Is Augustine, Not Calvin, Regarded As "First of The Reformed?"

Speak for yourself. I was making a point, and succeeded in doing so.

 

GL
Do not confuse Van with the facts.He likes His own star trek version
[boldly going where no man has gone before] He has repeated this false idea about 10 times,then when people offer correction,they are being mean.
Open rebuke is better than secret love. Notice...he does not ask questions about it, he states it as correct and the historic position of the church is always wrong in his posts.
his anti-calvinism desires have clouded his judgement.

 

Perhaps, but I am not familiar with Brother Wycliffe as well as others in the above list. Of course I would find difficulty putting him in with persons like Augustine, Calvin, Edwards, etc. He is tremendously influential, but not theologically robust imho. :saint:

I'm still curious to see how our more deterministic brethren would reply to my objections though.

 

I might add also from that verse that if the sanctification be of God then also the belief has to be of God. The totality of the verse isn't about what God is doing and we are are doing but only about God.

Barnes is wrong in this point: (3.) That this was the choice of the persons to whom Paul referred. The doctrine of personal election is, therefore, true.

IMHO.

 

I was actually

 

Oh wow my brother.....you dont miss an opportunity do you? :thumbs:

 

So if you don't like us or get along with us...why are you here exactly?

 

Gotta be the coffee. :wavey:

 

Starbucks probably:tongue3:

 

Hi Glfredrick, I hope you did not work too hard on post # 20. It shows you did not understand what I said because when you restated what you thought I had said, you muddled it up pretty good.

2 Thess 2:13 demonstrates, if you accept the Greek grammar, that God chose us through sanctification by the Spirit - referring to the Holy Spirit setting us apart in Christ, the baptism into the body of Christ, and through faith in the truth. Thus we were chosen through faith in the truth, and not unconditionally nor before creation.

Calvinism must nullify scripture after scripture to defend its views.

 

You keep mentioning the grammar of 2 Thessalonians 2:13. You haven't yet said how the grammar supports your position. I'm having difficulty seeing how it does.

Would you please explain how the grammar relates to your argument.

Blessings,

The Archangel

PS. And for the record, it might also be said that non-Calvinism must nullify scripture after scripture to defend its views. Such statements are so unhelpful.

 

I have said how the grammar supports the position. The verb is chosen, and the adverbial clauses tell us when we were chosen, from the beginning, and how we were chosen, through sanctification by the Spirit and faith in the truth.

Your charge that I do the same as Calvinists might carry more wait if you provided an example. Pick the very best verse or passage that you believe supports any of the TULI doctrines and I will provide my response based on what it says, without rewriting the grammar or the meaning of any of the words. Bible study is like golf, you play it where it is.

 

Perhaps that is why it is so easy to misunderstand you. The problem with your discussion of this passage is that you say there are "adverbial clauses" when there are no adverbs in the passage.

Now, there are two very important dative clauses (which neither I nor any other grammarian I'm aware of suggests should always be taken adverbially).

You are correct--the verb is chosen. It is, however, an Aorist, indicating a completed, encapsulated action in the past.

The idea of "when we were chosen" is expressed by an accusative noun--ἀπαρχή--which can mean "as first fruits" ESV or "from the beginning." Though I really like the ESV, I think this is one of the few instances where the translation is not correct. It is likely better understood to be "from the beginning," as the NASB translates it.

But, the fact remains, this one noun is not a clause and it is certainly not adverbial.

One thing you did not discuss is what the choosing (God being subject) entailed. The preposition εἰς, which takes its object in the accusative, takes the accusative noun translated as salvation. So, the verb with its following accusative nouns clearly shows that we--individuals--were chosen by God in order that that choice on His part would lead, indefatigably, to our salvation.

Now, the dative nouns "sanctification" and "belief" are both governed by the preposition ἐν. It is possible to take these two dependent clauses as a dative of means. And there is good reason to understand this as being a dative of means where God (who is the subject of the main clause, after all) is the Agent accomplishing our salvation (which is not to say we have no part in our own sanctification and belief--another conversation) by means of our sanctification and our belief. In other words, because He has chosen us, He is actively sanctifying us by the Spirit and building up our belief in the truth. Both of these concepts have God as their subject, not us.

In short, the "how" we were chosen is not because of our sanctification or belief (especially because God is the Subject-Actor here).

This is the downfall of your interpretation of this verse: Since the clauses are not adverbial (which would answer "how") and since these clauses are, in fact, dative clauses of the dependent type, you have no standing to try to determine "how." The text of this verse doesn't address the question.

Further, if being chosen by God were due to our sanctification or belief, we should have expected Paul to write using the preposition δία, which he clearly does not.

Why don't you deal with your apparent gerrymandering of the grammar of 2 Thessalonians 2:13 before we move on to anything else. It is possible that I have misunderstood your argument. It is also possible that you are reading English grammar back into Greek, thinking the NASB's grammar the same as the Greek. As it is, it seems you've tried to rewrite the grammar of this passage already, perhaps seeking to take a mulligan of sorts with the text.

The Archangel

 

Archangel does that make my post correct. I was guessing for I know no Greek.

I guess what I am asking is does Barnes say what he does because he doesn't understand how it can be the belief of God of the truth instead of ours by which we were chosen?

 

I'm not sure without reading your entire post. Can you point me to it so that I don't miss the post to which you are referring?

The Archangel

 

2 Thessalonians 2:13 says nothing of the sort, grammatically.

The Archangel

 

This one.

I might add also from that verse that if the sanctification be of God then also the belief has to be of God. The totality of the verse isn't about what God is doing and we are are doing but only about God.

Barnes is wrong in this point: (3.) That this was the choice of the persons to whom Paul referred. The doctrine of personal election is, therefore, true.

IMHO.

 

Percho,

I think I might agree. But, I would like to know who "Barnes" is and what his other points are. Can you point me in his direction (via link) or can you post more of his comments?

Blessings,

The Archangel

 

Albert Barnes' commentary on this verse is here.

It may be pertinent to add that he was not a Calvinist. An online biography of him begins (emphasis mine):

Albert Barnes was born in Rome, New York on December 1, 1798. He graduated from Hamilton College in Clinton, NY, in 1820, and from Princeton Theological Seminary, in 1823.
Barnes was ordained pastor of the Presbyterian church in Morristown, NJ, in 1825. He was pastor of the First Presbyterian Church, Philadelphia, 1830-67, where he resigned and was made pastor emeritus. He was an advocate of total abstinence from alcohol, was a staunch proponent of the abolition of slavery, and worked actively to promote Sunday-school.
In 1835 he was brought to trial for heresy by the Second Presbytery of Philadelphia, and was acquitted, but his accusers succeeded in having him suspended from the ministry, but he was again acquitted of heresy in 1836. The charges of heresy primarily related to his comments on Romans and the fact that Barnes broke from strict Calvinism and taught that man had free will to accept or deny the Gospel. He was a leader in the "New School" branch of the Presbyterian church.
​

I hope that helps.

 

Dear Brother Percho,

you are the only one in here adding Humble to your opinion. Have a good weekend!:thumbs: