ARGH!!! Open Theism makes me furious!!!
- Thread starter Swordsman
- Start date
For the love of money is the root of all (pantwn) evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows. 1Timothy 6:10, KJV
For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil, for which some have strayed from the faith in their greediness, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows. 1 Timothy 6:10, NKJV
They would not explicitly say this, but it is the logical conclusion if one accepts their logic. They want their cake and eat it to. If God knows and predestines individual destiny, there is not genuine free will. Determinism is antithetical to freedom/moral agency. There position is incoherent and an attempt to allow freedom while determining things?
Thanks for a well thought out, calm, explanatary post of your position. I looked up what I could in the Greek when this came up as a topic in this thread and you are correct with only one minor caveat.
Seeing as I know little about Greek, I asked a couple people that know a lot more. One who teaches Greek (although not a Greek scholar, is writing her doctoral disortation) and the other a Doctor of Theology from a real University. And if it matters, these people believe in not-the-open-view (because you don't like the term "closed view", I don't know what you call it).
Also, I didn't relate to this thread, I asked an open ended question on what PAS refers to in John 12:32. Simply put, after some study, the most popular translation would be "all men", but "all things" is also not outside of proper translation. "All judgement" is not a possible translation. I'll go further and ask a real scholar if I have to, but this would seem to be a strong passage for the clost view.
Please excuse the typos, I banged this post out rather quickly.
If you say this about Jim, you should say much more against sozo. He calls people idiots and ignorant when he is the one who does not have a clue about basic grammatical issues. He never gives public apologizes for his flaming when he is shown to be wrong in facts or attitude.
Jim at least backed his flaming up with facts and not false accusations.
If sozo dishes it out, he should take it (though I respect your mild rebuke of Jim's flame...we can get our points across more respectfully).
Sozo mocks those who look to experts in their field. If he would recognize his own limitations, he would have saved face in this 'all' debate. He thinks he knows more than Greek scholars and translators. It is clear he will retain a belief that is grammatically indefensible. He mocks those who do due diligence, while persisting in his own ignorance. This is simply arrogant and stubborn. It reminds me of JWs who defend Jn. 1:1 as 'a god' against all grammatical evidence. Sometimes we need to look to experts to get answers. We do this in science and medicine, why not in theology?
Last edited:
A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. You do not seem to have enough background to know which tools to use and how to use them. IF you would look at a Greek-English INTERLINEAR (the right tool), you would see the word ending there. You would not see the word 'men' because it is strongly implied in the word/context. Jim gave many examples to demonstrate similiar consistent uses of the word/phrase.
I will give money to all (men= implied, so could add it) who come to my house.
Jesus came to give life and hope to all (men could be safely added for understanding, but is not necessary; men being used to describe humanity, including women).
This is Grade 7 English grammar, let alone similar principles in Greek to English translation.
I don't mean to jump all over you so early into your post, but I haven't really presented a "position" per se. I was just translating. Exegeting the passage was not my intent. If you're interested in my interpretation of it (i.e., my position), that may have to wait.
After reading your caveat, I hasten to say that my explanation agrees with your friends', but I apparently wasn't clear enough for that to come through. See below.
I just call it the "determinist view."
I agree, and this is what I tried to convey (perhaps not as clearly as I could/should have) when I conceded that "pantas" (accusative, plural, masculine adjective) could very well be "panta" (accusative, plural neuter adjective), the latter of which translates "all things," or "all manner of things," depending on context.
I fully agree. While it is nice to get the confirmation from your friends, this one would be a no-brainer even in English. We would never say, "all dog barks," and expect it to make sense, but that's exactly the kind of thing Sozo is suggesting. And where he gets accusative singular for "panta" is a mystery to me.
Scholar-schmoller! You're clearly one of the sharper and more honest thinkers on this site. Yorzhik, you and I can hammer this stuff out without the blessings of "scholars". Seriously though, I don't mind having the "experts" look over my shoulder. It keeps me sharp and makes me work harder.
Yorzhik, I hesitate to say the following, because the last time I did this, I later regretted it. But here goes: You've thus far shown yourself to be a exceptionally fair-minded person who seems to be truly open to rational discourse as opposed to the cheap-shot emotional arguments that seem to run rampant whenever I try to get straight answers around here (and I'm just as responsible for using them). I know you're not here to impress me, nor should that matter at all to our discussions, but I do want to commend you for being level-headed and actually willing to roll up your sleeves and dig into some of these issues on your own. From my experience among the OVers, that is quite exceptional and demonstrates a genuine desire to accurately know and understand your opponent's point of view. It is both encouraging, and humbling. I'm glad to know you. Keep up the good work.
elected4ever
New member
John 12:32 Â_And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me.
If you read John you will see that men is an arbitrary addition by the translator to give an understanding to the verse. The word men is not in the Greek transcript.The verse should read, "And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all unto me." We are left with the question, all of what?
Is there a nominative, singular noun in Jesus' statement that agrees with the word all without adding the word men? Well yes there is and that word is judgment in verse 31, "Now is the judgment of this world: now shall the prince of this world be cast out,Â_And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all (judgment) unto me.
This makes perfect sense when one reads John 5:22- 27
John 5:22 Â_For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son:
23 Â_That all men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father. He that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father which hath sent him.
24 Â_Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.
25 Â_Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live.
26 Â_For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself;
27 Â_And hath given him authority to execute judgment also, because he is the Son of man.
If you read John you will see that men is an arbitrary addition by the translator to give an understanding to the verse. The word men is not in the Greek transcript.The verse should read, "And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all unto me." We are left with the question, all of what?
Is there a nominative, singular noun in Jesus' statement that agrees with the word all without adding the word men? Well yes there is and that word is judgment in verse 31, "Now is the judgment of this world: now shall the prince of this world be cast out,Â_And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all (judgment) unto me.
This makes perfect sense when one reads John 5:22- 27
John 5:22 Â_For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son:
23 Â_That all men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father. He that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father which hath sent him.
24 Â_Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.
25 Â_Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live.
26 Â_For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself;
27 Â_And hath given him authority to execute judgment also, because he is the Son of man.
This is a good example of maturity, wisdom, and grace as we debate issues that we differ on. Dialogue and insight is not helped by name-calling.
"Idiot, Christ-hater, ignorant, etc." are simply unacceptable and unnecessary in our disagreements (especially when the name caller is in the wrong on the issue). Speak the truth in love. Edify rather than vilify. This does not preclude a timely rebuke of those who need it.
The Greek word for "all" is either "pantas" (accusative, plural, masculine) or "panta" (accusative, plural, neuter). The Greek word for judgment is singular and feminine. Neither "pantas" nor "panta" fits with "judgment" based on basic rules of grammar.
The problem, e4e, is that "all" is not singular! None of the manuscripts support any singular rendering of "pas."
So you've asked and answered the wrong question to make a specious case for an untenable interpretation. The right question would be, "Is there a nominative plural noun in Jesus' statement that agrees with the plural adjective without adding the word 'men' or 'things'?"
The answer is "no".
In Jn 5:22, "all" and "judgment" are in agreement (gender, number). In Jn 12:32 they are not.
Sozo
New member
That's right! A different word is used when it does not mean "every" single one or thing. John 12:32 means all, not all kinds, or all manner of.
Are you guys trying to say that the word all cannot refer to judgment in any situation?
I agree with e4e, and I am not convinced that It refers to men.
Not that I will accept this view, but according to your rules of grammer, can the all refer to "the world" in John 12:32? Why? Why not?
The context demands that the word all be related to the subject at hand.
Context is king, but any single sentence or verb must first be translated based on grammar. More than one thought or argument is found in Jn. 12. Do not tunnel on the idea of judgment when He also introduces ideas of mercy as a contrast (especially when the grammar does not support your view).
Hermeneutics= art and science of Bible interpretation. Exegesis....
literal, historical, cultural, contextual, theological, AND GRAMMATICAL method...all are relevant in translation and interpretation...a word is more fundamental than a paragraph...it is the building block for ideas.
Hermeneutics= art and science of Bible interpretation. Exegesis....
literal, historical, cultural, contextual, theological, AND GRAMMATICAL method...all are relevant in translation and interpretation...a word is more fundamental than a paragraph...it is the building block for ideas.
No, it's the same word (pas), but a different form (to correctly correspond with "evil").
I don't know enough about Greek to know the specifics, but for instance this form (pantwn) could be singular, since "evil" is singular. The gender may be different also; I don't know. (Maybe Jim can fill us in on what gender/tense of pas this is).
All I was pointing is that pas can rightly be translated as "all kinds of."
Sozo, the reason Jim is saying that "all" can't be referring to "judgment" in John 12:32 is because in greek, nouns have gender and adjectives have gender and are either singular or plural like nouns. And adjectives take the form (gender & number) of whatever noun they are modifying.
In John 12:32 "all" is plural, and is either masculine or neuter. But "judgement is singular and feminine. So if "all" were referring to judgment, it would be in the singular feminine form in this verse. But it isn't.
To say that this "all" (pantas) refers to judgment would be like saying that "he" to refer to a woman, or "they" refers to an apple.
In John 12:32 "all" is plural, and is either masculine or neuter. But "judgement is singular and feminine. So if "all" were referring to judgment, it would be in the singular feminine form in this verse. But it isn't.
To say that this "all" (pantas) refers to judgment would be like saying that "he" to refer to a woman, or "they" refers to an apple.
Regardless, each word and sentence stands on its own merit within a context. There are times that Paul and others weaved different issues and ideas in a paragraph. It is possible to talk about judgment, grace, and mercy sentence by sentence. Jn. 3...the argument progresses contrasting belief and unbelief, etc. Other passages may move from discussion about sin to righteousness, or unbelief to belief, or present reality to future eschatology, etc. It would be inaccurate to focus on one of the dualisms at the expense of the other in the context.
"All" is first of all a grammatical issue (antecedents, etc.) and then a contextual issue. The context can support your idea, perhaps, but the grammar will not allow it. Someone should come up with a parallel passage where the overall context contains a sentence that is another passing idea different than the main context. Specific arguments and ideas can flow and build within a broad context.
e.g. I can write about punishments and discipline of children or criminals. Within that discussion, I could put a sentence about rewarding good behavior or about individuals who do not need discipline. I could not argue that the sentence means judgment instead of mercy because of the overall context and emphasis on jugdment. Judgment and mercy are relevant contrasts. Some contexts may emphasize mercy and throw an isolated sentence about judgment in. Other contexts may be primarily about judgment, but this does not preclude the possibility of a sentence standing by itself in that context reminding us of mercy.
The Gospel of John has several dualisms and contrasts that are found within a single context (light/darkness, belief/unbelief, life/death, God/man, etc.).
This is equally true in Greek, English, French, or German. This is a grammatical, not theological issue at the moment. Exegesis demands that all does not refer to judgment without negating the context. Eisegesis would be saying it must refer to judgment despite the standard practice of including the implied word 'man' to reflect the case, gender, and number of the adjective. There are many Greek idioms that are correctly translated despite not seeming literal to the layman. Robertson's grammar is 5 inches thick. There are many issues in word studies and translation that are simply outside our knowledge base. Amateur Greek students should not presume to know all the intricacies of grammar and translation based on having a language tool or two. These resources are of limited benefit if one does not have a strong background in language studies (this would be my situation...I am an introductory student, not an advanced scholar). In this 'all' case, we are talking about basic, introductory grammar.