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

And hopefully you will be healed someday.

Of course the Father drew me to Jesus, scripture says no man can come to Jesus unless the Father draws him (Jhn 6:44). And Jhn 6:45 shows how this is done, by teaching a man. Those who listen to the Father and learn from him will come to Jesus. I heard the gospel preached and I paid heed to it, I believed it to be the truth, and so I came to Jesus for forgiveness of my sins. Of course God gets the credit, if he had not revealed my lost condition and the gospel to me I could not have believed and would be without any hope of being saved.

Of course.

Yes.

Ah yes, but it takes two parents to produce a child. Likewise when a person trusts Jesus, their spirit is washed and joined to the Holy Spirit. They become one spirit which is the new birth, a new creation.

You were physically born when your two parents came together. You are made from both parents, but you are not your parents, you are an individual, you are your own person.

Likewise, when a person trusts Christ, they are joined to him. They become one spirit, which is a new person, a new creation.

1 Cor 6:17 But he that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit.

This is what you Calvinists do not understand, being saved is compared to being married to Jesus. It is a coming together. In this world we come together with our wife and become one flesh, that is, our children. It also takes two to be joined to Jesus, we are married to him, we are joined to him and become one spirit. We are now partakers of the divine nature. We are not God, and never will be, but we share in his nature.

Rom 6:4 Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God.

2 Pet 1:4 Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust.

This is why we cannot lose our salvation, we cannot fall away in unbelief, because we now share in the divine nature, we have the indwelling Holy Spirit or seed in us that cannot sin. The Holy Spirit cannot fall away in unbelief.

1 Jhn 3:9 Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.

This is where both Calvinists and Arminians err. If you are truly born of God, then you share in the divine nature, you have the Holy Spirit, the seed dwelling in you, and you cannot possibly fall away in unbelief. You do not have to persevere, you are preserved. Neither Calvinists like you, nor Arminians understand this. You both think you have to persevere (work) to stay saved. Total error.

We are now married to Jesus who was raised from the dead. We are joined to him and become one spirit, which is a new creation, a new person.

But it didn't happen by accident, just as your physical birth didn't happen by accident. Your mother and father willingly and knowingly came together to create you. Likewise, we knowingly and willingly choose to be married and joined to Jesus and become a new creation.

So, as usual, Calvinism says the exact opposite of what scripture really says.

God foreknew your parents would come together and produce you. Likewise, God foreknew who would believe in time and be joined to Jesus and become a new creation.

It takes TWO to produce a birth.

 

Which two did it take for Adam?

 

Adam wasn't born, he was created.

 

It is true that Israel as a NATION is called "mine elect" in the Old Testament and the Jews regarded themselves as the only elect NATION on earth. However, no gentile believer or apostle ever claimed that there were elect GENTILE NATIONS. Hence, there was no denial that Israel as a NATION was God's elect or any assertion that any Gentile NATION was God's elect.

Second, the term "elect" in the New Testament is never used by any writer to describe Gentile NATIONS in contrast to Israel.

Third, there is NO EVIDENCE that Jews used the term "elect" to contrast themselves as INDIVIDUALS from INDIVIDUAL Gentile proselytes OR gentile Christians but your whole argument rests upon that imaginary assertion.

You are simply taking the term "elect" and making it fit your theology and use it to read your theology back into Biblical texts which make no such ETHNIC comparisons or contrast by the use of the term "elect."

Fourth, the only contextual comparison being made is between the believers at Thessalonica and those describe in 2 Thes. 2:9-12 which have no ETHNIC designation and therefore there is no such contextual ethnic contrast being made except in your own mind.

The bottom line is that you are taking the current Jewish use of the term "elect" which they used only in a NATIONAL sense or in distinction to other NATIONS (as made clear by the promise to Abraham) and perverting or transforming it into a term of INDIVIDUAL distinction Jews and Gentiles when the Abrahamic promise makes it very clear that Gentiles were indeed inclusive in the Abrahamic promise but not in regard to NATIONAL election.

Your problem is that New Testament writers would never deny the term "chosen" or "elect" to any promised child of Abraham regardless if they were Jewish or gentile as they understood both were included in the Abrahamic promise. Hence, that very fact repudiates your whole theory regardless how you may twist these texts to deny that fact.

 

Skan, really now. "we have consistently supported a HIGHER, not lower, view of God's Sovereignty than our Calvinistic brethren"?? Is this a contest as to who has a higher view of God?

 

No, but under the consistent accusation that our view somehow doesn't teach that God is 'sovereign' we must show how just the opposite is true...at least from our perspective.

 

I don't know, you'll have to ask a Pelagian. I'm simply speaking for those like Tozer and myself who believe that God is sovereign enough not to have to play both sides of the chess board to ensure a victory.

True. And?

Why would anyone support such a silly thing as that? Are you attacking a strawman now?

 

OK. Let's use the fitting Semi-Pelagian.

'Sovereign enough'? In other words, in the true Biblical account He's TOO Sovereign.

Anyhow, your view is an opprobrious assessment of God's true Sovereignty, or of the Reformed view which represents His Sovereignty in the highest Biblical sense. If Tozer's view matches yours, you're both wrong. In other words, if God's Sovereignty fails to fit into your preconceived ideology, then it's rejected. Reminds me of the time you falsely stated God doesn't use secondary means to accomplish His purposes, when, in FACT, He does.

 

Jesus indeed likens being saved to a marriage, have you read Matthew 22 or Mark 2?

Mat 22:2 The kingdom of heaven is like unto a certain king, which made a marriage for his son,

Mar 2:18 And the disciples of John and of the Pharisees used to fast: and they come and say unto him, Why do the disciples of John and of the Pharisees fast, but thy disciples fast not?
19 And Jesus said unto them, Can the children of the bridechamber fast, while the bridegroom is with them? as long as they have the bridegroom with them, they cannot fast.
20 But the days will come, when the bridegroom shall be taken away from them, and then shall they fast in those days.

Getting saved is repeatedly compared to being married to Jesus, and it is not a forced marriage.

Actually, it is a figure of the Word of God. Notice that Jesus said THOU HEAREST THE SOUND THEREOF.

Jhn 3:8 The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.

I would be willing to bet you have never noticed that before. :thumbs:

But man can hear the wind.

Yes, but that takes TWO. It is our spirit joined to the Holy Spirit.

1 Cor 6:17 But he that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit.

Just as a man and his wife come together and become one flesh, which is manifested in their children, when the Holy Spirit is joined to a believer's spirit they become a new man, a new creation.

Correct.

No, it is like a marriage where a man and woman consent to be married and come together to become one.

False, a person must believe on Jesus to be born again.

Jhn 1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:
13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

To those who receive Jesus and believe on his name, to these persons God gives the power to become the sons of God. Yes, only God has the power to make a man born again, but he only does that to those who first receive Jesus and believe on his name.

Mark Twain is the author of Huckleberry Finn, but I have to read the book for myself. God gives us his Word which enables us to believe, but a person must believe for themselves, God does not believe for you.

The gift in Eph 2:8 is salvation, not faith.

God gives grace to the humble.

Jam 4:6 But he giveth more grace. Wherefore he saith, God resisteth the proud, but giveth grace unto the humble.

Do you have a job? If so, your employer chose you. But you also chose your employer. I have been offered many jobs that I did not take.

This verse does not say God must regenerate a person before they have the ability to be willing, you are reading that into scripture. It simply says they will be willing in the day of his power.

You have absolutely ZERO scripture to support Irresistible Grace. Show where the scriptures ever say a person cannot resist the Holy Spirit, you can't do it.

 

Yes, but Adam wasn't said to be born of God, whereas Christians are said to be born of God. A birth requires two parents among men.

 

No, read it again. Your view promotes a view of God which suggests that to maintain control (your limited view of 'sovereign') that God would have to play both sides of the chess board to ensure victory. He has to control Satan's moves and His own, to be "Sovereign" according the deterministic approach.

Our view is a HIGHER view of sovereignty because God doesn't have to control everyone's will to ensure his victory. He is able to ensure victory despite and even through the free independent choices of others. He is able to actually defeat a real and independent foe, not some puppet that he pulls the strings on.

Your view of God is very very small in my estimation.

 

There is not a "have to" in God's sovereignty according to the Monergistic view. In other words there is no condition that can be placed upon God in order for Him to be, or to maintain, sovereignty. There is however a distinction of being. God is sovereign. As sovereign He orders and controls all things. He does this using human means, but He also acts outside human means according to his divine will. I like the way the 1689 Second London Baptist Confession of Faith explains it:

God use or lack of use of means does not create a condition in regards to His sovereignty, it simply underscores the depth of His sovereignty.

 

God 'has' to 'maintain' control? There is nothing in my view that even suggests that, so beat away on your straw man and pretend, OK?

You're the one who has laid claim that God doesn't use secondary means to accomplish things, when in fact He DOES. Right there your view is Unscriptural, and frankly it's a pattern for you.

The fact is that God DOES in fact have Sovereign rule over Satan, both allowing by Providence and controlling, THAT is PROVEN in Scripture and is simply and sadly more revelation that you are rejecting. In fact, while doing it, you sound bitter and angry over these truths. They are so apparently true in Scripture that it is amazing how you are rejecting what is readily seen. You are in FACT rejecting much revealed truth in your statement above.

The only thing we need to know about your view is that it is Unscriptural as seen time and again on BB, and yes, it includes the others whom you claim with your 'our'.

So yes, I agree that it is apparent, that, from your Unscriptural viewpoint the truth isn't seen -- and it goes well beyond that to actual rejection of revealed truth.

You've been called on your dissident views many times by many others on here who hold to a solid theology, who believe all Scripture reveals about God's Sovereignty, revelation that you fight against day in and day out. Thus for you to erringly conclude that my God is small in your view is a moot point.

And one more problem above -- you unremittingly complain about personal accusations -- even when you have to go out on a limb and stretch evidence to make said accusation -- yet you employ these PLAINLY yourself. Sanctimonious and opprobrious behavior on your part. Since you're going to make it part of the discussion, leave off complaining about it with others. OK? In other words practice your preaching. And believe me, I can handle your personal insults.

 

I don't believe that you really believe that. You say you do, but you don't. Nothing in the deterministic system merely has God 'allowing' anything...just ask Luke.

This is what (some) Calvinists do. They use words that make their dogma more appealing, like 'allow', but when pressed it never actually means what they say. For God to merely allow something he must not have originated it, and for God not to originate something means God must have been informed by something outside himself, a concept all self respecting deterministic scholars have rejected. So, use the word 'allow' all you want if if makes you feel better, but we know what you really mean. You mean that God created Satan with the nature that would do exactly as he was decreed to do prior to his being created and then God "allowed" him do that which He decreed for him to do.

You all do the same thing with the word 'responsible.' You make it lose all its meaning because people you call 'responsible' are not 'able to respond,' thus making the word 'response-able' devoid of all common sense meaning.

You can attack views and I was attacking your view of God, not you. That is permitted. Stay on topic, address the issue and you can debate as vigorously as your heart desires.

 

I agree with all of this thus far...

He orders and controls the child molesters, rapist, satanic cult member, al queda terrorist bomber? Because last I recall he doesn't even tempt men to sin much less control and order the sinner to sin. This denies the Holiness of God, unless you mean something besides the most common accepted meaning of these words, which is very possible given your particular systematic approach.

 

Understanding 2 Thessalonians 2:13 is difficult for Arminians and impossible for Calvinists.

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.