Freed from : Calvinism-TULIP-5 points Hyper-Calvinism

[GodsGrace]

It's morning here, had my first 2 coffees, mind is clear, let's review,



This is what you addressed the "ego of man", excellent subject.

On which I replied -



I thought you would understand what Jesus said, although you are evil, but apparently you did not. Lemme explain, but before, realize I did take your Define the ego in man for me @ProDeo. not personally.

When I came to Christ the big cleaning started with :

1. no more more lying, not that I was a big liar, but so now and then it was handy to protect my interests and ego.
2. admitting that I at times was wrong, being wrong is pretty normal when you are just 24, but admitting you are wrong to yourself is not fine for the ego, let alone in public. For me that became a major step.
3. Hurting someone, whether deliberately out of anger or unconsciously with good intentions, apologize to the person, hard, hard, because I was right after all, wasn't I? Let alone in public, 10 times harder, oh my poor ego, down to the drain, but I overcame.
4. Whatever more, I am certain the list is longer.

And even so, now that I have overcome these things I still see a lot of selfishness in myself. I like positive attention, bolstering my ego. I love the "likes" I receive here, in the meantime telling myself to remain humble, I write software and when I release a new version I get a lot of praise and I like it. Am I really that humble as I am used to see myself? It sometimes feels as hypocritical triggered by selfishness.

What about the 12 apostles, Peter wanted a reward (Matt 19:27), Paul even expected no more than a crown from Jesus when he died (2Tim 4:7-8)
Is it all wrong then, not pure like Jesus?

I think it's mixed.

Matt 7:11 If you then, although you are evil,

Yes.

You just got another like!

 

[GodsGrace]

I think to understand this verse is to read in context and the context is v19

John 12:19 So the Pharisees said to one another, “You see that you are gaining nothing. Look, the world has gone after him.”

Give it a thought.

Why do you believe John 12:19 explains John 12:32?
19 states that the crowds were ALREADY going after Jesus.

How about verses 30-31?
John 12:30-31
30 Jesus answered and said, "This voice has not come for My sake, but for your sakes.
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."

In the OT the Holy Spirit also was with man...but He did not dwell within man and thus man knew
only to work and had a heart of stone.

Satan is the prince of the air...the ruler of this world.
With the sacrifice being completed in temporal time, all men could now see the great love of God
and the sacrifice required to buy man back from the grip of satan.

The Holy Spirit now dwells WITHIN US...a heart of flesh.
The law written on the heart so that the works changes to become obedience, yes,
but obedience out of faith. Romans 1:5

Jesus' great love calls all of mankind to Himself (those that come to know about Him).

 

[GodsGrace]

Because of people like Leighton Flowers, people think Arminians sound like Calvinists just because they believe in inability as well.

Calvinists don't get every single thing wrong. They believe in the Trinity, inspiration of Scripture, heaven and hell.

Believing in the Trinity doesn't make one "sound Calvinist." THE distinctive thing of Calvinism is the removal of real free will.

BTW,,,just for clarification..
I DO know who L. Flowers is.
I know he used to be Calvinist and has converted.
He has a YouTube channel that specializes in Calvinist discussions.
I've watched him and understand what he teaches and, of course, I agree with it.
It's just that I don't spend a lot of time watching his programs. They seem to be
very long.
I find that mainline Christianity explains all we need to know,,,although reading about Calvinism (which I've done)
and watching some YouTube stuff DOES help.
Reading Calvin is crucial and also at least one of the Confessions.
I also know the following from YouTube...L. Flowers holds no special place for me except I do appreciate his work....
James White
RC Sproul
John MacArthur
John Piper
Doug Wilson

To say KNOW is too overstate!

 

[ProDeo]

Why do you believe John 12:19 explains John 12:32?
19 states that the crowds were ALREADY going after Jesus.

Yep, Pharisees using hyperbole, see the red, they were angry Jesus got so much attention.

John 12:19 So the Pharisees said to one another, “You see that you are gaining nothing. Look, the world has gone after him.”

John 12:32 And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself.”
John 12:33 He said this to show by what kind of death he was going to die.

verse 33 explains verse 32, Jesus is saying -- will draw all people to myself -- when He hangs 2-3 meter from earth on a cross, the word "all" here I understand "getting even more attention" in reply to the Pharisees.

Years ago I have been an universalist for a short time, I am back now on the old familiar nest, but John 12:32 certainly played a role in my decision to become an universalist back then. And as you can see it in this thread it creates a lot of misunderstandings, is the draw irresistible or not, the discussion has arrived on this point.

It's not needed, even futile IMHO, Jesus in return to the Pharisees is using even more hyperbole, getting even more attention watching the spectacle, His crucifixion. There is no theology in 12:32 IMHO.

 

[Dizerner]

What do you think of this?
All religious systems that came about recently are heretical:
Jehovah Witnesses
7th Day Adventists
Church of Later Day Saints
even Islam

Well, you must realize a lot of denominations claim their teaching goes back and they are not really new. Plus if by your own admission the majority of the visible church went away from the truth, then going back to Scripture alone can seem new. But let's put that aside for now as it doesn't matter that much.

What makes a false doctrine a true heresy instead of just a false teaching, would be that it is damnable, you cannot be saved holding it. But the atonement covers a lot of false doctrine. This is why the single most central doctrine in Christianity is the atonement and what it means, because it is whereby our sins can be forgiven. If we hold a bare belief that Jesus' suffering atones for our sins, we have placed our trust in the atonement, even if we add on a bunch of ridiculous and silly false doctrines like thinking Jesus didn't really suffer what our sins actually deserve. But it gets tricky around here, and we are talking about the difference between an eternity in bliss or torture, so it's kind of a big deal if one cares about the truth. SDAs deny hell exists, but they still believe they need an atonement. I would say the JW and the LDS do not really accept the need for an atonement. But even a Unitarian or Universalist can admit they need atonement potentially. Calvinists and Provisionists, despite their serious errors, still believe they need an atonement for sins in Christ. The Work of Christ is the true dividing line between salvation and damnation.

As for Provisionism, it often double speaks, just like Calvinism does. At one moment it will kind of accept the need for Preceding Grace, at another moment practically deny it. Realize it is a more evil thing to put good in man than to put evil in God, and why is that? Because if you put good into man you lessen your acknowledgement of need for God's grace, but if you put evil in God, you can still admit you are evil anyway, so your putting evil in God is an evil thing, and you don't deny your capacity or predisposition to do evil things, you know you need Jesus. But start to put goodness in man again, and you lessen more and more your need for Jesus' atoning work. This is why self-righteousness is one of the most serious sins.

What would make a person reject inability? Inability is not divine determinism, it is simply an acknowledge of need for grace.

I would propose to you very strongly that the ONLY reason a person would want to reject inability is some claim to goodness in themselves, whether they want to really admit that or not, because why would anyone fight against exalting our need for grace, why would anyone fight against God's grace, it makes no sense.

And so, there is no evil in saying we are incapable without the grace of God.

Who ever thought the need for grace is evil?!!

Let them repent.

 

[Johann]

@Johann

This post is strictly between you and me since you also speak other languages.
I speak 3.
So, at times, it helps me to read the bible in a different language that is closer to the Greek
and thus is easier to translate.

Take a look at the translation for the verses in question.....

John 6:44
44 Nessuno può venire a me, se non lo attira il Padre che mi ha mandato; e io lo risusciterò nell'ultimo giorno.

John 12:32
“Gesù dice: “io, quando sarò innalzato dalla terra, attirerò tutti a me”.


Those such as atpollard want the word to mean DRAG,,,or at the least, DRAW BY FORCE.
Since it would not fit properly for John 12:32 all types of other excuses are found...for instance the idea that Jesus is speaking about different types of people instead of ALL MEN (since that would be universalism).
This is incorrect.



So let's look at how dragged by force is translated:
Acts 8:3
3Saulo intanto devastava la chiesa, entrando di casa in casa; e, trascinando via uomini e donne, li metteva in prigione.


Any way we want to study this John 6:44 cannot mean the same as John 12:32, which the reformed must work around to let it make sense.
Even in the English language Acts 8:3 uses the word DRAG....the translators wanting to show a violent action or a forceful action.

As you know,,,,ATTIRARE means to draw in an influential way,,,not in an efficacious way....to invite would also be acceptable.

Knowing a different language helps a lot even in understanding scripture..
Not that I would discuss this with another member....

Give me a momento, just woke up-01.18 PM here in South Africa.

J.

 

[Johann]

It's morning here, had my first 2 coffees, mind is clear, let's review,



This is what you addressed the "ego of man", excellent subject.

On which I replied -



I thought you would understand what Jesus said, although you are evil, but apparently you did not. Lemme explain, but before, realize I did take your Define the ego in man for me @ProDeo. not personally.

When I came to Christ the big cleaning started with :

1. no more more lying, not that I was a big liar, but so now and then it was handy to protect my interests and ego.
2. admitting that I at times was wrong, being wrong is pretty normal when you are just 24, but admitting you are wrong to yourself is not fine for the ego, let alone in public. For me that became a major step.
3. Hurting someone, whether deliberately out of anger or unconsciously with good intentions, apologize to the person, hard, hard, because I was right after all, wasn't I? Let alone in public, 10 times harder, oh my poor ego, down to the drain, but I overcame.
4. Whatever more, I am certain the list is longer.

And even so, now that I have overcome these things I still see a lot of selfishness in myself. I like positive attention, bolstering my ego. I love the "likes" I receive here, in the meantime telling myself to remain humble, I write software and when I release a new version I get a lot of praise and I like it. Am I really that humble as I am used to see myself? It sometimes feels as hypocritical triggered by selfishness.

What about the 12 apostles, Peter wanted a reward (Matt 19:27), Paul even expected no more than a crown from Jesus when he died (2Tim 4:7-8)
Is it all wrong then, not pure like Jesus?

I think it's mixed.

Matt 7:11 If you then, although you are evil,

Yes.

Well thanks, was thinking more on Romans 7. You know, the Pauline epistles so many avoid.

J.

 

[Johann]

@Johann

This post is strictly between you and me since you also speak other languages.
I speak 3.
So, at times, it helps me to read the bible in a different language that is closer to the Greek
and thus is easier to translate.

Take a look at the translation for the verses in question.....

John 6:44
44 Nessuno può venire a me, se non lo attira il Padre che mi ha mandato; e io lo risusciterò nell'ultimo giorno.

John 12:32
“Gesù dice: “io, quando sarò innalzato dalla terra, attirerò tutti a me”.


Those such as atpollard want the word to mean DRAG,,,or at the least, DRAW BY FORCE.
Since it would not fit properly for John 12:32 all types of other excuses are found...for instance the idea that Jesus is speaking about different types of people instead of ALL MEN (since that would be universalism).
This is incorrect.



So let's look at how dragged by force is translated:
Acts 8:3
3Saulo intanto devastava la chiesa, entrando di casa in casa; e, trascinando via uomini e donne, li metteva in prigione.


Any way we want to study this John 6:44 cannot mean the same as John 12:32, which the reformed must work around to let it make sense.
Even in the English language Acts 8:3 uses the word DRAG....the translators wanting to show a violent action or a forceful action.

As you know,,,,ATTIRARE means to draw in an influential way,,,not in an efficacious way....to invite would also be acceptable.

Knowing a different language helps a lot even in understanding scripture..
Not that I would discuss this with another member....

I don’t intend to close down the conversation, Sorella, but it’s essential to recognize that the context and intended audience in John 6 are primarily Jewish.

Also, my studies go beyond word studies-I engage deeply with syntax and grammar, which makes personal exegesis a genuine pleasure.

@Dizerner has access to both Logos and Accordance, and I believe he’ll be a valuable contributor in this rigorous and intense discussion.

--the audience in John 6 was unmistakably Jewish, both in terms of ethnicity and religious framework.
They were steeped in the Torah, familiar with the Exodus and manna narrative, and were reacting from within a matrix of Second Temple Jewish messianic expectations.
The verbs, questions, and responses show a high degree of theological literacy rooted in Jewish tradition and Scripture.

And as to this--


The recipients in John 12:32 include both Jews and Gentiles, with the explicit mention of Greeks in v. 20 serving as the narrative catalyst for Jesus' statement about “drawing all.”

The verb ἑλκύσω (from ἑλκύω) here is not used of a select ethnic group but of the entire human race, highlighting the universal scope of Christ’s redemptive work through the cross.

Not by force, but through the "wooing" of the Holy Spirit upon the soul. Not by power or by might, but---?

Shalom.

J.

CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Free Will

The question of free will, moral liberty, or the liberum arbitrium of the Schoolmen, ranks amongst the three or four most important philosophical problems of all time

www.newadvent.org

 

[GodsGrace]

Yep, Pharisees using hyperbole, see the red, they were angry Jesus got so much attention.

John 12:19 So the Pharisees said to one another, “You see that you are gaining nothing. Look, the world has gone after him.”

John 12:32 And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself.”
John 12:33 He said this to show by what kind of death he was going to die.

verse 33 explains verse 32, Jesus is saying -- will draw all people to myself -- when He hangs 2-3 meter from earth on a cross, the word "all" here I understand "getting even more attention" in reply to the Pharisees.

Years ago I have been an universalist for a short time, I am back now on the old familiar nest, but John 12:32 certainly played a role in my decision to become an universalist back then. And as you can see it in this thread it creates a lot of misunderstandings, is the draw irresistible or not, the discussion has arrived on this point.

It's not needed, even futile IMHO, Jesus in return to the Pharisees is using even more hyperbole, getting even more attention watching the spectacle, His crucifixion. There is no theology in 12:32 IMHO.

I have to agree.
Except that the reformed have to understand all of scripture their own way.
They want to believe that John 6:44 means that God drags people to Jesus...
so then a problem arises with John 12:32.

Universalism is the same.
Some verses SOUND universalist,,,but the bible must be understood as a complete thought
so these beliefs can be quickly refuted.

Anyway, you have an interesting perspective. It's always good to hear new ideas.

 

[GodsGrace]

I don’t intend to close down the conversation, Sorella, but it’s essential to recognize that the context and intended audience in John 6 are primarily Jewish.

Also, my studies go beyond word studies-I engage deeply with syntax and grammar, which makes personal exegesis a genuine pleasure.

@Dizerner has access to both Logos and Accordance, and I believe he’ll be a valuable contributor in this rigorous and intense discussion.

--the audience in John 6 was unmistakably Jewish, both in terms of ethnicity and religious framework.
They were steeped in the Torah, familiar with the Exodus and manna narrative, and were reacting from within a matrix of Second Temple Jewish messianic expectations.
The verbs, questions, and responses show a high degree of theological literacy rooted in Jewish tradition and Scripture.

And as to this--


The recipients in John 12:32 include both Jews and Gentiles, with the explicit mention of Greeks in v. 20 serving as the narrative catalyst for Jesus' statement about “drawing all.”

The verb ἑλκύσω (from ἑλκύω) here is not used of a select ethnic group but of the entire human race, highlighting the universal scope of Christ’s redemptive work through the cross.

Not by force, but through the "wooing" of the Holy Spirit upon the soul. Not by power or by might, but---?

Shalom.

J.

CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Free Will

The question of free will, moral liberty, or the liberum arbitrium of the Schoolmen, ranks amongst the three or four most important philosophical problems of all time

www.newadvent.org

Agreed on all.

 

[GodsGrace]

I don’t intend to close down the conversation, Sorella, but it’s essential to recognize that the context and intended audience in John 6 are primarily Jewish.

Also, my studies go beyond word studies-I engage deeply with syntax and grammar, which makes personal exegesis a genuine pleasure.

@Dizerner has access to both Logos and Accordance, and I believe he’ll be a valuable contributor in this rigorous and intense discussion.

--the audience in John 6 was unmistakably Jewish, both in terms of ethnicity and religious framework.
They were steeped in the Torah, familiar with the Exodus and manna narrative, and were reacting from within a matrix of Second Temple Jewish messianic expectations.
The verbs, questions, and responses show a high degree of theological literacy rooted in Jewish tradition and Scripture.

And as to this--


The recipients in John 12:32 include both Jews and Gentiles, with the explicit mention of Greeks in v. 20 serving as the narrative catalyst for Jesus' statement about “drawing all.”

The verb ἑλκύσω (from ἑλκύω) here is not used of a select ethnic group but of the entire human race, highlighting the universal scope of Christ’s redemptive work through the cross.

Not by force, but through the "wooing" of the Holy Spirit upon the soul. Not by power or by might, but---?

Shalom.

J.

CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Free Will

The question of free will, moral liberty, or the liberum arbitrium of the Schoolmen, ranks amongst the three or four most important philosophical problems of all time

www.newadvent.org

I looked at the link for Free Will.
I got a headache!!

Do you agree with me that it means the ability to choose between different moral acts/teacings with no outside coercion?

For instance...God decreeing our decision would be an outside coercion.

 

[Dizerner]

@Dizerner has access to both Logos and Accordance, and I believe he’ll be a valuable contributor in this rigorous and intense discussion.

Please note the basic package of Logos is actually free for anyone interested.


Here's what my go-to lexicon says:


1657. ἑλκύω helkuō verb

Drag, draw, force, persuade.

Synonyms:

ἀντλέω antleō (498)
ἀποσπάω apospaō (639)
ἐξέρχομαι exerchomai (1814)
κατασύρω katasurō (2663)
σπάω spaō (4538)
σύρω surō (4803)

Septuagint:

גָּלָה gālâh (1580), Flow away, carry away (Jb 20:28).
גָּרַר gārar (1688), Drag (Hab 1:15).
מָשָׁה māshâh (5056), Hiphil: draw (2 Sm 22:17).
מָשַׁךְ māshakh (5082), Draw, drag (Dt 21:3; Ps 10:9 [9:30]; SS 1:4).
נְגַד neghadh (A5223), Flow, came forth (Dn 7:10—Aramaic).
נוּף nûph (5311), Hiphil: wield (Isa 10:15).
שָׂדַד sādhadh (7897), Piel: till, harrow (Jb 39:10).
שָׁאַף shā’aph (8079), Pant (Eccl 1:5; Jer 14:6).
שָׁלַף shālaph (8418), Arm (with sword), draw (Jgs 20:2, 15, 17, 25).

Grammatical Forms:

1. ἕλκουσιν helkousin 3 pl indic pres act
2. εἵλκυσεν ehilkusen 3 sing indic aor act
3. εἵλκυσαν ehilkusan 3 pl indic aor act
4. ἑλκύσῃ helkusē 3 sing subj aor act
5. ἑλκύσαι helkusai inf aor act
6. ἑλκύσω helkusō 1 sing indic fut act
7. εἷλκον ehilkon 3 pl indic imperf act

Concordance:

4 except the Father which hath sent me draw him: John 6:44
6 And I, … will draw all men unto me. John 12:32
2 Then Simon Peter having a sword drew it, John 18:10
5 and now they were not able to draw it John 21:6
2 and drew the net to land full of great fishes, John 21:11
3 drew them into the marketplace unto the rulers, Acts 16:19
7 they took Paul, and drew him out of the temple: Acts 21:30
1 and draw you before the judgment seats? Jas 2:6

Word Studies:

Helkuō (also spelled helkō) appears eight times in the New Testament. The uniform translation in the KJV is to “draw.” Both literal and figurative uses can be identified. It is used of drawing a sword from its scabbard (John 18:10), of bringing a net up onto a shore (John 21:11), of Paul and Silas being dragged into the marketplace in Philippi (Acts 16:19), of bringing Paul out of the temple (Acts 21:30), and of hauling believers before courts (James 2:6).

Vine notes that helkō usually signifies an act of relative gentleness, as opposed to surō (4803) which means “drag” (Expository Dictionary, “Drag”). This distinction may be important when the word is used to describe the divine drawing of men to Christ (John 6:44; 12:32). Both the Song of Solomon (1:4) and Jeremiah (31:3) use this term to describe the inner compulsion or drawing of love. Thus the crucified Saviour draws the attention of all and the faith of some.

Resource Tools:

Strong <G1670>
Bauer 251 (see “helkō”)
Moulton-Milligan 204
Kittel 2:503–4 (see “helkō”)
Liddell-Scott 534 (see “helkō”)

Thoralf Gilbrant, “Ἑλκύω,” in The New Testament Greek-English Dictionary, The Complete Biblical Library (WORDsearch, 1991).

 

[Dizerner]

For anyone interested, here is my Biblical explanation and proof of free will:

Post in thread 'An Article on free will'

Dec 31, 2024

Ever heard the phrase "free will is not in the Bible?" This is a misleading assertion made by many, as if only a certain specificity of statement can communicate an idea. But I do not accept the Trinity because it is explicitly declared in Scripture, but rather that it is in inevitable deduction from the stated data. Thus there is no shame or wrong in any idea not being stated as clearly as it could possibly be stated, when it can be clearly deduced. Hence, the philosophical notion of libertarian freedom is under the same umbrella, for just as the Trinity is deduced from Scripture...

• Dizerner

 

[Johann]

I looked at the link for Free Will.
I got a headache!!

Do you agree with me that it means the ability to choose between different moral acts/teacings with no outside coercion?

For instance...God decreeing our decision would be an outside coercion.

Not particularly interested in what the Early Church Fathers had to say? If you ever are, here’s a simple way to explore it: just type, “What did the pre-Augustinian Church Fathers say about John 12:44?”

As I mentioned earlier, I just woke up and this is my real-time quiet space—I’m hoping to remain more of an observer than an active participant in all the sharp critiques flying around.

J.

 

[Johann]

For anyone interested, here is my Biblical explanation and proof of free will:

Post in thread 'An Article on free will'

Dec 31, 2024

Ever heard the phrase "free will is not in the Bible?" This is a misleading assertion made by many, as if only a certain specificity of statement can communicate an idea. But I do not accept the Trinity because it is explicitly declared in Scripture, but rather that it is in inevitable deduction from the stated data. Thus there is no shame or wrong in any idea not being stated as clearly as it could possibly be stated, when it can be clearly deduced. Hence, the philosophical notion of libertarian freedom is under the same umbrella, for just as the Trinity is deduced from Scripture...

• Dizerner

I'm not denying human volition, otherwise how on earth are we to respond to the Imperatives of Christ?

J.

 

[civic]

I respectfully disagree.
Foreknew is a relational context. God did not know ABOUT us, God KNEW us (relationally).
That does not describe a “corporate” salvation.

Nothing you describe in the Greek definition of the word

Strong's Lexicon
proginóskó: To foreknow, to know beforehand
Original Word: προγινώσκω
Part of Speech: Verb
Transliteration: proginóskó
Pronunciation: prog-ee-NO-sko
Phonetic Spelling: (prog-in-oce'-ko)
Definition: To foreknow, to know beforehand
Meaning: I know beforehand, foreknow.

Word Origin: From πρό (pro, "before") and γινώσκω (ginóskó, "to know")

Corresponding Greek / Hebrew Entries: While there is no direct Hebrew equivalent for "proginóskó," the concept of God's foreknowledge can be related to Hebrew terms like ידע (yada, "to know") and חזה (chazah, "to see" or "to perceive"), which convey God's intimate knowledge and perception.

Usage: The Greek verb "proginóskó" means to have knowledge of something before it happens or to have foreknowledge. In the New Testament, it is often used in the context of God's omniscience and His divine plan, indicating His knowledge of events or individuals before they come into existence or before they occur.

Englishman's Concordance
Acts 26:5 V-PPA-NMP
GRK: προγινώσκοντές με ἄνωθεν
NAS: since they have known about me for a long time,
KJV: Which knew me from the beginning,
INT: who before knew me from the first
Romans 8:29 V-AIA-3S
GRK: ὅτι οὓς προέγνω καὶ προώρισεν
NAS: For those whom He foreknew, He also
KJV: For whom he did foreknow, he also
INT: Because those whom he foreknew also he predestined [to be]

Romans 11:2 V-AIA-3S
GRK: αὐτοῦ ὃν προέγνω ἢ οὐκ
NAS: whom He foreknew. Or
KJV: people which he foreknew. Wot ye
INT: of him whom he foreknew or not

1 Peter 1:20 V-RPM/P-GMS
GRK: προεγνωσμένου μὲν πρὸ
NAS: For He was foreknown before
KJV: Who verily was foreordained before
INT: having been foreknown indeed before

2 Peter 3:17 V-PPA-NMP
GRK: οὖν ἀγαπητοί προγινώσκοντες φυλάσσεσθε ἵνα
NAS: beloved, knowing this beforehand, be on your guard
KJV: beloved, seeing ye know [these things] before, beware
INT: therefore beloved knowing beforehand beware that

Strong's Greek 4267
5 Occurrences

 

[Dizerner]

Nothing you describe in the Greek definition of the word

They really go on fanciful flights of theoretical speculation with this word, lol.

Almost had me for a bit until I studied each instance of it, and they just made it up.

 

[civic]

They really go on fanciful flights of theoretical speculation with this word, lol.

Almost had me for a bit until I studied each instance of it, and they just made it up.

Been there and done that as a calvinst where you read your doctrine into scripture. But when you are doing it , its hard to see thats the case. You think its biblical/scriptural. The problem is most do not see themselves reading their doctrine into scripture which as we know is eisegesis.

Even when words have various meanings we can consult the lexicons to see if they are in agreement on how that word is being used in a specific passage and how it might differ from the same word in another passage. But most of the time this never happens.

As an example miseo/hate have several different meanings and when it says God hated Esau its not how calvinists understand it since it means to love less. But because of their doctrines they must deny that as the meaning therefor reading their doctrine into the passage.


miseó: to hate

Original Word: μισέω
Part of Speech: Verb
Transliteration: miseó
Phonetic Spelling: (mis-eh'-o)
Definition: to hate
Usage: I hate, detest, love less, esteem less.

HELPS Word-studies

3404 miséō – properly, to detest (on a comparativebasis); hence, denounce; to love someone or something less than someone(something) else, i.e. to renounce one choice in favor of another.

Lk 14:26: "If anyone comes to Me, and does not hate (3404 /miséō, 'love less' than the Lord) his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be My disciple" (NASU).

[Note the comparative meaning of 3404 (miséō) which centers in moral choice, elevating one value over another.]

to be disinclined to, disfavor, disregard in contrast to preferential treatment (Gn 29:31; Dt 21:15, 16) Mt 6:24; Lk 16:13. τὴν ψυχὴν αὐτοῦ J 12:25 or ἑαυτοῦ Lk 14:26 (cp. the formulation Plut, Mor. 556d οὐδʼ ἐμίσουν ἑαυτούς; on the theme cp. Tyrtaeus [VII B.C.] 8, 5 D.3). Ro 9:13 BDAG


BDAG.
② to be disinclined to, disfavor, disregard in contrast to preferential treatment (Gn 29:31; Dt 21:15, 16) Mt 6:24; Lk 16:13. τὴν ψυχὴν αὐτοῦ J 12:25 or ἑαυτοῦ Lk 14:26 (cp. the formulation Plut, Mor. 556d οὐδʼ ἐμίσουν ἑαυτούς; on the theme cp. Tyrtaeus [VII B.C.] 8, 5 D.3). Ro 9:13 (Mal 1:2f). Perh. 2 Cl 6:6 (s. 1b). (JDenney, The Word ‘Hate’ in Lk 14:26: ET 21, 1910, 41f; WBleibtreu, Paradoxe Aussprüche Jesu: Theol. Arbeiten aus d. wissensch. Prediger-Verein d. Rheinprovinz, new ser. 20, 24, 15–35; RSockman, The Paradoxes of J. ’36).—ACarr, The Mng. of ‘Hatred’ in the NT: Exp. 6th ser., 12, 1905, 153–60.—DELG. M-M. EDNT. TW.

And here is a Greek Scholar/Teacher Robert Mounce

I loved, but Esau I hated” (Mal 1:2–3). This should not be interpreted to mean that God actually hated Esau. The strong contrast is a Semitic idiom that heightens the comparison by stating it in absolute terms. 17

Robert H. Mounce, Romans, vol. 27, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1995), 198–199.

Berkeley softens the contrast translating, “To Jacob I was drawn, but Esau I repudiated” (the NRSV has “chose” and “rejected”). In discussing the “hatred” of God, Michel comments that it “is not so much an emotion as a rejection in will and deed” (TDNT 4.687).

Robert H. Mounce, Romans, vol. 27, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1995).

Here are more renown Scholars

Esau I hated. I.e., “loved less,” according to an ancient Near Eastern hyperbole. It expresses the lack of gratuitous election of Esau and the Edomites (Idumaeans). See Gen 29:30–31: “he loved Rachel more than Leah …; when the Lord saw that Leah was hated …”; cf. Deut 21:15–17; compare Luke 14:26 (“hate”) with Matt 10:37 (“love more”). There is no hint here of predestination to “grace” or “glory” of an individual; it is an expression of the choice of corporate Israel over corporate Edom.

Joseph A. Fitzmyer S.J., Romans: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, vol. 33, Anchor Yale Bible (New Haven; London: Yale University Press, 2008), 563.

13. Characteristically Paul backs up his argument with a quotation from Scripture, this one from Malachi 1:2–3: “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.” Two questions are important here: Is Paul referring to nations or individuals? and What is meant by hated? As to the first, we have just seen that the Genesis passage refers primarily to nations and we would expect that to continue here. That this is the case seems clear from what Malachi writes about Esau: “Esau I have hated, and I have turned his mountains into a wasteland and left his inheritance to the desert jackals” (Mal. 1:3). Both in Genesis and Malachi the reference is clearly to nations, and we should accept this as Paul’s meaning accordingly.

The meaning of hated is a different kind of problem. There is a difficulty in that Scripture speaks of a love of God for the whole world (John 3:16) and the meaning of “God is love” (1 John 4:8, 16) is surely that God loves, quite irrespective of merit or demerit in the beloved. Specifically he is said to love sinners (Rom. 5:8). It is also true that in Scripture there are cases where “hate” seems clearly to mean “love less” (e.g., Gen. 29:31, 33; Deut. 21:15; Matt. 6:24; Luke 14:26; John 12:25). Many find this an acceptable solution here: God loved Esau (and the nation Edom) less than he loved Jacob (and Israel). But it is perhaps more likely that like Calvin we should understand the expression in the sense “reject” over against “accept”. He explains the passage thus: “I chose Jacob and rejected Esau, induced to this course by my mercy alone, and not by any worthiness in his works.… I had rejected the Edomites.…” This accords with the stress throughout this passage on the thought of election for service. God chose Israel for this role; he did not so choose Edom. Leon Morris, The Epistle to the Romans,

hope this helps !!!

 

[ProDeo]

Been there and done that as a calvinst where you read your doctrine into scripture.

You hit the nail on the head.

But when you are doing it , its hard to see thats the case.

That's the hard part, the realization / awareness you are doing that.

You think its biblical/scriptural.

Yep.

Next step (strictly speaking for myself), I am still doing it, but I am aware and on my guard. Example, ever since I realized the Trinity is real I will automatically defend it, I read the Scriptures with the Trinity in mind but I will still listen to the argumentation of those who reject Jesus as God the Son.

The problem is most do not see themselves reading their doctrine into scripture which as we know is eisegesis.

Even when words have various meanings we can consult the lexicons to see if they are in agreement on how that word is being used in a specific passage and how it might differ from the same word in another passage. But most of the time this never happens.

As an example miseo/hate have several different meanings and when it says God hated Esau its not how calvinists understand it since it means to love less. But because of their doctrines they must deny that as the meaning therefor reading their doctrine into the passage.


miseó: to hate

Original Word: μισέω
Part of Speech: Verb
Transliteration: miseó
Phonetic Spelling: (mis-eh'-o)
Definition: to hate
Usage: I hate, detest, love less, esteem less.

HELPS Word-studies

3404 miséō – properly, to detest (on a comparativebasis); hence, denounce; to love someone or something less than someone(something) else, i.e. to renounce one choice in favor of another.

Lk 14:26: "If anyone comes to Me, and does not hate (3404 /miséō, 'love less' than the Lord) his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be My disciple" (NASU).

[Note the comparative meaning of 3404 (miséō) which centers in moral choice, elevating one value over another.]

to be disinclined to, disfavor, disregard in contrast to preferential treatment (Gn 29:31; Dt 21:15, 16) Mt 6:24; Lk 16:13. τὴν ψυχὴν αὐτοῦ J 12:25 or ἑαυτοῦ Lk 14:26 (cp. the formulation Plut, Mor. 556d οὐδʼ ἐμίσουν ἑαυτούς; on the theme cp. Tyrtaeus [VII B.C.] 8, 5 D.3). Ro 9:13 BDAG


BDAG.
② to be disinclined to, disfavor, disregard in contrast to preferential treatment (Gn 29:31; Dt 21:15, 16) Mt 6:24; Lk 16:13. τὴν ψυχὴν αὐτοῦ J 12:25 or ἑαυτοῦ Lk 14:26 (cp. the formulation Plut, Mor. 556d οὐδʼ ἐμίσουν ἑαυτούς; on the theme cp. Tyrtaeus [VII B.C.] 8, 5 D.3). Ro 9:13 (Mal 1:2f). Perh. 2 Cl 6:6 (s. 1b). (JDenney, The Word ‘Hate’ in Lk 14:26: ET 21, 1910, 41f; WBleibtreu, Paradoxe Aussprüche Jesu: Theol. Arbeiten aus d. wissensch. Prediger-Verein d. Rheinprovinz, new ser. 20, 24, 15–35; RSockman, The Paradoxes of J. ’36).—ACarr, The Mng. of ‘Hatred’ in the NT: Exp. 6th ser., 12, 1905, 153–60.—DELG. M-M. EDNT. TW.

And here is a Greek Scholar/Teacher Robert Mounce

I loved, but Esau I hated” (Mal 1:2–3). This should not be interpreted to mean that God actually hated Esau. The strong contrast is a Semitic idiom that heightens the comparison by stating it in absolute terms. 17

Robert H. Mounce, Romans, vol. 27, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1995), 198–199.

Berkeley softens the contrast translating, “To Jacob I was drawn, but Esau I repudiated” (the NRSV has “chose” and “rejected”). In discussing the “hatred” of God, Michel comments that it “is not so much an emotion as a rejection in will and deed” (TDNT 4.687).

Robert H. Mounce, Romans, vol. 27, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1995).

Here are more renown Scholars

Esau I hated. I.e., “loved less,” according to an ancient Near Eastern hyperbole. It expresses the lack of gratuitous election of Esau and the Edomites (Idumaeans). See Gen 29:30–31: “he loved Rachel more than Leah …; when the Lord saw that Leah was hated …”; cf. Deut 21:15–17; compare Luke 14:26 (“hate”) with Matt 10:37 (“love more”). There is no hint here of predestination to “grace” or “glory” of an individual; it is an expression of the choice of corporate Israel over corporate Edom.

Joseph A. Fitzmyer S.J., Romans: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, vol. 33, Anchor Yale Bible (New Haven; London: Yale University Press, 2008), 563.

13. Characteristically Paul backs up his argument with a quotation from Scripture, this one from Malachi 1:2–3: “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.” Two questions are important here: Is Paul referring to nations or individuals? and What is meant by hated? As to the first, we have just seen that the Genesis passage refers primarily to nations and we would expect that to continue here. That this is the case seems clear from what Malachi writes about Esau: “Esau I have hated, and I have turned his mountains into a wasteland and left his inheritance to the desert jackals” (Mal. 1:3). Both in Genesis and Malachi the reference is clearly to nations, and we should accept this as Paul’s meaning accordingly.

The meaning of hated is a different kind of problem. There is a difficulty in that Scripture speaks of a love of God for the whole world (John 3:16) and the meaning of “God is love” (1 John 4:8, 16) is surely that God loves, quite irrespective of merit or demerit in the beloved. Specifically he is said to love sinners (Rom. 5:8). It is also true that in Scripture there are cases where “hate” seems clearly to mean “love less” (e.g., Gen. 29:31, 33; Deut. 21:15; Matt. 6:24; Luke 14:26; John 12:25). Many find this an acceptable solution here: God loved Esau (and the nation Edom) less than he loved Jacob (and Israel). But it is perhaps more likely that like Calvin we should understand the expression in the sense “reject” over against “accept”. He explains the passage thus: “I chose Jacob and rejected Esau, induced to this course by my mercy alone, and not by any worthiness in his works.… I had rejected the Edomites.…” This accords with the stress throughout this passage on the thought of election for service. God chose Israel for this role; he did not so choose Edom. Leon Morris, The Epistle to the Romans,

hope this helps !!!

Yep, Edom is Esau and Esau is Edom.

Like Israel is Jacob.

Another (sensitive) issue would be understanding the hyperbole that is often used in the Bible. Hyperbole was quite normal in ancient times, Jesus at times was using hyperbole, see the examples in the below gotquestions.org link. We are not used to that with our rational 21th century brains, but Jesus audience was used to it and understood exactly what He meant.

What is hyperbole? What are some examples of hyperbole in the Bible? | GotQuestions.org

What is hyperbole? What are some examples of hyperbole in the Bible? In what ways is hyperbole used in Scripture?

www.gotquestions.org

 

[atpollard]

Usage: The Greek verb "proginóskó" means to have knowledge of something before it happens or to have foreknowledge. In the New Testament, it is often used in the context of God's omniscience and His divine plan, indicating His knowledge of events or individuals before they come into existence or before they occur.

Romans 8:29 V-AIA-3S
GRK: ὅτι οὓς προέγνω καὶ προώρισεν
NAS: For those whom He foreknew, He also
KJV: For whom he did foreknow, he also
INT: Because those whom he foreknew also he

• Did he (GOD) know facts about? … [information]
• Did he (GOD) know THEM (actual people)? … [relation]