John Calvin on John 3:16

[Ivor Thomas]

G'day Ivor,

Where do you get it was 'towards' him, but not 'for' him? What exegetical, lexical or theological basis are you making that determination?

And what does it mean to have love toward someone, but not for someone? Can you give me a biblical example of this toward but not for love?

By what context do you say mercy fits the context better? All the standard Hebrew lexicons note that hesed here means love. By what determination are you saying that it should be mercy?

And I am still trying to figure out mercy somehow does not make God mutable if he took it away from Saul, and yet love would make God make him mutable if he took that away from Saul. And I am still trying to figure how this mercy matches the electing mercy, which is uncheangeable, in Roms 9.

Take care,
Flynn

Then look at Romans 9:17 about Phar-aoh, might help in your figuring hope so. Ivor Thomas...

[Flynn]

Then look at Romans 9:17 about Phar-aoh, might help in your figuring hope so. Ivor Thomas...

G'day Ivor,

Can you answer any of my questions? Citing this verse does nothing to help me understand the rationale behind any of your assertions. What does love toward but not for mean? How could mercy be taken from him? How does the mercy given to Saul and to an entire nation at one point (hos 1:6), and then taken away, match the mercy in Roms? To be clear, I dont believe mercy is the correct translation of hesed here, but I am using mercy for the sake of the discussion.

Ivor, can you provide some reasoning for your assertions? Why should I believe you? Just because you say so, makes it so?

Take care
Flynn

[disciple]

If one has his blinders on and focuses his attention on one specific text of Calvin one can easily build a heretical exegesis. Fortunate for the church of Christ, that truth was built upon when this specific verse was uttered as evidence by the calumniators throughout church history against the truth of Scripture. It is no wonder the reformers at the synod of Dort added this text under the first head of doctrine being predestination or divine election and reprobation. They knew what it meant. By faith so do I. I do not need four levels of understanding to grasp the intent of Scripture here. Simply faith or unbelief. Take the blinders off and see the bigger picture like Romans 9:13. Our forefathers did and that is part of sound reformed exegetical glory and honor to God , not Calvin.

greetings and salutations el rana

so since you're making the assertion (that i have my blinders on and only focusing my attention on one specific text of Calvin...wait, aren't you doing the same thing, rom 9.13, which actually you have not provided a quotation of but have simply told me to go see...i would call this special pleading), then the burden of proof is on you to do three things:

1. explain what calvin et al means in the quotes provided
2. provide quotes which demonstrate that calvin et al believed that Christ did not in any sense die for all people without exclusion and that God did not in any sense love all people without exclusion.
   * please note that providing a quote which states that Christ died for the elect or that God loves the elect does not prove your case. this is the fallacy of disjunctive syllogism or something like that since you cannot prove the negative of one premise by the positive of a separate inverse premise.).
3. post the quote in question on rom 9.13 from calvin that demonstrates that calvin believed that Christ in no sense died for all people without exclusion and that God in no sense loves all people without exclusion.

[Ivor Thomas]

G'day Ivor,

Can you answer any of my questions? Citing this verse does nothing to help me understand the rationale behind any of your assertions. What does love toward but not for mean? How could mercy be taken from him? How does the mercy given to Saul and to an entire nation at one point (hos 1:6), and then taken away, match the mercy in Roms? To be clear, I dont believe mercy is the correct translation of hesed here, but I am using mercy for the sake of the discussion.

Ivor, can you provide some reasoning for your assertions? Why should I believe you? Just because you say so, makes it so?

Take care
Flynn

Wait a bit Flynn go back and look you bought Romans 9 into the discussion, so i pointed you to verse 17 , you have to understand it , as you said you are figuring it out. all your proof is of one translation that you accept against the translation i accept. Because i can cite lexicons etc that give me the use of the word mercy, but as i say you bought Romans in, so please dont say that i am making assertions, just trying to discuss thats all. Ivor Thomas..

[disciple]

For you this is a logical quandry, for many of us is is not. I do not accept paradox as a valid hermeneutic in interpreting scripture. If I were to do so, my faith would ultimately perish.

then please demonstrate how this is not a logical quandary for your system.

What are your a-priori assumptions on this, Doug? The greatest scholars disagree on interpreting the translation.

what translation? and what do you mean about my a priori assumptions? could you clarify? i'm just posting the text of Scripture in response to milt. they seem pretty clear to me.

I'm interested in hermeneutical method based on the WHOLE of scripture and progressive revelation (culminating in God's final gospel revelation to Paul). If one is not a Paulinist and wants to pose a paradox of scripture arguing against scripture, any interpretation can be justified.

so again, i ask, how are these verses to be understood within your framework? also i'd be interested in hearing what your or brandan have to say about the john gill quote. and while i'm at it, i'll post another in the next post.

[disciple]

And though there are various gifts and blessings, and effects of it, it is but one in God: there is but one Fountain, from whence they all flow. With respect to creatures, the objects of it, some distinctions are made concerning it, as of natural and “supernatural” grace. Natural grace seems to sound oddly, and unless guarded against, may tend to confound nature and grace together; but rightly applied and understood, may be admitted. What Adam enjoyed, in a state of integrity, above the rest of creatures, was all owing to the unmerited kindness and goodness of God, and so may be called grace; as the image of God, in which he was created; his holiness and righteousness; knowledge and understanding; the communion he had with God, and his dominion over the creatures; and yet it was all natural: so many things which his posterity in their fallen state enjoy, being altogether owing to the free favour and undeserved goodness of God, may be called grace: to have a being, and life, and the preservation of it, and the mercies of life, as food and raiment, which men are altogether unworthy of, are gifts and favours; and so may bear the name of grace, though only natural blessings. “Supernatural” grace includes all the blessings of grace bestowed upon any of the sons of fallen Adam; and all the graces of the Spirit wrought in them; and which will easily be allowed to be supernatural. But that Adam had any such, in a state of innocence, for my own part, I cannot see; though some are of this opinion. Again, grace is, by some, distinguished into “common” or “general”, and “special” or “particular”. “Common” or “general” grace, if it may be so called, is what all men have; as the light of nature and reason, which every man that comes into the world is enlightened with; the temporal blessings of life, the bounties of providence, called the riches of God’s goodness, or grace, Romans 2:4 which all partake of, more or less; and the continuance and preservation of life; for “God is the Saviour of all men”, 1 Timothy 4:10.

Body of Divinity, book 1, Chapt 13, Introductory section.

[disciple]

As I'm sure you already know, you can't read the entire lexical range of a word into a word each time it appears in Scripture. If that were so, everytime I read the word luw I would have to conclude that whatever the object of that verb was was going to be released, destroyed, and atoned for. Words must be interpreted in context.

you are correct, i am already aware of this. i am not trying to commit an unwarranted adoption of an expanded semantic field or illegitimate totality transfer. but i'm also trying to be careful that i don't commit an unwarranted restriction of the semantic field (i would say that i would entertain the discussion that HESED in 2 Sam 7:15 may not have "love" as its primary emphasis). also, i'm trying to balance your statement that love is not part of the essence of HESED (whatever this might mean).

The idea of loyalty if properly understood removes the logical problem. A certain outward loyalty can be exhibited for a time period without an inward love toward a person. God for a time upheld Saul as king and upheld him in that position but Christ's reign is eternal. We must also acknowledge the anthropomorphisms that are found in the Scriptures. There is debate among scholars as to what the word means and as far as I know none of the scholars are involved in the discussion we are having. If I could be shown from Scripture that there is a very certain teaching that God shows His love to the non-elect then I will modify my theology but if this teaching is based on a verse which is disputed I'm not going to modify my theology to accomodate a person's opinion about what the word means.

so this objection appears to only involve HESED (2 Sam 7:15), what about the other texts? how shall we explain those away?

[tomas1]

Disciple do these quotes come from your own research or do you have a resource on high Calvinism that you are using? I find them all very interesting

Peace

[disciple]

doug:

I lost track of the instances where you believed other words referred to God's love for the reprobate, could you post them again?

go see Jer 12.7-8, Hos 1.6, 9.15. from one page back:

Jer 12.7-8: 3342יְדִדוּת (yedidut): n.fem.; ≡ Str 3033
Hos 1.6: 8163רָחַם (racham): v.; ≡ Str 7355
Hos 9.15: 170 אָהַב (˒ahab): v.; ≡ Str 157

[Brandan Kraft]

Everyone who hates what I believe loves to throw that quote by Gill at me - especially on Pal Talk. I don't know what Gill was thinking when he wrote that, but I think he's wrong I have no problems if "grace" means goodness (which is what Gill is saying I believe), but I don't like using that terminology.

Also Doug, you can see that I have addressed this quote here at this link: http://www.predestinarian.net/showthread.php?t=1851

- Brandan

[disciple]

Doug i never said this last line, this is adding to me what i have not said to you, you have put words around bunch of study, to make me look and say something i have not, look and see if it can be found this- line that finishes [and don't need to tell you about it] this is lies.. Ivor Thomas..

it is true that those were not all of your exact words which was why i did not provide quotes. but why have you not provided the evidence that both flynn, skeuos, and i have requested? evidence that is required when such an assertion is made. if it is just your favorite or preferred translation then that is a different story altogether. but if you are saying it is "wrong" (inaccurate, incorrect, etc.) in a particular place then you must (are required) provide the evidence otherwise your assertion is without foundation and must be thrown out (withdrawn). and it is for this reason that it is difficult for people to take you seriously because you make definitive assertions and yet when pressed provide zero evidence.

so will you provide the evidence or won't you? and if you will not, will you withdraw your claim that the TNIV (it is not the NIV) is inaccurate here? these are your only options. so what will it be?

[Flynn]

Wild said:

The idea of loyalty if properly understood removes the logical problem. A certain outward loyalty can be exhibited for a time period without an inward love toward a person. God for a time upheld Saul as king and upheld him in that position but Christ's reign is eternal. We must also acknowledge the anthropomorphisms that are found in the Scriptures. There is debate among scholars as to what the word means and as far as I know none of the scholars are involved in the discussion we are having. If I could be shown from Scripture that there is a very certain teaching that God shows His love to the non-elect then I will modify my theology but if this teaching is based on a verse which is disputed I'm not going to modify my theology to accomodate a person's opinion about what the word means.

you are correct,...[ cut cut ](i would say that i would entertain the discussion that HESED in 2 Sam 7:15 may not have "love" as its primary emphasis). also, i'm trying to balance your statement that love is not part of the essence of HESED (whatever this might mean).

so this objection appears to only involve HESED (2 Sam 7:15), what about the other texts? how shall we explain those away?

Hang on a sec. Wild is wrong there. It cant merely mean loyalty without love. The logic of the synstax is clear and strong. I will not take my hesed from... whom... David and his heirs. That first defines the nature of this hesed, unless you want to say tha the loyalty God expressed to David was loveless. So that first defines the nature of the hesed, its not mere loyalty, without love. Then it says, as I took it... the hesed, from Saul. If the hesed means mere loyalty with no love for Saul, then it must also mean the same for David and his seed. To assert that hesed changes in its essential definitional meaning like that is the strongest form of equivocation, which is unstated by the author, hence double equivocation.

Secondly, who in the academic world is disputing this verse? And the Hebrew just cant be treated in this manner, that hesed here means loyalty apart from love.

This verse clearly say that God will not turn aside his lovingkindness from David and his seed, Solomon, as he took it away from Saul.

Flynn

[Flynn]

Wait a bit Flynn go back and look you bought Romans 9 into the discussion, so i pointed you to verse 17 , you have to understand it , as you said you are figuring it out. all your proof is of one translation that you accept against the translation i accept. Because i can cite lexicons etc that give me the use of the word mercy, but as i say you bought Romans in, so please dont say that i am making assertions, just trying to discuss thats all. Ivor Thomas..

So Ivor, am I to now assume that the only reason you dont agree that the hebrew means lovingkindness is because you choose not to believe it? You have not given a single objective reason for why you think it should be mercy and not lovingkindness. I would ask you, if you were in my shoes, listening to someone just offer a purely subjective opinion, why should you believe the claims he makes?

Flynn

[Flynn]

Everyone who hates what I believe loves to throw that quote by Gill at me - especially on Pal Talk. I don't know what Gill was thinking when he wrote that, but I think he's wrong I have no problems if "grace" means goodness (which is what Gill is saying I believe), but I don't like using that terminology.

[Italics mine]

But he doesnt does he. He expressly declares what Grace means:

The grace of God may be considered as displayed in acts of goodness
towards his creatures, especially men; and is no other than his free
favour and good will to men; it is no other than love unmerited and
undeserved, exercising and communicating itself to them in a free and
generous manner; which they are altogether unworthy of. There are
many things called grace, and the grace of God, because they flow
from his grace, and are the effects of it...

He defines it as that love, goodwill of God, and free favour. Then he says:
"And though there are various gifts and blessings, and effects of it [the grace as he has just defined it], it is but one in God: there is but one Fountain, from whence they all flow." Then immediately he discusses non-electing common/general grace and electing grace.

And when you connect this what he says of the general love of God, which is extended to all creatures, even to the apostate spirits, Gill is more than clear. He never meant a bare providence, but a disposition of love and grace to all which is non-electing. He means by common grace, that general love and favour which God extends to all creatures, including reprobate men and apostate angels.

Gill denies Darth.

Take care
Flynn

[wildboar]

disciple:

I already explained the Hosea and Jeremiah passages at least twice in this thread so I thought there must be some other passages which were being referred to. My goal is not to explain them away but to determine what they are saying from the context before allowing them to be used as some sort of theological proof-text. Anyhow, in regard to my interpretation of Hosea and Jeremiah it has little to do with belief in differences in meanings of the words in the passage and a great deal to do with my hermeneutic and the covenant theology that is found throughout all of Scripture. God does not just deal with individuals. He deals with families and nations and countries. Israel found a special spot as the object of God's love in the Old Testament. He saved His people almost exclusively out of that nation. When He adressed Israel in the OT He would often adress them all as believers just as in the NT the author of the epistle will adress the church generally as if all were believers. And so as an organic whole (although there were often more reprobate than elect in the nation) God adressed Israel as His people and is said to love them. As an organic whole He also rejected them as they fell into greater and greater outward apostacy and removed His love from them as a nation.

Hang on a sec. Wild is wrong there. It cant merely mean loyalty without love. The logic of the synstax is clear and strong. I will not take my hesed from... whom... David and his heirs. That first defines the nature of this hesed, unless you want to say tha the loyalty God expressed to David was loveless. So that first defines the nature of the hesed, its not mere loyalty, without love. Then it says, as I took it... the hesed, from Saul. If the hesed means mere loyalty with no love for Saul, then it must also mean the same for David and his seed. To assert that hesed changes in its essential definitional meaning like that is the strongest form of equivocation, which is unstated by the author, hence double equivocation. There is not it in Hebrew, granted, but sur here is semitic idiom for removing and turning aside. The it is added and no translation or scholar would suggest there is a problem here.

This does not logically follow. I'm not saying that hesed cannot be accompanied by love, I'm saying that it is not necessary to have hesed toward someone in order to have love. God most certainly loved David but that is not the emphasis of the passage nor is it the meaning of the word. The passage is speaking of God's loyalty. You lose all credibility when you say "no translation or scholar would suggest there is a problem here." I already posted an entry from TWOT showing the various positions of various scholars as to what the meaning of the word is. Anytime I hear the phrase "All scholars agree that..." I know I'm not being told the truth anyhow since "all" scholars can't agree on anything. I can easily say to an employer who I have no love for that I will give my hesed to them and say to another person that I do love that I will give my hesed to them as well.

[Brandan Kraft]

Gill denies Darth.

I don't know who you are Flynn. But if you had read my other posts on the topic you would also know what else Gill had to say about God's disposition toward the reprobate. If Gill taught what you think is "common grace", then he clearly contradicts himself numerous times!

[Flynn]

I don't know who you are Flynn. But if you had read my other posts on the topic you would also know what else Gill had to say about God's disposition toward the reprobate. If Gill taught what you think is "common grace", then he clearly contradicts himself numerous times!

G'day Darth,

No matter if Gill contradicted himself or not. He did say God loves the non-elect in the senses he outlines. He expressly says that God bears toward them a non-electing love and favour and goodwill. Its just not right to try and make him mean bare goodness.

take care
Flynn

[Flynn]

disciple:


[cut cut] God does not just deal with individuals. He deals with families and nations and countries. Israel found a special spot as the object of God's love in the Old Testament. He saved His people almost exclusively out of that nation. When He adressed Israel in the OT He would often adress them all as believers just as in the NT the author of the epistle will adress the church generally as if all were believers. And so as an organic whole (although there were often more reprobate than elect in the nation) God adressed Israel as His people and is said to love them. As an organic whole He also rejected them as they fell into greater and greater outward apostacy and removed His love from them as a nation.

In the Jewish mind, a nation is collection of individuals. In the Jewish mind, a nation is not an abstraction, something considered apart from the individuals. And so, the object of God's hatred in these verses denotes a collection of individuals, who constitute, families, clans, and nations. When it says he hated them, he means a certain collection of particulars. Of these same particulars, he says he ceases adding his love to them. When you use the term organic, you actually imply that God stopped loving no one in particular.

Thus, the question is this, is this text teaching us that God stopped loving no one in particular? Is that what you want to say?

You know the Arminians say that when it comes to the election of God, in Roms 9, God only elects nations, but not individuals. How is your reasoning here any different?

This does not logically follow. I'm not saying that hesed cannot be accompanied by love, I'm saying that it is not necessary to have hesed toward someone in order to have love.

Strange sentences. You want to say that hesed can come with love; implying that it may not come with love. And: one can show love without showing hesed love. Okay; sure. But hesed entails love. The concept of love is inseparable from the definition of hesed. You can add covenant loyalty, for sure. But its covenant love loyalty. And here is here is an example of hesed love loyalty. Hesed cannot be separated from love, compassion, kindess. Thats what the word denotes.

Ive read TWOT, can you show me where hesed means a loyalty without love? a loyalty without or apart from the underlying attitude of compassion and love? Thats what I would like to get clarified from you. If I have misread you, that you are not trying to say that hesed means here merely a loyalty without love, sorry.

take care,
Flynn

[GraceAmbassador]

Thus, the question is this, is this text teaching us that God stopped loving no one in particular? Is that what you want to say?

I was going to drop out of this thread since I have aprehended all that I feel I can take, but I want to use Flynn's quote above to add a little wood to the fire, (if not atomic fuel) by the following:

Should not the question above be:

"...the question is: is this text teaching that God stopped loving no one in particular, or as a whole nation even when at the same time keeping the promise of a Messiah?"

If this is really "hate" as we discuss here as being the "hate" with which He hates the reprobate with, or hated His people with then what to say of His love when He demonstrated His love towards us (them) even when we were sinners... or when when we were children of wrath, dead in our trespasses and sins but He quickened us? (I am sure we are all familiar with these texts). That's my point that I am having such a hard time to express (at least as I wanted to be able to express).

Those texts do not indicate a "change" in God.
Can we say the same about the reprobate? God is still unchangeable in that HHe savingly loves His elect but at the same time He "is temporalily good" to the reprobate, or, as I call it, God has a truce a self imposed truce towards the reprobate. (Truce in the very nature of the word: a temporary cessation of hostilities). I think I have made my mind up on this...

When we were corresponding with Phil Johnson in the other thread, I emailed to him my opinion on this subject and posted a suggestion for a comparison between the text of Isaiah 61 and the quotation of Isaiah 61 Jesus uses in the New Testament. The part that says: ..."and the day of the veangeance of the Lord..." is left out by Jesus. Either Jesus was prone to misquote scriptures or He simply is the truce and declared the time of a truce. In this period the reprobate will enjoy the goodness of God and will prosper to the awe and astonishement of many. I will not call this "love" in the same level of LOVE as in God's love for His elect.

The above is how I reconcile this issue and it is what I will teach taking full responsibiltiy for my teaching before God.

Scholarship and translations are not helping here. What I have been able to capture has been from scriptures provided by Doug and the comments of Wildboar and Bill Twisse. My position has been taken, my made is made up.

Milt

[Flynn]

PS, And its for this reason we have lovingkindness in Ps 89:33, where David recites the divine oath first given in 2 Sam 7:15.
take care
Flynn