Why Some Arminians and Calvinists Need to Calm Down

[Thunderrr-mental]

Why Some Arminians and Calvinists Need to Calm Down
Theology
Mar 19
Written By Nate Sala
healthy-dispute-management.jpg
I’ll be honest. Wading into the murky quagmire that is the debate between Arminians and Calvinists is about as exciting to me as getting my wisdom teeth pulled. Oftentimes I find the disagreement to be less than gracious. Other times I find it to be vicious, condescending, and outright silly. Case in point: A recent blog caught my eye that tried to argue against Calvinism because, get this, Calvinists are big, dumb jerks! Just look at that Mark Driscoll guy! So did you catch that line of reasoning? Calvinists are rude therefore Calvinism is false. Well that’s a tasty sandwich topped with ad hominems, isn’t it? Another one argued against Arminianism by describing it as Pelagianism in different clothes (but forgetting to mention that the two are distinctly different). One particular forum even tried to say that Calvinists are secretly Pelagians. What?! Oh, and let’s not forget the old handy dandy “you guys aren’t real Christians” tripe.

Look, I’m not one who thumbs his nose from the sidelines while refusing to get his theological hands dirty. I hold a particular view on this issue (and have no problem sharing it when appropriate). But there is something that I think a lot of us have forgotten. The ongoing saga of Arminianism vs. Calvinism has been around for so long because Scripture appears to support both views. Just talk to a Calvinist or an Arminian. They can probably open their Bible and point you exactly where you need to go. Let’s face it: Arminians are just as confident waving around John 3 as Calvinists are whipping out Ephesians 1. Thing is, no one knows with a 100% certainty whether his view is correct. By the way I say “his” because I hardly see any women blowing a gasket over this issue.

So, fellow brothers in Christ, please help the rest of us, and yourselves, and this centuries-old debate by taking a deep breath and calming down. Since the goal of discussing this issue should be to get someone to consider your viewpoint fairly, then try to remember these simple tips:

#1 Don’t Be Obnoxious

Stop resorting to hyperbolic rhetoric to further your point. I mean it. If you don’t, I’m going to jam a million tooth picks through my earhole and into my brain until the part of me that recognizes hyperbole disappears. By the way, writing hyperbolically is not making an argument. It’s just writing hyperbolically. Perhaps that style of communicating is persuasive to some people but, for those of us who know better, it just looks childish. And the numerous exclamation points after sentences you want to emphasize!!!!!!!!! And the way your finger often slips off the shift key so that your seven exclamation points also now include the number one in the middle (!!!1!!!!) looks really sloppy. Also, incessantly italicizing words or phrases or typing in ALL CAPS TO REALLY EMPHASIZE YOUR POINT is not making an argument either. It just looks like you’re impulsive and probably screaming. In other words, if it takes all of these silly grammatical devices to make your point, then your argument (if it even exists at all) is likely weaker than the plot of Die Hard 5.

#2 Don’t Name-call

Calling your opponent a fake Christian if he disagrees with your viewpoint is never useful. It simply showcases the obvious insecurity in your own argument. That is, your argument should stand or fall on its own merits, not whether you’ve successfully intimidated your opposition through name-calling. Also, someone can just call you a fake Christian right back and now you’re stuck in a statistical dead heat in the first round. At the end of the day Arminians and Calvinists still believe in Jesus and His redemptive work on the cross. So, yes, people can actually disagree with you on this issue and still love the Lord. Trying to take away their salvation unless they think like you is almost as ridiculous as young-earthers suggesting that old-earthers are not real Christians. No, wait. That’s equally as ridiculous.

#3 Don’t Mischaracterize

Stop, stop, stop mischaracterizing your opponent’s point of view. Calvinists, stop telling people that Arminians deny God’s grace. Arminians, stop telling people that Calvinists believe everyone is a robot. I read a pro-Arminian post recently that went something like this: Calvinism is a false gospel that offers no eternal life or salvation by the Holy Spirit. Dear Arminian who decided that was actually worth writing down, perhaps you genuinely misunderstand your opponent’s view (in which case you never should have hit “send” on that post) or you do understand your opponent’s view and are purposely misleading others (in which case you probably shouldn’t own a computer). Brothers, in order to speak on a particular issue, you need to do your homework. And, by “homework,” I don’t mean skimming Wikipedia. Understanding your opponent’s view from his own perspective keeps you from landing a devastating uppercut on a jaw made entirely of straw. Think of it this way: If mischaracterizing opponents is what internet atheists do on Twitter, why would you want to do this to a fellow believer?

#4 Be Honest about Your Shortcomings

It seems to me that people from both camps tend to be, let’s just say, selective in the passages of Scripture that they cite in support of their view. That is, they selectively forget the ones that don’t support their view. Also, for some reason, I keep noticing that the average Arminian is way more interested in his system than citing Scripture while the average Calvinist doesn’t want to do anything but cite Scripture. Maybe that’s not characteristic of these groups. I’m open to that. The point is: In order to formulate a robust view, the Calvinist and the Arminian must deal with the problems their respective systems create. Calvinists, how do you square Luke 7:30 with your view? Arminians, how do you deal with Jesus’ own words in John 6:65? And, most importantly, are your answers sufficient to the challenge or are they just exercises in swatting them away?

In Conclusion

Here’s the point, gentlemen: Whether Arminian or Calvinist, neither of you is at 100% certainty in your respective views. I don’t need to meet any of you to know that you’re not. No one is. We are all somewhere between 51% and 100% certainty. But all of these issues I’ve raised so far seem to stem from those acting as if they’re 100% certain. So why don’t we all calm down, try to reconcile all of Scripture to our particular viewpoints (because maybe you have a good argument to share that we haven’t heard yet), and exhibit a heck of a lot more humility and less ostentation. I mean, isn’t the real purpose of these kinds of discussions to be winsome not gruesome?

Why Some Arminians and Calvinists Need to Calm Down

What I would like to know is.

Is there over exaggeration of exactly how many Calvinists and Arminians are actually here, and at the same are there any proclaiming there Doctrine is absolute authority.

Then I would like to know do doctrines preached against Calvinists.and Armenians, become some sort of self justification, to stomp ones authority.

It's seems the calvinists have been battered to death here, but I would like to know with all sincerity, do calvinists, get born into calvinism, or do they discover John calvin may be wrong on certain doctrines.


Obviously it's so easy to assume theese things.

I mean the chances are if your dad is a Calvinist, then the child will be to.

 

[Johann]

So you have already rejected a key component of TULIP. Yet you say you prefer Reformed Theology over Gospel truth.

Here-allow me to correct you-since you are deflecting and this little "discussion" is going nowhere-fast.
I said I lean toward Reformed writings and the early Church as well as rabbinical writings-and to be honest-outside of Scripture you will find true, biblical doctrines from the Reformed worldview.
It helps me to rightly cutting straight the word of God and to test ALL things in the sphere of the Holy Spirit and NOT to lean on my own understanding.


2Pe 1:20 knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone's own interpretation.
2Pe 1:21 For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.

Have a good day.
J.

 

[Evmur]

Well-I lean more to the Reformed worldview-so count me in as one of those "bastardizing the scriptures and worthy of rejection"
J.

me too ... stinky fellow

 

[Johann]

me too ... stinky fellow

"Naughty you"-Lol!
J.

 

[Thunderrr-mental]

"Naughty you"-Lol!
J.

From your view point, it seems your Calvinist bastardizing with scripture.

Which seems to me, your statement if wanting them to calm down, is not merited, as accusing Calvinist of bastardizing, really is a severe judgment that says I hate people.

So what is your intent really. As you sound like you want to bastardise in order to preach.

This is no way to preach, as only one Calvinist may be at fault for a certain doctrine.

The only person being a bastardiser around here is you.

 

[Thunderrr-mental]

Why Some Arminians and Calvinists Need to Calm Down
Theology
Mar 19
Written By Nate Sala
healthy-dispute-management.jpg
I’ll be honest. Wading into the murky quagmire that is the debate between Arminians and Calvinists is about as exciting to me as getting my wisdom teeth pulled. Oftentimes I find the disagreement to be less than gracious. Other times I find it to be vicious, condescending, and outright silly. Case in point: A recent blog caught my eye that tried to argue against Calvinism because, get this, Calvinists are big, dumb jerks! Just look at that Mark Driscoll guy! So did you catch that line of reasoning? Calvinists are rude therefore Calvinism is false. Well that’s a tasty sandwich topped with ad hominems, isn’t it? Another one argued against Arminianism by describing it as Pelagianism in different clothes (but forgetting to mention that the two are distinctly different). One particular forum even tried to say that Calvinists are secretly Pelagians. What?! Oh, and let’s not forget the old handy dandy “you guys aren’t real Christians” tripe.

Look, I’m not one who thumbs his nose from the sidelines while refusing to get his theological hands dirty. I hold a particular view on this issue (and have no problem sharing it when appropriate). But there is something that I think a lot of us have forgotten. The ongoing saga of Arminianism vs. Calvinism has been around for so long because Scripture appears to support both views. Just talk to a Calvinist or an Arminian. They can probably open their Bible and point you exactly where you need to go. Let’s face it: Arminians are just as confident waving around John 3 as Calvinists are whipping out Ephesians 1. Thing is, no one knows with a 100% certainty whether his view is correct. By the way I say “his” because I hardly see any women blowing a gasket over this issue.

So, fellow brothers in Christ, please help the rest of us, and yourselves, and this centuries-old debate by taking a deep breath and calming down. Since the goal of discussing this issue should be to get someone to consider your viewpoint fairly, then try to remember these simple tips:

#1 Don’t Be Obnoxious

Stop resorting to hyperbolic rhetoric to further your point. I mean it. If you don’t, I’m going to jam a million tooth picks through my earhole and into my brain until the part of me that recognizes hyperbole disappears. By the way, writing hyperbolically is not making an argument. It’s just writing hyperbolically. Perhaps that style of communicating is persuasive to some people but, for those of us who know better, it just looks childish. And the numerous exclamation points after sentences you want to emphasize!!!!!!!!! And the way your finger often slips off the shift key so that your seven exclamation points also now include the number one in the middle (!!!1!!!!) looks really sloppy. Also, incessantly italicizing words or phrases or typing in ALL CAPS TO REALLY EMPHASIZE YOUR POINT is not making an argument either. It just looks like you’re impulsive and probably screaming. In other words, if it takes all of these silly grammatical devices to make your point, then your argument (if it even exists at all) is likely weaker than the plot of Die Hard 5.

#2 Don’t Name-call

Calling your opponent a fake Christian if he disagrees with your viewpoint is never useful. It simply showcases the obvious insecurity in your own argument. That is, your argument should stand or fall on its own merits, not whether you’ve successfully intimidated your opposition through name-calling. Also, someone can just call you a fake Christian right back and now you’re stuck in a statistical dead heat in the first round. At the end of the day Arminians and Calvinists still believe in Jesus and His redemptive work on the cross. So, yes, people can actually disagree with you on this issue and still love the Lord. Trying to take away their salvation unless they think like you is almost as ridiculous as young-earthers suggesting that old-earthers are not real Christians. No, wait. That’s equally as ridiculous.

#3 Don’t Mischaracterize

Stop, stop, stop mischaracterizing your opponent’s point of view. Calvinists, stop telling people that Arminians deny God’s grace. Arminians, stop telling people that Calvinists believe everyone is a robot. I read a pro-Arminian post recently that went something like this: Calvinism is a false gospel that offers no eternal life or salvation by the Holy Spirit. Dear Arminian who decided that was actually worth writing down, perhaps you genuinely misunderstand your opponent’s view (in which case you never should have hit “send” on that post) or you do understand your opponent’s view and are purposely misleading others (in which case you probably shouldn’t own a computer). Brothers, in order to speak on a particular issue, you need to do your homework. And, by “homework,” I don’t mean skimming Wikipedia. Understanding your opponent’s view from his own perspective keeps you from landing a devastating uppercut on a jaw made entirely of straw. Think of it this way: If mischaracterizing opponents is what internet atheists do on Twitter, why would you want to do this to a fellow believer?

#4 Be Honest about Your Shortcomings

It seems to me that people from both camps tend to be, let’s just say, selective in the passages of Scripture that they cite in support of their view. That is, they selectively forget the ones that don’t support their view. Also, for some reason, I keep noticing that the average Arminian is way more interested in his system than citing Scripture while the average Calvinist doesn’t want to do anything but cite Scripture. Maybe that’s not characteristic of these groups. I’m open to that. The point is: In order to formulate a robust view, the Calvinist and the Arminian must deal with the problems their respective systems create. Calvinists, how do you square Luke 7:30 with your view? Arminians, how do you deal with Jesus’ own words in John 6:65? And, most importantly, are your answers sufficient to the challenge or are they just exercises in swatting them away?

In Conclusion

Here’s the point, gentlemen: Whether Arminian or Calvinist, neither of you is at 100% certainty in your respective views. I don’t need to meet any of you to know that you’re not. No one is. We are all somewhere between 51% and 100% certainty. But all of these issues I’ve raised so far seem to stem from those acting as if they’re 100% certain. So why don’t we all calm down, try to reconcile all of Scripture to our particular viewpoints (because maybe you have a good argument to share that we haven’t heard yet), and exhibit a heck of a lot more humility and less ostentation. I mean, isn’t the real purpose of these kinds of discussions to be winsome not gruesome?

Why Some Arminians and Calvinists Need to Calm Down

[

 

[7thMoon]

Why build a "Christian" theological system on terms the Bible itself doesn't give any priority to?

Because it wouldn't be theology if it did.

 

[Chester]

With respect to my belief that Calvinism is wrong... I am 100% certain of that one. Calvinist fatalistic interpretations are a crude bastardization of the scriptures that are worthy of their rejection. There is no such thing as "scriptures that support their view".

I think most Christians see that Calvinism makes gross mischaracteriztions about God and the Word that are so severe that Calvinism is considered a "different gospel" preached by a "different Jesus" and those who remain in it are worshipping a different God. It's an entirely different religion- a deterministic, philosophy with theism attached to it.

Though I am surely not a Calvinistic, I will tell you quite clearly and plainly that Calvinism in and of the teaching itself is not a different gospel.

 

[PaulThomson]

Though I am surely not a Calvinistic, I will tell you quite clearly and plainly that Calvinism in and of the teaching itself is not a different gospel.

The gospel is not the power of salvation to everyone who believes in calvinism. In calvinism one has to be regenerated before one can believe the gospel, and after regeneration one is given faith to believe the gospel. In calvinism, God's eternal election of select individuals is the power of salvation, and only to those who were appointed for sonship before the foundation of the world will be regenerated unilaterally by God so that they can THEN understand the gospel and put their trust in Jesus.

Calvinism uses the the same vocabulary as Christianity, but those words have different meanings for calvinists to what the bible and Christians mean by them.

 

[Adstar]

I have spent more then a few years discussing calvinism and doing my best to oppose it.. The problem i think is some calvinists see belief in calvinism as necessary to ones salvation.. They often act as if rejecting Calvinism is equal to rejecting the Gospel.. So often they will oppose Arminians and other non-calvanists to the bitter end. shunning them as heretics..

I often avoid calvinists these days because i don't need that hate and condemning attitude from people who are supposed to be my Brothers in Christ..

 

[Johann]

I have spent more then a few years discussing calvinism and doing my best to oppose it.. The problem i think is some calvinists see belief in calvinism as necessary to ones salvation.. They often act as if rejecting Calvinism is equal to rejecting the Gospel.. So often they will oppose Arminians and other non-calvanists to the bitter end. shunning them as heretics..

I often avoid calvinists these days because i don't need that hate and condemning attitude from people who are supposed to be my Brothers in Christ..

We shouldn't "avoid" Calvinists but rather interact with them.


1Co 9:20 To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews. To those under the law I became as one under the law (though not being myself under the law) that I might win those under the law.
1Co 9:21 To those outside the law I became as one outside the law (not being outside the law of God but under the law of Christ) that I might win those outside the law.
1Co 9:22 To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all people, that by all means I might save some.
1Co 9:23 I do it all for the sake of the gospel, that I may share with them in its blessings.
1Co 9:24 Do you not know that in a race all the runners run, but only one receives the prize? So run that you may obtain it.
1Co 9:25 Every athlete exercises self-control in all things. They do it to receive a perishable wreath, but we an imperishable.
1Co 9:26 So I do not run aimlessly; I do not box as one beating the air.

Iron sharpens iron-but we can be selective with whom we are dealing with.
J.

 

[Adstar]

We shouldn't "avoid" Calvinists but rather interact with them.


1Co 9:20 To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews. To those under the law I became as one under the law (though not being myself under the law) that I might win those under the law.
1Co 9:21 To those outside the law I became as one outside the law (not being outside the law of God but under the law of Christ) that I might win those outside the law.
1Co 9:22 To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all people, that by all means I might save some.
1Co 9:23 I do it all for the sake of the gospel, that I may share with them in its blessings.
1Co 9:24 Do you not know that in a race all the runners run, but only one receives the prize? So run that you may obtain it.
1Co 9:25 Every athlete exercises self-control in all things. They do it to receive a perishable wreath, but we an imperishable.
1Co 9:26 So I do not run aimlessly; I do not box as one beating the air.

Iron sharpens iron-but we can be selective with whom we are dealing with.
J.

Oh i have interacted with calvinists.. For many hours.. Many posts.. I know the 5 pillars of calvinism to a T,U,L,I,P tee.. And i have been sharpened because of their opposition.. It was rarely a pleasant experience.. Mostly toxic.. To the point of it affecting me.. I am after all only a human being..

3 topics that cause most strife between Christians in forums.. calvinism,, OSAS ( which is actually a calvinist teaching The P in TULIP Perseverance of the saints ),, and Rapture Timing.. I have not seen many people moved from their positions regarding these doctrines..

 

[Nehemiah6]

We shouldn't "avoid" Calvinists but rather interact with them.

That would be quite pointless. They even choose to re-write Scripture to fit their beliefs.

 

[Nehemiah6]

Though I am surely not a Calvinistic, I will tell you quite clearly and plainly that Calvinism in and of the teaching itself is not a different gospel.

How can it not be a different Gospel? The Gospel includes the Bible facts that Christ died for the sins of the whole world (1 John 2:2) and that He came so that "the world might be saved" (John 3:17). That is definitely not what Calvinism teaches. There are many more passages but that is not necessary.

 

[Johann]

Oh i have interacted with calvinists.. For many hours.. Many posts.. I know the 5 pillars of calvinism to a T,U,L,I,P tee.. And i have been sharpened because of their opposition.. It was rarely a pleasant experience.. Mostly toxic.. To the point of it affecting me.. I am after all only a human being..

3 topics that cause most strife between Christians in forums.. calvinism,, OSAS ( which is actually a calvinist teaching The P in TULIP Perseverance of the saints ),, and Rapture Timing.. I have not seen many people moved from their positions regarding these doctrines..

All good @Adstar-which makes me think if my interpretation of Scripture-especially the doctrinal doctrines-are 100% correct? Which is the the best-Hermeneutical-Exegetical-Inductive?
We are all human-and prone to make mistakes and I believe we all need to come to the Scriptures and STUDY the D'varim-not a mere superficial reading here and there-with the help of the Ruach HaKodesh-

2Ti 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

Study. or, Be diligent. Gr. spoudazō [(*S# G4704), to use speed, that is, to make effort, be prompt or earnest (Strong): Rendered (1) endeavor: Eph_4:3, 1Th_2:17, 2Pe_1:15, (2) do diligence: 2Ti_4:9; 2Ti_4:21, (3) be diligent: Tit_3:12, 2Pe_3:14, (4) give diligence: 2Pe_1:10, (5) be forward: Gal_2:10, (6) labour: Heb_4:11, (7) study: 2Ti_2:15]. **Pro_23:12, +*2Pe_1:10; +*2Pe_1:15; **2Pe_3:14.
to shew. or, present, as Col_1:22; Col_1:28 (CB). Gr. parestēmi, paristanō (S# G3936, Mat_26:53). Act_27:24, **Rom_12:1; **Rom_14:10, 1Co_8:8.

approved. Gr. dokimos (S# G1384, Rom_14:18). +**Luk_21:36, Act_2:22; Act_27:24 g. *Rom_14:18; Rom_16:10, *2Co_5:9; 2Co_7:11; *2Co_10:18; 2Co_13:7, *Gal_1:10, +**Col_1:10, *1Th_2:4, 2Th_1:11, +Jas_1:12 g.
unto God. Tit_1:2.

a workman. Gr. ergatēs (S# G2040, Mat_9:37). Exo_35:35; Exo_39:42, Psa_78:72, +*Mat_13:52, 1Co_3:10; 1Co_3:13-15, *2Co_3:6; *2Co_6:3; 2Co_6:4, *1Ti_4:6; 1Ti_4:12-16.
ashamed. or, without cause for shame. Gr. anepaischuntos (S# G422, only here), not ashamed, that is, (by implication) irreprehensible; from S# G153 (2Co_10:8), disfigurement, that is, disgrace; to feel shame for oneself (Strong). Php_1:20, 1Jn_2:28.
rightly. +**Isa_8:20 note. +*Jer_8:8 mg. +*Mat_13:52, *Mar_4:33; +*Mar_12:24, Luk_4:18-20; +*Luk_12:42, *Joh_21:15-17, *Act_20:20; *Act_20:27, 1Co_2:6; *1Co_3:1; *1Co_3:2, **2Co_4:2, 1Th_4:2 note. *1Th_5:14, *Heb_5:11-14, %*2Pe_3:16.
dividing. "rightly dividing" is the rendering of a single Greek word, orthotomeō, *S# G3718, only here. Vine notes the word is from orthos, straight, and temnō, to cut, "the meaning passed from the idea of cutting or dividing, to the more general sense of rightly dealing with a thing. What is intended here is not dividing Scripture from Scripture, but teaching Scripture accurately" (Expository Dictionary, vol 1, p. 327).

The word occurs in the Septuagint at Pro_3:6; Pro_11:5, where the English has "direct." The reference is not to dividing up Scripture into dispensations, and applying to ourselves only what is allegedly valid for this dispensation. Neither is it dividing Scripture on the basis of to whom it was originally addressed or spoken of, the Jew, the Gentile, or the Church of God (citing 1Co_10:32, pressing this text far beyond the bounds of its legitimate meaning and application in context), for all Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable (**2Ti_3:16).

While all Scripture may indeed not be about us, it is all for our learning (+*Rom_15:4), and we have no right by such arbitrary distinctions to eliminate from our careful consideration whole sections of the Word of God. The emphasis is not upon "right division" (which in the practice of some is "wrong subtraction," 1Th_4:2 note), but on "correct interpretation."

In context Paul is directing Timothy not to strive about words to the subverting of the hearers, but to handle the Word of God accurately so as to teach them the truth. +**2Ti_3:16, Gen_15:10, Pro_25:12, +*Mat_7:6, +*Rom_15:4, +*2Co_2:17; **2Co_4:2, **1Pe_1:20 note.
word of truth. 2Ti_2:9, Mal_2:6, +*Joh_17:17, 2Co_6:7, +Eph_1:13, Php_2:16, **1Th_2:13, 2Th_2:13, +*1Ti_4:13.

-and a lifestyle conformed to what stands written-Perfect Tense-since Believers are not "passive" and we need to "work" out our own salvation with fear and trembling.

Personally, I do believe Calvin is not that far wrong in his interpretation of Scripture-nor Owen, Edwards etc.

Shalom brother.
J.

 

[Johann]

That would be quite pointless. They even choose to re-write Scripture to fit their beliefs.

Pointless maybe -for you-exhilarating to me.
No, Calvinists do not rewrite Scriptures. Calvinists are a group of Christians who adhere to the teachings of John Calvin, a French theologian from the 16th century. They believe in the sovereignty of God and the doctrines of grace, which are commonly known as the five points of Calvinism (TULIP). These doctrines are based on biblical passages and are not considered rewritings of Scripture. The misconception may arise from the fact that some people may interpret Calvinist teachings differently or disagree with them, leading to the perception that Calvinists are rewriting Scripture to support their beliefs. However, Calvinists maintain that their beliefs are consistent with the teachings of the Bible and are not a rewriting of Scripture
J.

 

[Johann]

All good @Adstar-which makes me think if my interpretation of Scripture-especially the doctrinal doctrines-are 100% correct? Which is the the best-Hermeneutical-Exegetical-Inductive?
We are all human-and prone to make mistakes and I believe we all need to come to the Scriptures and STUDY the D'varim-not a mere superficial reading here and there-with the help of the Ruach HaKodesh-

2Ti 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

Study. or, Be diligent. Gr. spoudazō [(*S# G4704), to use speed, that is, to make effort, be prompt or earnest (Strong): Rendered (1) endeavor: Eph_4:3, 1Th_2:17, 2Pe_1:15, (2) do diligence: 2Ti_4:9; 2Ti_4:21, (3) be diligent: Tit_3:12, 2Pe_3:14, (4) give diligence: 2Pe_1:10, (5) be forward: Gal_2:10, (6) labour: Heb_4:11, (7) study: 2Ti_2:15]. **Pro_23:12, +*2Pe_1:10; +*2Pe_1:15; **2Pe_3:14.
to shew. or, present, as Col_1:22; Col_1:28 (CB). Gr. parestēmi, paristanō (S# G3936, Mat_26:53). Act_27:24, **Rom_12:1; **Rom_14:10, 1Co_8:8.

approved. Gr. dokimos (S# G1384, Rom_14:18). +**Luk_21:36, Act_2:22; Act_27:24 g. *Rom_14:18; Rom_16:10, *2Co_5:9; 2Co_7:11; *2Co_10:18; 2Co_13:7, *Gal_1:10, +**Col_1:10, *1Th_2:4, 2Th_1:11, +Jas_1:12 g.
unto God. Tit_1:2.

a workman. Gr. ergatēs (S# G2040, Mat_9:37). Exo_35:35; Exo_39:42, Psa_78:72, +*Mat_13:52, 1Co_3:10; 1Co_3:13-15, *2Co_3:6; *2Co_6:3; 2Co_6:4, *1Ti_4:6; 1Ti_4:12-16.
ashamed. or, without cause for shame. Gr. anepaischuntos (S# G422, only here), not ashamed, that is, (by implication) irreprehensible; from S# G153 (2Co_10:8), disfigurement, that is, disgrace; to feel shame for oneself (Strong). Php_1:20, 1Jn_2:28.
rightly. +**Isa_8:20 note. +*Jer_8:8 mg. +*Mat_13:52, *Mar_4:33; +*Mar_12:24, Luk_4:18-20; +*Luk_12:42, *Joh_21:15-17, *Act_20:20; *Act_20:27, 1Co_2:6; *1Co_3:1; *1Co_3:2, **2Co_4:2, 1Th_4:2 note. *1Th_5:14, *Heb_5:11-14, %*2Pe_3:16.
dividing. "rightly dividing" is the rendering of a single Greek word, orthotomeō, *S# G3718, only here. Vine notes the word is from orthos, straight, and temnō, to cut, "the meaning passed from the idea of cutting or dividing, to the more general sense of rightly dealing with a thing. What is intended here is not dividing Scripture from Scripture, but teaching Scripture accurately" (Expository Dictionary, vol 1, p. 327).

The word occurs in the Septuagint at Pro_3:6; Pro_11:5, where the English has "direct." The reference is not to dividing up Scripture into dispensations, and applying to ourselves only what is allegedly valid for this dispensation. Neither is it dividing Scripture on the basis of to whom it was originally addressed or spoken of, the Jew, the Gentile, or the Church of God (citing 1Co_10:32, pressing this text far beyond the bounds of its legitimate meaning and application in context), for all Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable (**2Ti_3:16).

While all Scripture may indeed not be about us, it is all for our learning (+*Rom_15:4), and we have no right by such arbitrary distinctions to eliminate from our careful consideration whole sections of the Word of God. The emphasis is not upon "right division" (which in the practice of some is "wrong subtraction," 1Th_4:2 note), but on "correct interpretation."

In context Paul is directing Timothy not to strive about words to the subverting of the hearers, but to handle the Word of God accurately so as to teach them the truth. +**2Ti_3:16, Gen_15:10, Pro_25:12, +*Mat_7:6, +*Rom_15:4, +*2Co_2:17; **2Co_4:2, **1Pe_1:20 note.
word of truth. 2Ti_2:9, Mal_2:6, +*Joh_17:17, 2Co_6:7, +Eph_1:13, Php_2:16, **1Th_2:13, 2Th_2:13, +*1Ti_4:13.

-and a lifestyle conformed to what stands written-Perfect Tense-since Believers are not "passive" and we need to "work" out our own salvation with fear and trembling.

Personally, I do believe Calvin is not that far wrong in his interpretation of Scripture-nor Owen, Edwards etc.

Shalom brother.
J.

2:15 "Be diligent to present yourself" This is an aorist active imperative with an aorist active infinitive. This is a call for a decisive act of the will (cf. Rom. 6:13; Eph. 4:3).
"approved"
This is a metallurgical term which became an idiom for "a test with a view toward approval," a metaphor for confirming something as genuine (cf. 1 Cor. 11:19; 2 Cor. 10:18).

"to God" God is the one who must approve our teaching, preaching, and our lifestyle.

"as a workman who does not need to be ashamed"

Spiritless Bible teaching and un-Christlike daily living will cause believers shame when they stand before their Lord (cf. 2 Cor. 5:10). Paul was concerned about being ashamed before the Lord, but not before humans (cf. 2 Tim. 1:8,12,16).

"accurately handling"
This is a present active participle meaning "to cut straight." It is found only here in the NT. This was often used of constructing a road, plowing a furrow, or a stone mason building a structure (cf. Pro. 3:6; 11:5 in the Septuagint).
This term is used metaphorically to cut a straight line. The Word of God is a straight (righteous) path to truth. The word "straight" is an OT construction term taken from the word for a "river reed" which was used to confirm the horizontal straightness of walls, streets, etc. YHWH used this term to describe His own character. It is translated "just" or "right". God is the ruler or standard by which all else is evaluated. Apostolic truth reflects God's character; Apostolic living reflects God's character. The false teachers fail at both!

"the word of truth"

In Eph. 1:13; Col. 1:5 and James 1:18 this refers to the gospel. Here it refers to Apostolic truth preached by Paul and passed on by Timothy and accepted and lived out by mature believers. For a good book on the development of Apostolic preaching, teaching and letters in the New Testament see Birth of a New Testament by William L. Bevins (Union Baptist University, Carson City, TN).

2:16 "But avoid worldly and empty chatter" This is a present middle imperative. This is a major theme in the Pastoral Letters (cf. 1 Tim. 6:20; Titus 3:9).

"it will lead"
Believers are to cut a straight path to righteousness and truth (cf. 2 Tim. 2:15) but the false teachers and their followers are making a path to ungodliness and self-deception (cf. 2 Tim. 3:9,15).

J.

 

[Johann]

GREEK TERMS FOR TESTING AND THEIR CONNOTATIONS

I was confused by the relationship between Matt. 6:13 and James 1:13. They seem to contradict each other. The answer came in the connotation of two Greek terms.

 There are two Greek terms which have the connotation of testing, trying, or tempting someone for a purpose.

Dokimazō, Dokimion, Dokimasia
 This term is a metalurgist term for testing the genuineness of something (i.e., metaphorically someone) by fire. The fire reveals the true metal and burns off (i.e., impurities) the dross. This physical process became a powerful idiom for God and/or Satan and/or humans testing others. This term is only used in a positive sense of testing with a view towards acceptance

It is used in the NT of testing
oxen ‒ Luke 14:19
ourselves ‒ 1 Cor. 11:28
our faith ‒ James. 1:3
even God ‒ Heb. 3:9
The outcomes of these tests were assumed to be positive (cf. Rom. 2:18; 14:22; 16:10; 2 Cor. 10:18; 13:3,7; Phil. 2:27; 1 Pet. 1:7), therefore, the term conveys the idea of someone examined and approved

to be worthwhile
to be good
to be genuine
to be valuable
to be honored

Peirazō, Peirasmus

This term often has the connotation of examination for the purpose of fault finding or rejection. It is used in connection to Jesus' temptation in the wilderness (cf. Matthew 4; Luke 4).
It conveys the attempt to trap Jesus (cf. Matt. 4:1; 16:1; 19:3; 22:18, 35; Mark 1:13; Luke 4:2; Heb. 2:18).
This term (peirazōn) is used as a title for Satan in Matt. 4:3; 1 Thess. 3:5 (i.e., "the tempter".

Usage
It was used by Jesus warning humans not to test God (cf. Matt. 4:7; Luke 4:12, [or Christ cf. 1 Cor 10:9]).
It also denotes the attempt to do something that has failed (cf. Heb.11:29).
It is used in connection with the temptation and trials of believers (cf. 1 Cor. 7:5; 10:9, 13; Gal. 6:1; 1 Thess. 3:5; Heb. 2:18; James. 1:2, 13, 14; 1 Pet. 4:12; 2 Pet 2:9).

In Hebrews 3:9 they are both used in a synonymous relationship. Words have meaning only in contexts!

J.

 

[Adstar]

All good @Adstar-which makes me think if my interpretation of Scripture-especially the doctrinal doctrines-are 100% correct? Which is the the best-Hermeneutical-Exegetical-Inductive?
We are all human-and prone to make mistakes and I believe we all need to come to the Scriptures and STUDY the D'varim-not a mere superficial reading here and there-with the help of the Ruach HaKodesh-

2Ti 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

Study. or, Be diligent. Gr. spoudazō [(*S# G4704), to use speed, that is, to make effort, be prompt or earnest (Strong): Rendered (1) endeavor: Eph_4:3, 1Th_2:17, 2Pe_1:15, (2) do diligence: 2Ti_4:9; 2Ti_4:21, (3) be diligent: Tit_3:12, 2Pe_3:14, (4) give diligence: 2Pe_1:10, (5) be forward: Gal_2:10, (6) labour: Heb_4:11, (7) study: 2Ti_2:15]. **Pro_23:12, +*2Pe_1:10; +*2Pe_1:15; **2Pe_3:14.
to shew. or, present, as Col_1:22; Col_1:28 (CB). Gr. parestēmi, paristanō (S# G3936, Mat_26:53). Act_27:24, **Rom_12:1; **Rom_14:10, 1Co_8:8.

approved. Gr. dokimos (S# G1384, Rom_14:18). +**Luk_21:36, Act_2:22; Act_27:24 g. *Rom_14:18; Rom_16:10, *2Co_5:9; 2Co_7:11; *2Co_10:18; 2Co_13:7, *Gal_1:10, +**Col_1:10, *1Th_2:4, 2Th_1:11, +Jas_1:12 g.
unto God. Tit_1:2.

a workman. Gr. ergatēs (S# G2040, Mat_9:37). Exo_35:35; Exo_39:42, Psa_78:72, +*Mat_13:52, 1Co_3:10; 1Co_3:13-15, *2Co_3:6; *2Co_6:3; 2Co_6:4, *1Ti_4:6; 1Ti_4:12-16.
ashamed. or, without cause for shame. Gr. anepaischuntos (S# G422, only here), not ashamed, that is, (by implication) irreprehensible; from S# G153 (2Co_10:8), disfigurement, that is, disgrace; to feel shame for oneself (Strong). Php_1:20, 1Jn_2:28.
rightly. +**Isa_8:20 note. +*Jer_8:8 mg. +*Mat_13:52, *Mar_4:33; +*Mar_12:24, Luk_4:18-20; +*Luk_12:42, *Joh_21:15-17, *Act_20:20; *Act_20:27, 1Co_2:6; *1Co_3:1; *1Co_3:2, **2Co_4:2, 1Th_4:2 note. *1Th_5:14, *Heb_5:11-14, %*2Pe_3:16.
dividing. "rightly dividing" is the rendering of a single Greek word, orthotomeō, *S# G3718, only here. Vine notes the word is from orthos, straight, and temnō, to cut, "the meaning passed from the idea of cutting or dividing, to the more general sense of rightly dealing with a thing. What is intended here is not dividing Scripture from Scripture, but teaching Scripture accurately" (Expository Dictionary, vol 1, p. 327).

The word occurs in the Septuagint at Pro_3:6; Pro_11:5, where the English has "direct." The reference is not to dividing up Scripture into dispensations, and applying to ourselves only what is allegedly valid for this dispensation. Neither is it dividing Scripture on the basis of to whom it was originally addressed or spoken of, the Jew, the Gentile, or the Church of God (citing 1Co_10:32, pressing this text far beyond the bounds of its legitimate meaning and application in context), for all Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable (**2Ti_3:16).

While all Scripture may indeed not be about us, it is all for our learning (+*Rom_15:4), and we have no right by such arbitrary distinctions to eliminate from our careful consideration whole sections of the Word of God. The emphasis is not upon "right division" (which in the practice of some is "wrong subtraction," 1Th_4:2 note), but on "correct interpretation."

In context Paul is directing Timothy not to strive about words to the subverting of the hearers, but to handle the Word of God accurately so as to teach them the truth. +**2Ti_3:16, Gen_15:10, Pro_25:12, +*Mat_7:6, +*Rom_15:4, +*2Co_2:17; **2Co_4:2, **1Pe_1:20 note.
word of truth. 2Ti_2:9, Mal_2:6, +*Joh_17:17, 2Co_6:7, +Eph_1:13, Php_2:16, **1Th_2:13, 2Th_2:13, +*1Ti_4:13.

-and a lifestyle conformed to what stands written-Perfect Tense-since Believers are not "passive" and we need to "work" out our own salvation with fear and trembling.

Personally, I do believe Calvin is not that far wrong in his interpretation of Scripture-nor Owen, Edwards etc.

Shalom brother.
J.

Oh this is so typical of a calvinist..

I said in my post..

Adstar Said: I am after all only a human being..

And the calvinist response to this,,

Johann Said

: We are all human-and prone to make mistakes

Ha ha ha ha taking my words that where clearly related to human exhaustion from facing hatred and toxicity and then making out that the statement was me admitting i am mistaken about calvinism.. So a calvinist tries to score points by twisting what others say to make out the other person is admiring being mistaken about their position on calvinism..

You sound like a politician or a lawyer Johann.. One gifted in twisting what others say to ones own advantage...

I was very correct about avoiding calvinists as best as i can.. I will be avoiding you from this moment on Johann..

 

[Chester]

The gospel is not the power of salvation to everyone who believes in calvinism. In calvinism one has to be regenerated before one can believe the gospel, and after regeneration one is given faith to believe the gospel. In calvinism, God's eternal election of select individuals is the power of salvation, and only to those who were appointed for sonship before the foundation of the world will be regenerated unilaterally by God so that they can THEN understand the gospel and put their trust in Jesus.

Calvinism uses the the same vocabulary as Christianity, but those words have different meanings for calvinists to what the bible and Christians mean by them.

How can it not be a different Gospel? The Gospel includes the Bible facts that Christ died for the sins of the whole world (1 John 2:2) and that He came so that "the world might be saved" (John 3:17). That is definitely not what Calvinism teaches. There are many more passages but that is not necessary.

I base my definition of a "different gospel" upon what Paul writes in Galations 1:6,7:
I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another (heteros) gospel: 7 Which is not another (allos); but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.

A "heteros" gospel is a gospel of a different kind. An allos gospel is another gospel of the same kind. The Galatians had gone to a gospel where being saved meant circumcision and keeping parts of the OT law. This nullified salvation by grace: that is = following a gospel of another kind means the person is not saved.

As much as I oppose the doctrinal teaching of Calvinism, it still teaches that salvation is by grace through faith. Calvinists who believe in Jesus Christ are saved in the same way that Arminianists are saved.

Of course I believe that there are many deep ditches, dangers, etc. built into the Calvinistic system. Foremost is the idea that assurance of salvation is because of an initial belief, rather than by one's faith today in Jesus.