Mark

Suzannah,

You have proved exactly the point. References to Jesus or the Spirit’s divinity are not an ‘explicit’ mention of a Trinity. We must group all relevant information together to form our theology of the Trinity. So why is it, you refuse to do that on the gender debate, but rather require an ‘explicit’ reference.

You say that the Bible never claims to give the man authority, but again this is because your argument is based on a needed ‘explicit’ statement. The fact that Adam names Eve, Eve was made from and for him, made as his help-meet obviously do not constitute enough ‘references’ for you. To me this is inconsistent! The same way you would dismiss the implicit references, would be the same way a JW would reject the implicit references on the Trinity. You still come back to the same problem- a need for an explicit reference, rather than a solid Biblical Theology.

Same goes with free will. You say it must exist since we are told to do X,Y and Z, but that is working backwards again, and does not insist on an explicit reference. I agree that free-will exist since we are told to do X, Y, and Z, but I also believe in comp theology for similar reasons. I see X, Y, and Z relating back to show male headship and authority. This is my point. How you systematise your theology in one area is inconsistent in others. So although we are never told ‘Husband has authority over Wife’, we are told that wives are to submit, and that the husband is the head.

Finally you said “Why is it that you demand explicit verses from us when you cannot provide such yourself?”

This is exactly my point. I don’t demand explicit references but I asked to show the folly of the argument. What works for A has to work for B. If there were enough implicit references even to reject male headship, I would accept it, but I do not think the Bible supports it. Never is the woman designated the ‘head’, never once is the husband told to submit to her. The only thing close to reciprocal submission is Eph 5:21, but for me a theology has to be based on more than one interpretation of one verse and I can’t see how the Bible supports what egals wish Eph 5:21 to mean.

All I’m asking is that you be fair in your argument, and not demand illogical ‘proof’ that you would otherwise not need.

Cheers

Pinklight,

I am not claiming anything, I simply want Susannah to be consistent in her Biblical Theology. If she (or you) want an ‘explicit’ statement in Gen 1-3, why not demand it for other theologies? That’s all I’m saying.

It seems hypocritical to demand an explicit statement in one place but not in others. But who knows…maybe Susannah doesn’t believe in the Trinity. I’ll wait for her answer!

If you agree that you will not accept comp theology without an explicit statement in Gen 1-3, then please explain how you reconcile the rest of the Bible. After all, not once, is there a statement “husbands submit to your wives”.

Hi Cheryl,

I’ve jsut recently read through 1 Pet and thought i’d see what archives you had on it.

I found it interesting with the overarching theme of ‘suffering’ in 1 Peter that the slaves/masters paradigm essentially is addressing slaves submitting to their masters EVEN IF they are ill treated (suffering essentially).

I then found it interesting that the wife/husband paradigm is between a believing wife and unbelieving husband. Even then she is still told to submit to her husband. Imagine that, a believing wife told to submit to an unbelieving husband-profound. It is also interesting how she is told not to ‘fear’, so it seems the same suffering theme applies. A Christian woman is likely to suffer due to her faith from an unbelieving husband no doubt.

Now that is truly counter cultural. A Christian woman told to submit to a man who does not cherish Christ- that would be hard work, but as Peter saids “it is precious in the sight of God.” Imagine an egalitarian calling a woman to do that!

So i wonder how you feel about the call of Peter for a woman to submit even to an unbelieving husband. I think if we understood truly the ability of what our ‘actions’ (in this case a wife’s submission) can achieve our walk would be different. Her submission in essence could ‘win him over’ to Christ wihtout a ‘word’- praise God!

I wonder how ‘reciprocal’ submission (Egal Eph 5) applies here. Does it even apply, or can it apply since the husband is an unbeliever? Perhaps this will shed some light on EPh 5 where BOTH parties are believers. How can this ‘submission’ be reciprocal when one is not a follower of Jesus? I’ll leave that for you to try and answer. Look forward to it!

Susannah,

I sure hope you are consistent! Where is it explicitly stated that God is a ‘trinity’? Where is it explicitly stated in Gen 1-3 that we are identitically equal? Where is it explicitly stated that we have ‘free-will’. Now i’m sure you don’t throw the baby our with the bath water on these issues…or do you?

According to your theological perspective, we would not know half of what we know because it is not ‘explicit’ enough for you.

I guess this is the differing Biblical theologies amongst us all!

It seems you are asking for something that elsewhere you would not ask for…explicit verse(s). Thoughts??

Cheryl (218)

Let me say a few things. I have given you much to look at in Gen 1-3 before. As i recall, you have yet to deal with the grammatical issues i have raised…do you remember that! Why will i waste my time saying things over and over when you haven’t even dealt with past issues. Also you might wish to be careful of what you say, as if you are the only one ‘fearing’ God. Remember the tax collector’s prayer?

Maybe one point that can help clear the issue. Where is one verse that tells husbands to submit directly to their wives? Since we know it does not exist, why the egal push to claim something the Bible never declares. Here lies the inconsistency, you reject male authority because there is no ‘explicit’ command of God in Gen 1-3 (while you reject or re-interpret everything showing it), yet you wish to promote an egal theology where a husband is never told to submit to his wife (but rather the command is always for the wife to submit). If you wish to be taken seriously you need to be consistent in your threads. You can’t demand something in Gen 1-3, but then do the reverse in the New Testament.

By the way, i never had the intention to answer your or Susannah’s questions. I simply wanted to show that authority did exist in the pre-fall world.

Final thought just to re-inforce. I want you to prove from scripture where a husband is told to submit to his wife explicitly- this way the issue should be solved. You can ‘disprove’ all the reverse passages as much as you want, but you must therefore show where a husband is told to submit to his wife. If you cannot do this, the point is proven- egals are teaching a false teaching, something not declared in scripture. Then for you to be consistent, show me the second or third witnesses from the Bible. I will wait for all eternity i assume!

Dave my man,

Just take a look at Susannah’s comment to see the authority= evil paradigm- in her own view, there was no need for authority in the sinless garden. However authority existed pre-fall and was declared as part of God’s creation as ‘very good’. Now i realise that you (and perhaps others) don’t assume that paradigm, but as i see it, many egal arguments hang onto it.

Cheryl,

I agree that any abuse of authority is God-stripping. However to reject God’s ordained authority is equally horrific. We need to be cautious of both. As with your other comments, i fail to see how ‘confident’ you state your position to be. I’m not overly concerned with re-kindling old arguments on Gen 1-3, i just simply wanted to point out the fallicy of Susannah’s argument. Can you agree therefore, that authority existed in the sinless creation of the garden and that authority is not in and of itself sinful?

Suzannah,

I have no interest in trying to convince you of your views- i’m well aware that discussions like these generally lead no-where. I simply wanted to show you your problem.

You asked why authority or rule was necessary in the sinless world. As i pointed out, and as God himself declared it was there before the fall. Therefore you ought to be more regulated in your arguments, rather than declaring that ‘rule’ is a consequence of sin. If God ordained that authorty exist in a sinless world we ought to teach and know that- that’s my point. Once that is set as the foundation, then one can look further to see if such authority existed between husband/wife and if it did, we can be confident that authority is not in and of itself sinful. This is at the heart of many egalitarian arguments, and unfortunately they by pass this point assuming authority=evil (which of course is a by-product of our post modern philosophy)

Susannah,

Why did God give ‘authority’ to the human pair over animals in the sinless world? To quote you “for what need was there of such a rule in the garden when the two were innocent of evil?”

Maybe you can answer your own question? Maybe the animals were ‘evil’ when the humans were innocent and that’s why they needed authority?

All biases aside, authority existed BEFORE the fall and sin! As NN has clearly pointed out, authority is not the sin, it’s the abuse of it that is the sin. I can’t see how you can argue that ‘rule’ is a consequence of sin, when clearly it was given before the fall.

Thoughts??? My guess is your focus narrows down on ‘humans’ only and you missed this point that God had given authority pre-fall in the sinless, perfect world. Do you believe that authority is intrinsically tied into sin?

Cheryl,

I never said i was a greek scholar…far from it. I would have considered you one though (which is what i said), that is why it worried me that you ignored the many meanings the present indicative takes, or at least failed to disclose them to everyone.

BUt it seems you don’t consider yourself one and that’s fine. I won’t call you one if you don’t want me too. But i never ever called myself a greek scholar- let me make that clear.

Now Eph 2:1 doesn’t fit ‘your’ criteria that’s all. It seems that the majority of Greek scholars and translators disagree with you. MAybe you can make a Cheryl Schatz translation to correct all the wrong translators in the world!

Now i’m not in my office with all my greek grammars but here is one example to explain the present participle i found.

“The concessive participle implies that the state or action of the main verb is true in spite of the state or action of the participle. Its force is usually best translated with although. This category is relatively common.”

Now we agree that the main verb is in verse 5 correct? So the action of verse 5, being alive, is true in spite of the present participle. Now Eph 2:1 is an example of this is it not? Despite the fact that we were dead in our sins, God made us alive. It’s a contrast…’while you were A, God did B’, ‘although you were A, God did B’. It is not saying you are A while also B. But when i am in my office next week i’ll get back to you more with the other grammars i have.

Also i comfused how quickly you dismissed ‘pote’. Surely you agree that verse 1-7 is the one sentence, and that whole sentence is reliant on the verb in verse 5. So how is that you think you can disconnect ‘pote’ from the context? You challenged that no such ‘extra’ grammar was present and when you are shown wrong, you simply attempt to disconnect the greek sentence, c’mon now. We dead in sins ‘in which we once walked’. What is the once walked refering to Cheryl? Verse 1-3 are all tightly knitted together grammatically, adn Paul’s conclusion is that we were by nature objects of wrath.

Finally i will discuss more with you what it is you think i believe about this verse. Especailly since you think Calvinism believes that being ‘alive’ is divorced from faith. These need addressing

But i’ve run out of time

no not yet…almost a week overdue now, much to my wifes disgust.

Cheryl,

Please don’t slay me for my spelling mistakes ‘tote’ and ‘present indicate’. They are just spelling mistakes, there is not need to go overboard.

I will comment more soon, but let just say one thing. I realise that the present indicative is not in Eph 2. The reason i brought up that point was becasue you had failed to communicate the broad range of meanings for the present indicative. And since you whole basis is “how does calvinism reconcile the present verb in Eph 2” it was neccessary to show the wider range of meanings. You had constantly challenged how the two can be reconciled, without admitting that the context decides the ‘time’ aspect of the verb.

More soon

Cheryl,

Thanks for your apology…it is excepted. I am a bit baffled why you have no interest in dealing with the grammar. I understanad your business, but since these passages are the ‘base point’ for all gender based arguments, i’m surprised you don’t want to dig into them. Is there something in the grammar that you know contradicts your position?

Maybe you or anybody else can show me something from the text then. If Eve blamed the serpent and it was truthful with no element of blame-shifting (not accepting her own responsibilty), then how can you say Adam only blame-shifted. Is not what he said also the truth? Did God give Eve to him. Did not Eve give the fruit to him? So you see the same argument you use for Eve could equally apply to Adam. You could even go as far as God accepting Adam’s blame by the ephatic question God asks of Eve.
BUt of course i reject that Adam did not balme shift. THe grammar shows me this. Likewise i reject that Eve did not blame shift. The grammar also shows me the same thing as Adam.

So this is my problem becasue you are equating something to Adam and not to Eve when nothing in the grammar allows for it. It is only in the precise grammar where we see emphatic expressions ect, which highlight that BOTH did the same thing. Neither of them told a lie per se, but from the grammar we can see that both blame shifted, that is they did not accept responsibility for their own actions aswell.

But it’ not up to me. IF you wish to ignore the grammar that’s your decision. I’m just telling you what’s in the text.

Now about the other passages. How do you know Cheryl, that other biblical passages support your view, when you have failed to deal with the actual passage from which other passages gain their arguments. It seems you are reading backwards. Instead of getting Gen 3 correct and then seeing how other authors apply this text, you are beginning from the other end and making Gen 3 fit into what you believe the other authors are saying. Anyway, i’ll leave it to you. I’ve said my piece and hopefully people realise that you cannot assume something into Gen 3 without looking closely at the grammar itself.

Kay and Cheryl,

I was never a hard core apologetic Armininan. I believed what i heard in churches, namely, that predestination is based on foreknowledge of our faith. I never had an issue with this, because this is all i knew. The people i knew, the people i respected held to this sort of theology. My Father-in-law would hold to a strong classical Arminian position.

The crux came, when i was asked to preach at our church becasue our Pastor was away. We were at the time going through a ‘doctrine’ series, so i thought it wise (although i was probably foolish) to go through Romans 9 and look at predestination. This is when it hit me. As i studied Romans 9-11, in the context of Romans as a whole, and as i looked at various commentaries, both reformed and arminian, my whole theology fell to pieces.

Looking at the text exegetically in it’s context i could no longer hold onto what i thought predestination was. As such i began researching reformed theology and thus my whole doctrinal position shifted. Many in my church were disgusted at what i had said. But it was always good in stimulating discussion and being humble and loving to those you disagree with.

Once i began looking into the two different theologies i began to realise that much of the arminian position is based on ‘reason’ and not scripture. Things like preceeding grace are assumed but not declared in the Bible. Like wise divine foreknowledge of faith is assumed but not declared. The inconsistencies began to flow in what i thought i believed and so i decided from that point to stick to what the Bible saids, no matter what!

Hope this helps.

I was not converted a ‘calvinist’ in terms of theology. But as i refelct even on my own conversion i can see the truth in reformed theology. I had no interest in the things of God. I did not fear him, i did not glorify him. But at that one moment when i heard the gospel a light bulb switched on. I wasn’t serching or seeking for God. I know however, that when Jesus calls his sheep they listen to his voice. I experienced that first hand. I indeed was dead and blind, BUT GOD made me alive in Christ Jesus

Cheryl,

Again you have not dealt with any precise exegetical arguments i have raised. Please deal with them.

I have not talked about hiding sin, only you have. I’m interested in you showing me from the precise grammar of Gen 3 how you can claim Adam’s motive is bad and Eve’s good. Discuss nouns, verbs, word order, whatever it is that brings you to your conclusion.

I’m not denying Eve was deceived, we agree on that. What we are discussing is the precise grammar of both how Adam and Eve respond to God. Is there anything in those verses that show they are blaming another (and thus denying their own involvement). We are both agreed that Adam blame shifted. Where we disagree is with Eve. I have shown exegetically, using the precise grammar (and the parallel construction with Adam’s response) how one cannot say Adam is blame shifing and not Eve. As yet, you have not touched on either of those verses. If you believe Adam blame shifted, tell me how you came to that conclusion exegetically from what he said. Discuss word order, grammer etc. Then do the same with Eve. After that, we can discuss other Biblical references to both Adam and Eve.

“All I did was point out that Adam blamed both God and his wife, both of whom he knew were not to blame. ”

Here is what i mean. You stated this, but you have not shown exegetically from the Hebrew why you come to this conclusion. What in the Hebrew makes you believe this? Or to put it another way, what grammatical hints give emphasis or illusion that Adam is blame shifting? And thus, what in the Hebrew makes you conclude that Eve had pure motives?

“If you believe that God cursed the woman, you will have to prove it from the grammar.”

I don’t believe that God cursed the woman. Nor do i believe God cursed the man. He cursed the serpent and the ground. But just a snippet for after you deal exegetically with my other comments, here is one small grammatical use to show that Eve is being punished. There is a very clear infinite absolute used in God’s words against Eve. An infinitive absolute functions to give an emphatic expression. So something God saids to Eve is grammatically emphasised- but we can deal with that later.

Cheryl,

“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?”

Nice try! Please deal with the exegetical points i raised. You points here are arguments from silence. First and foremost we ought to deal with what is revealed, not guess on what is not revealed. If you think i am wrong in the grammar then show me.
Now this is important since what follows in the narrative stems from the responses of the man and woman. You need to show me exegetically and grammatically how Adam’s motive was evil, and Eve’s good. Show me from the woman’s response grammatically how her motive is good. Why are things emphasised? Why use the Hiphal Stem for the verb?

“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?”

This is an odd conclusion you have drawn. Who said God is to blame? Both are punished for their sin. It is odd that you think Eve is not judged for her part in the fall. I will deal with this exegetically once you deal exegetically with the other verses first. Since if you wont discuss my other points, there is really no point me going further exegetically.

Cheryl,

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

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.

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). 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.

Thanks

Kay,

I was a bit lost in what you said. I couldn’t tell when you were quoting a commentary and when you yourself were speaking. Do you mind re-stateing what you are saying. Also are you disagreeing with something i said about John, or just about ‘Calvinism’ in general.

Thanks

TL,

“I disagree. Adam was not deceived. He did what he did deliberately with full awareness. He cannot fault anyone else, although he tried. He was blame shifting. Eve on the other hand, was deceived. She was not blame shifting by naming her deceiver , she was acknowledging that it was the serpent who deceived her. She further acknowledged her sin of eating that which she was told not to eat.”

This is your opinion but not what the grammar shows. 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. Eve does more than ‘name’ her deceiver- she blames him. I encourage you to look at the grammar precisely to come to your conclusions. 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.

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.

Kristen,

“Arminians (in general) believe that when God “draws” someone, God enables that person to make a true choice. The sinner’s desire is bent towards sin; God provides just enough power to pull, but not to coerce, the sinner temporarily away from that bent. Suspended during the drawing process between the sinner’s desires and God’s, the sinner is in a state where he/she CAN choose.”

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. They want to hold onto God working, but equally hold onto autonomous free will. Many recognise the problem here and have such turned to either Calvinism or open theism. Do we have free-will in heaven?

Second point, where does the Bible declare any of what you have said. ‘Draw’ in biblical greek means to drag, or pull in. It is most definitely a ‘coercise’ type greek word, not a passive one. What about all the people who haven’t had the choice to hear the gospel? Does God still draw them in the sense you mean? Show me from scripture what you have stated!

“Once the choice is made for God, the person’s nature is changed by regeneration of the Holy Spirit. But STILL there is no coercion– God’s power sets us free; it does not enslave us to doing God’s desire. Otherwise how could the regenerate person still be tempted?”

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 calvinist does not say therefore that God wipes out our sinful desires post conversion. Paul outlines in Romans 7 the struggle we all face with our sin natures until the final eschaton. The issue is at salvation- before God gives us a new heart and the Spirit of God. Are people before that time able to respond to God? It’s obvious you believe in some sort of prevenient grace- maybe you can expand on it? Where is it in the Bible? When does it happen? These are vital question that an Arminian needs to answer from the Scriptures

“We were enslaved to sin without hope; but God’s work in our lives frees our will.”

Amen! Couldn’t agree more, we were without hope. So maybe you can show me from the Bible what you believe God’s work is? How far does it extend? Who does it extend to? Answers from the Bible please!

“We can still have confidence that He who began the good work will complete it, but God has made us sons, not slaves.”

Now what do you mean by God completing His good work? If it’s solely up to us, and God is not ‘coercing’ how can we be confident of anything except our own ‘choices’. Now does Romans 8:5-11 say that we are ‘controlled’ by the Spirit? Paul makes a clear contrast. We are either controlled by sin or we are controlled by the Spirit? God is not passive in our lives. He works out his plan and achieves what he has purposed. He works in us and through us.

Also about the ‘slaves’ stuff. Have a look at Rom 6:15ff. We are both sons of God and slaves of God. Again Paul draws a contrast- either we are slaves to sin or slaves to righteousness. Verse 16 says “don’t you know that when you offer yourselves to someone to obey him as slaves, you are slaves to the one whom you obey”. So I would disagree with you at this point. If we are true Christians and want to obey God, we are slaves to God. Verse 18 “you have set free from sin and have become slaves to righteousness”. Verse 22 “But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves to God…”

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. Where is prevenient grace? Where is predestination determined on foreknowledge of faith? Where is autonomous free-will free from external coercion? Let me finish with a few quotes from an Arminian.

“Absolutely crucial to all forms of free-will theism is the belief that persons only exercise free choice or liberty of decision and action when they could do otherwise than they do” Roger Olsen ‘Perspectives on the Doctrine of God’

So here Olsen outline an Arminian free-will. The person must be able to choose other than they do. So in essence, a person has to have the ability to choose God or reject God. But what Olsen fails to realise is that choices are governed by our desires.

“A person who cannot do X instead of Y cannot be exercising free will when doing Y even if he or she wants to do Y”

well there goes Pauls point in Romans 6 that we are slaves to sin. Unless of course God grants prevenient grace. But like always, Olsen doesn’t defend that point. Then he has the stupidity to say this…

“Christian free-will theists affirm that creaturely free-will is limited by many factors; God, sin, the environment and others.”

How’s that for a contradiction! We are only free if we can legitimately choose X and Y, yet we are limited by all these factors. So therefore we are not free at all. What if one of those limits (let’s say sin) effects our ability to choose X or Y. This is the precise inconsistency I am talking about. Olsen has essentially defended the view he has opposed, namely Augustinianism. He realises that our free-will is limited and restricted by factors. Thus why I reject such silly claims. They are logically inconsistent but more importantly un-biblical.

Tl,

Perhaps you missed my point. I do believe we have a ‘free-will’, all Calvinists believe that. Where we disagree, is what a free-will is? A free-will is always governed by our desires is It not? We choose what we desire? If our desire is toward sin we choose that, if toward God we do that? It is never a ‘choice’ that is free from desires. That is my point. Now an Arminian needs to show from scripture where God gives everyone a ‘clean slate’ so to speak to enable them to desire him. I ask this because the Bible declares that our natural or flesh nature is to desire sin, thus we choose to sin.
Now in relation to Adam and Eve, the Calvinists agrees with the Arminian at this point that they both had the ability to not sin. They did not have a ‘sin nature’ therefore their desire was not directed toward sin (as ours is). They rightly had the choice to either sin or not to sin. However everyone else since then has been born in inquity.(Psalm 51)

Kay,

I have struggled many times in studying God’s providence in relation to my children. No, none of my children were born before I was a Christian, and no I do not think ‘non-christian’ (if i can use that term) children are born against God’s will. Gen 1 makes clear God’s command to multiply and fill the earth. However I love God and love his Bible. I am utterly convinced from Scripture that God providentially governs this world. The sun rises everyday under God’s power, not by accident. People believ in Jesus becasue God governs that, it does not happen by accident. Therefore I trust that God is faithful to save his elect. I am commanded to train my children in the way of the Lord. If they reject Him they have no excuse. However if God is merciful to my children I will praise him for that- he is not obligated to, but it is His sheer mercy and grace.
Now I assume you also believe in God’s divine foreknowledge. Therefore how do you handle knowing that God may have created your children knowing they might end up in eternal torment?

Waneta,

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. 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.

Also her actions in hiding and covering are the same as Adam. Adam blames God and Eve (evident by the emphatic use of the Hebrew) which is exactly the same in Eve’s blame shifting to the serpent. In both the man and the woman’s response the Hebrew is emphatic in showing that they are blaming another and not taking responsibility for their own actions. Here is a snippet from an exegetical work of mine to explain what i mean

Gen 3:12 The man said, “The woman whom you gave to be with me, she gave me fruit of the tree, and I ate.”

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. First the Hebrew emphasis that it was ‘the woman’ who is to blame, since in this case the object of the verb precedes the verb. Note also the inclusion of the personal pronoun awh (she gave), which gives greater emphasis to Adam’s blaming of Eve. Second, the man makes the bold claim to God, “you gave to me”. In the context, it is clear that Adam also blames God. Nowhere does Adam admit his own sin in eating the forbidden fruit.
This is clearly the nature of Adam’s sin- denial of his actions involved. 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.

Gen 3:13 Then the LORD God said to the woman, “What is this that you have done?” The woman said, “The serpent deceived me, and I ate.”

God begins by with an immediate questioning of the mans wife- ‘what is this you did?’ The interrogative followed by the pronoun taz-hm (this) emphasizes the question. Almost literally, “what in the world have you done? This is the first point in which the woman is addressed for her part in the destruction of the garden.
Similar to the man’s response, the woman shifts the blame- ‘the serpent
deceived me and I ate’. Again the Hebrew places the emphasis on the ‘serpent’ by placing the subject at the beginning of the sentence before the verb. It is made clear that the woman in essence is blaming the serpent, not accepting responsibility. Also the verb ynanXh (to deceive) is in the Hiphil stem, the causative pattern showing how the woman is putting the ‘cause’ of the fall onto the serpent. As with her husband she is not admiting her part in the fall and her own sin.

Sorry, the Hebrew didn’t work, but hopefully this helps anyway. 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. Both are guilty and culpable for their own actions in the fall

TL,

The problem I have with your view, is that no scripture saids such things. You are arguing from ‘reason’ and not the Bible. Please use the Bible. However let me address just one of your points because it is an important one.

“3. Without our acceptance of God’s choice, then we are not free people but robots destined according to our birth to follow a preplanned destruction, in essence some people were hated by God at their creation, while others were preferred.”

This is often the critique of Calvinism. But let’s explore what a ‘free-will’ is. First it is not in the Bible, at leat not in the way that we often describe it. So what is a free-will? The most often explaination I hear is that it has to be a ‘will or choice that we make, which is not coerced from an external person/thing’. But such a definition is wrong. No choices we ever make are in that sense ‘free’. Any choice we make always comes from a desire in our minds, even if it is sub-conscious. No think about it, if I walk up to a forked road which way do I choose? If there is no inclination either way then I would not choose any ( which is precisely the Arminina description of free-will). There has to be a reason why I go left instead of right.

Why is it we choose to eat when we do? Why do we sit instead of stand? Why do we bother engaging in conversations like this? There is a will or inclination inside us that makes us choose. I choose to sit because it is more comfortable than to stand etc. Think about why Eve ate the fruit. Her desire turned from God to desiring the fruit, her inclination changed. At that point she desired the fruit more than God, as did her husband Adam.

So the definition that Arminians often give for free-will is a nonsense statement. Our will is never free in that sense. We always choose what we desire. So this is the important part, since the Bible declares that out nature is sinful. That is, our desires are sinful. Unlike Adam and Eve, we are born with a desire that is sinful, so therefore we will choose or will from our inmost desire- sin.

That is why the Bible speaks about needing a new heart. God gives us a new heart, so that our desire might change from sin to him. So the questions arises does God give this new heart to all people. The Arminian says yes, the Calvinist no. So therefore the Arminian needs to show from scripture, where it is that God gives this new ‘will’ to all people. Some say at birth, some say later on. Jeremiah 31 tells us God gives this heart to ‘his people’ not all people. These people have their sins forgiven and the law wirtten on the heart.

So our will is never free in the sense that Arminains wish it was. Our will always chooses according to our desire. So if you wish to show to me that God enables or gives all people this new desire/heart than please do from the scriptures. I fear though that you will not have much luck. One looks in vain in any Arminain apologist to find such scriptural support for an unbiblical doctrine.

Our will is not free- it is before rebirth corrupted by sin. Only God can enable us to desire him and thus choose his son as our own for salvation. So yes we are Robots- we always choose according to what we desire most. Our will is never free from our desires. Thanks be to God, that he has given us a new heart to will after Him. To enable us to follow Him rather than our natural sinful desire.

Finally regarding 2 Tim 2, at least look over again the verse and it’s context. You may believe that God gives all the ability to repent but the Bible does not declare that. I encourage you to be faithful to the Bible not one’s theology.

Cheryl,

Regarding your claim that the Cannaanites of the conquest were given a chance to repent. I noticed you quoted Jeremiah. Now Jeremiah was a exilic prophet, who lived, what, some 500-600 years after the conquest of the land. So no, the Jeremiah text does not deal with my question at all.

Also with Jonah, the time frame was way off the conquest. Also the difference between Ninevah and the conquest is clear. God sent Jonah to the Ninevites to get them to repent. No such thing happened with the conquest. No prophet was sent into Canaan to get the people to repent. That was God’s promised land to Abraham, God was faithful and gave it to His people. And all the ungodly were commanded to be killed and wiped out, so that Israel would not be polluted by the idols of Canaan. So again no, Canaan was not given an opportunity to repent.

I agree though with the aliens becoming part of the convenant people. However a covenant people were a chosen people, a loved people. Other nations were not a covenant people.

Now the atonement is clear in my view. Either it atoned and achieved a purpose or it didn’t. An Arminian position saids it didn’t achieve forgiveness, just that it made it possible, if people would just reach out and grab it. An Arminian atonement has the Trinity working against each other. Jesus dies for all men, yet the Spirit does not work in all men to achieve atonement for all. So Jesus achieves for all, but the Spirit achieves for a few. See the problem. Jesus does one thing, the Spirit does another. But anyway, I’m getting ahead of my self and will wait till you give your definition of how the atonement functions.

Cheryl,

I’m a little perplexed with you. As a greek scholar you are being totally unfaithful to how the greek language functions. I have agreed with you that the present indicate can have a linear function. However as I have stated, that is not always the case. The context, adverbs etc determine it’s function and thus is translation and interpretation. But you seem to wish to dismiss this clear fact of greek grammar. Let me show your readers just a few example to prove that the present indicate verb can be used to have a past or future meaning.

Mat 3:1 In those days John the Baptist came preaching…

‘Came’ here is the present indicate, yet the context reveals this is a past action.

Mat 13:44 “Again the kingdom of heaven is like treasure hidden in a field, which a man found and hid; and for joy over it he goes and sells all that he has and buys that field.”

‘buys’ here is the present indicate as are ‘goes, sells and has’. The action however has occurred in the past: the man took the money, paid and the deed was done.

The use of the present in this effect relates the hearer and reader into almost a present position, yet the context shows a past action.

Also the present takes a future meaning in some contexts.

John 14:3 And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come back and take you to be with me that you also may be where I am.”

‘will come’ is a present indicative, yet again the context of the passage reveals Jesus is talking about a ‘future’ event.

So no, the present indicate does not always have a present tense continuous function, the context decides that.

Now in relation to Eph 2:1. What is important to know is that verse one does not have a subject or verb, only a present participle. As I stated earlier, the participle functions to show a contrast. It is not until verse 5 that we see Paul’s point, when he states that “But God…made us alive”. Therefore the subject and the verb of ‘umas’ (you) in verse 1 are not introduced until verse 4,5. Note also that verse 1-10 are two greek sentences 1-7, 8-10. Thus verse 1-7 fall into 2 parts, 1-3 and 4-7. The former is called an ‘anacoluthon’ and verse 4-7 give a contrast. Thus verse 1-3 highlight the sinful nature in the past, and verse 4-7 contrasts a new nature.

So thus the first main verb of the passage is in verse 5 “made you alive” is contrasted against the first person plural present participle in verse 1. Verse 2 says ‘in which you once walked” parallel to verse 10 which shows the new way to walk

The ‘kai’ (and) in verse one relates the passage back to chapter 1- a continual theme. Chapter 1 highlights God’s predetermined plan for his people to His glory and thus chapter 2 flows through with this thought.

Now Cheryl claimed that no such ‘additional grammar’ in Eph 2 shows that Paul means a past condition. However in verse 2 is a very clear grammatical feature- ‘tote’ (once). Paul is saying you were ‘once’ like this (dead in sin), “in which you once walked”-verse 2) but are now like this (alive in Christ). SO yes there is an explicit grammatical word talking about a past situation- “once” There are also numerous other grammatical features showing the contrast (besides the present participle). There is the contrast between following satan (verse 2) and Jesus. This is expoused by the ‘sun’ compounds and ‘en christo jesou’. Also in verse 4 we get the ‘But God’ (o de theos) and then the three aorist and perfect of the verb forms in 5,6 which all underline the break between a past and a present situation.

So although this may seem messy to many people with all the technical stuff let me conclude. First the perfect indicate verb can take either past, present or future meaning depending on context. Verse 1 is not even a present indicate but a present participle which by definition means a contrast is being made. Verse 2 has ‘tote’ which is an explicit example of a ‘past’ situation. The main verb is not until verse 5 when we are ‘made alive’, which means verse 1 is grammatically related to verse 5 (contrast of past/present, not present/present). Not only that, the overall context (including verse 11-22) explicitly show a past/present contrast.

Cheryl has not been faithful to how the greek grammar functions. She has only put forward one view of how the present indicative functions when there are many others. Not only that, but the present indicate is not there, but it is a present participle showing contrast. So not only am I confused at how a greek scholar ignores simple greek grammar, but her interpretation in my view is unbiblical and divorces the verse from it’s context. Cheryl you will have to do much better to convince me of your interpretation and please weigh all the evidence up.

By the way here are some true representations of what the Present Greek Tense denotes or means

The original function of the so-called tense stems of the verb in Indo-European languages was not that of levels of time (present, past, future) but that of Aktionsarten (kinds of action) or aspects (points of views). (Blass & DeBrunner, A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, p. 166.)

…essentially the tense in Greek expresses the kind of action, not time, which the speaker has in view and the state of the subject…. In short, the tense-stems indicate the point of view from which the action or state is regarded….the present expresses linear action. (Nigel Turner, A Grammar of New Testament Greek, vol. 3: Syntax, p. 59.)

[The Present Indicative] normally expresses linear action (Turner, A Grammar of New Testament Greek, vol. 3: Syntax, p. 60.)

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.)

These ideas (punctiliar, durative, perfected state) lie behind the three tenses (aorist, present, perfect) that run through all moods. The forms of these tenses are meant to accentuate these ideas. (A.T. Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament, p. 824.)

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

“In general, tense in Greek involves two elements: aspect (kind of action, [sometimes call Aktionsart, though a difference does need to be made between the two]) and time. Aspect is the primary value of tense in Greek and time is secondary, if involved at all. In other words, tense is that feature of the verb that indicates the speaker’s presentation of the verbal action (or state) with reference to its aspect and, under certain conditions, its time.”

So ‘aspect’ is the primary value and ‘time’ secondary. It is vital to know that and understand that so as not to make fundamental mistakes.

Kay,

Of course their is a difference. But which does the Bible teach? Maybe you can show me where the Bible teaches prevenient grace? Maybe you can explain how the atonement doesn’t actually atone but only makes us ‘savable’ until we add the rest?

I’m trying to stick to the Bible accurately. That is all.

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.

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.

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.

Cheryl,

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).

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. 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. 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”. 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?

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

“God doesn’t demand that people come to Him for forgiveness and then refuse to give them what they need to obey Him.”

Here is your wrong assumption again that God is obligated to us. Yes God does demand them to repent, yet while they are still in their sinful state they will never do it. God bestows mercy on whomever he wills and leaves the rest in their own sinful condition. This is again grace. Grace is undeserved mercy, not deserved mercy for my ‘good works’ or ‘conditions’ I have met.

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

Nonesense. “Not all Israel is Israel”- individuals? Mercy on whom he will- mercy is grace- individuals. Some clay for noble purposes, some for not- individuals. Objects of mercy/objects of wrath- individuals. Not to mention the end of chapter 9 and chapter 10 which is clearly dealing with salvation via faith not works. So again your presumption divorces the context of the passage.

“However but His ultimate knowledge of what Pharoah would do is never done until Pharoah first hardens his own heart.”
Does Exodus 4 and 7 say “God foreknew what Pharoah would do and therefore after Pharoah does harden his heart, then I will harden it”, or does it say clearly “that God will be the one who hardens Pharoahs heart”. The verse is not passive and observatory. Dance all you like, but the text speaks for itself. Again please be consistent with you interest in ‘precise grammar’.

Cheryl

“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.”

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! 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.
As a greek scholar I am surprised at your comments. It could be true that Eph 2 could have been in the imperfect tense, but it is not. 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. 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.
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. You ought to be faithful to the grammar and explore ALL the functions of it as determined by the context around it. 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.
So no, you have not dismantled or disproven this ‘calvinist proof text’, quite the contrary actually. You have shown your own bias and neglected how the actual grammar can and has functioned in this passage.

Hi Cheryl,

Thankyou for your comments. A few points… you are correct that the verb to be in verse 1 is a present participle- I missed that and I’m glad you corrected me. However this does not change a thing, since a present participle is used as a contrast. For example it is very hard to translate that into English, but the most ‘wooden’ approach is to apply the word ‘while’. Thus the verse would read…”while you were dead in your trespasses…God made you alive”, thus the present participle stills gives the contrasting effect- thus why it is in the present tense. At the very time when God made us alive in Christ, we were presently dead in sin. So therefore the present participle of ‘to be’ still in effect constrasts a previous state to a new one.

Now like I have said the context ought to decide. Now it is clear in verses 1-10 that Paul is constrating a past situation with a new. He is not saying you can be both dead and alive at the same time. My position (and in fact pretty much all greek commentators) is also confirmed by the rest of the chapter. Look at verses 11 to the end of the chapter. Paul is calling them to ‘remember’ their ‘flesh’ nature and how they were seperated from Christ, but now in Christ they have been changed.

So although the present can imply a continuous event, to interpret in this way divorces the verse from the context of the passage.

Now in relation to Rom 6:11 you have made the same mistake. Look at the conjunctions ‘men’ and ‘de’ Now if you know how these conjunctions work, you would know that when the two are used in the constructing precisely like Rom 6:11, a contrast is being made. So the verse essentially said “consider yourselves to be (on the one hand) dead to sin but (on the other hand) alive to God”. See the contrast? The conjunctions are used grammatically in this way to make that contrast. So no, Paul is not saying you can be both dead and alive at the same time. We are dead to sin because we are alive in Christ, in the same way as Eph 2, when we were dead in sins, but are now alive in Christ.

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

This is very true. But the problem I see with your view, is that you are divorcing the verses from their context, and therefore not allowing the actual inspired grammar to function properly. Sure a present tense can be a continuous state of being, as your grammar friend has pointed out, but and it’s a big but, the context always decides the meaning.You need to show from the context of Eph 2 how your grammar construction makes sense. As for Roman’s 6, you are simply wrong becasue the conjunctions are clear and cannot be interpreted in the way you have said.

Gazza,

What you need to realise is that the Koine Greek present tense, is not the same as the English present tense. So therefore if a greek verb is in the present tense, it does not neccessarily imply a continuous state of action (contra Cheryl’s interpretation). The context of the passage decides the time factors involved. Now if it was a participle it would be something that goes on and on and on. However the present tense can be an action that ceases to exist i.e- past tense or as people say ‘undefined’ aspect.

So you are right to think that in Eph 2 Paul has a past tense view in mind. It is the context that determines this usage. Paul is relating between a previous condition (dead) and a new condition (being alive). The conjunction in verse 4 ‘But God’ rightly reveals this to us. We were at one time dead in sin (present greek, but past meaning) ‘but God’ has made us alive. The whole context of the chapter confirms what you believe, thus why so many translations decide to translate into the english past tense- it captures accurately what Paul’s meaning is. The use of the greek present tense (as opposed to imperfect or aorist) makes this passage more emphatic. It shows the nature that people were and are in, namely dead in sin. It helps emphasise the actual grace that is bestowed upon us by God.

Don’t be fooled by Cheryl’s argument of the greek present tense. Her interpretation is not correct. It is the context that decides the meaning of the greek present tense, and in this case the meaning is clear. Paul is contrasting a previous condition with a new one- dead/alive! Thus the clear meaning of the present tense here is an undefined action as opposed to a continuous one.

Also notice that the translations that Cheryl gave that do translate into a english present tense ‘being dead’ does not exclude the past tense meaning- “you being dead, God made alive”. The context of the usage still allows a past/new contrast.

Basically my point is, the greek present tense can have a non continuous action meaning which basically translates into English past tense. All the terms sound messy, but all you need to realise is that what you believe about the text is supported grammatically by the Greek.