Arminian Weaknesses reflect Calvinism

Yet you are either unwilling or unable to address the technical argument I presented earlier on that very passage. All we get is "nuh uh!" or "liar, liar, pants on fire!"

I'd be very interested to see you address my post, in a technical way, pointing out the intricacies of the Greek language, its usage, and its syntax.

The Archangel

 

Guess I will have to wait to find out what kinda hermeneutic principles Van follows.

 

Curious, hasn't that already been done by the scores of translators over the centuries in giving us God's Word in our own languages? What is special or different about your approach compared to theirs?

 

God's election is based on His foreknowledge of our free will choices. It's in the bible. Give Calvin a break and look to the Word of God for a change!

 

...and then Robert has to show up...

Actually, for the record, I don't own Calvin's institutes or commentaries. I don't even think I've ever read them. They certainly weren't required reading in Seminary.

No, what I have done is exegesis, pure and simple and it hasn't been based on bit in anything Calvin has said.

The Archangel

 

I'm not suggesting the translators are wrong. I'm suggesting they've done their job--to bring the original text into a different language. Even the most simple crossover between languages still must be explained, however.

Van's explanation of 2 Thessalonians 2:13 is not supported by the grammar of the passage (the Greek grammar, that is). Any pastor's job or interpreter's job is to say: This is what the text says, this is what it means, this is what we do with it--Reading, Exposition, Application.

The translation only does step one for you. It is up to the expositor to do steps two and three.

The Archangel

 

See here:

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1664732&postcount=33

The Archangel

 

Calvinists insist that the elect (and that includes many regenerate Arminians) are saved in time. That's long after they were chosen --which was before the world was formed. What Calvinist says anything different?

 

You are the one who needs to give Calvin a break Bobbie.

Are you capable of ever saying something remotely edifying? Can you ever not mention Calvinism or John Calvin in any post? Or,if so,say something positive for a big change. You openly admit you haven't read anything by him -- but you are so very willing to trash his character in almost every post. It sounds like you are proving the biblical doctrine of total depravity is in fact true.

 

Ludicrous. Your grammatical understanding is flawed. I certainly did not, nor have I suggested that a noun should be viewed as a verb.

Again, I would hope you might interact with my presentation (on another thread) of the grammar of the passage.

The Archangel

 

ἐν + the dative does not always indicate manner and it is not always adverbial. Here's why:

ἐν + the dative is adverbial in a so-called "dative of manner." This cannot be a dative of manner because the dative clauses cannot be turned into an adverb in English--we could not say God chose...sanctificationally or beliefially. So, one test of the dative of manner does not pan out.

Secondly, an adverbial phrase does answer the question "how." But these dative clauses cannot answer that question because of what they modify. The immediate antecedent is not the verb "chose" but is the accusative noun "salvation." Since these dative clauses modify a noun, and not a verb, they cannot be adverbial

The phrases (ἐν + the dative) are prepositional phrases first and foremost and, as such, modifying "salvation" they describe the means of salvation, not the means of God's choosing. (See further discussion below)

Further, this must be a dative of means, not a dative of manner (adverbial) because the main verb (chose) is middle/passive. A dative of manner does not, to my knowledge, occur without an active verb. The use of the dative of means with the middle/passive verb indicates agency on the part of the subject--God, in this case. God is the Agent choosing persons to save and then accomplishing that salvation by sanctifying them and causing them to believe in the truth.

What is more, the preposition for "through" is δία + the genitive. We have neither δία nor the genitive here, therefore your assumption that "through" can be assumed is incorrect.

So, your grammatical assumptions fall far short of any grammatical reality.

It is clear you don't understand the Aorist. The Aorist indicates a snapshot of past time, a completed action. The Aorist use of the verb "chose" completely and totally rules out the concept of a "continual choosing."

"As first fruits," if that is the best rendering, cannot put the time of choosing within the lifetime of the ones being saved. The Aorist verb will not allow for that. The nature of the Aorist verb is partly why I believe "from the beginning" is the better rendering. Regardless, the rendering the accusative noun cannot alter the Aorist-ness of the verb.

"Chosen to be saved" is the clear reading of the text. And, as you will note, I am not agreeing with you; I am agreeing with the text. If you happen to agree with the text too, then we might be said to be in agreement on this one point.

Wrong. As I mentioned before, these dative phrases are prepositional phrases and are modifying the noun "salvation." Therefore, since they are not modifying a verb, they cannot be adverbial. In any event the dative of means, can (and, I think, does) apply to the prepositional phrases precisely because the phrases give the means to how one is saved--sanctification and belief in the truth, not the means of how one is chosen.

To add a further clarification. Generally, prepositional phrases are adjectival (as opposed to adverbial) when they expand the object of the preposition with further nouns--which is exactly what happens here. These phrases (which are really one phrase since ἐν governs both the dative nouns) are not mere ἐν + the dative. Rather, these phrases clarify the noun "salvation."

We are not "sanctifying" ourselves. We are being sanctified by the Spirit. We are not required just to "believe." We are required to believe in the truth. Both these phrases expand on the meaning of the noun "salvation" and show how the salvation is accomplished. Also, the word order of the sentence itself gives credence to this.

What is more, in v. 14 we see the phrase "to this he called you..." The "this" is an accusative relative pronoun and, being neuter, refers to the entirety of "salvation through sanctification...and belief..." This is important because we see "God calling" and God is not calling them to chose them. Rather, He is calling them to salvation.

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

On the contrary, we are set aside in Christ by the Holy Spirit baptizing us into Christ. Thus the adverbial clause does tell us how God chose us - by putting us in Christ and by basing His choice on crediting our faith in the truth as righteousness. QED[/QUOTE]

There is no adverbial clause here. The only "how" question is not how we were chosen, but how we are saved. The "set aside in Christ..." is not addressed in this passage and is therefore under the category of facts not in evidence. Whether I agree that we are set aside in Christ or not (which I do, but not in the time-frame you suggest) is moot.

The Archangel

 

I haven't read Mein Kampf either, but I know Hitler was wrong in his actions.

I don't have to read Calvin's words to see that his theology is flawed.

 

So the translators used foreknew instead of chose for what reason when "chose" was readily available to them?

 

My brother in Christ......did you not initiate this post?