Calvinism needs to add words to scripture

[Psalty]

It shows what election really means. The burden of the choice being upon the one choosing, not setting up a method for choosing. "Elected" in the case of Israel meant a specific people among many peoples. Your point about election would be well taken if God had opened it up to any group of people who showed up at Sinai and received the Law. They were not all saved, because election in that case was not individual and not for eternal salvation, but corporate, of a people. They certainly were all "elect" in that they all were of Israel, whom God says in other places, in case they forgot, that there was absolutely nothing about them that warranted them being chosen - but God.

So you think that election of Israel in the OT was corporate, but you think in the NT God has changed His mind and is now doing election differently and is individually and about salvation?

Edit: The chosing of God is that those who are in Christ will be holy and blameless at our presentation to Christ at the end of the age.

I believe it makes more sense to think that Paul the Pharisee understood OT election and in Ephesians is applying it to Gentiles! Gentiles are also Elect, its not just Jews!

Indeed, election in the NT like in the OT is corporate. We know this in Ephesians because he is speaking generally to “the saints” and “the faithful” in 1:1; in 1:15 he is categorically speaking to those “among you” ie, the group of believers, not a specific list of names, and in 3:2 generically to gentiles who dont know him, and who he doesnt know. Lastly, he is talking to those who are holy and blameless, the category of the Bride of Christ in 5:27. The category is those who are in Christ through belief as Eph 1:13-14 points out.

Paul is talking about corporate election, I dont see how you could say otherwise.

But, I dont want to sidetrack too far off this thread, we should start a new one if you want to keep talking about it.

 

[DaveXR650]

Paul is talking about corporate election, I dont see how you could say otherwise.

Yes, but every group (corporate) is made of individuals. And the concept of "election" means God choosing, not choosing a set of requirements for membership but actually choosing the group - which like I said is made of individuals, which Paul explains is gentiles as well as Jews. I am not saying that faith is not required, on our part, in order to have salvation. And all the elect have faith, without which, there is no salvation. But I am saying that "election" is by definition in scripture, always a choosing on God's part, and it there is no difference between being holy and blameless, and being saved.

But, I dont want to sidetrack too far off this thread, we should start a new one if you want to keep talking about it.

It's the whole point of this thread. As we have seen through this thread, moderate Calvinists believe that God is sovereign in the choosing of who gets saved, and at the same time, the invitation to come to Christ is real and genuine and universal. And they say that in the end, if it turns out that you are not saved, you will have remembrance of actually rejecting Christ and his salvation and willfully preferring the world and your own righteousness. They admit that this is difficult. That's why the theology is difficult to explain. But difficult to explain doesn't mean that it is not found in scripture. Both concepts are. And you are trying to negate the whole concept of individual election unto salvation, which is taught in scripture, by claiming that it is not about salvation, when it sometimes is, and by turning election into a set of requirements, which election is not.

 

[Psalty]

Yes, but every group (corporate) is made of individuals. And the concept of "election" means God choosing, not choosing a set of requirements for membership but actually choosing the group - which like I said is made of individuals, which Paul explains is gentiles as well as Jews. I am not saying that faith is not required, on our part, in order to have salvation. And all the elect have faith, without which, there is no salvation. But I am saying that "election" is by definition in scripture, always a choosing on God's part, and it there is no difference between being holy and blameless, and being saved.

It's the whole point of this thread. As we have seen through this thread, moderate Calvinists believe that God is sovereign in the choosing of who gets saved, and at the same time, the invitation to come to Christ is real and genuine and universal. And they say that in the end, if it turns out that you are not saved, you will have remembrance of actually rejecting Christ and his salvation and willfully preferring the world and your own righteousness. They admit that this is difficult. That's why the theology is difficult to explain. But difficult to explain doesn't mean that it is not found in scripture. Both concepts are. And you are trying to negate the whole concept of individual election unto salvation, which is taught in scripture, by claiming that it is not about salvation, when it sometimes is, and by turning election into a set of requirements, which election is not.

The whole point of this thread is that Calvinists have to supply words to make versus make sense to their systematic. A fully in-depth discussion on election is just an example.

Edit: ill be busy again for the next couple of days, but I will start a new thread on Election hopefully on Monday when I have more time.

And of course I disagree with individual salvation being biblical. And especially your idea that Holy and Blameless in Eph 1:4 is in reference to the point of salvation. It is about Consummation and it is conditional, contrary to Calvinistic doctrine:

yet He has now reconciled you in His fleshly body through death, in order to present you before Him holy and blameless and beyond reproach⁠— if indeed you continue in the faith firmly established and steadfast, and not moved away from the hope of the gospel that you have heard, which was proclaimed in all creation under heaven, and of which I, Paul, was made a minister.
— Colossians 1:22-23

 

[Martin Marprelate]

All of these have been answered so many times.

When?

 

[Silverhair]

I clarified your erroneous take on it by comparing scripture with scripture. I don't form doctrine from a single verse.



Ephesians Chapter 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:

2nd Thessalonians Chapter 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 err greatly by forming doctrine from a single verse.

KY you error greatly when you misunderstand the scripture you use to support your view.

Eph 1:4 just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before Him in love,

When you place the emphasis on "chosen before the foundation of the world" you have failed to understand that if you were already in Christ from the foundation of the world, then you were never "in Adam" and never needed salvation.

2Th 2:13 But we are bound to give thanks to God always for you, brethren beloved by the Lord, because God from the beginning chose you for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth,
2Th 2:14 to which He called you by our gospel, for the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Paul tells us when and how God chose the Thessalonians for salvation. 2Th_2:13-14
When, from the beginning
How, through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth
Means, to which He called you by our gospel

 

[DaveXR650]

The whole point of this thread is that Calvinists have to supply words to make versus make sense to their systematic. A fully in-depth discussion on election is just an example.

The reason you have any systematic theology is that it is felt that additional explanation by way of words is needed in order to reconcile passages that if left by themselves, seem to contradict. I hope you are not trying to say that you don't ever need to explain things in scripture using extra words, especially when most of the posts in the past 24 hours explaining scripture meaning to the rest of us are yours.
Colossians 1:22-23 quoted above is the type of warning that Calvinists use extra words to explain that it is indeed true as a stated fact, and indeed useful as a warning of the fact that perseverance must occur - but what the addition of theological explanation does is that lest some read that verse in isolation and become confused, the theology explains that an elect individual, a true saint, cannot be unborn again. That the other passages in scripture do offer the conception of election as security for persecuted believers who are worried that their courage may fail, and so on.
In other words, the theology is useful. Even essential, to establish guidelines for affiliations and so on.

For instance, your use of Colossians 1:22-23 requires you to explain what it means. This I promise you will fit in to a theology. Go ahead and explain what it means and I will identify it with a specific theology. To act like this is only true of Calvinism is a little disingenuous.

 

[Silverhair]

Scripture cannot contradict scripture. Comparing scripture with scripture is essential for correct understanding. Do you form your doctrine from a single verse?

Election is individual, not corporate like you're attempting to force it to be..

Romans Chapter 9

11​	for the children being not yet born, neither having done anything good or bad, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth,

That the purpose of God according to election G1589 which fulfills God's word to Abraham might stand. {Gen_12:2-3 ff} Gods' choice was while they were in the womb before they were born not before they were conceived and not before the foundation of the world and not for salvation but for a birthright as you can see Gen_25:31-34; Gen_25:27-36 and Heb_12:16

Rom_9:10-12 isn’t addressing individual election unto salvation, but God’s choice of the covenant head (Jacob) through which the covenant people will be named and thereby receive the covenant blessings, which ultimately includes salvation. That God is speaking of the covenant people as a corporate entity through the choice of the covenant head (Jacob) over Esau, is plain from what God said to Rebecca while they were in the womb. The {Rom_9:13} quote is from Malachi {Mal_1:2-3} also makes this very clear (along with the fact that the individual Esau never personally served Jacob).

 

[DaveXR650]

When you place the emphasis on "chosen before the foundation of the world" you have failed to understand that if you were already in Christ from the foundation of the world, then you were never "in Adam" and never needed salvation.

I do agree that it is possible to put too much emphasis on "chosen before the foundation of the world". But it is there, and cannot be denied that it does say "chosen before the foundation of the world". You have theology in order to explain the very point you are making.

Paul tells us when and how God chose the Thessalonians for salvation. 2Th_2:13-14
When, from the beginning
How, through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth
Means, to which He called you by our gospel

In my opinion you murder that passage with wrong exegesis because you take the how, when, and means and turn that into the reason for their salvation, which the passage says is God's choice. Saying that it is God's choice does not mean the "how" and "means" are not necessary, or that without them you will not be saved. But using that to blow off the fact that it is God that chooses you for salvation won't do in light of the stated scripture.

 

[Psalty]

The reason you have any systematic theology is that it is felt that additional explanation by way of words is needed in order to reconcile passages that if left by themselves, seem to contradict. I hope you are not trying to say that you don't ever need to explain things in scripture using extra words, especially when most of the posts in the past 24 hours explaining scripture meaning to the rest of us are yours.

No, that’s not what I’m saying. I’m just following the title of the thread, and I’m using Martin’s quote which succinctly demonstrates it.

In Eph 1:4 Paul tells us what believers are chosen for: to be holy and blameless before Him. Calvinists say it’s too be saved. That’s not what it says. If you want to argue it, then argue from cross-references of “holy and blameless” and lets talk.

Colossians 1:22-23 quoted above is the type of warning that Calvinists use extra words to explain that it is indeed true as a stated fact, and indeed useful as a warning of the fact that perseverance must occur - but what the addition of theological explanation does is that lest some read that verse in isolation and become confused, the theology explains that an elect individual, a true saint, cannot be unborn again. That the other passages in scripture do offer the conception of election as security for persecuted believers who are worried that their courage may fail, and so on.
In other words, the theology is useful. Even essential, to establish guidelines for affiliations and so on.

For instance, your use of Colossians 1:22-23 requires you to explain what it means. This I promise you will fit in to a theology. Go ahead and explain what it means and I will identify it with a specific theology. To act like this is only true of Calvinism is a little disingenuous.

Of course people explain what they mean. The question is what can be demonstrated from scripture, and what does it plainly say without have to read suppositions or opposing scripture into it.

 

[Psalty]

I do agree that it is possible to put too much emphasis on "chosen before the foundation of the world". But it is there, and cannot be denied that it does say "chosen before the foundation of the world". You have theology in order to explain the very point you are making.

In my opinion you murder that passage with wrong exegesis because you take the how, when, and means and turn that into the reason for their salvation, which the passage says is God's choice. Saying that it is God's choice does not mean the "how" and "means" are not necessary, or that without them you will not be saved. But using that to blow off the fact that it is God that chooses you for salvation won't do in light of the stated scripture.

In 2 Thess 2 From the beginning of what? The beginning of Paul’s missions. “From the first fruits” as some early manuscripts say.

And by connecting this with Eph 1:4, you would end up with a contradiction:
Chose BEFORE the foundation of the world
Chose FROM the beginning
Now you have made election both before the foundation of the world and from the beginning of the world.

Calvinistic interpretation of 2 Thess 2 is incompatible.

 

[DaveXR650]

In Eph 1:4 Paul tells us what believers are chosen for: to be holy and blameless before Him. Calvinists say it’s too be saved. That’s not what it says. If you want to argue it, then argue from cross-references of “holy and blameless” and lets talk.

You must be holy and blameless or you will not be saved. Imputed righteousness is necessary for salvation. A holy walk and practical righteousness is necessary for salvation - but yet not the meritorious cause of salvation. You must be "in Christ" for salvation. Calvinistic theology teaches all these things. I'm not saying other theological systems don't, just that Calvinism does. In addition, any Calvinist would tell you, if they understand their theology, that the fact that it is emphasized that we be presented "holy and blameless" rather than always emphasizing that we are saved is that in Calvinistic theology the sole and total cause of everything is not our personal "fire insurance" against damnation, but instead the glory of God, which we can be show as being part of the multitude presented "holy and blameless" and of course "saved" in the end.

 

[Psalty]

You must be holy and blameless or you will not be saved. Imputed righteousness is necessary for salvation. A holy walk and practical righteousness is necessary for salvation - but yet not the meritorious cause of salvation. You must be "in Christ" for salvation. Calvinistic theology teaches all these things. I'm not saying other theological systems don't, just that Calvinism does. In addition, any Calvinist would tell you, if they understand their theology, that the fact that it is emphasized that we be presented "holy and blameless" rather than always emphasizing that we are saved is that in Calvinistic theology the sole and total cause of everything is not our personal "fire insurance" against damnation, but instead the glory of God, which we can be show as being part of the multitude presented "holy and blameless" and of course "saved" in the end.

And what you say here is true, but in Eph 1:4 Paul is talking about presenting believers before Christ at the consummation, not what you are suggesting. You would need ro go to other passages for what you are talking about.

A believers pre destined path that Christ has is that they will be presented Holy and Blameless at the end of the age to Christ. This is the adoption as sons that 1:5 talks about.

You are trying to make 1:4 about when we receive salvation, receiving the SPIRIT of adoption in Rom 8:15, but Paul is talking about receiving the full adoption at glorification like he does in Rom 8:23. Colossians 1 makes it clear that Paul is talking about when we are finally presented to Christ, not when we are first cleansed.

 

[DaveXR650]

In 2 Thess 2 From the beginning of what? The beginning of Paul’s missions. “From the first fruits” as some early manuscripts say.

And by connecting this with Eph 1:4, you would end up with a contradiction:
Chose BEFORE the foundation of the world
Chose FROM the beginning
Now you have made election both before the foundation of the world and from the beginning of the world.

Calvinistic interpretation of 2 Thess 2 is incompatible.

I'm not following how before the foundation of the world as opposed to from the beginning would make any difference. Language doesn't make sense if you said before the beginning. And the beginning would be before the foundation of the world. Therefore either statement could be used and be correct. You have an imagined contradiction.

 

[DaveXR650]

You are trying to make 1:4 about when we receive salvation,

Because the early chapters of all the Pauline epistles are about when we receive salvation, then later, they all move into practical Christian living. I don't see what you are trying to do here, unless you have been watching one of those Provisionism Youtubes, "De Calvinizing Ephesians". If you can honestly read the 1st and 2nd chapters of Ephesians and think that this is not about God saving those people he is writing to according to his own plan and purpose, then go ahead. I can tell you that it should be a source of comfort that this is true. If you have faith then what you are supposed to do is look at this as validation and encouragement, not look for contradictions.

What is it within us that makes us think that we have to be able to say it's our faith, we did it, and we won't let anyone try to give all the credit to God, when all Paul was trying to do was validate the reality of the salvation and faith of the folks at Ephesus.

 

[Psalty]

Because the early chapters of all the Pauline epistles are about when we receive salvation, then later, they all move into practical Christian living. I don't see what you are trying to do here, unless you have been watching one of those Provisionism Youtubes, "De Calvinizing Ephesians". If you can honestly read the 1st and 2nd chapters of Ephesians and think that this is not about God saving those people he is writing to according to his own plan and purpose, then go ahead. I can tell you that it should be a source of comfort that this is true. If you have faith then what you are supposed to do is look at this as validation and encouragement, not look for contradictions.

What is it within us that makes us think that we have to be able to say it's our faith, we did it, and we won't let anyone try to give all the credit to God, when all Paul was trying to do was validate the reality of the salvation and faith of the folks at Ephesus.

I would love for you to address the point about this being about the adoption as sons at glorification, not at salvation.
I would love for you to specifically address Col 1:22-23 Seeing as it is a parallel to Eph 1:4-5.
And that Eph 5:27 also supports ”holy and blameless“ as also at glorification And not initial salvation?

Will you address those 2 scriptures? Because I believe scripture is strongly and specifically against you at this point and I’d like to see your specific address how you would argue against glorification.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

KY you error greatly when you misunderstand the scripture you use to support your view.

Eph 1:4 just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before Him in love,

When you place the emphasis on "chosen before the foundation of the world" you have failed to understand that if you were already in Christ from the foundation of the world, then you were never "in Adam" and never needed salvation.

Chosen in Christ is not the same thing as being in Christ. Christians are chosen before the foundation of the world, but they are not saved until they trust in Christ.

 

[DaveXR650]

I would love for you to address the point about this being about the adoption as sons at glorification, not at salvation.
I would love for you to specifically address Col 1:22-23 Seeing as it is a parallel to Eph 1:4-5.
And that Eph 5:27 also supports ”holy and blameless“ as also at glorification And not initial salvation?

Will you address those 2 scriptures? Because I believe scripture is strongly and specifically against you at this point and I’d like to see your specific address how you would argue against glorification.

Without holiness no man will see God. Holy and blameless is due to the righteousness imputed to us. And we will be presented holy and blameless at a future time to Christ, as part of the bride of Christ. In the meantime, as I said before, we are instructed to live a holy and blameless life, with God's help, which is, as you know, always the pattern of the Pauline epistles. Doctrine first, then practical living.

I am not aware of a controversy you are concerned with here assuming that you believe that our righteousness is imputed to us on condition of faith in Christ. And no Calvinist I know of is opposed to this either as long as by "condition" you mean that it must be present or else there is no salvation. I don't understand what is bothering you in the example you are using. If you are saying that a person is not "holy and blameless" in the sight of God when they are saved then we do have a serious difference, but it's not a Calvinistic one. And if you agree that a saved person is holy and blameless in God's sight then it makes no difference whether glorification or salvation is being spoken of.

If you are concerned about the part added on in Colossians regarding continuing in the faith, let me assure you that Calvinism teaches the necessity of continuing in the faith. Once again, you are illustrating the beauty and necessity of having a good theology. What Calvinism does not allow is for you to take a verse like the one in Colossians and make that into a false doctrine where you are scared to death you won't be able to hold out or that your faith may falter. What Calvinists would say is that this warning to persevere is a means of warning and an exhortation to carefulness in our walk as no Calvinist believes that our election or being born again is a license to loose living. And no Calvinist believes that a truly born again individual can loose their salvation - because we are kept from apostacy, not kept in spite of it. See the value of good theology?

 

[Martin Marprelate]

I would love for you to address the point about this being about the adoption as sons at glorification, not at salvation.
I would love for you to specifically address Col 1:22-23 Seeing as it is a parallel to Eph 1:4-5.
And that Eph 5:27 also supports ”holy and blameless“ as also at glorification And not initial salvation?

Will you address those 2 scriptures? Because I believe scripture is strongly and specifically against you at this point and I’d like to see your specific address how you would argue against glorification.

I suppose you mean Col. 1:21-23. 'And you who were once alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works , yet now He has reconciled in the body of His flesh through death, to present you holy and blameless, and above reproach in His sight - if indeed you continue in the faith, grounded and steadfast, and not moved away from the hope of the gospel which you heard, which was preached to every creature under heaven, of which I, Paul, became a minister.'

Eph. 1:4-5. '... Just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before Him in love, having predestined us to adoption as sons by Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will.'

I'm not sure what makes you think that these are two parallel passages. The Ephesians text is about God's election and predestination before the foundation of the world - what He has decided that He will do. The Colossian text is about what He has done: He has reconciled Christians to Himself through the perfect life and atoning death of the Lord Jesus, who has paid in full for their transgressions, and His perfect righteousness is imputed to them. This pre-supposes that we have truly trusted in Christ, otherwise we shall assuredly fall away from Him, because we are not united to Him by faith. But if we have trusted in Christ, then nothing in all creation will separate us from Him, because we were chosen for salvation before the foundation of the world.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Hello @DaveXR650
Apologies for jumping in on a question directed at you. I had a spare five minutes and thought I'd have a go.

 

[DaveXR650]

Apologies for jumping in on a question directed at you. I had a spare five minutes and thought I'd have a go.

I hope that is permissible. I'm always jumping in on someone else's question. I figured if it's on an open forum then everyone is invited to answer a post. Besides, I value your opinion.