Him and this unconditional election will bring God great honor and show His sovereignty.

In verse 8 I understand that you believe that we are saved by God’s sovereign grace without our participation of responding to God with our own faith but rather that the grace and God’s faith given as a gift and salvation are all called a gift of God.

In verse 9 I understand that you believe that salvation is not by man’s faith or man’s works by chosing to respond to God but is solely caused by God through God’s choice and this is so that God’s Sovereignty will be praised and no man will get any glory that belongs only to God.

So do I understand you properly or have I misrepresented you in any way?

Finally about the issue of ‘conditions’ that i raised in relation to John 6. You said very clearly that people had to be like A or do A before the Father ‘gives’ them to Jesus. Now you agreed that the passage is saying that all the Father gives ‘come’ to Jesus- that is they believe. So ‘giving’ comes before believing according to the verse. So if you say there are conditions for giving, it inevitably means condiitons have to be met before believing (since giving comes before believing).

What you are missing is that I said that these conditions are met for all who are given to the Son but the ones who are given to Christ are not the only ones who can be saved. But the ones who belong to the Father and are given to the Son have received God’s promise that they will participate in the covenant without fail. They have listened and learned from the Father and they will listen and learn and respond in faith to the Son.

So while you see from chapter 6 that only the ones given by the Father to the Son will receive salvation, the Scripture doesn’t say that. The passage is specifically only talking about one group of people who already belong to the Father.

So you need to reconcile for me how that is not works based, because these conditions are not just faith. They are conditions that need to be met before ‘giving’, thus before faith and before coming/believing.

The Bible makes it clear that there are means of grace. Praying is a means of grace where we can communicate with God and have our heart changed, but prayer as a means of grace is not a work. Every promise of God is a means of grace.

Matthew 7:7–8 (NASB)
7 “Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you.
8 “For everyone who asks receives, and he who seeks finds, and to him who knocks it will be opened.

Jesus said to ask, seek and knock therefore asking, seeking and knocking are not works if they are combined with faith.

James 1:6–8 (NASB)
6 But he must ask in faith without any doubting, for the one who doubts is like the surf of the sea, driven and tossed by the wind.
7 For that man ought not to expect that he will receive anything from the Lord,
8 being a double-minded man, unstable in all his ways.

In fact anything that God commands if we obey Him in faith, it is not a work. Thus fearing God is not a work. In the Scriptures “works” are in opposition to faith and these kinds of works are called “dead works”.

Hebrews 6:1 (NASB)
1 Therefore leaving the elementary teaching about the Christ, let us press on to maturity, not laying again a foundation of repentance from dead works and of faith toward God,

So when Abraham believed God and obeyed Him in going to the country that God called Him to, this was not a dead work but an act of faith. Believing God, fearing Him, praying to Him – all of these things are not dead works, but acts of faith. God cannot command us to fear Him and then condemn us when we fear Him calling it a “dead work”.

Thanks

You are welcome!

Mark you quoted me and then said:

“We can pray that a person will be brought to the place of repentance, but repentance is something that the person themselves must do. And if the person rejects God Himself, he may not be granted repentance just like Esau.”

First, I would like you to be consistent In your claim of seeking the truth of the ispired grammar and actually deal with 2 Tim 2:25. If God has granted everyone the ability to repent (as you believe) why does Paul tell Timothy to ask God to grant it to certain people.

Mark, why don’t you read the quote you just made from me again> I appears that you have not really read the quote carefully. Did I or did I not say that Esau was not granted repentance? If I said that some may not be granted repentance like Esau, then how can you say that I believe that God grants everyone the ability to repent? Does this mean that you didn’t actually read what I wrote or are you purposely trying to misrepresent me? I have no ability to judge your motives so I will let you tell us all why you quoted me and then misrepresented me?

Next are you asking me to be consistent in saying that God grants all to come to repentance when this is not what I believe? We simply cannot take advantage of God’s grace. The Bible says that “now” is the day of salvation and those who disregard God’s good gift and think that they have the ability to come whenever they want even after rejecting God over and over again – they are not guaranteed an ability to come to repentance. They may have received God’s grace in the beginning, but they will not end up with grace and God granting them “repentance” if they continue to harden their hearts.

Isn’t Timothy praying for something that God has already done?

No. Some have walked away from the light that God gives everyone and the darkness that they walk in now cannot allow their eyes to be opened without the grace of God. And God has chosen the time when they will no longer have repentance. I saw this time and time again working with Jehovah’s Witnesses and with witnessing to them. I saw some given more than enough to bring them to repentance and they even shook with fear at what they were being shown, but they turned away from the light that God gave them and even though they were once granted repentance, they refused God’s light.

Also note the inspired grammar that siads God “grants them repentance” not “the ability to repent”. Repentance itself is something God grants- it is a gift.

This is what the Scripture says:

2 Timothy 2:25 (NASB)
25 with gentleness correcting those who are in opposition, if perhaps God may grant them repentance leading to the knowledge of the truth,

If this was just a “gift” from God then there would be no need to correct these ones. But the fact that the granting of repentance is after the gentleness and correction shows that the “granting of repentance” is an opening of one’s eyes to understand the lie so that one can repent. Once one repents of the lie, one can be lead into the knowledge of the truth.

Again I saw this in my work with JW’s. Often it is easier and the best to correct the lie first before the person can accept the truth. Is this just a “gift” dropped into the person that causes repentance? That isn’t the intent of the passage. It is God’s work through correction that wil open one’s eyes to the lie. That “opening of the eyes” that is a gift from God to the person who is believing in a lie, allowing their minds to see how they have been deceived. But just because a godly Christian brought gentle correction to them and they repented of the lie that they had been entangled in, doesn’t mean that God is not involved and the person could have their eyes opened without God’s work. Not at all. When God opens one’s mind to the truth about “the lie” it is a gift and it is how God “grants” repentance, for no one entangled in the lie can repent without his eyes opened to the lie. Does this make sense?

Second your own argument about Esau falls apart since the text you sight saids that Esau “sought for repentance with tears”. Why wasn’t he forgiven then? He sought repentance with tears! Clearly though it was not ‘granted’ by God to him.

Yes clearly repentance was not granted to him. Why? Because his eyes had already been opened to the importance of his birthright, but the Bible tells us that Esau despised it.

Genesis 25:32–34 (NASB)
32 Esau said, “Behold, I am about to die; so of what use then is the birthright to me?”
33 And Jacob said, “First swear to me”; so he swore to him, and sold his birthright to Jacob.
34 Then Jacob gave Esau bread and lentil stew; and he ate and drank, and rose and went on his way. Thus Esau despised his birthright.

To despise means to have contempt for something. If Esau deliberately despised his birthright only to think that he could turn around later and ask think that it was no problem to get it back, did God have the right to refuse to grant Esau repentance? I believe that God had the complete right to withhold from Esau the allowing of his repentance. But not granting repentance to one who was deliberate in his distain for his birthright does not mean that God refuses to grant repentance to others for no reason at all? Or do you see God this way, one who arbitrarily withholds his blessing? Is this what you love about Calvinism? Are you greatly loving and enjoying the idea that God chose you without the condition of faith and rejected so many others without any condition of their sins?

Mark you said:

I agree with you that people cannot come to God because they do not love Him. But I guess the difference is because I believe that unregenerate people are unable (Rom 8:6-7 makes that clear).

It is clear that some people who had not yet come to Christ loved God. No all who are unregenerate are haters of God. But we can look at this passage when we get to Romans.

However yo have still failed to show where the Bible teaches prevenient grace to therefore show people are able to do things which you believe are required.

The term prevenient grace is not in the Scriptures, but it is clear that people who love God and do what is right are not able to do these things without God’s help. Call God’s enabling whatever you want, but if the Bible says that some feared God long before they came to faith in Christ, then cannot we both agree that it isn’t a case of only human ability but God’s enabling this kind of obedience? Well unless you believe that we are all able to do what is right without God’s help but that doesn’t seem to be your position.

I disagree however with all the conditions you are adding onto salvation. Initally you just said faith but now you have extended that several fold all BEFORE one is even saved.

I didn’t give conditions for salvation, but conditions that God gives for the Father giving people to Jesus. If there are no conditions of obedience to the Word of the Father before one is given to the Son, then all you will have to do to disprove this is to show one person who is given to Christ who is a God-hater. I would sure be interested in seeing such an example.

For example here are your own words of conditions one must meet before being allowed to come to God- “practise the truth”, “have God’s word abide in them”, “have the love of God”, “seek God’s glory”, “refuse to believe”.

Huh? Refuse to believe? And again you apparently have a bit of a problem in understanding the difference between those who can hear and believe the message even though they had been unfaithful and practicers of evil and those who are “given” to Jesus.

So whats that…5 extra conditions one must meet before they are allowed to be saved. Please explain how you do not teach a works based gospel?

So show me where I said there are conditions that one must meet before they are allowed to be saved? Did I not clearly say that these were conditions for one being “given” to Jesus thus showing that these ones actually “belonged” to the Father so that they could be given to Jesus from those whom He owned?

Are you really trying to understand me or am I the one at fault for saying it the wrong way? If it is me, then please provide a quote instead of just summing up your view of what I said because you are not terribly good at summarizing my position. Maybe you will get better in the future 🙂

To be continued…

Mark, you said:

Such far, you are failing heavily to read the context and have approached both Eph 2:1, and Rom 6:11 with a preconcieved ideas about the grammar.

How is it that you now have the power to read my heart and my motives? You are really not that good at it. Maybe you should leave that with God.

I have come to the passage to understand the grammar and the inspired words in their direct context and the present tense is the only way that the passage can make sense in my mind because of the serious implications of having an unbeliever being in Christ. But when I see the same thought of being dead and being alive in Romans 6:11 and it is all about believers and all about what Christ has done for us (he was made dead to sin so that we can also be dead to sin and He was made alive so that we can be alive in Him), I cannot in all good conscience see Ephesians 2:1 as about unbelievers in union with Christ and if you can, then perhaps your Calvinism is more important to you than the problems making unbelievers “in Christ” presents in the text.

So no, you have not dismantled or disproven this ‘calvinist proof text’, quite the contrary actually.

This is exactly what I used to hear from many Jehovah’s Witnesses whom I challenged about the Watchtower’s doctrine compared to Scripture. They told me that my interpretation of the text that made Jesus the Lord God Almighty, didn’t affect them at all and made them even stronger as believers in their organization. It is as if they are holding to a love of their life that will totally disregard a true challenge for fear that their precious faith in the Watchtower would be hurt. I seriously went through their doctrines to try to understand them too. If there had been any truth there I would not have been afraid to become a Jehovah’s Witness. I was not biased, I just didn’t find truth in the JW’s.

And in testing the Calvinistic system, some of it sounds good at the outset but when you look carefully at the texts there is a real problem that appears unsolvable and contadictory.

For example when the Bible says that Jesus died for “the many” I am supposed to have faith in Calvinism that teaches that “the many” means actually “the few”. How could I in all good conscience believe that line when the lexicons list “many” as an antonym to “few” and as a synonym for “the whole”?

When we look at Romans 5:15 the grace of God and “the gift” given by the grace of Jesus is for “the many” and in context the gift is salvation.

Romans 5:15 (NASB)
15 But the free gift is not like the transgression. For if by the transgression of the one the many died, much more did the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abound to the many.

The BDAG shows what “many” means and also what is the opposite of “many”:

polys (many)
many, large, great, extensive, plentiful

not many=(only) a few

Arndt, W., Danker, F. W., & Bauer, W. (2000). A Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament and other early Christian literature (3rd ed.) (847-850).

So if many is not a few and is in fact opposite to the few, why should we believe that when the Bible says Jesus died for many that He actually didn’t die for many but only for a few? You have not yet answered this yet. Do you have an answer?

You have shown your own bias and neglected how the actual grammar can and has functioned in this passage.

Actually I don’t have a bias like yours that would force me to see “few” out of “many”. I just take the common grammar and see if it fits in the passage and when it does fit and doesn’t contradict other clear passages, I feel confident that God has been clear. But when I see your interpretation that has to take the uncommon grammar usage that contradicts other clear passages and within the passage itself by making unbelievers as being “in Christ”, I don’t see the sense of accepting that as probable truth.

Since you have called me biased when I know my own heart and that isn’t true, perhaps you can show all of us how unbiased you are by explaining how you get “the few” out of “the many” since only few there are that find life but Jesus died for “the many”? The Analytical lexicon says this of “many”:

(c) of quantity; with a singular noun much, large, great (MT 14.14), opposite (of) (little); of things that occur in a mass or in large quantities: much (fruit) (JN 12.24), long (speech)… with an inclusive (Semitic) sense elsewhere; all (present), the whole community, the whole (crowd) (HE 12.15); (c) … in reference to the saving work of Jesus in MK 10.45; 14.24; RO 5.16; and HE 9.28, the Semitic inclusive sense is to be understood, i.e. Jesus died for all (cf. JN 6.51; 1T 2.6; HE 2.9);

Friberg, T., Friberg, B., & Miller, N. F. (2000). Vol. 4: Analytical lexicon of the Greek New Testament. Baker’s Greek New Testament library (321).

More to come…

Mark you said:

You can give your interpretation of a passage and that is fine, but do not mishandle how the greek can actually function in a given context. To do so is not a good thing to do.

I have not mishandled it at all. You yourself admit that the passage could be taken as it is in the present. And when I was first studying this passage, I queried my friend who is a bonafide Greek scholar (he indeed has his doctorate degree) about the grammar on this passage. He also did not tell me that it is not possible for the passage to be taken as the present.

You ought to be faithful to the grammar and explore ALL the functions of it as determined by the context around it.

So let me ask you – were you faithful to the normal usage of the present tense and consider that this is what it could mean in the passage, or did you just accept what you were given by Calvinists? Can you truthfully say that you considered this option? Or do paint all those who want to be thorough and consider all the options to be biased?

After closing looking at the passage, I wonder, how would I consider myself faithful to take the grammar as completely different from Paul’s usage of the terms dead and alive that are together in Romans 6:11 where one is both “dead” and “alive” at the same time? And a consideration that Eph 2:1 would be untenable if at the very time one is “dead” in sin as an unbeliever one is placed “in Christ” in heaven without so much as any faith in Christ, but in heaven with Christ in order to believe! My brother in Christ, this kind of interpretation flies in the face of the rquirement to believe to be “in Christ” for salvation. Fro it is believing that makes one “in Christ” and unbelievers can have no part of Christ. Does not the Scriptures say that the unbelieving will have their part in the lake of fire? How then can the unbelieving be joined with Christ?

Revelation 21:8 (NASB)
8 “But for the cowardly and unbelieving and abominable and murderers and immoral persons and sorcerers and idolaters and all liars, their part will be in the lake that burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death.”

More to come…

Mark, you said:

But from the context of Eph 2 it is clear that the present particple is not used as a continual state of being, but as an emphatic remark to show us (and you) how merciful God is in Christ, by making us alive, when we were hopelessly dead in sin.

That is not clear at all. The imperfect tense would have been clear. There is nothing in the text that says we are “hopelessly” dead in sin so that we cannot respond to God’s drawing until we are seated with Christ in the heavenly places. How is it that we are in the heavenly places without faith anyway? Here are the next verses:

Ephesians 2:5–6 (YLT)
5even being dead in the trespasses, did make us to live together with the Christ, (by grace ye are having been saved,) 6and did raise us up together, and did seat us together in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus,

It is far more understandable that as Christians we are dead to sin because of Christ’s work (He is the first one who died to sin) and as dead to sin we are alive together with Christ and we are seated in the heavenly places in Christ. It makes no sense at all that an unbeliever is raised with Christ when he doesn’t yet believe in Christ. How could the passage say that an unbeliever must be raised with Christ and be “in Christ” in order to believe?

Nowhere in the Scriptures is an unbeliever ever said to be “in Christ”, or that an unbeliever is raised with Christ and seated in Christ in heaven in order to be saved, yet you confidently state that this passage is about unbelievers becoming alive before they believe. This is an extremely confusing rendering that has no other witness in the Scriptures. How could I be so blind to just accept nonsense like this? It truly doesn’t make sense with test by the Scriptures.

So if you were serious about your claims to know the truth of the grammar you would not say the things that you have. You would realise that the present tense verbs can be used and mean different things to your proposal. Please be honest with your readers about that.

I have been completely honest about the normal usage of the word and it would not be a fair thing for you to challenge my sincerity. You also have agreed with me that there is a normal and clear way to present the “being” dead as a past tense using another piece of grammar, but the Scripture did not take this normal and natural route. Could it really be because God is emphasizing his mercy by making us alive with Christ in the heavens even when we were in the state of being dead in sin? How can that be? If it is God’s mercy that makes a person alive with Christ in the heavens before he believes, then why would faith be required for salvation? The person is already “in Christ” and “in the heavens” in a place of authority and as an heir “in Christ” so the only thing that we can get from this passage with your interpretation is that unbelievers are mercied “in Christ” in the heavens as heirs while they are still in their unbelief!! Thus unbelievers are joined together in the body of Christ (in Christ) without faith, without repentance and while dead in sin. Sorry, but I don’t find this an honest rendering of the gospel of God’s grace and the problems that this view brings to play are massive in my opinion. I just want to keep true to the text within its own context and within the full picture of the Bible. It is inconceivable that people dead in their sins are united with Christ as unbelievers and that this is necessary for them to believe. And it is inconceivable to me that my sincerity of faith is in question because that rendering does not appear faithful to the Scriptures. So why do Calvinists questions non-Calvinist’s sincerity? Were you one of the insincere ones before you bcame a Calvinist?

As I said, the normal usuage is a present state of being or an ongoing action and other usages have to have special grammar to make them something other than the norm.

More to come…

Mark,

You said:

So what you have said above, as if you are the only person dealing with the precise grammar is terribly misleading. Let me say it again. A present tense verb can have two functions or meaning- 1) a continual state of being or the process is continuing, 2) the undefined aspect which can either be just the default position OR it can be used to deliberately oppose #1.

Nice try. Here is the “normal” meaning of the Greek present:

present — The verb tense where the writer portrays an action in process or a state of being with no assessment of the action’s completion.
Heiser, M. S. (2005; 2005). Glossary of Morpho-Syntactic Database Terminology.

Notice that the meaning of 1) is an action that is in process – means something that is happening now. And 2) a state of being with no statement about the state or actions’s end. This means that the state of being is set up as a real state with no expectation that it has already come to an end. Thus Eph 2:1 cannot be said the default grammar which would be either a past action or a state of being that is already finished. Therefore Eph 2:1 would have to be a special pleading as it doesn’t follow the default grammar. We can look at the claims to the outside of the norm of grammar a bit later.

You said:

It could be true that Eph 2 could have been in the imperfect tense, but it is not.

The question is why is the grammar note in the imperfect tense when this would have been the clearest way for God to a past action that is no longer in effect?

More to come….

Mark, you wrote quoting me and then answered:

“So the $64,000 dollar question is why did God inspire Ephesians 2:1 in the present tense and not the imperfect tense which would show a past state? If we believe that the Bible is completely inspired including the grammar and the inspired words, this is a valid question…”

This is very misleading and wrong. Does the present tense in the greek have to always be a continuous state of being? Yes or No? Of course it does not!

The present tense is the natural tense to express continued state of being. While it can mean other things if there is specific grammar to determine this, the “natural” meaning is the default unless there are markers showing it falls outside the norm. For some reason you didn’t even try to address the question I asked. Here it is again: If God wanted to make sure that we knew that Ephesians 2:1 was a past event that was no longer a functioning part of our being, then clearly He could have easily used the imperfect tense which would have shown this. So why would He chose the present tense which is almost always either 1) action in process or 2) a state of being that is continuous? Can you try to answer that question? While there are exceptions to the present tense being either 1) or 2), they are exceptions not the general usage of the grammar that is called the present tense in Greek.

So it appears to me that you are saying that God inspired a piece of grammar that could be taken the exact opposite of what He intended if we take the grammar with its general usage in the Scriptures so that it should be instead considered to be a past action that is neither in process and is not a state of being that is continuous? It appears that you are not daring to say that the passage cannot be taken the way I take it because surely you know and whoever is helping you with this challenge knows that the grammar as it is written in this passage can validly be interpreted in the way that I have interpreted it. For I interpret it with the grammar as the default or “normal” usage of the present tense and without special pleading.

As a greek scholar I am surprised at your comments.

I find it quite interesting that you are now appealing to our personal “scholarship”. Why are you doing that? Are you trying to make yourself a real Greek scholar? I know you are not a scholar as you make way too many mistakes on the Greek to be considered a Greek scholar. I also have never claimed to be a Greek scholar. There are few who deserve to be considered on this level and all of the ones who are real Greek scholars have doctorate degrees in the languages. Do you have a doctorate degree?

One of the great apologists who was a very big influence on my life was the late Dr. Walter Martin. He had a doctorate degree and 7 years of Greek but he also said that he was not a Greek scholar since he considered that 7 years was not enough to be considered a Greek scholar. Now since you are claiming to be a scholar on the Greek, perhaps you can reveal to all of us your doctorate designation, how many years of Greek you have and where you completed your Greek studies that qualify you as a scholar in the Greek language?

More to come…

Kay, I really appreciate that you asked this question of Mark and wish I could have claimed that I thought of it first! His answer should be very enlightening!

Mark,

You said in one of your posts that we only chosen what we desire. That is not true. Many of us Moms and Dads have chosen things that we do not desire because of our love for our kids. And while even non-Christians can love cheesecake and greatly desire it, they choose what they don’t like in order to remain thin and healthy. It is a fallacy to say that people only chose what they desire. People are complicated as Kirsten told you and it would be unwise to create a theology that would require a simplistic answer about people’s choices.

Mark you answered Kirsten by saying:

I am glad you brought these points up, since it is true depending on which ‘Armininan’ you talk to. An open theist (who label themselves Arminian) would reject what you have said- if God ‘pulls’ then it is not a free choice at all. A free choice has to be free from external forces does it not? This is why the ‘classical arminian’ position is so contradictory.

You cannot equate the ‘classical Arminian’ position with open theism. Open theism is heretical view of God’s nature. It is never identified as the ‘classical’ position of Arminianism. In classical Arminianism a free choice does not have to be free from outside influence. Are you sure that you used to hold to the classical Arminian position because it really seems odd to me that you don’t understand it.

They want to hold onto God working, but equally hold onto autonomous free will.

The classical Arminian position does not hold to a completely “autonomous” free will since their view is that without God’s power enabling, no one could have a free will at all.

Many recognise the problem here and have such turned to either Calvinism or open theism. Do we have free-will in heaven?

Many Calvinists falsely view it as an option of a. Calvinism or b. open theism. Many simply just refuse to understand the classical Arminian position.

I know that you asked Kirsten, but if you don’t mind I will give you my own view before I go back to answer you many posts that I have not yet answered.

I believe that God “hardens” our decisions at one point. He had the right to “harden” Pharoah’s choice of hardening his own heart by refusing to let the people of Israel go. And then there are “elect” angels who made a decision to follow God in heaven and not turn away after Lucifer. Even though satan was allowed back into heaven to be an accuser of the brethren, no other angel in heaven abandoned God and left with satan after the original heavenly fall. I believe that God has made them the “elect” angels because He has hardened their own free will choice of faithfulness toward God and since their own choice is “hardened” in place by God, they are assured of being kept sinless and faithful to God.

We can dialog more on the issue of drawing when we get to Romans.

You missed the point of reformed theology. Reformed theology is dealing with salvation. How is a dead person able to choose the right thing? They simple cannot because they are dead.

A dead person cannot chose to do evil either for that matter. Biblically a “dead” person can be both “dead” and “alive” and their spiritual separation can happen at any time.

1 Timothy 5:6 (NASB)
6 But she who gives herself to wanton pleasure is dead even while she lives.

Romans 7:9 (NASB)
9 I was once alive apart from the Law; but when the commandment came, sin became alive and I died;

I won’t comment more now as I have a lot to answer that was given to me that I haven’t had time to answer yet. I would just like to finish with a couple of your quotes:

I do appreciate my brothers and sisters who hold onto evangelical arminianism. I just want them to show me from the sciptures what they believe.

This seems rather odd to me. You claim to have been an evangelical Arminian but you don’t seem to know or understand what Arminians believe. And it seems to me that you are not really wanting to know what Arminians believe but that you are looking to teach the rest of us Calvinism through the Scriptures. This is why I believe it is important to first answer the Calvinist’s proof texts and then deal with the other texts after that. For while you think you have a strength in your own favorite texts, you do not have eyes that can see without prejudice. It is a prejudice that also causes Calvinists to see their brothers in Christ as heretics just because we are not Calvinists. Honestly it doesn’t come across as “appreciation”. But maybe there is some appreciation hidden somewhere that I haven’t been quick enough to pick up. And lastly while you say that you appreciate your Arminian brothers, why is it that you feel the need to evangelize them? If Calvinism is true, wouldn’t God just drop the Calvinistic faith into each of us as proof that we are of the elect? Isn’t God able to do that? And if He doesn’t do that, what does that say to you? Are we still appreciated?

Unfortunately it looks like I have run out of time for tonight. I will try to get to the bulk of the comments I missed tomorrow.

Take care my Calvinist amigo.

Mark,
You said:

If you look closely at the Hebrew in Genesis 3, there is nothing in the grammar to suggest that Eve’s motive’s were good and Adam’s bad.

Actually I just pointed out in my comment above that Eve could have rightfully blamed Adam when she did not. The question can be put back onto you, why did Eve not blame Adam when she knew that he had not protected her from the evil one? And why did Adam blame God and the woman when he knew right well that God had not sinned by providing the woman to him and the woman had offered what she thought was “good food” without any malice towards Adam?

In fact the ‘desire’ Eve has, is the same word used in the Ten commandments for ‘thy shall not covet’. Her desire was not a good motive.

Are you trying to say that her desire was not part of the effect of the deception done to her? If the reason that she ate was a desire that was sinful and was independent of the deception, then why does not Biblical author charge her with further sin? Why does Paul say that Eve was deceived (2 Cor. 11:3) and he does not say that Eve was covetous?

Also her actions in hiding and covering are the same as Adam.

Both Adam and Eve covered their shame, but the Bible never says that Eve covered her sin by blaming someone illegally. Adam on the other hand is the only one that God charges with covering his sin.

Job 31:33 (NASB)
33 “Have I covered my transgressions like Adam,
By hiding my iniquity in my bosom,

Please show one scripture that charges Eve with covering over her sin.

Verse 12 gives Adam’s defense of his actions. One would expect a direct yes or no answer to God’s probing questions in verse 11. However, Adam does not respond this way. He passes the blame.

You are right in that Adam avoids the question. He avoids answering “yes” or “no” and illegally passes the blame. But the woman does not do this. She is not given a “yes” or “no” question, but God asks her what she did and she gave Him a truthful answer, that the serpent caused a deception and because of that deception she ate.

However, it is interesting that God does not rebuke Adam for what he has said. Wenham states that God’s silence is an indication of his rejection of Adam’s plea. But this appears to be overstated, since nothing Adam said is in and of itself a lie.

God isn’t silent. God said in Genesis 3:17 “because you did (this) and (that) cursed is….” God not only turns Adam’s excuse around as a charge of sin (the first “because” cause), but He adds the words “listened to the voice of your wife” which is an indication that the watchman listening to his wife’s deception in silence was a grave sin.

Similar to the man’s response, the woman shifts the blame

We do not need you to add in an equality of blame-shifting when God clearly divides the blame between legal blame (God concurs by cursing the serpent) and illegal blame (God does not concur with Adam’s blame of the woman but instead God places a curse on the man’s behalf). No curse is ever placed on the woman’s behalf. Those who ignore this clear difference should have their inability to see set aside in favor of the text itself for God is not mocked by an illegal blame game.

You cannot exegetically draw the conclusions that you have, namely, that Eve’s motives were good and Adam’s evil- like Satan. The text speaks against such things.

Sorry, my friend but you are wrong. Eve’s refusal to rightful blame Adam says a lot about her motives while Adam’s attempt at blaming both God and Eve is inescapable as a covering over of his sin by a lie hidden as an excuse. And since God chose to blame only one for covering over of sin, I am happy and content to accept God’s assessment since God alone knows what was in each one of their hearts.

Both are guilty and culpable for their own actions in the fall

Then it seems to me that the blame is now put on God who only holds one fully culpable for their sin. While they both ate the spiritually poisoned fruit and because of that they started the process of death, God pronounced a judgment on only one. Why is that? God has made it clear that He will not leave the guilty unpunished.

Nahum 1:3 (NASB)
3 The LORD is slow to anger and great in power,
And the LORD will by no means leave the guilty unpunished…

By not cursing Eve or anything else on her behalf, he identified the man and the serpent as the only ones as “guilty” in the fall of man.

Waneta Dawn,
You said:

Now Eve was sinless. She knew nothing at all of sin. She had no practice with identifying a con artist, so she ate.

Adam, on the other hand, had no such good motives. His motives were closer to Lucifer’s. He was openly rebelling against God and wanting to take God’s place.

You are exactly right. And the other thing that is quite eye-opening is that although Eve could have rightfully blamed Adam, she did not. Adam had just blamed a deceived woman (and God!) for his sin when he had eaten with his eyes wide open to the truth. Yet Adam said nothing to the serpent or to Eve to either rebuke the serpent or warn Eve of the deception. Why is it that Eve did not blame Adam for failing to warn her when he himself was not deceived? I personally cannot think of any good reason other than she loved him and was blaming the serpent for deceiving her without blaming Adam for his inaction. What a difference between her love for him and his willing to throw his own wife “under the bus” to try to have a legal excuse for what he did.

Mark,
You said to TL:

In Eve’s (so called) confession the grammar is precise. The word order is emphatic to show that Eve is saying it is the serpents fault. In fact the same grammatical structure is also with Adam blaming Eve. Also like I said the Hiphil stem of the verb ‘to decieve’ is a causative stem. Eve is putting the ‘cause’ onto the serpent. So if you want to say adam is blaming Eve you MUST say Eve did the same thing since the grammar works the same way. You cannot pick one and not the other unless of course you want to ignore the text.

The problem is that Eve told the truth and blamed the one who was the reason for her deception. Adam blamed Eve when she was not to blame as she was not the cause of his eating. God proves that the serpent was indeed to blame and so God curses him. God does not accept Adam’s blame of Eve and instead of blaming Eve, God puts the blame only on Adam. The problem that you are having is that you think that both blaming another for why they ate means that both were wrong. This is not a given and paying attention to God’s Words will not allow us to shift the blame onto the woman as the blame has been shifted onto the deceiver.

Eve does more than ‘name’ her deceiver- she blames him.

Uh-huh, and so does God (He says “because you did this…” So what is your point?

Also Adam acknowledges that he ate the fruit aswell, so there is again no difference here. What both fail to do is admit their own sin and blame another.

That is not true. Both admitted what they did “I ate”, but only one blamed God (The woman whom You gave to be with me” and only one blamed a deceived person for their own sin. Only one admitted that they were deceived as a true reason for their sin.

The two confessions are not like each other and God affirmed this.

Also the ‘desire’ I am talking about is her desire for the apple not the desire for her husband. Look again. Eve is coveting the fruit to gain wisdom. Grammar is precise about this again.

This is part of the deception. What does it prove? That she was fully deceived. We should be able to agree on that and blame the man just as God blamed placed the blame on the one who was not deceived.

Pam, I forgot to welcome you to my blog. Welcome!

Hmmmm…it works for me. Maybe hit your refresh button to get a new copy of the page or click here http://strivetoenter.com/wim/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/what-should-wifes-submission-to-abuse-look-like.mp3

Thanks Pam for letting me know that Desiring God had removed the audio file. I have added an additional link to the original audio in the article above. It will take one to a new page where you can click the audio “note” icon to hear the clip of John Piper’s answer.

TL, well done!

Mark,
You said to TL:

I appreciate your call for us all to be in continual repentance- i couldn’t agree more. But maybe you can show me if the Cannanites in the conquering were given that opportunity to repent and enter covenant with Yahweh? Like it or not, God has always chosen some and not others, both in regards to salvation and in regards to earthly purpose.

I think that TL can quite properly give their own response but I also want to respond because I think that the question is worthy of answering.

First of all the nations were given opportunity to repent. The LORD God said:

Jeremiah 18:7–8 (NASB)
7 “At one moment I might speak concerning a nation or concerning a kingdom to uproot, to pull down, or to destroy it;
8 if that nation against which I have spoken turns from its evil, I will relent concerning the calamity I planned to bring on it.

God sent Jonah to the Ninevites because of His care and concern for them. God warned them because He wanted them to repent. There is no indication that the prophesies of destruction that He gave regarding the Cannanites would have been any different in God relenting had they turned from their evil and repented.

And as far as other nations being a part of God’s covenant, God established His covenant even with the aliens who were within Israel’s midst and even with those who were not present.

Deuteronomy 29:10–15 (NASB)
10 “You stand today, all of you, before the LORD your God: your chiefs, your tribes, your elders and your officers, even all the men of Israel,
11 your little ones, your wives, and the alien who is within your camps, from the one who chops your wood to the one who draws your water,
12 that you may enter into the covenant with the LORD your God, and into His oath which the LORD your God is making with you today,
13 in order that He may establish you today as His people and that He may be your God, just as He spoke to you and as He swore to your fathers, to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.
14 “Now not with you alone am I making this covenant and this oath,
15 but both with those who stand here with us today in the presence of the LORD our God and with those who are not with us here today

There is no question that God cares about the nations outside of Israel and was willing to bring into the covenant those who would join themselves with the LORD God.

Also you said:

Also Cheryl has completely failed to deal with the grammar of 2 Tim 2:25 which shows that repentance is a gift of God. Repentance is something that is given by God. Maybe you would like to deal with it instead? Or perhaps you can show me passages which reveal that God has enabled all to repent and believe, but it’s their free-will that stops them.

I have already dealt with this issue and I am continuing to work as I can on your comments and questions. Remember I asked you to be patient regarding my time? I would ask that you also be respectful and not accuse me of completely failing to deal with an issue that you brought up when you know that I am behind and I have explained why I am behind. I have yet to disregard any passage or grammar that you have brought up and if I have failed in any one thing, it would never be intentional. When I get behind it is easy to miss one small item yet I have given a consistent stand of working through each statement that you have made. Most would not even attempt to do that, but I like to be thorough and I have nothing to fear.

So if you could apologize for trying to rush me when I have company and be patient with me as I asked you to be, then we should be able to continue hitting each and every issue in a respectful and consistent way. Fair enough?

Lastly you said:

Maybe you can explain how the atonement doesn’t actually atone but only makes us ‘savable’ until we add the rest?

I don’t know anyone who says that the atonement doesn’t actually atone. Your misunderstanding really baffles me. Didn’t you used to be an Arminian or at least a non-Calvinist? Then why is it that you have a problem understanding what you should have clearly understood before you became a Calvinist? You say that I don’t understand Calvinism, yet I am working hard to both understand and to be fair with a representation of the position even though I have never been a Calvinist. Yet you misrepresent the Arminian and non-Calvinist position quite consistently even though you were one. I do not understand why that is. Can you help me? I am sincerely asking and not making fun of you. I just don’t get it how come you cannot understand the camp where you used to belong to. Or is it that you just never understood the position yourself so that when a straw man was created, you easily accepted that as a refutation? Or is it because of something else? If you can, please help me to understand what goes on in your head that would make you say such things. Thanks!

Well that is about all I can do for tonight. Everyone is long ago in bed. My son says that I stay up way too late. That may be true, but it seems like late nights are the time when I can devote time to my blog and this subject without distraction. But I still need my sleep so that I can give fully of myself to my visitors.

Mark, I have also been thinking a lot about that new baby of yours. I hope that he/she comes soon and that your joy will be full!

Mark,
You said:

Cheryl,

Final point, we have been discussing many of the calvinist ‘proof’ texts, but have yet to face any of the Arminian ones. You can argue against me and that’s fine, but i need you to show me an alternative from the Bible to back up your position.

I would be happy to provide an alternative from the Bible to support my consistent reading of the text when we are finished the difficult Calvinist passages. I have seen many Calvinists say that non-Calvinists won’t go verse by verse through the Calvinist passages and this is what makes their position strong and the non-Calvinist position weak. They also say that no non-Calvinist has attempted to go verse by verse through these passages. I have no fear of looking carefully at each of the passages that are the Calvinist’s strength. I am ready and willing to do so. The problem that I have had is that Calvinists don’t seem to like to go through the passages with me verse by verse with us paying close attention to the inspired grammar, words and context. In fact I have been dumped by Calvinist apologists who really wanted to go through these passages with me at the beginning and when went through the passages, suddenly they put an end to the conversation. I sit and ponder why that is. It seems to me that when one goes through the passages without a pre-determined Calvinist mindset, the structure seems to fall apart and picking up the pieces just becomes too much for some of them. I think to myself that if I was in that situation I would carry on and either work harder to prove “the truth” or dump my false presuppositions because I love truth more than I love any position that I call my own. Honestly sometimes I wonder if I am an anomaly because so few seem to have a passion and love for truth as stubborn as mine even if the truth that needs to be embraced is outside of my own previously held views.

So yes, I am very willing to go on to other clear passages that are not Calvinist just as soon as we have hit the key Calvinist passages. Does this sound good?

Mark you said:

By the way here are some true representations of what the Present Greek Tense denotes or means… The durative (linear or progressive) in the present stem: the action is represented as durative (in progress) and either as timeless (????? ? ????) or as taking place in present time (including, of course, duration on one side or the other of the present moment: ????? ‘I am writing [now]’;…The present stem may also be iterative: ??????? ‘threw repeatedly (or each time)’. (Blass & DeBrunner, A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, p. 166.)

Sorry my blog program doesn’t allow the Greek characters and that is why the question marks showed up. I haven’t been able to fix that.

The quotes that you made actually refute your view and support mine. DeBrunner shows that the present tense is action in progress or timeless (i.e. “being” such as Jesus saying that He is the “I AM” which is a present tense sense of “being” which does not end thus timeless) Where is the present tense listed as a past action? You gave no reference for DeBrunner. And for Ephesians 2:1 in the timeless sense would mean a “being” that is constantly “dead” to something. It was hardly helpful to your position at all.

Now in the A.T. Robertson quote, if you had kept on going on pgs 824 – 825 it would have caused you some trouble.

Time in the participle is only relative to the principal verb. It is thus kind of action, not the time of the action, that is expressed in these forms….It is only by the augment (probably an adverb) that past time is clearly expressed.2 “Homer and later Greek writers often use the present with an adverb of time instead of a past tense, a construction which has an exact parallel in Sanskrit and which is therefore supposed to be Indo-Germanic.”… But past time was objective and the three kinds of action (punctiliar, durative, perfected) were regularly expressed with the tenses (aorist, imperfect, past perfect). There is Aktionsart also in the present and future time, but the tense development did not go on to the full extent here. There are only two tense-forms in the present and practically only one in the future. But both punctiliar and linear action are expressed, but not differentiated, in the present time by the same tense, as is true also of the future. The kinds of action exist, but separate tense-forms unfortunately do not occur.4 There might thus have been nine tenses in the indicative: three punctiliar (past, present, future), three linear (past, present, future), three perfect (past, present, future).5 Because of this difference between the indicative and the other moods in the matter of time some grammars6 give a separate treatment to the indicative tenses. It is not an easy matter to handle, but to separate the indicative perhaps accents the element of time unduly. Even in the indicative the time element is subordinate to the kind of action expressed. A double idea thus runs through tense in the indicative (kind of action, time of the action).
Robertson, A. (1919; 2006). A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research (824–825).

We see that Robertson affirms that the time element is relative in the participle to the principal verb which is “being”. He also says that past time is clearly expressed only by the augment which is probably an adverb. Where is such an adverb of time in Ephesians 2:1 that clearly expresses past time? It doesn’t qualify for a “clearly expressed” past time per A.T. Robertson in the very pages that you quoted from. It must be a disappointment that he doesn’t give you the backing that you were looking for. Robertson also says: “But past time was objective and the three kinds of action (punctiliar, durative, perfected) were regularly expressed with the tenses (aorist, imperfect, past perfect).” As far as action what is “regularly expressed” as “past time” is three tense and present tense is not listed here. I am wondering why you didn’t quote further from Robertson? Is it because the present time and/or the present state of being (without end) fits with how I have interpreted the passage and it falls short of a proven past time tense for you?
You said:

Finally here is a good definition of how the greek tenses work

The issue of what is the “being” that is timeless and the actual presen tense is simply not helpful for you in trying to prove that a state of being is no long applicable but only in the past.

Here is a thoughtful presentation of how the Greek tenses work from a fellow who I dialoged with years back on the women’s issue. I think that his presentation is clear and consistent and he presents the issues of the present tense in a way that the layman can understand:

When we think of tense, we usually think only in terms of the TIME of the action: Past, present, and future.

While the Greek language has these distinctions, there is also an equal emphasis on the TYPE of action and whether it is viewed as continuously happening or as happening in a single point of time.

The technical terms for these are “punctiliar action” (point action) and “linear action” (continuous or line action).

1. PRESENT TENSE.

This generally indicates continuous action in the present time (If we are continually confessing our sin… – 1 John 1:9).

It is the linear tense.

Jesus uses the present tense when he says “Before Abraham was, I AM” (John 8:58). The emphasis here is that He is continually existing – there is no beginning or end of His existence in view. There are other uses of the present tense.

A successive use of the present is seen in 1 Corinthians 15:31 where Paul says, “I am dying daily.” This implication is that this is something that takes place on a regular basis.

John continues about the expression of past action:

2. IMPERFECT TENSE.

This tense is also linear. It describes continuous action in the PAST. It is used three times in John 1:1…

“In the beginning CONTINUALLY WAS the Word, and the Word CONTINUALLY WAS with God, and the Word CONTINUALLY WAS God.”

Another express of past tense is the plurperfect:

6. PLUPERFECT TENSE.

This is the perfect tense of the past. It describes action that took place in a point in past time and which had results that continued for a time, but which then ceased.

So my question remains where is the proof that the present tense of Ephesians 2:1 is “clearly expressed” as a past action or a sense of “being” that was but no longer is? What appears to be consistent is that the grammatical marks are what is key that would make a present tense to be a past action. There has to be additional grammar that would define the structure of the sentence as past action that ended. It isn’t derived from the context but from grammar. Do you have any proof that the context is what defines the “past time” from a present verb? Who are you going to quote that says this?

I am still behind in answering your comments but my family is here another couple of days and it is difficult to keep up as it is. I hope that you continue to have patience with me, Bud.

Gazza,

Also I thought it would be helpful for you to see the definition of the present tense from my Bible software that is linked to the Greek—

present — The verb tense where the writer portrays an action in process or a state of being with no assessment of the action’s completion.
Glossary of Morpho-Syntactic Database Terminology. Logos Bible Software.

TL,
You said:

But repentance is a spiritual avenue that should be a part of every Christians life, not only with God but all people and especially with fellow believers. It is not only about personal healing, but the growth of one’s soul that comes after and the healing made available to those we have wounded.

Amen! Yet so many forget this basic fact that you so clearly stated. They think that once they repented and believed (or just had faith dropped into their soul) that they can live in such a way that they no longer have to live in repentance and faith. If they lie or are unfaithful in some way, they think that they do not have to repent as if God is okay with them and that’s all that is needed on their part. But repentance is humility that is to be a lifestyle with Christians. The more we practice this the better we will respond to the Spirit’s work in our hearts that leads us to the pathway of righteousness. It is always His work but our response to the work.

Gazza,
One more comment on the present tense. Jesus said in John 8:58-

John 8:58 (NASB)
58 Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am.”

God inspired the present tense here too and because of this grammar usage, the Jews took up stones to kill Jesus for they understood the implications of the present tense.

So why did God inspire the present tense also in Ephesians 2:1? That is a question we all need to consider.

Here is what God could have inspired if He wished to show a past happening:

1 Corinthians 6:11 (NASB)
11 Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.

Notice that the verb is not present but it is imperfect.

Here is another one:

John 15:19 (NASB)
19 “If you were of the world, the world would love its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, because of this the world hates you.

John 15:19 is another one which is clearly about the past and it is inspired as such with the imperfect tense.

One last Scripture because I respect the two or three witnesses requirement to establish a fact:

1 Corinthians 12:2 (NASB)
2 You know that when you were pagans, you were led astray to the mute idols, however you were led.

Again the verb is clearly meant as the past and the verb is once again in the imperfect.

So the $64,000 dollar question is why did God inspire Ephesians 2:1 in the present tense and not the imperfect tense which would show a past state? If we believe that the Bible is completely inspired including the grammar and the inspired words, this is a valid question.

Of course those who don’t agree with me in the full inspiration of the Scriptures can make the verb to be whatever they want because they don’t agree with me that the grammar is inspired while I am stuck having to deal with the inspired grammar and to make sense of the passage with that exact grammar. For me it is a position of wanting to be completely open to the truth of God’s Word and my sincere desire to know exactly what God meant with every piece of evidence that He gave.

If I am going to be a lover of the truth, I cannot believe any kind of doctrine that does not line up with the inspired grammar, the inspired words and the inspired context. I will reject that kind of doctrine no matter who teaches it. This is the reason why only the proof texts of Calvinists are important to me right now. I don’t believe in Scripture ping pong. Scripture does not conflict with itself so battling proof texts does not work with me. I want to see the key texts that claim to dispute the truth that I have seen from the Scripture that tells me that God loves everyone and sent Jesus to die for all as “the many” not just a “few” select ones. When each supposed proof text falls before my eyes when I examine it closely from the inspired words, the inspired grammar and the inspired text, then I can be certain that I have the truth of God’s Word and I can confidently hold on to that truth. It is then and only then when my own “proof texts” hold their weight because the opposing Scriptures have now become my own strength – the ones that I can confidently use to support my own Biblical position.

This is the strategy that God has given me to work successfully with any opposing the truth and I pray that God will grant those who are willing to allow God to work in their hearts, to rethink their position so that they are led to God’s full knowledge of His own truth that is without contradiction. I have seen hundreds of people come through my home as they worked their way out of the Jehovah’s Witnesses and other cults. Not all came to Christ. But those that did were willing to examine their long-held doctrine by the clear truth of God’s Word in context. And the freedom that they received was amazing! It was always God who got the glory because it was His Word that held the answers that exposed the misrepresentations of the Truth.

Mark,

To carry on with your comments:

“Yes. Permission is granted to anyone who is thirsty to come.”

You did not answer my question. Does God ‘grant’ everyone to ‘come/believe’, yes or no.

The answer is both “yes” and “no” because it is conditional. “Yes” in that permission is granted to anyone who is thirsty to come and “no” because those who do not respond to the light that God has given them are not granted the ability to come to Jesus.

I quoted the verse showing that any who are thirsty may come. Here are the verses for those who are not granted permission:

John 3:19–21 (NASB)
19 “This is the judgment, that the Light has come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the Light, for their deeds were evil.
20 “For everyone who does evil hates the Light, and does not come to the Light for fear that his deeds will be exposed.
21 “But he who practices the truth comes to the Light, so that his deeds may be manifested as having been wrought in God.”

-Those who do not want the Light and who love the darkness will not be brought to Jesus while those who practice the truth will come to the Light.

John 5:37–38 (NASB)
Witness of the Father
37 “And the Father who sent Me, He has testified of Me. You have neither heard His voice at any time nor seen His form.
38 “You do not have His word abiding in you, for you do not believe Him whom He sent.

-Those who refuse to have God’s word abide in them will not be granted to come to Jesus.

John 5:39–42 (NASB)
Witness of the Scripture
39 “You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; it is these that testify about Me;
40 and you are unwilling to come to Me so that you may have life.
41 “I do not receive glory from men;
42 but I know you, that you do not have the love of God in yourselves.

-Those who are religious but who that do not have the love of God in them are not granted to come to Jesus.

John 5:44 (NASB)
44 “How can you believe, when you receive glory from one another and you do not seek the glory that is from the one and only God?

-Those who do not seek God’s glory but turn aside to seek glory from man will not be granted to come to Jesus.

John 5:46–47 (NASB)

46 “For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me, for he wrote about Me.
47 “But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe My words?”

-Those who refuse to believe what God has already said will not be granted to come to Jesus.

Since none of your ‘proof texts’ show this it is easy to see that God does not allow everyone to come to Jesus. This is why Paul told Timothy to pray that God would ‘grant’ people to come to a knowledge of the truth.

2Ti 2:25 correcting his opponents with gentleness. God may perhaps grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth,

We can pray that a person will be brought to the place of repentance, but repentance is something that the person themselves must do. And if the person rejects God Himself, he may not be granted repentance just like Esau.

Hebrews 12:16–17 (NASB)
16 that there be no immoral or godless person like Esau, who sold his own birthright for a single meal.
17 For you know that even afterwards, when he desired to inherit the blessing, he was rejected, for he found no place for repentance, though he sought for it with tears.

You said:

Just because people are told to come to Jesus, does not mean they can or are able. Only God can make someone alive and new- he grants it.

God doesn’t demand that people come to Him for forgiveness and then refuse to give them what they need to obey Him. Only those who refuse to use what God has already freely given them will be disallowed to come.

I’m gald you admit that God ‘chose’ Israel over the other nations. Perhaps TL can now see that he/she does not understand God’s electing purposes for some and not for others.

But the election was not unconditionally for salvation. The election was for an earthly purpose as God’s representative on the earth.

“Please show me who are the ones that God wills to have mercy on and who are the ones that He chooses to harden? God gives His answer in the Scriptures. What do the Scriptures say?”

Now one example is God hardening Pharoah during the Exodus of Israel. The first mention to the hardening of Pharoah is from God in Ex 4:21- God will harden his heart. We see it again in Ex 7:3 that it will be God who hardens. Now this all BEFORE the plagues have even begun, so God is not secondary to hardening.

God explained his purpose to Moses that it would be for His own power to be revealed. However but His ultimate knowledge of what Pharoah would do is never done until Pharoah first hardens his own heart. The first time that it is mentioned that God hardened Pharoah’s heart was after Pharoah had hardened his own heart. God knew it would happen, but God did not strengthen Pharoah’s resolve until Pharoah had the resolve first.

Also we see God’s mercy on the Israelites over the Egyptians. God chose them over and above the Egyptians Ex 6:6-8. God will redeem them and THEN they will know that he is God. It is clear that God’s actions preceed the actions of the people. God’s mercy or hardening is not conditioned on what we do.

God’s choice for people for an earthly purpose is His choice alone. It is another matter regarding eternal salvation. We can talk more about this when we get to Romans. Let’s leave this one for now until we get there.

That’s all I could get through for today. I am back with family tomorrow so I’ll get back to your other comments as soon as I can.

Also, please make sure to keep us all up to date when your new baby arrives. What a blessed time this is for you!

Mark,
It is interesting that you admit that the tense is not set as a past tense and the that it can be something that goes on and on and on if it is a participle. The grammar is present verb active participle. Perhaps you should take another look.

The grammar is consistent with Col. 2:13 and it is consistent with Romans 6:11.

You said:

Paul is relating between a previous condition (dead) and a new condition (being alive).

But Paul relates the condition in Romans 6:11 as both dead and alive. Since Christ died to sin and we are in Him, we are dead to sin and are to consider ourselves this way — yet alive to Christ since He is the one who died on our behalf.

The way I interpreted the passage is not invalid and is consistent with the rest of the Bible. I have a friend who writes Greek grammar books and I have discussed this issue with him. He has admitted to me that the grammar can be taken as present tense the way I describe it despite your assurance to Gazza that the grammar should be taken as a past tense and that the present is basically invalid. This is not true. Not only can the passage be taken as a continued being of our being “dead to sin” but the versions that show the grammar as a place of “being” is itself completely in union with what Paul writes in Romans 6:11. If God had wanted to make it clear that it was a past state, He could have inspired it this way, don’t you think?

This is something that we can all search and dig deeply into God’s word for the truth is worth the effort.

The question here is whether one must take the passage as if we were raised with Christ before we believed in Him. Was Christ “in” us before we were believers? There are so many questions that are needed to be asked and answered regarding the Calvinist position because any position that claims to be the truth should be able to withstand a challenge.

I sure do appreciate being able to dialog with Calvinists here as the safety of being brethren in Christ in a relationship of family keeps us able to dialog without fear of rejection. At least that is how I feel on my end and I assume (hope) it is true on your end too.

Welcome to my blog Amanda!

It makes me feel very sad to hear stories like yours. This is why this blog exists to help women understand their freedom in Christ and their responsibility and ability to use their gifts and to help men to understand that the gifts that exist in their sisters in Christ are needed for both men and women. When we all understand this, we will operate with unity in Christ for His glory.

Also I am including pictures of the Greek grammar from both Eph. 2:1 and Col. 2:13

Here is Ephesians 2:1 –

Here is Col. 2:13 –

Hi Gazza,
As far as English translations, here are three translations that list the verb as present and I am also going to copy the NASB with the note that the literal is the present “being”.

Ephesians 2:1 (YLT)
1 Also you—being dead in the trespasses and the sins,

Ephesians 2:1 (DARBY)
1 and you, being dead in your offences and sins—

Ephesians 2:1 (WUESTNT)
1 And you being dead with reference to your trespasses and sins,

Also the tense is exactly the same in Eph. 2:1 as it is in Col. 2:13. I am copying below several translations that properly list the verb as present tense in Col. 2:13.

Colossians 2:13 (NKJV)
13 And you, being dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He has made alive together with Him, having forgiven you all trespasses,

Colossians 2:13 (ASV)
13And you, being dead through your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, you, I say, did he make alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses;

Colossians 2:13 (Wordstudy KJV)
13 And you, being dead, in your sins, and the uncircumcision of your flesh,, hath he [quickened together] with him, having forgiven you all, trespasses;

Colossians 2:13 (WUESTNT)
13–17 And you being dead with reference to your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He gave life together with Him, having in grace forgiven you all your trespasses,

Colossians 2:13 (DARBY)
13 And you, being dead in offences and in the uncircumcision of your flesh, he has quickened together with him, having forgiven us all the offences;

Colossians 2:13 (YLT)
13 And you—being dead in the trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh—He made alive together with him, having forgiven you all the trespasses,

I should also note the translation names. Wuest NT is:

YLT is Young’s literal translation:

I hope this helps and thanks for asking!

Thanks for all the comment, guys and gals. I have my family visiting for five days so I will be away from the computer a lot, but I will pop in once in awhile and will respond later.

Mark #337

It will likely take me awhile to answer your comments. My time is limited once again as tomorrow my son arrives with his new fiancée whom we have not yet met so I will want to spend time with them and won’t have as much time for the computer until they leave. If I get some time during their visit to work through your comments, I will do so, but just so you know why I am absent for awhile this time. I am also going comment by comment without reading through it all, so hopefully you won’t be upset with me if I miss something. It is easier for me to deal with the comments this way.

Mark, you said:

“john 12:32 (NASB95)
32 “And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to Myself.”

Jesus as God said He would draw “all men” to Himself. I believe Him”

Go back to the greek Cheryl and you will see that the grammar does not include ‘men’ in it. So Jesus simply saids i will draw ‘all’ to myself- all what?, ahould be our question? I could insert all ‘babies if i want to but that does not make it right to insert ‘men’. You assume every single person, but the text does not support that.

You are right that the text doesn’t say “men” but it isn’t uncommon for the “all” to be listed without the term “men” when clearly people are meant . In John 2:24 Jesus said the same thing about “all” and the term “men” isn’t there either. But the context of both passages assumes “people”.

John 2:24 (NASB)
24 But Jesus, on His part, was not entrusting Himself to them, for He knew all men,

So, what is the concern in John 12:32? It can’t be a question of the extent of the number since Jesus said all nota few. All what? All babies? All butterflies? What does the context say?

In the context immediately before the verse, Jesus is talking about the judgment that would come upon the whole world.

John 12:31–32 (NASB)
31 “Now judgment is upon this world; now the ruler of this world will be cast out.
32 “And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to Myself.”

Jesus uses the general term “this world” and the ruler of “this world” and in preparation for the judgment, he will draw “all” to Himself.

Whenever the term “all” is used the word means “the whole” or “every” unless there is a limiter in the text that would preclude some from being included. The text appears pretty clear that Jesus meant just want He said (all) since He is talking about the judgment. After He said these words, He said some valuable words to the unbelieving crowd.

John 12:35–36 (NASB)
35 So Jesus said to them, “For a little while longer the Light is among you. Walk while you have the Light, so that darkness will not overtake you; he who walks in the darkness does not know where he goes.
36 “While you have the Light, believe in the Light, so that you may become sons of Light.”
These things Jesus spoke, and He went away and hid Himself from them.

Jesus commands the crowd to believe in Him in order that they may become sons of God (sons of Light). How could they become sons of God if Jesus did not die for them? Certainly they were also included in the general term “all” and if unbelievers who never became believers were included in the “all”, then why should we not believe Jesus when He said that He would draw all to Himself? I have accepted that Jesus would draw all people to Himself because I don’t have any prejudice that would not allow me to accept what Jesus said within the context of the passage.

So please answer me a few questions on this verse regarding your own view:

1. If Jesus did not mean all “men”, then what “all” did He mean? And what is in the passage that caused you to understand that Jesus could not have meant all people?

2. If Jesus didn’t mean “all” but rather He meant “a few” then why did Jesus not say what He meant? If He really meant “a few” and said “all” then wouldn’t that be deceptive and untrue?

We see in John 6 that only those the Father ‘draws’ are the ones who come to Jesus and thus believe. So if the Father drew all people it would in essence mean that all are saved. The grammar does not support your claim nor does the other passages that use the term ‘draw’.

That is actually not true. The reason is because “draw” is not a synonym for “come”. The Father will “draw” all but the ones drawn must also “come”.

Let’s look at this passage carefully:

John 6:44 (NASB)
44 “No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day.

“No one can come”- coming an active verb that is something that we do. It is an action that is carried out by us, while the verb “draws” is an active verb that the Father does. They are not synonyms. They are actions done by different people. So while the passage says that no one is able to come (no one has the power of them self to come) unless the Father draws that person, it doesn’t say conversely that all that the Father draws will come. We cannot assume that all that are drawn will come because the passage doesn’t say it. The ones who will be raised up are all the ones who come, not all the ones who are drawn.

So what we see in John 6 without reading into the passage is that no one come to Jesus unless they are drawn by the Father. And all those who come will be raised up by Jesus. There is not a single passage of Scripture that I know of that says that all who are drawn by the Father will come to Jesus. What John 6 says is that all those who are given to Jesus will come. It is a big difference. The term “given” and the term “drawn” again are not synonyms. So without any outside prejudice, when we come to this passage, and in the context of Jesus words in chapter 12 we can see that all will be drawn by Jesus (john 12:32) yet not all will come to Jesus (John 6:64). But all those who are given to Jesus by the Father will be both drawn by the Father (John 6:44) and will come to Jesus (John 6:37) and of those given to Jesus none will be lost (John 6:39), and all will be raised (John 6:39) and all will believe in Jesus (John 6:40).

It is also important to understand what the greek word for ‘draw’ is, according to BDAG it is a ‘dragging’, thus why reformers use the term ‘Iresistable Grace’. Grace can not be resisted for God’s elect since he in essence ‘drags’ them to himself.

The problem with this understanding is that “drawing” or “pulling” propels one along, but it cannot be an irresistible instigator of “coming” since “coming” is an active verb of our own action not God’s action. If it was indeed an irresistible action of God’s then the “coming” would be His action not ours.

to move an object from one area to another in a pulling motion, draw, with implication that the object being moved is incapable of propelling itself or in the case of pers. is unwilling to do so voluntarily, in either case with implication of exertion on the part of the mover
Arndt, W., Danker, F. W., & Bauer, W. (2000). A Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament and other early Christian literature (3rd ed.) (318).

While God pulls us towards Jesus, the term for what God does in compelling us is a term that is not irresistible.

Luke 14:23 (NASB)
23 “And the master said to the slave, ‘Go out into the highways and along the hedges, and compel them to come in, so that my house may be filled.

The same term for “compel” is used in Acts 26:11 and the force of the compelling is successfully resisted.

Acts 26:11 (NASB)
11 “And as I punished them often in all the synagogues, I tried to force them to blaspheme; and being furiously enraged at them, I kept pursuing them even to foreign cities.

The fact is that Jesus said He would draw all, but His drawing has been successfully resisted by many. In the OT the pleading of God and the work of the Holy Spirit was also successfully resisted so there is nothing that says that God’s drawing is irresistible in sinful men.

You said:

So there is not one verse in the Bible that says God draws ‘ALL MEN’, or ‘ALL PEOPLE’ to himself.

John 12:32 is that verse. I know that it goes against your theology, but I personally would have a problem with a theology that contradicts Scripture and especially one that contradicts the Lord Jesus.

I will get to your other comments as I have time.