Featured Two Interpretations of 2 Thess. 2:13-14

May I offer a third and much more viable option than the two you provided?

 

You offer a magician's choice, otherwise known as a false choice. That is, you give choices that no one would choose or else when someone makes a choice you will go the other way.

Example: Suppose there are three piles of cards on the table. For the magician's trick to work it requires that he ends up with pile #3. The magician asks, "Point to a pile".

If you point to pile #1 or pile #2, the magician will remove it. He will then repeat the process. This time if you point to pile #3, he will remove the other pile. Or if you point to any pile other than #3, he will remove it.

If you point to pile #3 to begin with, he will remove pile #1 and pile #2.

In this way it appears that you had a hand in selecting pile #3, but in reality the magician manipulated the choices so you would end up with pile #3.

 

I elect to support Interpretation #2.

 

If those were actually the only two options, which I used to also believe, then I would too. That is why I opted for Calvinism for so long. I was unaware of the more viable non-Calvinistic options and relegated all opponents as supporters of this so-called "foresight faith view." This common mistake is what I believe accounts for the Calvinistic resurgence we are seeing among the younger believers. When presented with these options, most would opt for the latter over the former, but why not honestly vet all viable options?

 

Skandelon;

whenever someone is in error..then they move the goal post

This exist only in the minds of those who turn away from truth...you say this as Does the false Roger Olsen types...who are easily refuted.

Most hold this false idea...

many are discontent with the fluff being offered..they study themselves into the truth and seek out where it is being taught.

there really are none in scripture anyway...in philosophy or new age ideas...but not in scripture.

 

This is a ridiculous view, the verse is clearly thanking God, not the Thessalonians.

13 But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth:

This is a strawman argument, no one believes Paul is thanking the Thessalonians. This is a dishonest form of argument, you are putting words in people's mouths that they never said.

Correct, one of the criteria was God chose the Thessalonians through belief of the truth.

Correct, you cannot be regenerated or quickened until your sins are forgiven (Col 2:13), and you must first believe to be justified or forgiven your sins.

They will go to heaven even if they grieve the Spirit. If Christians could not grieve the Spirit, there would be no need to command Christians not to grieve the Spirit.

Eph 4:30 And grieve not the holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption.

Note that even if you disobey and grieve the Spirit, you are still sealed unto the day of redemption.

I don't know how you get this out of 2 The 2:13, maybe you can explain how you get this interpretation out of this verse, I am not seeing it.

It says no such thing, and no non-Cal believes this.

Suppose I was having fainting spells and getting terrific headaches. I go to a doctor and he tells me I have a large tumor that is going to kill me within a month unless I allow him to operate. I am convinced the doctor is telling me the truth and that he is an outstanding surgeon who can help me. I show up at the hospital on the appointed day, they shave my head and put me to sleep. The doctor operates and removes the tumor from my brain. I make a complete recovery.

Now, this sort of thing happens all the time. Have you EVER known of any person who took credit for saving themselves in such a situation? :laugh:

The word of God convinces and convicts us that we are sinners who will perish in our sin, but that God loved us and gave his Son Jesus to die for our sins, and that if we trust Jesus he will save us. The fact that we believe God and trust Jesus is no reason to boast of ourselves. The only one who deserves glory is God and Jesus Christ for dying for us.

You invent strawman arguments against non-Cals that does not represent what they truly believe. It is a form of dishonest argument you have learned from other Calvinists.

We thank God that he chose whom he foresaw would believe the truth. We could not have believed this truth unless God had revealed it to us by the word of God and Holy Spirit enlightenment and conviction. That is why 2 The 2:13 first mentions "through sanctification of the Spirit". That is God's part in salvation, he enlightens (John 6:45) and convicts us through his word and Spirit. Only afterward are we enabled to believe the truth, this is man's part in salvation. But we could not have believed without God first revealing the gospel to us.

 

:laugh::laugh:

 

Someone should have told Augustine that years ago! :laugh:

 

A lot of words to obscure the obvious.

1) We give thanks to God means giving thanks to God. So point 1 in interpretation 1 is bogus. Why obscure the truth?
2) God’s foreknowledge of faith is no where in the verse, no need to “interpret” i.e. add it in.
3) No where in the verse does it say they first believed, nor does it say they believed because they where exposed to the revelatory grace of the gospel. The issue is not addressed.
4) Point four is likewise bogus, not mentioned in the verse. More obfuscation.
5) Paul wrote this to tell the Thessalonians they have been chosen by God through sanctification by the Spirit (setting them apart in Christ) and the choice was through faith in the truth.
6) No where in the verse is found any support for the Thessalonians meriting election.
Thus, interpretation #1 is completely bogus.​

Now lets look at interpretation #2:

1) Paul is thanking God, spot on.
2) Point 2 of interpretation 2 is bogus and simply and gratuitously added in.
3) Ditto for point 3 of interpretation 2.
4) No mention of God doing anything in eternity, but God’s choice of Thessalonians was through their faith in the truth during their lifetime. Again, no mention is made of their not seeking God, rather they had “faith in the truth.”
5) No mention of predestination before they were born, or predestination period in the verse. More obfuscation, interpreting what is not in the text as in the text.
6) Seeking God and putting faith in Christ does not “merit” salvation. God has mercy on whom He has mercy and His choice of individuals whose faith He credits as righteousness it totally an act of God’s mercy.
7) Point 7 is likewise bogus, never mentioned and gratuitously added. It says God’s choice of them for salvation was through the sanctification by the Spirit and faith in the truth.
8) The Sanctification in view is a one time setting apart, being placed in Christ, not a process of maturing once in Christ.
9) Nothing is mentioned in the verse concerning staying Christians, but clearly the setting apart in Christ was through the sovereign power of God and they played no part in becoming Christians.
10) Yes, all the glory of salvation belongs to God alone. 2 Thessalonians 2:13 makes that clear.​

Clearly neither “interpretation” is an actual effort to understand the verse.

Here is an actual interpretation based on what is actually said in the passage:

1) We give thanks to God for your salvation.
2) The chosen brethren are “beloved by God.”
3) God chose them “from the beginning.” But what is being referred to as the beginning. Creation? Possible, but since they were chosen through faith, i.e. during their lifetime, the beginning appears to refer to the beginning of the New Covenant. Clearly they were not chosen “before” the beginning, i.e. before the foundation of the world. They were chosen during the time span after the beginning of something.
4) The Thessalonians were chosen for salvation.
5) They were chosen through sanctification by the Spirit. To be chosen is to be set apart for a purpose, and thus they were set apart for salvation.
6) They were chosen through faith in the truth. Thus they had faith before they were chosen, and therefore they had been called by our gospel.​

This verse makes it clear our individual election for salvation is conditional, i.e. through faith in the truth. Thus Calvinism must offer endless efforts at obfuscation.

 

Would say that God did not choose to use that "foresight/foreknowlede" option, as it was NOT a viable one, due to the truth of us being sinners, and not able to freely respond to Jesus and get saved!

 

Paul is known as the 'apostle to the Gentiles,' right? Most of the churches he established were primarily Gentile congregations. The major issue that Paul often addresses is that caused by the Judizers, who are denying that the Gentiles are chosen of God, or if they are to be accepted they have to become Jewish first.

In that day, the "spiritual authorities" are concerned about the very same thing you are concerned about in your post above...some new doctrine that isn't established by God. So, what is Paul attempting to argue? That his teaching is not new, but is established in the OT, and that it has been God's plan all along to choose the Gentiles....

Are we in agreement thus far?

 

I know it is difficult to see a passage from a different perspective when you have become so accustom to reading it from your own perspective, so let's use an analogy to gain a different perspective:

Pretend with me that we live before the Civil War and we are all slave owners. We have been taught wrongly that black people are not real people, just property. We, therefore, have concluded that God has no place for them to be saved. In our minds, they are no different than animals. (Of course, this thinking is abhorrent, and rightly so, but some held to this belief in those days, so please stay with me on the point of the analogy)

Now, you, are a respected pastor in the community and all of your pastor friends and mentors believe as you do that blacks are not apart of God's covenant. In fact, you think they are not worthy of God's attention any more so than a dog. This is how you were raised to think as was everyone around you.

One day, God blinds you while walking down the road (like He did Paul) or speaks to you in a vivid dream (like He did Peter) and tells you that your views about black people are wrong and that God loves them and wants them to be a part of His covenant just like white people, He tells you that it has been his plan all along to choose them. At first your flesh objects saying, "What not those dirty slaves, surely not, you have only chosen us Lord." But God convinces you that his love for them is as real as his love for you and that it has ALWAYS been His plan from the very beginning to save the black people.

Then God calls you to preach to blacks and convince the whites that your ministry is really from God. Difficult job. Now, you can relate to Paul's dilemma with regard to the Gentiles.

Continuing in our analogy; you become know as the "preacher to the blacks" and you are not very popular at all. In fact, the whites argue that blacks aren't deserving of entrance into God's covenant and they beat you and even throw you in prison many times. But you argue, "God can show mercy on whom ever he wants!" And when you write to the black churches that you started you say things like, "I thank God that He has chosen you from the beginning," because people all around you keep telling them they have not been chosen by God. Even those whites who do believe you are trying to get the blacks to cover their dark skin or paint over it so they can become like the whites and you have to continually defend them.

I know this is just an analogy and all analogies fall short, but hopefully this one provides some perspective as to why Paul says some of the things he says. Such as, "I praise God that he has chosen you from the foundation of the world..." etc... We have to be careful not to confuse what God is choosing.

1. He chose Israel (i.e. the white people in the analogy) to receive God's revelation first

2. He chose the Remnant (white people who preached to the blacks) to take the message of reconciliation to the whole world...to your own people first (who are blinded) and then to the blacks, who will listen. (ref Acts 28:28)

3. He chose the whole world ("every creature") to receive the invitation to come to faith and repentance through Jesus Christ.

I believe Calvinists make the mistake of taking verses that are in reference to God's choice of these three things and misapply them to their view of the unconditional election and irresistible call of a select few to the neglect of all others.

 

No such theory existed! Never in the history of Judaism did the Jews ever deny Gentiles as being chosen of God to salvation. Jesus told the Pharisees they compassed sea and land to make one proselyte. Rahab the harlot and Ruth were well known chosen of God gentiles. The Judaizers never disputed the choice of Gentiles by God but only disputed they could be saved without becoming Jews through circumcision.

You are simply manufacturing rediculous interpetations that you cannot verify by any reputable scholars.

 

And why do you think they believed that a Gentile had to convert to Judaism before being saved if indeed Jews never denied that Gentiles were elect of God?

 

This analogy is rediculous! It has no Biblical basis whatsoever but purely imaginary in all of its details. The Jews believed that God only chose Israel AS A NATION but never disputed individual election of Gentiles to salvation. Rahab the Harlot, Ruth were not merely well known examples but Ruth has a book all about her as a non-Jew chosen by God to be in the geneology of King David and in the line of the Messiah.

The COURT OF THE GENTILES was designed to include Gentiles within the temple, just as the COURT OF WOMEN included women in God's choice of salvation. However, both were regarded as SECONDARY citizens IN God's kingdom on earth.

You are placing a spin on the historical issue. The problem was never about denying Gentiles salvation or denying God chooses INDIVIDUAL Gentiles unto salvation. The problem has always been the same, EQUALITY as individuals to Jews in salvation and service. Paul argued that the cross does not distinguish ethnicity, gender or class. Judaizers did not deny God's choice of individual gentile salvation but denied they could be saved without becoming Jewish proselytes through circumcision and equal in service (ministry, etc.).

Jews had the same way of salvation for both Jews and Gentiles - becoming Jewish proselyes through the Law. NEVER denied God chose individual gentiles for salvation but only denied any other NATION than Israel for salvation.

 

Yup........

You've nailed it and I see you've met scandalon.