A Bit More on the Subjunctive and Kerrigan Skelly

The Subjunctive Does Not Disprove Calvinism

Well, it's time for another screen flow video this time in my office. Which will sort of look like the way we used to do them. I used to have the camera like up here I sort of like that. Sort of looking down at me.

You know, I might move it around. We'll see but anyways, we're in the office now real quick and I wanted to address something else that Kerrigan Skelly had said a couple of times in his John six video.

We'll do on the dividing line when we address it, but we need to stick with the Bart Ehrman stuff for the moment. So it might be later in the week before we can get around to it. But one of the things that struck me as we talked about his lack of understanding of what the subjunctive means is very Narrow it all has to mean this definition.

Was he kept saying? And since this is using the subjunctive obviously Calvinism is wrong because Calvinism talks about this decree and here it's talking about salvation using Possibilities and so like and it's and I'm like, do you think maybe?

Kerrigan that there's been a few Calvinists down through the ages. It could actually re-agree. Maybe just a few one or two. You think maybe we've we've run into subjunctive before and it may might have made us go, huh.

The subjunctive is being used. I guess there's no eternal decree. Maybe that should have given you some type of a hint. That your application here is just completely bogus and completely wrong. Maybe.

Here's one of these examples talking about John 639. Which is just so outrageously clear in its statements and yet Because of his misunderstanding the original languages he's already come up with different groups and divided Phrases up and and all the rest of stuff but listen what he says about the subjunctive specifically.

Because it'll give you an example of how this works and there wasn't a scripture that he had to fulfill concerning that the fact that it's that this scripture says Should lose nothing and should raise him up at the last day and that these are in the subjunctive proves that God's will may or may not be done since the subjunctive deals with possibilities or probabilities and not definite decree as Calvinism does as.

Calvinism does so if there's any subjunctives then Calvinism is wrong. Well, let's let's look at two examples of where this kind of thinking just completely collapses. We'll look at. John 639 Knows what it says this is the will of the one who sent me and I.

Evidently, I said something about a present in a previous video my apologies. You can see the Sigma Alpha right there because it's Pempo. So you see the the Sigma coalescing with the pie there. Pempson does it's obviously an heiress.

But anyways to Pempson Tasme the one who sent me. Then you have Hinnom. So the one who sent me I was the father this is the father's will and then you have in a Hinnom clause and When you have to ta and then Hinnom This is such-and-such and then you have Hinnom it is clearly telling us what That will is.

This is the will of the father. This is the will the one who sent me that and Then the rest is in the subjunctive not because well, we don't know if Jesus could be able to do this. This is the mechanism by which the Greek language expresses purpose and result or in a Hinnom clause here is the the very intention of the will of the father and So it says in order that all which and it's in the neuter so here the whole body of the elect all those are given by the father the son are seen as as one Of all that he has given to me.

I lose none of it. But I raise it up in the last day. So the will the father is that the son be a perfect savior that he lose nothing of All those that are given to him. Now, we'll see when we spend time going through Mr. Skelly's amazing interpretation of this that this is an empty statement.

Because when it all comes down to is well, you know, um, yeah this because they persevered and So since they persevered then Jesus will lose none of them. Well, why would he lose any of them? They've already persevered to dead.

They've gone to heaven. All he's saying here is I won't kick anybody out of heaven really. See, he's by cutting the the text into pieces. He's completely lost the context. There's no flow. There's no meaning that is being carried through the text any longer.

And that's a sure sign of the disruption of the meaning of the text, but here you have Subjunctive Terms that I lose none of it, but I raise it up on the last day. This is the will of the Father for the Son and yet because that's the subjunctive in a Hinnok clause.

That means we're not sure if the Sun's gonna be able to do that. No, that's not what it's saying at all, let's let's look at another one that makes us just as just as clear a well-known text. 2nd Corinthians 5 19.

2nd Corinthians chapter 5. Well beginning at verse 19 you have this tremendous text and there's some confusion today because Of NT Wright's take on this you can listen to our brief disagreement about this text in the unbelievable radio broadcast we did but Wright has the very I think unusual and I think it's just one of those places where His system doesn't fit with Paul and but he's he's gonna make it fit anyways where in essence in verse 21 when we have The one not knowing sin in behalf of us sin he made so.

So he made him who knew a sin to be sin in our behalf who pair him own substitutionary concept Hinnok in order that we and we actually Had a discussion on unbelievable about what get Noma Tha means at this point that we might become the righteousness of God in him because obviously the big issue with rights righteousness of God and Vindication of God and all the other things I'm not getting into here.

But the point is that I really doubt Kerrigan Skelly is much into NT Wright's Perspectives on things they seem to be worlds apart. And so here you have The father Made the son to be sin made the sinless one To be sin.

Hina not hoping. Not. Oh Golly, I I hope I can make this happen not probabilities not mere possibilities. This was the whole reason for doing this. That's how the Greek language expresses What the reason of the action of the preceding clause is.

He made him who knew no sin to be sin in our place in order that so he did this. So that this would happen. There's no other way to express it. So I would just ask Kerrigan Skelly show us someplace in the Greek New Testament where this kind of purpose is Expressed not using the subjunctive.

That's what I'd like to see. Because clearly what's being said here in order that we and that you know It's the relationship here in our behalf in order that we now just in passing right limits this to the Apostles.

It's interesting right has to limit this just the Apostles. Skelly has to limit part of John 6 just to the Apostles. And I think both are completely wrong. In order that we might be made the righteousness of God in him the whole reason.

For the great exchange the whole reason why the one who knew no sin was made to be sin in our behalf. And obviously Jesus wasn't made sin only in the behalf of the Apostles. So how this can be limited to them?

I I've never quite figured that out, but The whole purpose is found in the Hinnok laws in order that we Might be made the righteousness of God in him. This is what the father did in relationship with the son.

So that The father can treat us in this way because of what Christ has done the great exchange. He be he becomes sin for us. We receive the righteousness of God. It's right there and has nothing to do with Probabilities possibilities may may not happen.

That's just a errant Gross misunderstanding and a limitation remember you in the previous video. I showed you Wallace's listing of all the different kinds of subjunctive categories. That you have to be able to look at.

But here is two really good examples as to where there's a problem with what Kerrigan Skelly's saying. So just a quick quick screen flow video to emphasize that and Also to see how this will all work here in the office to whenever the the fancy might strike to throw something together.

This program really makes it easy to do so two beautiful texts and neither one of them are saying Well, God's trying but you know, we don't know might not work out No God is accomplishing and he's accomplishing Powerfully and he has done so to his own honor and glory.

So thanks for watching.