John Calvin on John 3:16

[disciple]

You have said that i am Dishonest and a waste of time, you have insulted me and caused mistrust towards me on this forum, i have not been Dishonest toward you, for a second time i ask you to apologise. Ivor Thomas..

again, there is nothing to apologize for. if you would just provide evidence for your claims rather than employing cavalier dismissal because you've done "a bunch of study" then there wouldn't be any issue. it is you that have caused mistrust towards you on this forum because you pretend to be an expert but will provide no evidence (other than a quote from the KJV which you hold as the standard by a priori). so you have no one to blame but yourself. please cease trying to force an apology out of me because the solution to this issue lies in your power alone.

[Ivor Thomas]

G'day Ivor,

If the KJV says its mercy, and apparently its inerrant as you see it, please define the word mercy for us? What is the mercy of God?

Thanks
Flynn

Hello Flynn i never said the KJV was inerrant, I find it to be more reliable, well Flynn you can go vines or strongs or some other for definition of Mercy, But then of course, what ever context you find it in scriptures, would have to be taken into account dont you think. Thanks Ivor Thomas

[harald]

Doug and Ivor. I will not try to sort out your apparent disagreement. You will have to do it yourselves. But I think you, Doug, have spoken to Ivor, who is much elder than yourself, as though there existed nothing such as obligation for respect towards such as are elder than yourself (age-wise), irrespective of the fact of your being a moderator. To say that Ivor is "dishonest" is to say he is not an honest man, but something else. What "empirical evidence" (a favourite term of yours by the way) have you to put forth that this is in fact true of Ivor? You could have worded yourself more carefully and not state so dogmatically that he is "dishonest".


Harald

[harald]

Doug. As for KJV vs. NIV I did say my opinion that KJV "in general" is more faithful. I do not say always. I can quickly point out one area where in the NT the KJV is far superior to the NIV, and that is soteriology, including the doctrine of justification before God. Just think of all those passages where NIV darkens counsel by rendering "pisteôs Iêsou Christou" as "faith IN Jesus Christ". Just to support the common "evangelical" heterodoxy of justification before God by or thru faith in Christ.

Your one and a half page document was not much helpful. Things that are different are not the same. God the Holy Spirit was not in the business of tautology. When He for some reason inspired some penman to use this word instead of that word He obviously had a good reason. As for OIDA (eidô) and GINOOSKOO they are by far not the same. If you claim they are then I say you have not learned your Greek vocabulary aright. KJV btw very much darkens counsel in the NT by rendering both verbs "know". Perhaps so also with other versions. At least NIV does so in 1John where both verbs are much used by John. Both versions thusly neglect to distinguish between things that differ, having been translated by men who were reprobate concerning the faith.



Harald

[GraceAmbassador]

Please keep in mind the following:

Deut 7:7 The LORD did not set his affection on you and choose you because you were more numerous than other peoples, for you were the fewest of all peoples. 8 But it was because the LORD loved you and kept the oath he swore to your ancestors that he brought you out with a mighty hand and redeemed you from the land of slavery, from the power of Pharaoh king of Egypt.

when you read these texts:

Hos 1:6 Gomer conceived again and gave birth to a daughter. Then the LORD said to Hosea, “Call her Lo-Ruhamah (which means “not loved”), for I will no longer show love to the house of Israel, that I should at all forgive them.


Hos 9:15 “Because of all their wickedness in Gilgal, I hated them there. Because of their sinful deeds,I will drive them out of my house. I will no longer love them; all their leaders are rebellious.


2 Sam 7:15 But my love will never be taken away from him, as I took it away from Saul, whom I removed from before you.


Jer 12:7 “I will forsake my house, abandon my inheritance; I will give the one I love into the hands of her enemies. 8 My inheritance has become to me like a lion in the forest. She roars at me; therefore I hate her.


Ps 78:59 When God heard, He was filled with wrath and greatly abhorred Israel;

i guess the question we need to ask here when we insert a caveat such as this that is not really based on a specific text but a human understanding of a logical construct is, "what does it mean that God is immutable?" and do we properly understand what this doctrine refers/applies to when our construct does not allow room for such statements as those above?

Doug: I love debating with you! Even if I always lose, I always GAIN! Now that I am slightly more lucid than last night (if that is at all possible) let me answer you the way I know how:

If God changes (or mutates) his feelings for His people, (assuming you agree with me that the Hebrews in the O.T. were God's elect) is that the same thing as God loving the reprobate and then changing this love after they go to hell, if such a mutation really occurs? If this indicates God's "mutability", then what to say about God loving people to hell!

Without falling into the fallacies already mentioned here about biblical words (see, my son gave me Carson's book on Exegetical Fallacies at Christimas 2003 and I use it often...) how can we define or equate the love/hate/wrath/anger God feels for His elect people with the love that He has for the unelect (assuming again this loves exists)?

If I love my son, but am angered with him momentarily and discipline him (although not using the word hate) does that mean that I am mutating my feelings toward him? Does that mean I am fleeting inconsistent. volatile and unreliable in my feelings? I know this is a parablblical example. You know it is my style often to use these examples for understanding purposes, but it is a valid one.

Also, although we are discussing Calvin's teachings on a particular issue, first and foremost I should check your opinion on this: Do you think God loves the reprobate to hell?

Doug, I am not an expert in anything... Or a specialist on anything... I am an oxymoronic "especialist in generalities" . A specialist (or an expert) is someone who knows much about very little.

I hope we can dispell tensions a bit here; thus I often tend to use humor for such purpose... I pray it works.

Milt

[ray kikkert]

maybe he doesn't need any help. maybe we just need to work harder at understanding what exactly he's saying. it may be that high calvinists just don't have a category for this type of language and so according to their fixed system, calvin must either be a heretic, inconsistent, or, as many try to unsuccessfully demonstrate, doesn't really mean what he seems to mean (and then they proceed to bring in evidence from other contexts rather than discussing the texts in question...e.g., ray kikkert).

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

[Robert R. Higby]

Doug:
and this does not escape the logical quandry that God was loyal, faithful, good, kind, gracious, etc. (all synonyms for or expressions of love/affection) at one time and then was not. in other words, He changed. and whether or not it is the OC and even in the wrangling about the words, the logical conclusion is inescapable that He changed His disposition toward someone (both nations and individuals). so if we don't have a problem with this type of language applied to God in the OT, then we shouldn't have a problem using that type of language (for we find it in the NT as well, cf. John 3:16-36, Eph 2.1-10, etc.).

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.

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

[GraceAmbassador]

Doug:
and this does not escape the logical quandry that God was loyal, faithful, good, kind, gracious, etc. (all synonyms for or expressions of love/affection) at one time and then was not. in other words, He changed. and whether or not it is the OC and even in the wrangling about the words, the logical conclusion is inescapable that He changed His disposition toward someone (both nations and individuals). so if we don't have a problem with this type of language applied to God in the OT, then we shouldn't have a problem using that type of language (for we find it in the NT as well, cf. John 3:16-36, Eph 2.1-10, etc.).

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.

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

Right again Bill!

I have to add to this conversation that a change in "God's disposition" is not the same as God changing as an overall divine being. I hope I made myself clear. (See a few posts above).

I provided a family situation event to aid my point and the understanding thereof.

I don't want to be repetitious, but my disagreement with Doug (as I perceive it) lies on the fact that He believes that the changing of God's disposition towards His people, whereas He still maintained His promises and decrees about and to them, is the same as the possibility of God loving the reprobate, to whom He made not, nor maintained any promise of a "deliverance" or a "messiah" in the future, whether it be spiritual or natural, and then hating them when they are in hell.

If, otherwise, God continues to love them while in hell, I would like to see some proof that God has any feelings or interest for the "dead" based upon the scripture I provided of Mat 22:32, which, in my humble view IS relevant to this discussion.

The summary of my point is: God's changing His disposition towards His people is not the same as God loving/hating the reprobate, thus it does not prove that God changes, or that God is "changeable". We MUST be careful not to fall into the pit of open-theism (this is not a straw-man, please).

Pauline Gospel shows that God is faithful even under blunt unfaithfulness. But that faithfulness is directed to and exclusive of the Elect.

I hope I was capable of expressing myself clearly. I am sorry if after reading Bill Twisse's post, I jumped into answering my own questions to Doug that I aksed in a previous post without giving him the courtesy of waiting for an answer.

Milt

[disciple]

To say that Ivor is "dishonest" is to say he is not an honest man, but something else. What "empirical evidence" (a favourite term of yours by the way) have you to put forth that this is in fact true of Ivor? You could have worded yourself more carefully and not state so dogmatically that he is "dishonest".

it is there for all to see. he makes a claim and gives no basis for it. i will summarize it:

his claim: the verses are translated wrong
his basis: it doesn't agree with the KJV
my request: provide grammatical evidence from the original why the translation is wrong
his answer: i've already done a bunch of study and don't need to tell you about it

[wildboar]

Doug:

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. 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.

[wildboar]

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?

[Flynn]

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

G'day Ray,
Its interesting that you say one specfic text. Ive shown you a dozen or so over the last month, but you just ignore them. Youve yet to show anyone what exactly from Calvin you think refutes his other statements on general love. But you mention forefathers. I wonder if you think that Ursinus, the principle author of the Heidelberg catechism, to which you must subscribe, as part of the three forms of unity, when he says:

"Merciful. God's appears in this: 1. That he wills the salvation of all men. 2. That he defers punishment, and invites all to repentance. 3. That he accomedates himself to our infirmity. 4. That he redeems those called into his service. 5. That he gave and delivered up to death his only begotten Son. 6. That he promises and does all these things most freely out of his mercy. 7. That he confers benefits upon his enemies and such as are unworthy of his regard...

"Bountiful. God is said to be bountiful; 1. Because he creates and preserves all things. 2. Because he confers benefits upon all, even upon the wicked. 3. Because of the free and boundless love which he exercises towards his creatures, especially to man. 4. Because of the love which he cherished towards the church, and in giving them eternal life and glory to his people."

Ursinus, Commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism, p., 127.

He has a threefold love of God there: love to the creature, love to man, love to the elect. ray, is there any mainstream Reformed theologian prior to 1924, whose writings are in English today, for fairness sake, whom you think denied this three-fold view of love? Is there any that you respect, which are acessible in English today that we can accept as a common starting point for meaningful dialogue? Eg, Polanus, a' Brakel, Turretin, Heppe, Witsius, Bavinck, Owen, etc. Anyone you think is representative, autoritatively, of pre-1924 Reformed theology?

Take care,
Flynn

[Flynn]

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?

Jer 12:7-8, Hos 1:6, and Hos 9:15, with 2 Sam 7:15. The Brown-Drive-Briggs Hebrew Lexicon defines hesed, when divinely expressed to persons as "loving-kindness," and lists 2 Sam 7:15 as an example of this.

Hos 9:15 has the Hebrew word ahav (sometimes spelt ahab) which means love. The literal wording is, I shall ceasing joining my love to them, that also applies to Hos 1:6, where the Hebrew is racham, which in its verbal form means love: see the BDD again on this. Here too Yahweh says I will cease joining my love to them.

God ceases to love them. It does not mean he never loved them, but that he stopped loving them, hence this is why every translation words it this way.

Hope that helps,
Flynn

[wildboar]

Jer. 12:7-8, Hos. 1:6, and Hos. 9:15 all speak of God's organic dealings in His plan of salvation. As Israel existed as the church of the old dispensation God loved her, but Israel's rebelliousness grew and grew and God called a people to himself which were not previously his people and saved people out of every nation tribe and tongue. Just as a minister stands before the congregation and adresses them as God's people and offers God's blessing knowing full well there are those who are not God's people among the congregation, so God adresses his people organically. Hos. 9:15 shows that it is impossible for God to both love and hate a person simultaneously. It certainly couldn't be used to show a general love of God for mankind since the passages are adressing specific groups who God now hates instead of loves.

[disciple]

Your one and a half page document was not much helpful. Things that are different are not the same. God the Holy Spirit was not in the business of tautology. When He for some reason inspired some penman to use this word instead of that word He obviously had a good reason.

it wasn't meant to be THE definitive treatment on the subject. also, i'm not saying that the words are perfect synonyms but that in some contexts there is almost no distinction. for example, both AGAPAW and FILEW are used to describe the Father's love for the Son. out of curiosity, using john 21 as an example, what would you say is the Holy Spirit inspired distinction between the synonyms in that text (as described in my paper)? what precisely do the different terms mean? and do you not allow variation of language for stylistic reasons?

[Flynn]

Jer. 12:7-8, Hos. 1:6, and Hos. 9:15 all speak of God's organic dealings in His plan of salvation. As Israel existed as the church of the old dispensation God loved her, but Israel's rebelliousness grew and grew and God called a people to himself which were not previously his people and saved people out of every nation tribe and tongue. Just as a minister stands before the congregation and adresses them as God's people and offers God's blessing knowing full well there are those who are not God's people among the congregation, so God adresses his people organically. Hos. 9:15 shows that it is impossible for God to both love and hate a person simultaneously. It certainly couldn't be used to show a general love of God for mankind since the passages are adressing specific groups who God now hates instead of loves.

G'day Wild,

No one is using this or the other verses to prove a general love for mankind, but only to respond to the claim that God could never love the reprobate, else he would be mutable. So that aside, so who was actually hated? Was the object of God's hatred here anyone in particular? Whom exactly did he hate here in Hos 9:15?

And with respect to Saul, where Yahweh says he has taken his lovingkindess from Saul, how does your answer address this?

Thanks
Flynn

[Flynn]

Hello Flynn i never said the KJV was inerrant, I find it to be more reliable, well Flynn you can go vines or strongs or some other for definition of Mercy, But then of course, what ever context you find it in scriptures, would have to be taken into account dont you think. Thanks Ivor Thomas

G'day Ivor,

How do you know that the KJV here is more accurate than any other translation on 2 Sam 7:15 for example? Most of them express the Hebrew, hesed, as some form of love, eg, lovingkindness, loyal love, or just love?

But that aside. If the argument is that if God were to love the reprobate yet cease in that love to them, else he would be mutable, how it not also the case that if God is merciful to the reprobate, yet ceases in that love, he is not also subject to the claim that he is now mutable? How does the mercy of 2 Sam 7:15 and Hos 1:6 (as the KJV translates it) compatible with that electing and unconditional and never-ending mercy of Roms 9?

One more thing, the KJV is actually not consistent here. For the 2 Sam 7:15 covenant promise to David is repeated by David in Ps 89:33. There David refers to that promise made by Yahweh to David, back to God. But here the KJV correctly translates the same Hebrew word "hesed" as lovingkindness, so then why should we not make the most natural conclusion that the mercy of 2 Sam 7:15 and the lovingkindess of Ps 89:33, being from the same Hebrew word hesed (spelt chesed in the 19th C) is not the same in meaning?

Compare:

2 Sam:
7:12 And when thy days be fulfilled, and thou shalt sleep with thy
fathers, I will set up thy seed after thee, which shall proceed out of
thy bowels, and I will establish his kingdom.
7:13 He shall build an house for my name, and I will stablish the throne
of his kingdom for ever.
7:14 I will be his father, and he shall be my son. If he commit iniquity, I
will chasten him with the rod of men, and with the stripes of the
children of men:
7:15 But my mercy shall not depart away from him, as I took it from
Saul, whom I put away before thee.
7:16 And thine house and thy kingdom shall be established for ever
before thee: thy throne shall be established for ever.
7:17 According to all these words, and according to all this vision, so did
Nathan speak unto David.


Psalm:
89:32 Then will I visit their transgression with the rod, and their iniquity
with stripes.
89:33 Nevertheless my lovingkindness will I not utterly take from him,
nor suffer my faithfulness to fail.
89:34 My covenant will I not break, nor alter the thing that is gone out of
my lips.
89:35 Once have I sworn by my holiness that I will not lie unto David.
89:36 His seed shall endure for ever, and his throne as the sun before me.
89:37 It shall be established for ever as the moon, and as a faithful
witness in heaven. Selah.

take care,
Flynn

[Ivor Thomas]

Hello again Flynn i have several Translations, and happen to think NIV is a bad one, but thats just my choice, Has for Saul Gods Loving kindness [Mercy] was on display in time towards him, and not FOR Him. God does not change, he did not love Saul and then not love him, as for David Gods Mercy was toward him and for him, everlastingly, Mercy fits the context better, of who David was and who Saul was, in these verses under debate. There does not seem to me to be any conflict in the use of MERCY here,but there is with use of love. Thanks Ivor Thomas...

[Ivor Thomas]

it is there for all to see. he makes a claim and gives no basis for it. i will summarize it:

His claim: the verses are translated wrong
His basis: it doesn't agree with the KJV
My request: provide grammatical evidence from the original why the translation is wrong
his answer: i've already done a bunch of study and don't need to tell you about it

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..

[Flynn]

Hello again Flynn i have several Translations, and happen to think NIV is a bad one, but thats just my choice, Has for Saul Gods Loving kindness [Mercy] was on display in time towards him, and not FOR Him. God does not change, he did not love Saul and then not love him, as for David Gods Mercy was toward him and for him, everlastingly, Mercy fits the context better, of who David was and who Saul was, in these verses under debate. There does not seem to me to be any conflict in the use of MERCY here,but there is with use of love. Thanks 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