Freewill religion ! - Part 2

[About the Son of God]

Re: Freewill religion is the Man of Sin ! - Part 2

2Th 2:13 But we are bound to give thanks to God always for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, for that God chose you from the beginning unto salvation in sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth: In 2 Thes 2:13 if we make faith the cause of election, we also have to make sanctification of the Spirit the cause of election.

You mean, because they are both in the same sentence ?

hmmm? ... the capitalization of "Spirit" is not in the original Greek; nor does it say "Holy Spirit."; so that's an interpretation of scripture, and not scripture itself definitively.

The sentence is merely stating that salvation requires sanctification of spirit, and faith; it's not defining exactly how that is to happen in the sentence given.

Then one must already be holy before he is saved. Then of course he would not need salvation.

I don't think holiness (sanctification) is the same as "saved".
For example, the whole of Israel was a "holy people" ( sanctified people / αγια ) ; yet we read:

1Cori 10:2 And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea;
1Cori 10:3 And did all eat the same spiritual meat;
1Cori 10:4 And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.
1Cori 10:5 But with many of them God was not well pleased: for they were overthrown in the wilderness.

I am wondering if you will be consistent on that point?

In what way am I inconsistent?
If one is already holy, that simply doesn't make them "saved" in the end.
In that sentence we could add things Paul does not say, that are equally valid:
... from the beginning to salvation in a human body, born from a woman, etc...
None of these things would have to do with us choosing salvation -- but one thing in the sentence does have to do with it. "faith".

Of course there is no need for such a works oriented, self-salvation interpretation, because the verse does not say how they were chosen at all.

True, that verse doesn't say how they were chosen ; and a bigger problem -- it doesn't even say all people are chosen that way.

But, the verse which follows it DOES say how they were chosen; "a calling" NOT NOT NOT an insertion of impulse beyond their power to resist. ( God could force salvation, again -- I don't deny the possibility for a few individuals ; but I don't see examples of it beyond perhaps Paul. )

The means are written here: 2Thessalonians 2:14.
But, that type of call has a catch (quite consistently): Matthew 22:14
Look at the context of Matthew: Matthew 22:10

If it did, we would see some vocabulary that would suggest the concept of "means."

ibid.
Also, note: 2:13 and 14 are inseparable, for the "therefore" clause (conclusion) immediately follows them -- so they both must stand as the cause and not as separate ideas.

I see no reason to take the "en" ("in" sanctification....) in any other sense than to see the word salvation as the antecedent of the words "sanctification," and "faith." The word "for" speaks of a purpose clause to follow. So then, the verse is speaking of the purpose of God electing us. The purpose is salvation, and that salvation is "in sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth"

I don't quite understand your point here -- I agree the whole clause must read together; but I still see the sentence has more than one possible meaning; are you trying to say it has only one possible meaning?

Give examples of what sanctification actually is so I can perhaps begin to see your point. Compare and contrast for me: eg: How does 2Thessalonians 2:13-14 NECESSARILY differs from this:

Leviticus 11:44 For I am the LORD your God: ye shall therefore sanctify ( αγιασθησεσθε ) yourselves, and ye shall be holy; for I am holy: neither shall ye defile yourselves with any manner of creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

As a minor point: I think you may have the wrong idea about what I've said -- for I am sure that Man does not save himself -- and I never claimed that.

Nor do I believe human being can *always* do good without the constant aid of God.
There are philosophical reasons for this based on a recognition of what it means that God is perfect; and God (perfection) can not be created -- whereas we are creatures.

Salvation consists in more than one thing, but there is no salvtion if God does not remove us from the world before it's destruction; Heaven means to be with Jesus Christ, in his HOME -- which can only happen if he invites us in.

John 8:35

 

[mondar]

Re: Freewill religion is the Man of Sin ! - Part 2

2Th 2:13 But we are bound to give thanks to God always for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, for that God chose you from the beginning unto salvation in sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth:

You mean, because they are both in the same sentence ?
hmmm? ... the capitalization of "Spirit" is not in the original Greek; nor does it say "Holy Spirit."; so that's an interpretation of scripture, and not scripture itself definitively.
The sentence is merely stating that salvation requires sanctification of spirit, and faith; it's not defining exactly how that is to happen in the sentence given.

First, the issue of Spirit or spirit is a dog trail, it is meaningless to our discussion. Due to its irrelevance, I will skip commenting.
The issue is this----- you pointed to the word "belief" and used the verse as a proof text for election by foreseen faith. Now in your last sentence, you state that salvation first requires faith, and sanctification. Now you posit that a person must first be sanctified before he can be saved. The obvious implication is that this can be a universal prevenient grace, or a particular individual grace. Since you defend your position below by saying that the word in this passage cannot refer to making a person holy in the sense of being saved, I will comment on that below.

I don't think holiness (sanctification) is the same as "saved".
For example, the whole of Israel was a "holy people" ( sanctified people / αγια ) ; yet we read:

1Cori 10:2 And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea;
1Cori 10:3 And did all eat the same spiritual meat;
1Cori 10:4 And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.
1Cori 10:5 But with many of them God was not well pleased: for they were overthrown in the wilderness.

In what way am I inconsistent?
If one is already holy, that simply doesn't make them "saved" in the end.
In that sentence we could add things Paul does not say, that are equally valid:
... from the beginning to salvation in a human body, born from a woman, etc...
None of these things would have to do with us choosing salvation -- but one thing in the sentence does have to do with it. "faith".

Nothing is more obvious that the word "sanctified" can be used of something that is not saved. Many temple Items were sanctified, and they were not saved. Certainly the nation of Israel as a whole can be sanctified, and not every individual was saved, but all this is non-sequitur argumentation. The word sanctified obviously has a semantic range. All words have semantic ranges. It is erroneous and overly simplified to go to go to a context which uses the word in a different way within the semantic range and then import that meaning into the context where it does not belong. This hermeneutical approach would be as erroneous and overly simplistic as looking in a lexicon at the word αγιασμω in a lexicon and then picking the definition which best meets the theology of what you want to make the passage say. Your methodology of determining the implications is not based on the context, but your deciding the meaning of sanctified upon the basis of your own theology. that is called isogesis.

It is a little too simple to demonstrate that the word "sanctified" can refer to salvation. See Heb 10:10 or Heb 2:11; 1 cor 6:11

So then, the points you make about sanctification and it not saving are only a dog trail away from the accusation I made of your inconsistency. In the context of the verse we are discussing, if the verb "believe" refers to saving faith, what in the context demonstrates that the word "sanctify" is any different? If you make faith a precondition of election, and faith comes from us, then what contextual justification do you have for denying all those same things in the word "sanctify" since it occurs in not just the same sentence, but the same phrase.

I also want you to note, that I am not admitting that either faith or sanctification is a precondition for election. I am simply asking you to be consistent. Actually, when you apply the words faith and sanctification to the concept of election in this passages it is another grammatical isogetical error. In the sentence of the verse, sanctification and belief have as its antecedent the word salvation, and not the concept of election earlier in the verse.

Of course there is no need for such a works oriented, self-salvation interpretation, because the verse does not say how they were chosen at all.

True, that verse doesn't say how they were chosen ; and a bigger problem -- it doesn't even say all people are chosen that way.

But, the verse which follows it DOES say how they were chosen; "a calling" NOT NOT NOT an insertion of impulse beyond their power to resist. ( God could force salvation, again -- I don't deny the possibility for a few individuals ; but I don't see examples of it beyond perhaps Paul. )

The means are written here: 2Thessalonians 2:14.
But, that type of call has a catch (quite consistently): Matthew 22:14
Look at the context of Matthew: Matthew 22:10

I could start by expressing my agreement that the verses do not tell us the "HOW" of Gods choice. But then, again, I do not understand how you can say this. It seems self contradictory to me. Maybe you are saying verse 13 says "HOW" we are elected (foreseen faith) and verse 14 does not tell us "HOW."

On thing I disagree with is your understanding of the word "called" in verse 14. Again, it seems lexically overly simplistic and erroneous to me. Once again, the word "called" has a semantic range. The use of the term in 2 Thes within that Lexical range cannot be determined by going to other passages, but must be determined by the immediate context. Now if I had said that the word "called" is not used like that anywhere in the NT, you would have justification to go to another passage to demonstrate that the meaning is with the lexical range.

Your a pretty smart guy, i can see that. On the other hand, you seem to have a blind spot in your hermeneutics with understanding the concept of the context of a word. This is the 2nd time you seem to determine the meaning of a term by going to other contexts.

The word "Called" is used in a variety of ways. The call of the gospel goes out to all men. That means we take the gospel to each and every man that we possibly can. On the other hand, the NT uses the term "called" in another way. It speaks of an effectual call in which God brings the sinner to salvation. There are many other uses of the term "call" in the NT, but these two uses are the ones we are discussing. In 2 Thes 2:14 when Paul uses the term called, he is not speaking of a general call to the gospel that we take to all men, he is not talking about an ineffectual call from God to all men for the gospel, but it is an effectual call. Nothing could be more obvious because of the end of verse 14. We are called through the gospel "to the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ." If this is a universal call, then you should be defending the doctrine of universalism.

Of course verse 14 also indicates a particular election of individuals.

If it did, we would see some vocabulary that would suggest the concept of "means."

ibid.
Also, note: 2:13 and 14 are inseparable, for the "therefore" clause (conclusion) immediately follows them -- so they both must stand as the cause and not as separate ideas.

I see no reason to take the "en" ("in" sanctification....) in any other sense than to see the word salvation as the antecedent of the words "sanctification," and "faith." The word "for" speaks of a purpose clause to follow. So then, the verse is speaking of the purpose of God electing us. The purpose is salvation, and that salvation is "in sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth"

I don't quite understand your point here -- I agree the whole clause must read together; but I still see the sentence has more than one possible meaning; are you trying to say it has only one possible meaning?

Hmm, certainly all verses everywhere have only one meaning. I am in agreement with the perspicuity of scripture. I do not know what you mean that it has more then 1 meaning.

Maybe you are saying that it is not decisive on certain issues because of what is not said in the verse. That of course would be absolutely true. A very important aspect of any discussion on election is the concept of regeneration as the cause of faith. While that doctrine is not in this verse, because it does not speak of regeneration, of course the verse fits my perspective on that. The problem is that the verse does not deny the concept of universal prevenient grace. I think you are saying that the verse can fit either perspective. So then, if you are saying that the verse can fit different theologies because it does not have propositions concerning a sufficient number of the aspects of those theologies to be determinative... yes, certainly that is possible. If you are saying it has two meanings, well, I am not sure I agree.

Give examples of what sanctification actually is so I can perhaps begin to see your point. Compare and contrast for me: eg: How does 2Thessalonians 2:13-14 NECESSARILY differs from this:

Well, while the verse does not specificly state that regeneration is the cause of this sanctification, I think that is exactly what is going on in the verse.

All takes place in the same instant. God regenerates, and places faith in the heart, and also changes the persons nature so that the heart is sanctified, desires to know God, to serve God, to believe in God. So then the order of salvation would be regeneration (sanctification of the heart), faith, justification. All that would be a part of salvation which occurs in the same instant.

The important part is that then salvation is the work of God for man. The work of salvation is then not part man and part God. If man has a part in the generation of his own faith, then he has a part in the making of his own salvation.

Leviticus 11:44 For I am the LORD your God: ye shall therefore sanctify ( αγιασθησεσθε ) yourselves, and ye shall be holy; for I am holy: neither shall ye defile yourselves with any manner of creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

As a minor point: I think you may have the wrong idea about what I've said -- for I am sure that Man does not save himself -- and I never claimed that.

Nor do I believe human being can *always* do good without the constant aid of God.
There are philosophical reasons for this based on a recognition of what it means that God is perfect; and God (perfection) can not be created -- whereas we are creatures.

Salvation consists in more than one thing, but there is no salvtion if God does not remove us from the world before it's destruction; Heaven means to be with Jesus Christ, in his HOME -- which can only happen if he invites us in.

John 8:35

Yes, I understand and appreciate this to the fullest. Do not misunderstand, I am not calling you a heretic by any means. Nor do I think you are a heretic in the slightest. We do not know each other, but I think I can assume your a brother in Christ.

On the other hand, this does not mean that I think that every aspect of your theology is consistent in accord with the idea of salvation by grace alone. In my opinion the arminain position of prevenient universal grace is an inconsistency with grace alone. Somewhere along the line, the arminian should admit that they in some small way deserved to be in heaven because of the decision they made. This is not necessarily an accusation of heresy, but merely me looking at your theology as inconsistent.

If we came up with faith, and God foresaw this faith in eternity past, then it is still our faith, our contribution toward our own salvation. Then, as one with non-reformed theology, when I stand in heaven and I am asked why God should let me into heaven, I can pat myself on the back and boast that while Christ did 99.999% of the work, at least I did the work of accepting his offer of salvation and believed. Faith is pleasing to God (Heb 11:6) but if in my theology, faith is the work of God in man, and not the work of man to receive God's grace, then what have I to boast of?

 

[Deborah13]

Re: Freewill religion is the Man of Sin ! - Part 2

On the other hand, the NT uses the term "called" in another way. It speaks of an effectual call in which God brings the sinner to salvation.

Please give me your interpretation of this scripture. Thanks.

2 Corinthians 5:19-21

King James Version (KJV)

19 To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.
20 Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God.
21 For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.

 

[About the Son of God]

Re: Freewill religion is the Man of Sin ! - Part 2

First, the issue of Spirit or spirit is a dog trail, it is meaningless to our discussion.

Many people take the word "Spirit" to refer solely to the act of God when capitalized; I merely am pointing out that the sentence does not prove that a-priori in anticipation of an argument you perhaps didn't intend to make. I had no way to know where you were coming from, as we just met. I'll let it drop unless you decide it is in fact relevant now.

Now in your last sentence, you state that salvation first requires faith, and sanctification. Now you posit that a person must first be sanctified before he can be saved.

My original statement, I think, was to SBG57 in response to his use of the sentence as a proof text without seeming to realize the word "FAITH" appeared in it; for I had stipulated that faith is that which a person does (eg: a work, -- see: John 6:28-29 -- that does not earn anything, incurs no debt, but which is a step NECESSARY under NORMAL circumstances to salvation.)

I was not choosing the Thessalonians' sentence, myself, as a particularly strong statement or basis of my understanding in scripture -- but was handed it by another poster as contrary to my position.

My point is that because "faith" is involved, which a man "DOES", the sentence does not a-priori rule out free will.

The obvious implication is that this can be a universal prevenient grace, or a particular individual grace. Since you defend your position below by saying that the word in this passage cannot refer to making a person holy in the sense of being saved, I will comment on that below.

I'm not sure that I *exactly* said *can-not* !!!! :D Your restatement is confusing.

I did try to say that sanctification is not the *SAME* as being saved. A person can be sanctified whether or not they are *ULTIMATELY* saved. Therefore the value or significance of the word "sanctified" is indeterminate with respect to the threads O.P. (more in a moment).

I will note: in context -- in that particular sentence -- Paul is presuming that those he speaks to are in fact the faithful; which means they are sanctified -- and holy (sancti/saints?), made so by the Gospel they heard from him.

Nothing is more obvious that the word "sanctified" can be used of something that is not saved.

Good....

... It is erroneous and overly simplified to go to go to a context which uses the word in a different way within the semantic range and then import that meaning into the context where it does not belong.

If the context is truly different; I might agree; But I don't see that is significantly different when it comes to "sanctification."
Perhaps I misjudged.... ?

In 2Thessalonians, the context leading up to sentence #2:13 is a judgment of oppressors, and the separation (purification?) of the oppressed -- which is the same separation being talked about in 1Corinthians 10... for the events of Moses were caused by persecution of Israel for the sake of the holiness of the people of God. eg: Pharaoh, the Amorites, etc. and even members within Moses' camp who danced before the Golden Calf and mocked Aaron; etc. We have persecutions, killing, and mocking of the Israelites.

When referring to those of the O.T. St. Paul went so far as to say "And the rock was Christ." showing that the holiness of God was in that "spiritual" drink they *all* received as well.

So: By being with Moses, these people were persecuted which purifies them (baptized into Moses); and so too by the spiritual drink; for by merely touching it -- they had become "sanctified" EVEN MORE (MORE Holy) -- but, that did not mean God was pleased with THEM at the end of their time. (I mean people -- not temple "things").

This hermeneutical approach would be as erroneous and overly simplistic as looking in a lexicon at the word αγιασμω in a lexicon and then picking the definition which best meets the theology of what you want to make the passage say. Your methodology of determining the implications is not based on the context, but your deciding the meaning of sanctified upon the basis of your own theology.

Oh? In an argument, it's the opponents duty to rule out ranges of meaning.
You're not going to be a hypocrite and just decide the word's meaning based on your own theology, right?

It is a little too simple to demonstrate that the word "sanctified" can refer to salvation. See Heb 10:10 or Heb 2:11; 1 cor 6:11

Too simple? Yes... over-simplified.

The saved are clearly sanctified, but the sanctified are not clearly saved.
Nor does scripture come with a "use lexicon definition N here" (BTW: I seldom use lexicons.)

So, How does "sanctification" refer *precisely* to "salvation" itself rather than to something the can either precede salvation, or will be forcibly caused by salvation?

In Hebrews 10:10, I learn only that the saved are sanctified -- not that the sanctified are always saved. Salvation forced the sanctification is a possibility there. However... in Hebrews 2; the ideas leading up to Hebrews 2:11; I see contextual clues that Paul associates "sanctification" directly with "suffering" (Now: The context of our disputed 2Thessalonians, notably, is also preceded by a discussion of suffering.); So that sanctification is not about/equivalent to salvation itself, but a purification and trial by suffering; but I know suffering can precede salvation, or it may not come until after salvation -- or a person may die happily on the day they first believed with no discernible suffering.

It seems to me, the possibilities are rather complex.
When I see the word "sanctified" -- I know by the relationship between the word saved and sanctified, that a person who is sanctified is more likely to be ultimately saved than one who is not; but that's all I can infer.

This is what you said that I am complaining about:

Then one must already be holy [edit: AKA sanctified] before he is saved. Then of course he would not need salvation.

That's very untrue in my eyes and study. Holiness does not imply saved, and it can come before, during, or after (point) salvation.

That's the very reason I cited the example earlier in the thread about the man who never disobeyed the law, who claimed he never broke the law, and upon whom Jesus then (after the claim of perfect law abiding) "looked on him with love." It's a superb example of a "saintly" person.

Yet that very scripture ends on a troubling note -- "how hard it is for the rich to enter the kingdom of God ... for [this while still rich] man it is impossible". (reason not fully specified -- but compare him to the possibility of the poor apostles who left their wealth to lighten the load for being itinerant preachers. )

Jesus had already indicated that the rich man had the prerequisites to enter eternal life -- but that's different from actually having the fullness of it -- which is to live with Jesus the Christ.

The man can not be accused of lack of holiness (*sufficient* sanctification) for he had already done what Jesus told him was required to HAVE life (eg:eternal life was what the man explicitly asked for.) ; yet that alone did not mean the man had "entered the kingdom of heaven" for the Kingdom of Heaven (at very least for that man, at that time) means being *WITH* someone; not just being a law abiding, holy, loving, gentle person.

I don't think you have a problem with sanctification occuring at or after (point) salvation; so I will not address those.

So; now:
What can you point to that *defines* the exact semantic range of "sanctification" in Thessalonians ?
Eg: that the word itself means this thing you speak of, and not other words in the sentence?
And what exactly is the crux of the argument?

As to the rest of your post -- that seems to follow a different line of thought which deserves more than a splitting of your attention here in this post. I'll wait.

 

[Deborah13]

Re: Freewill religion is the Man of Sin ! - Part 2

In my opinion the arminain position of prevenient universal grace is an inconsistency with grace alone. Somewhere along the line, the arminian should admit that they in some small way deserved to be in heaven because of the decision they made.

One does not have to conform to either Calvinist or Arminian.

One must hear the Gospel, the Father draws, the Gospel teaches the love of God, God's goodness leads one to repentance. One then chooses to reject or not.
There are saved people who admit they knew the Gospel was true, they knew God had spoken to their hearts but at the time they rejected His grace. These very same people know just how fortunate they are. God was long-suffering, He didn't give up on them.
If anything the one's I have heard they are anything but prideful, they are so grateful to God.

I guess, one cannot understand another man's heart based on that man's theology.

 

[About the Son of God]

Re: Freewill religion is the Man of Sin ! - Part 2

One must hear the Gospel, the Father draws, the Gospel teaches the love of God, God's goodness leads one to repentance. One then chooses to reject or not. There are saved people who admit they knew the Gospel was true, they knew God had spoken to their hearts but at the time they rejected His grace.

:yes

I was thinking, being saved isn't about knowing theology perfectly and correctly, anyway. I mean, there are people who can please the Father who clearly don't have the ability to understand the theology.

In that incident with the rich young man ( νεανισκος ) who had obeyed since his "youth up" (Luke 18:21); In all synoptic Gospels it is immediately preceded by Jesus' reference to children so small ( τα παιδια ) they could not walk.
Luke 18:15-16, Matthew 19:13-14, Mark 10:13-14

This is a gospel passage, where I think the writers intended us to see the infants/pre/toddlers and the young man as part of a single teaching; for the words "kingdom of heaven" are repeated as a theme in all these verses; and the two ideas infant and young man are always found together.

Also -- the word "young man" isn't used often; but it is a compound word beginning with "neo" (new); and it refers to a teenager ... and yet the young man also says he obeyed from his "youth up" as if that was a long time ago; and he says "youth up" with another word beginning with "neo"; So I think he means at least as far back as when he first had to obey the law himself, but possibly all the way back to being an infant.

None the less, the Gospel writer is comparing and contrasting the infant which is a "likeness" of to whom belongs the kingdom of Heaven -- and the young man who is acceptable to the kingdom of heaven, but has to enter the kingdom of God by accepting the task given by Jesus. (Again, I don't say that Jesus tells everyone to do what he says to this particular young man. He is free to tell each of us to do whatever pleases him individually but this was a particular young man's task given by God.)

Understanding of theology, then, appears to be only expected in proportion to one's ability ; and the theology itself is not always required to please God.
As you said ... the heart is not always revealed by one's theology.

Moving on.... You brought up an interesting passage:
In John 6:44 (the passage I think you are quoting) it says, "no one can come to me except the Father, which has sent me, draw him"
That's one of those passages, concerning free will, where one has to really ponder the relationship between "which has sent me" to the ability of one to "come to me".
I almost always misquote this passage in my mind -- thinking that the Father draws a man directly; but the sentence doesn't seem to guarantee that when I actually read it.

 

[About the Son of God]

Re: Freewill religion is the Man of Sin ! - Part 2

I also want you to note, that I am not admitting that either faith or sanctification is a precondition for election. I am simply asking you to be consistent. Actually, when you apply the words faith and sanctification to the concept of election in this passages it is another grammatical isogetical error. In the sentence of the verse, sanctification and belief have as its antecedent the word salvation, and not the concept of election earlier in the verse.

Hmmm...
I'd like to know why you use the word "election" since that's widely known to be equivocation when used in the context of this verse:
http://www.marchtozion.com/salvatio...ious-disputed-passages-2-thessalonians-213-14

I'm not advocating the apologist above as a whole, I'm merely pointing to the facts he presents.
I'd like to get into the idea of election, properly, in any event ; and will begin taking what you and SBG57 have commented on and begin examining test cases; eg: Esau and Jacob, etc.

But, I'd like to wrap up this sentence in 2Thessalonians, first.
Notice: I, myself, have tried to pointing out that the sentence 2Thessalonians 2:14, even in the KJV, does not say from the beginning of "what".

I'll elucidate:
God creates people to be born at a particular time, even under the hypothesis that a man chooses freely what he will do once he is born.
Hence, there are tasks that only a particular group or sub-group of people can do -- because these tasks take place at a certain time in history.

I, for example, can't suffer the persecutions (sanctification) of the Jews who killed Jesus, nor of Nero, etc. Nor can I be called to be an Apostle and eyewitness of the events of Jesus' life.
I am born at a much later time -- no matter how much I'd love to see him face to face, and literally follow his footsteps.

Just so, when Paul speaks of the "beginning" in 2Thessalonians, it's important to grasp which TIME or EVENT he is talking about.
It it the beginning of Christianity, of Paul's ministry, or the creation of the whole Cosmos?

Many bibles translate from other Greek sources, differing from the KJV, and some also take other language bibles from the 400's as references.
Notably: many of them don't say "from the beginning" but rather, they say, "you were chosen to be the first-fruits" making it clear that God's choice is about their temporal place in history as those who immediately follow Christ's sowing the seed of the Gospel.

See. for example, the NIV. on 2Thessalonians 2:14; The translation of the KJV isn't wrong -- but it *IS* ambiguous.

Now: In Greek there is a key word to learn to watch out for: "dia" it translates as the English word "through"
That word means that the argument is already complete, and the idea which follows is a slogan like summary of the preceding argument.
eg: The words which follow "dia", as a general rule, ought not introduce a new argument or information.

Hence, the sanctification Paul is speaking of must already have been explained somewhere in the paragraphs coming before his summary.

Does this help you understand me any better so that we might move on to something more substantive? (eg: Jacob, Esau, Pharaoh, or another of your choice? )

 

[Guest]

Re: Freewill religion is the Man of Sin ! - Part 2

[MENTION=47381]reba[/MENTION] What happened to savedbygrace57‎. He gone?

 

[reba]

Re: Freewill religion is the Man of Sin ! - Part 2

Folks come and go He will most likely be back....

 

[mondar]

Re: Freewill religion is the Man of Sin ! - Part 2

I also want you to note, that I am not admitting that either faith or sanctification is a precondition for election. I am simply asking you to be consistent. Actually, when you apply the words faith and sanctification to the concept of election in this passages it is another grammatical isogetical error. In the sentence of the verse, sanctification and belief have as its antecedent the word salvation, and not the concept of election earlier in the verse.

Hmmm...
I'd like to know why you use the word "election" since that's widely known to be equivocation when used in the context of this verse:

By the term "equivocation" I assume that you are referring to the logical fallacy? If the term ειλατο refers to election, I am merely calling it by the biblical term. This is not to say that I do not recognize the discussion on the meaning of the term. I read the article you posted. I was aware that it was an unusual, even rare term for election, but was not aware that this is the only use of the term in the NT as the article pointed out. Of course that does not mean that it cannot be translated as most Bibles do, using the term election, or chosen. That translation is within the lexical meaning. I recognize that just because it is within the lexical meaning, that does not make it a correct translation. We would both have to look at the context to determine the lexical meaning.

Is not the post positive "de" setting up a contrast between verses 12 and those being judges, and the "beloved brethren" in verse 13. Then in verse 14 he speaks of the "call." So then, it has to refer to something in relation to the believer. The article you quoted claims..... "2Th 2:13 is not talking about eternal election at all, but God's purpose to take a people to Himself from the Gentiles?" Where in the context is there anything about "Gentiles" as opposed to God calling Jews?

What the article said about the word απαρχης or possibly απ αρχης is much more difficult then the term election. The NA26 does have a variant symbol at the word mentioned. In looking at the word, it seems like it could be an interpretive issue more then a manuscript issue. I have looked at some of the electronic papyri on the internet. They do run the letters all together. If you look at the two words, the only difference is the question of where to put a space. Is there supposed to be a space between the Pi and the alpha? The scribes did not put spaces between the sentences or the words. I, myself, see nothing in the context that would be decisive in making me thing it should be read one way or the other. I guess I have nothing worthwhile to say concerning this word.

http://www.marchtozion.com/salvatio...ious-disputed-passages-2-thessalonians-213-14

I'm not advocating the apologist above as a whole, I'm merely pointing to the facts he presents.
I'd like to get into the idea of election, properly, in any event ; and will begin taking what you and SBG57 have commented on and begin examining test cases; eg: Esau and Jacob, etc.

But, I'd like to wrap up this sentence in 2Thessalonians, first.
Notice: I, myself, have tried to pointing out that the sentence 2Thessalonians 2:14, even in the KJV, does not say from the beginning of "what".

I'll elucidate:
God creates people to be born at a particular time, even under the hypothesis that a man chooses freely what he will do once he is born.
Hence, there are tasks that only a particular group or sub-group of people can do -- because these tasks take place at a certain time in history.

I, for example, can't suffer the persecutions (sanctification) of the Jews who killed Jesus, nor of Nero, etc. Nor can I be called to be an Apostle and eyewitness of the events of Jesus' life.
I am born at a much later time -- no matter how much I'd love to see him face to face, and literally follow his footsteps.

Just so, when Paul speaks of the "beginning" in 2Thessalonians, it's important to grasp which TIME or EVENT he is talking about.
It it the beginning of Christianity, of Paul's ministry, or the creation of the whole Cosmos?

Many bibles translate from other Greek sources, differing from the KJV, and some also take other language bibles from the 400's as references.
Notably: many of them don't say "from the beginning" but rather, they say, "you were chosen to be the first-fruits" making it clear that God's choice is about their temporal place in history as those who immediately follow Christ's sowing the seed of the Gospel.

See. for example, the NIV. on 2Thessalonians 2:14; The translation of the KJV isn't wrong -- but it *IS* ambiguous.

Now: In Greek there is a key word to learn to watch out for: "dia" it translates as the English word "through"
That word means that the argument is already complete, and the idea which follows is a slogan like summary of the preceding argument.
eg: The words which follow "dia", as a general rule, ought not introduce a new argument or information.

Hence, the sanctification Paul is speaking of must already have been explained somewhere in the paragraphs coming before his summary.

Does this help you understand me any better so that we might move on to something more substantive? (eg: Jacob, Esau, Pharaoh, or another of your choice? )

I do not see this passage as really that much different then Ephesians 1:4.
Eph 1:4 even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blemish before him in love:
Ephesians 1:4 does not have the variant issue, but that is not the point. In both texts, we are chosen, elected, preferred, or taken to God for the purpose of sanctification, or in Ephesians 1:4 chosen to be holy. The words holy and sanctification are of course the same root word in greek. The similarity between the two words for election is also very close.

I must admit your making me work hard and think about the verse. That is good, I like that. However, it does not change the original point I was making. You were applying the word faith to be the antecedent of the word faith to election. The antecedent is the word salvation. I believe your interpretation was then that we were elected to have faith. Actually, the correct way to read it would then be we were saved in relation to faith and sanctification. My original point was that you cannot make an interpretation that faith precedes election from this verse.

There are other verses that can be used to demonstrate that regeneration is the cause of faith. 1 John 5:1 is indisputable in my opinion. Phil 1:29 is another good verse. That is actually the more key issue. Election is not the cause of faith, and no verse in the scriptures can be used to demonstrate that faith is the cause of election.

Well, may God be with you.

Mondar

 

[Deborah13]

Re: Freewill religion is the Man of Sin ! - Part 2

I was thinking, being saved isn't about knowing theology perfectly and correctly, anyway. I mean, there are people who can please the Father who clearly don't have the ability to understand the theology.

lol, I do love the Lord, better yet I know He love me, ........what's theology??

In John 6:44 (the passage I think you are quoting) it says, "no one can come to me except the Father, which has sent me, draw him"
That's one of those passages, concerning free will, where one has to really ponder the relationship between "which has sent me" to the ability of one to "come to me".
I almost always misquote this passage in my mind -- thinking that the Father draws a man directly; but the sentence doesn't seem to guarantee that when I actually read it.

Not sure what you mean by draw directly?
I don't see a guarantee that He will draw.

 

[Elijah674]

Re: Freewill religion is the Man of Sin ! - Part 2

To the forum's credit, he isn't fully one of those.... :D

It would be a pity, though, to leave many of the points he brings up UN-discussed just because I write him off as "one of those guys." ... I'm rather interested in how he can hold certain views; and to what degree my vocabulary and his are a cause of impediment.

I don't know if he's able to articulating his understanding coherently for he refuses to answer most questions ... but I'm still hoping. Perhaps I just need to wait for someone who shares his views to join with him and give him some help in the tact and explanation department.

Thanks for the encouragement to relax -- I DO get uptight sometimes.

My goal is mostly self improvement along this line of thought;
1Corinthians 14:9.

Indeed, he doesn't appear to be quoting another scripture.
And ... ... I've sometimes really wondered what Paul meant when compared to the prophet Jeremiah 20:7-9. ... Especially Jeremiah 20:9

Does Paul mean that the spirit of a prophet (his own soul) is under his control, rather than the spirit of prophecy speaking through the prophet?; or perhaps Paul understands that the spirit of prophecy is imperfectly in the prophet's control -- but none the less, the prophet is responsible to try and maintain order over that prophetic spirit ?

In either event, it is only the authority of God over the spirits which could possibly make them speak in harmony.

I've read the quote several times; and I have to make some assumptions as to the particular truth being "restated" in order to make sense of your comment. If I am mistaken, please advise.

Given the context of a false prophet, both 2Peter and 1Corinthians 14 can be speaking of the same issue. (1Corinthians goes on to include true prophets, though.)

So, disharmony, disorder, and lies (esp. false Gospel) are all signs of false prophecy and prophets.

[19] While they promise them liberty, they themselves are the servants of corruption: for of whom a man is overcome, of the same is he brought in bondage.

Hmmm.... a promise of liberty == "good news/gospel" ...

Some forms of OSAS could be charged with promising liberty, while permitting corruption; and so, the verses which you are quoting and emphasizing not only contradict much of what SBG57 has been saying, but also enter into areas of apologetic that I haven't been considering such as predestination to temporary salvation, vs. the semantic argument that "they were never saved in the first place."; etc.

I'm not intending to explore that part of the argument at this time and have been trying hard (but perhaps not very successfully?) to write my responses so that Christians of either general view can still understand my basic point concerning free will.

Double predestination, where God causes the evil -- and punishes it (both) -- is what I am specifically going to discredit here in the thread as best I can.

SBG57 listed a series of statements which support the view that God causes evil for the day of wrath; each of which has a partial flaw ; but I think his list is fairly common, and is good list to explore (bible study wise) so that clearer scriptural proofs/explanations/studies can be formulated/discovered to help explain the truth of the Gospels.

Bless you, Brother Elijah...!

You make an interesting summation! But who knows the slant of one getting 'bad' marks? ;)
--Elijah
_______________

Originally Posted by Elijah674
Relax! A few of these guys give a post after post with NO censorship! Perhaps this is one of these ones??;)



To the forum's credit, he isn't fully one of those.... :D

​

 

[savedbygrace57]

Believe Jesus is God in Salvation !

Rom 10:9-10

9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

Can one believe on the Lord Jesus Christ in the matter of Salvation without believing that He is also Jehovah ? The answer is no; and no God given Faith produced by the Holy Spirit in one will deny this, For Salvation Faith will acknowledge what all Scripture reveals about the Person of Christ, That He was God manifested in the flesh 1 Tim 3:16; it reveals He was Emmanuel God with us Matt 1:23; It reveals that He was God Jn 1:1 and then was made Flesh Jn 1:14.

The Lord Jesus Christ is Jehovah as Man Lets notice something in this matter here Acts 16:31,34

31 And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.

Now notice Vs 34

34 And when he had brought them into his house, he set meat before them, and rejoiced, believing in God with all his house.

The Lord Jesus Christ commanded to be believed on in Vs 31 is the God believed in Vs 34.

This means without question that between Paul's Imperative and the speaking of the word of the Lord to him Vs 32, Paul taught that the Lord Jesus Christ is God, Emmanuel, and they believed !591

 

[About the Son of God]

Re: Freewill religion is the Man of Sin ! - Part 2

Not sure what you mean by draw directly? I don't see a guarantee that He will draw.

As in, "No one can come to me unless the Father draw him" rather than what it says, "except the Father, which has sent me, draw him."
One could, for example, directly catch a literal fish by reaching a lightning quick hand down into the water and grabbing it -- vs. baiting a hook and indirectly catching it through the services of an intermediate.
Now, thinking about fishing as an analogy concerning predestination -- what does it mean that one is "drawn" by the Father?

Is it (A) that unless the Father sends the Son, then we can not come to the Son?
(B) unless the Father gives us impetus to come to the Son, we will not see the Son for who he is? (suggested by not proven by eg: Matthew 16:17)
Or is it A,B as in: Compare John 6:46 with John 14:9 and read a bit of the context in each one.

There may be other possibilities I haven't thought of.... but those are the general ones that come to mind off the top of my head.

 

[About the Son of God]

Re: Freewill religion is the Man of Sin ! - Part 2

By the term "equivocation" I assume that you are referring to the logical fallacy? If the term ειλατο refers to election, I am merely calling it by the biblical term. This is not to say that I do not recognize the discussion on the meaning of the term. I read the article you posted. I was aware that it was an unusual, even rare term for election, but was not aware that this is the only use of the term in the NT as the article pointed out. Of course that does not mean that it cannot be translated as most Bibles do, using the term election, or chosen. That translation is within the lexical meaning. I recognize that just because it is within the lexical meaning, that does not make it a correct translation. We would both have to look at the context to determine the lexical meaning.

Yes. The logical fallacy in terms of proving something.
I agree with you about the context issue.

Is not the post positive "de" setting up a contrast between verses 12 and those being judges, and the "beloved brethren" in verse 13. Then in verse 14 he speaks of the "call." So then, it has to refer to something in relation to the believer. The article you quoted claims..... "2Th 2:13 is not talking about eternal election at all, but God's purpose to take a people to Himself from the Gentiles?" Where in the context is there anything about "Gentiles" as opposed to God calling Jews?

A claim ending in a question mark?! hmm....

Besides -- Touche!. Where is there anything about the Jews as opposed to the Gentiles?
I know from Acts, that (in gross) Jews in Thessalonica rejected Paul; so it surely isn't exclusively about the Jews.
Those Jews, clearly, include the ones who v12: "believed not the truth"

In any event, the author I linked defends his choice based on the very word we're discussing: ειλατο / (haireo?). (Not that I think his argument is perfect; for it isn't.)
Contrast w/ ex-ειλατο (cf: Genesis 37:21) which is to remove out (ex) from another's possession and power.

If we look for the word with respect to (unsaved) Jews, we find that The Jews, in general, were already TAKEN as God's people (Deuteronomy 7:6 chosen=pro-ειλατο).
So, again, the equivalence of this word with eternal election is highly suspect -- as it is indisputably used in ways which are for people who are both holy and not saved.

The author of the link says: " How, then, should the passage be interpreted? Interestingly, Ac 15:14ff includes similar language: "...God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name [haireo meaning “to take to Himself”]...Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world". James is describing God’s sovereign intention since the earliest days to number Gentiles among the company of His true servants. The language is identical to 2Th 2:13 explains 2Th 2:13? "
...

Thessalonica is, I think, one of the very earliest of Paul's church's; so the author of the link understands "from the beginning" and "earliest days" as equivalent and appropriate references to this fact.
eg: The link writier sees Paul as referring to the same things James was speaking of.

Note: I originally pointed to the link for a few facts he points out about the word itself, not the speculative sentences ending in "?".

So... where were we....

Is not the post positive "de" setting up a contrast between verses 12 and those being judges, and the "beloved brethren" in verse 13. Then in verse 14 he speaks of the "call." So then, it has to refer to something in relation to the believer.

Yes. "But" (postpositive) is setting up the contrast -- and "through" (dia) sums up everything that went before and does not introduce a new argument.
There is no doubt that we are speaking of believers whom one could argue are "eternally" predestined; but which the sentence does not prove are eternally predestined.

The problem lies in that the phrase "from the beginning" may merely refer to the start of Paul's ministry rather than an eternal election; eg: it's not proof of eternal predestination rather than a temporal choosing.

Here's target practice:
I offer two scenarios that have to be *eliminated* (not just doubted) before we can use the passage in Thessalonians as any kind of proof text for predestination in SBG57's line of argument.
To be clear: It is not enough that you CAN interpret the passage in another way -- it must be shown that it CAN NOT be interpreted in these two ways:

1) God predestined people to live at a certain time in history; for, God is the one who creates their spirit/soul at the moment of conception in the womb. Such predestination affects one's life, while not dictating all of one's choices.
Hence, one CAN interpret the passage in terms of God's divine act in placing a person in history -- without choosing their salvation in advance of their willing it.
2) Paul can be speaking about God choosing these people for salvation from the beginning of Paul's ministry, rather than from eternity. You would later mention "the foundation of the world." -- and that shares the same problem. There are many worlds, the world of Genesis ended with the flood: 2Peter 3:5-6, so that world refers to civilizations for it can "end" (perish), and a new "world" therefore clearly came to be. We even talk about the "Roman world" or "ancient world" as a mode of expression, today.

Now; caution. Don't ask me to prove that no person is predestined from all eternity; for I don't hold that there are none so predestined. I hold a less strong position, that not all are predestined eternally without their will. Salvation may be mixed between those who freely choose to accept (not earn) salvation, and those who are arguably forced into it as trophies (eg: anathema in the sense of war spoils.).

I have looked at some of the electronic papyri on the internet. They do run the letters all together. If you look at the two words, the only difference is the question of where to put a space. Is there supposed to be a space between the Pi and the alpha? The scribes did not put spaces between the sentences or the words. I, myself, see nothing in the context that would be decisive in making me thing it should be read one way or the other. I guess I have nothing worthwhile to say concerning this word.

Yes. EXCELLENT! And now that you've looked for yourself -- you probably will appreciate that apologetics based on diacritical marks are garbage. eg: Lowercase Greek, breathing marks, accents, were simply not in ancient Koine Greek.
It was all written together as one long CAPITALIZED WORD. The word (singular) of God. a uni-verse in it's own right. Anyhow -- I digress. If you have a link to the particular page you were scanning, I can suggest some ways to resolve differences. One thing to note is that Greek has two versions of Sigma; one version is a final sigma, eg: it's always is the last letter in a word -- that's one way to know where a word ends. (may not help in this case, but just a pointer...)

I must admit your making me work hard and think about the verse. That is good, I like that. However, it does not change the original point I was making. You were applying the word faith to be the antecedent of the word faith to election. The antecedent is the word salvation. I believe your interpretation was then that we were elected to have faith. Actually, the correct way to read it would then be we were saved in relation to faith and sanctification. My original point was that you cannot make an interpretation that faith precedes election from this verse.

Ok. sum up what you thought I actually said, and meant, and take into account what I said about "dia" not introducing new information but summing up all that went before.
Each time we've spoken of this, you assumed I meant things about Sanctification that I simply didn't hold and it derailed us; I'm not sure what you think I mean NOW given the clarifications I've attempted to give.

When I make a mistake, or misinterpret scripture, I will accept correction when appropriate; I have had to do so before, though it's not common anymore -- so it's not like I'm embarrassed to do; I simply don't see what is definitely wrong with what I said earlier.

 

[savedbygrace57]

Return unto me; for I have redeemed thee !

The reason being what God has already done " I have blotted out, as a thick cloud, thy transgressions, and, as a cloud, thy sins"

Isa 43:25

25 I, even I, am he that blotteth out thy transgressions for mine own sake, and will not remember thy sins.

God has already redeemed them Gal 3:13, this comes solely through through the Riches of His Grace Eph 1:7.

So this is contrary to the religionists who makes redemption and forgiveness of sins contingent upon if a person decides to repent. True Repentance is motivated after an spiritual application of God's Grace, that forgiveness has been accomplished by and through Christ for us, and any other way makes it a matter of our works being the motivation as to why God redeemed us and forgives us our sins and not solely for Christ's Sake !

 

[Deborah13]

Re: Freewill religion is the Man of Sin ! - Part 2

Is it (A) that unless the Father sends the Son, then we can not come to the Son?
(B) unless the Father gives us impetus to come to the Son, we will not see the Son for who he is? (suggested by not proven by eg: Matthew 16:17)
Or is it A,B as in: Compare John 6:46 with John 14:9 and read a bit of the context in each one.

I see it more clearly as B and John 6:46 (in relation to 6:45 as context). I see in v45 that one can hear from the Father, but not necessarily learn what the Father is saying.
Rather like a class room of students in a required liberal arts class. They all hear the same teaching from the prof. Some will not just hear but will learn and do well. Others are hearing but for different reasons, don't want to take the class, more interested in the cute girl across the aisle, etc., will not do well, they don't learn.
I don't see a forced learning. The Father keeps teaching......
So is one really hearing if they don't learn?

Fishing, I don't see a hand come down from God and just snatching one out of the sea and they are saved. Although I do believe that He will keep some from perishing, eaten by a shark for whatever reason He wishes.
Hmm...I believe there is a reason the Apostles were called fishers of men, as all disciples should be.
I go fishing, I know there is a big brown hanging out under that ledge. I just caught a rainbow with an earthworm. I try a earthworm, meal worm, etc. and then I try that old Panther Martin, the classic yellow/black spots. I land that fish.

The Father in His grace is long-suffering (patient). He will keep giving that same Gospel Good News, the delivery may be different and the fish may be more hungry than before.

I see predestination in reference to foreknowledge. The Father knows who will learn. I don't know how else to relate to it when considering other scriptures in their context. We are called the chosen because we are in Him and He is the Chosen One, the Seed, etc.

Blessings

 

[reba]

Re: Freewill religion is the Man of Sin ! - Part 2

 

[JLB]

Re: Freewill religion is the Man of Sin ! - Part 2

13 For "whoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved." http://www.biblestudytools.com/nkjv/romans/10.html#fn-descriptionAnchor-f 14 How then shall they call on Him in whom they have not believed? And how shall they believe in Him of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher? 15 And how shall they preach unless they are sent? As it is written: "How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the gospel of peace, http://www.biblestudytools.com/nkjv/romans/10.html#fn-descriptionAnchor-g Who bring glad tidings of good things!" http://www.biblestudytools.com/nkjv/romans/10.html#fn-descriptionAnchor-h 16 But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Isaiah says, "Lord, who has believed our report?" http://www.biblestudytools.com/nkjv/romans/10.html#fn-descriptionAnchor-i 17 So then faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. Romans 10:13-17


JLB

 

[Eventide]

Re: Freewill religion is the Man of Sin ! - Part 2

Perhaps one of the most difficult questions for some here in CF...

What must I do to be saved ?

a) nothing, I'm the elect along with Christ.

b) believe on the Lord Jesus Christ


EDITED