2 Thessalonians 2:13

[jbh28]

God chose you as first-fruit for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and faith in the truth. This is a fairly straightforward sentence. The NASB translators translated it this way. My understanding of the verse is based on this translation. However, nothing brought forward by "experts" indicates there is anything wrong with my understanding.

I find it interesting that Van likes the NASB for one part(for salvation vs to be saved), but then jumps to the ESV for the "first fruit" vs "from the beginning" part.

My understanding of the verse is based on this translation

Oh really, so you do believe that it's "from the beginning" then?

And no amount of ad homenims[sic] disparaging my character or qualifications will hide the truth.

 

[Van]

First-fruit is footnoted in the NASB. God chose you as first-fruit for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and faith in the truth. This is a fairly straightforward sentence. The NASB translators translated it this way. My understanding of the verse is based on this translation. However, nothing brought forward by "experts" indicates there is anything wrong with my understanding.

 

[jbh28]

First-fruit is footnoted in the NASB. God chose you as first-fruit for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and faith in the truth. This is a fairly straightforward sentence. The NASB translators translated it this way. My understanding of the verse is based on this translation. However, nothing brought forward by "experts" indicates there is anything wrong with my understanding.

Only the OP...

 

[Van]

LOL, Archangel wrote the OP and used the ESV.

 

[jbh28]

LOL, Archangel wrote the OP and used the ESV.

Yes he did. Very good. You get one point!
Now for the rest of your points, read the rest of it to see your error.

And actually, he was using the Greek most of the time.

 

[The Archangel]

And no amount of ad homenims disparaging my character or qualifications will hide the truth.

I have no idea of your character. But, your own efforts have done more to disparage your qualifications than anyone else might have done. And, no amount of your vain-posturing or repeating mantra-like sayings of Greek that does not exist will find the truth.

When you get to the bottom of the pit, really, brother, you should stop digging.

The Archangel

 

[Gabriel Elijah]

And no amount of ad homenims disparaging my character or qualifications will hide the truth.

Believe me—no “ad homenims” will hide your ignorance of the Greek language at this point! Good luck with the debate---b/c your eisegesis will never amount to their ability to demonstrate legitimate biblical exegesis!

 

[The Archangel]

Words coming out of two sides of one's mouth...

Yet more personal attacks. I have presented the basis of my arguments from Greek grammar, I did not say I knew the language or the grammar, but I can read the commentary of folks who can. The preposition "en" largely is used to indicate location or sphere as in within, such as we are in Christ. But it is also used with a dative to provide adverbial information modifying verbs and other adverbs.

From one side: "I did not say I knew the language or grammar."

Folks, more slander. Did I claim I knew Greek? No quote will be forthcoming. Next claiming I am something I am not. Yet another personal attack on my character.

No grammatical fact was established indicating through sanctification by the Spirit and faith in the truth did not modify the verb chose. The grammar indicates that it does with more force that your view.

And you close claiming that stating your qualification is not an attack on me. Who said it was? Yet another strawman argument.

The Greek grammar supports my view, through sanctification indicates the means of the choice and through faith in the truth indicates the basis of the choice.

And 1 Peter 1:1-2 supports this view.

"en + dative is used adverbially, and to assert otherwise has no substance. Means, agent, instrumentality, manner, cause, I could go on.

From the other side: "The Greek grammar supports my view"

How can you say "I don't know Greek language or grammar" and then claim "the Greek grammar supports my view?"

Perhaps you've never heard of the law of non-contradiction?

By your own admission you have no basis to adjudicate the veracity of my claims or the claims of the people who wrote whatever commentary you're reading. Therefore, you have absolutely no right, claim, or standing to even suggest that your view is supported or mine is wrong.

Even so, since you yourself admit that you do not know the language or grammar and that you have gleaned your opinions from someone else's writings, perhaps you should footnote your sources.

What is becoming clear, however, is that you sought to claim a modicum of Greek authority for yourself, not realizing that it takes far more than a commentary to have any facility in Greek. Greek is not a gift; Greek is a labor. What you are doing--being a poser--is tantamount to a middle-aged man going into a toy store and buying the Fisher-Price play set that includes a stethoscope, otoscope, blood pressure cuff, reflex mallet, etc. and calling himself a "doctor."

You are simply outmatched, outgunned, and out of your league in the realm of Greek grammar and syntax. Now a wise man would take this rebuke as a call to stop making such audacious claims about Greek grammar when you, obviously, have no standing to do so. Or, perhaps a wiser man would seek to stop fondling Greek and get intimate with Greek and engage in a life-long toil to understand the language(s) of Scripture. A fool would, however, continue to tout and trumpet his own understanding in a way that is reminiscent of Don Quixote de la Mancha chasing windmills with Sancho Panza as he descends further in to his self-delusion.

We've seen the vapid nature of your self-styled "qualifications." Only time will tell your character in this.

A word to the wise should be sufficient.

The Archangel

 

[The Archangel]

Yes and I understand you in all likelyhood do not, however I would like for you to check the Greek relative to my thoughts. Thanks

Percho,

Can you develop your thoughts in a more detailed way for me? Can you tell me why--according to Romans 3:25--God has faith in Christ's blood?

The Archangel

 

[John of Japan]

I'm not really interested in the theology of this thread and the arguments on both sides. But I have to step in here because Van has gotten a bad rap. His analysis of the Greek has been attacked by those who should know better.

1. The burden of proof that a prepositional phrase is not adverbial is on the opposition. Prepositional phrases are adverbial. In fact, prepositions themselves started out as adverbs in classical Greek. Note A. T. Robertson: "PREPOSITIONAL PHRASES. These adjuncts have the substantial force of adverbs" (A Grammar of the Greek N. T. in the Light of Historical Research, p. 550). Again, Robertson quotes Giles twice on p. 301: "The preposition therefore is only an adverb specialized to define a case-usage," and "To quote Giles again, 'between adverbs and prepositions no distinct line can be drawn.'" Again, Daniel Wallace says, "Prepositions are, in some respects, extended adverbs.... There are exceptions to the adverbial force of prepositions. Some function at times adjectivally" (Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, pp. 356-357). But The Archangel has not shown us why the adjectival use is seen in 2 Thess. 2:13. Instead, he demands that Van prove why the prepositional phrase follows its normal usage!

2. The Archangel says,

εἰς is a pronoun of motion. Which is to say there is a verbal idea (not grammatically, but conceptually) with the phrase εἰς σωτηρίαν.

So, while this is technically a noun, to properly convey the concept of motion contained in the Greek pronoun εἰς and to properly convey the inherent concept in the Greek word σωτηρίαν, which itself implies motion, conceptually, one should translate this with a verbal aspect. Now that does not mean that the original text of εἰς σωτηρίαν is a verb. However, when trying to express the basic, underlying meaning of the construction in English, a verbal form is perfectly acceptable.

He is mistaking translation for exegesis here. When you exegete a passage, you look at the meaning in the original. When you translate, you put the meaning in a different language. So you can translate the way he wants to if you are using dynamic equivalence, in which the form of the original is not important in getting the meaning into the "receptor language" (Nida's term), if the reader responds correctly.

On the other hand, in a literal method of translation (formal equivalence, essentially literal, optimal equivalence, my own method, etc.) The Archangel's rendering would be wrong, because we believe the form of the original has meaning that should be retained in the target language. So The Archangel's explanation of εἰς here is not exegesis but dynamic equivalence translation.

I could go on, but I'll stop. Several somebodies owe Van an apology. What are his credentials, you ask. What does it matter? He could be a novice at Greek or he could have a Ph. D. What matters is the truth. He was right in these two points if not others. (I've not thought through and examined the whole thread.)

 

[The Archangel]

John,

First off, let me say there have been many prayers offered for you--for your personal safety and for your ministry. I certainly hope all things are going well and I hope you are and will remain safe.

Secondly, in the past, I've known you to be a much more careful reader than you are being here. Now, some of your misunderstanding (of the discussion here) might be because you may not have read the posts linked in the OP.

It may be possible, also, that you did not read the Mounce article in the OP.

I'm not really interested in the theology of this thread and the arguments on both sides. But I have to step in here because Van has gotten a bad rap. His analysis of the Greek has been attacked by those who should know better.

As you've stated, you haven't read the entire thread. His "analysis" is not any analysis at all. He has read a commentator that is taking the prepositional phrase as adverbial related to the verb "chose" and is, therefore, suggesting that the prepositional phrase is, in this case, answering the question "how is the action of the verb accomplished."

Van has stated, in quite a contradiction, that 1. He does not know the language or grammar and 2. the grammar supports his interpretation.

So, in other words, Van and his Muse are suggesting that God's election is based on our belief and sanctification, that our present belief is what causes God to elect us.

Now, of course, the Aorist nature of the verb "chose" gives the snapshot of past time. So, this argues against God adding to the elect in the past as a completed action cannot be completed if it is still being added to.

Now, I must say, I really don't have a theological dog in this fight. My theological persuasion is well-known, but I will say that this verse doesn't impact my thoughts one way or the other. What I am arguing against is Van's insistence that this prepositional phrase must be adverbial without any explanation as to why it must. As we found out, he has no knowledge of the Greek language or grammar to offer.

I am not trying to say this verse supports my position. I am only trying to point out that it takes quite a bit of stretching and breaking to support his.

1. The burden of proof that a prepositional phrase is not adverbial is on the opposition. Prepositional phrases are adverbial. In fact, prepositions themselves started out as adverbs in classical Greek. Note A. T. Robertson: "PREPOSITIONAL PHRASES. These adjuncts have the substantial force of adverbs" (A Grammar of the Greek N. T. in the Light of Historical Research, p. 550). Again, Robertson quotes Giles twice on p. 301: "The preposition therefore is only an adverb specialized to define a case-usage," and "To quote Giles again, 'between adverbs and prepositions no distinct line can be drawn.'" Again, Daniel Wallace says, "Prepositions are, in some respects, extended adverbs.... There are exceptions to the adverbial force of prepositions. Some function at times adjectivally" (Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, pp. 356-357). But The Archangel has not shown us why the adjectival use is seen in 2 Thess. 2:13. Instead, he demands that Van prove why the prepositional phrase follows its normal usage!

As you well know, Wallace explains the evolution of the preposition and, in so doing, he explains the difference between the adverbial use of the dative and use of the prepositional phrase ἐν + dative. He clearly and unmistakably states (and I don't have my book in front of me) the uses do not necessarily overlap. So, just because a dative is used adverbially, does not require the ἐν + dative to be used adverbially.

As you yourself quoted, some prepositional phrases do function adjectivally.

Why would it be adjectival in this case? The most simple explanation is that the word order of the sentence strongly argues that the prepositional phrase modifies the accusative noun "salvation" not the verb. In fact, Mounce makes this same argument.

2. The Archangel says,

εἰς is a pronoun of motion. Which is to say there is a verbal idea (not grammatically, but conceptually) with the phrase εἰς σωτηρίαν.

So, while this is technically a noun, to properly convey the concept of motion contained in the Greek pronoun εἰς and to properly convey the inherent concept in the Greek word σωτηρίαν, which itself implies motion, conceptually, one should translate this with a verbal aspect. Now that does not mean that the original text of εἰς σωτηρίαν is a verb. However, when trying to express the basic, underlying meaning of the construction in English, a verbal form is perfectly acceptable.

He is mistaking translation for exegesis here. When you exegete a passage, you look at the meaning in the original. When you translate, you put the meaning in a different language. So you can translate the way he wants to if you are using dynamic equivalence, in which the form of the original is not important in getting the meaning into the "receptor language" (Nida's term), if the reader responds correctly.

This is what I don't understand about your care in reading my argument. I am addressing both exegesis and translation. Perhaps, again, you didn't read some of the links to earlier conversations between Van and me and, perhaps, I should have made a better effort to clarify and classify the discussion based on those previous conversations--especially when he disparaged the ESV and NIV for turning "salvation" into a verb. Now, I love the ESV, but I know it is not always right. I think it gets "as first fruits" wrong. I know other places where its translation is not the best.

Having said that, I would have hoped my grammatical discussion of the relation of the prepositional phrase to the noun and my translational discussion were easily discernible as addressing two separate things, perhaps not.

Suffice it to say, the grammatical argument and the translational argument are not crossing in my mind.

I am arguing that the prepositional phrase is, indeed, adjectival, modifying "salvation." I am doing so on a grammatical basis. My translational discussion, on the other hand, was to explain why some translations--most notably the ESV--translate this as a verb.

On a side-note. Van is using the NASB and is taking all his grammar from the English grammar in the NASB. In his discussions here and other places, he insists that 1 Peter 1:1-2 says we are "chosen [verb] according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, by the sanctifying work of the Spirit, to obey Jesus Christ and be sprinkled with His blood"

He is assuming that "chosen" is a verb simply because the NASB renders it as such. In fact, "chosen" is an adjective.

He views these passages as kindred passages, precisely because he cannot get into the Greek for himself.

On the other hand, in a literal method of translation (formal equivalence, essentially literal, optimal equivalence, my own method, etc.) The Archangel's rendering would be wrong, because we believe the form of the original has meaning that should be retained in the target language. So The Archangel's explanation of εἰς here is not exegesis but dynamic equivalence translation.

See the above reply. You are assuming a crossing of the streams on my part where there is no intention to do so. I am well aware of the difference between exegesis and translation and I was addressing both things simultaneously, which may not have been the clearest way to go.

I could go on, but I'll stop. Several somebodies owe Van an apology. What are his credentials, you ask. What does it matter? He could be a novice at Greek or he could have a Ph. D. What matters is the truth. He was right in these two points if not others. (I've not thought through and examined the whole thread.)

With all due respect, I don't think it can be said he is right--that the prepositional phrase is related to the verb answering "how." In fact, "he" can't be right because he as made no argument. Again, by his own admission, he does not know Greek, yet claims that he does based only on a commentary he has read. The commentator to which he is beholden (which he refuses to cite) seems to take the prepositional phrase as always being adverbial--almost in a formulaic manner. Of course you know that the prepositional phrases do not give their meaning based solely on formulae.

In the end, I'll be happy to side with Mounce on this one (as I was happy to side with Schreiner on our last conversation). One thing that troubles me here is this: With all your noted and very apparent learning, to disagree with Mounce (who only happens to agree with me) on this passage would be the second time you have gone against a world-class, world-renowned scholar (not me, of course).

This is not to call your skills, character, or heart into question. But, it does make me scratch my head. Again, I have all the respect in the world for what you are doing--especially in a hard place like Japan.

Blessings,

The Archangel

 

[percho]

I'm not really interested in the theology of this thread and the arguments on both sides. But I have to step in here because Van has gotten a bad rap. His analysis of the Greek has been attacked by those who should know better.

1. The burden of proof that a prepositional phrase is not adverbial is on the opposition. Prepositional phrases are adverbial. In fact, prepositions themselves started out as adverbs in classical Greek. Note A. T. Robertson: "PREPOSITIONAL PHRASES. These adjuncts have the substantial force of adverbs" (A Grammar of the Greek N. T. in the Light of Historical Research, p. 550). Again, Robertson quotes Giles twice on p. 301: "The preposition therefore is only an adverb specialized to define a case-usage," and "To quote Giles again, 'between adverbs and prepositions no distinct line can be drawn.'" Again, Daniel Wallace says, "Prepositions are, in some respects, extended adverbs.... There are exceptions to the adverbial force of prepositions. Some function at times adjectivally" (Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, pp. 356-357). But The Archangel has not shown us why the adjectival use is seen in 2 Thess. 2:13. Instead, he demands that Van prove why the prepositional phrase follows its normal usage!

2. The Archangel says,

He is mistaking translation for exegesis here. When you exegete a passage, you look at the meaning in the original. When you translate, you put the meaning in a different language. So you can translate the way he wants to if you are using dynamic equivalence, in which the form of the original is not important in getting the meaning into the "receptor language" (Nida's term), if the reader responds correctly.

On the other hand, in a literal method of translation (formal equivalence, essentially literal, optimal equivalence, my own method, etc.) The Archangel's rendering would be wrong, because we believe the form of the original has meaning that should be retained in the target language. So The Archangel's explanation of εἰς here is not exegesis but dynamic equivalence translation.

I could go on, but I'll stop. Several somebodies owe Van an apology. What are his credentials, you ask. What does it matter? He could be a novice at Greek or he could have a Ph. D. What matters is the truth. He was right in these two points if not others. (I've not thought through and examined the whole thread.)

John

I have been worried about and been praying for you and all over there.Knew you have been busy but still have worried because of your absence from the board.

Good hearing from you.

 

[Van]

What Van said:

Next we encounter phrases, which modify or describe how his audience became chosen aliens. First it was according to the foreknowledge of God – God’s redemption plan was to choose believers for His own possession. Second they became chosen aliens by the sanctifying work of the Spirit. Here “sanctifying work” refers to God setting the person apart – spiritually in Christ – rather than the process of sanctification that occurs once a person is placed spiritually in Christ. And third, we have the phrase “to obey Jesus Christ and be sprinkled with His blood.

What Archangel said Van said:

"he insists that 1 Peter 1:1-2 says we are "chosen [verb] according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, by the sanctifying work of the Spirit, to obey Jesus Christ and be sprinkled with His blood"

He is assuming that "chosen" is a verb simply because the NASB renders it as such. In fact, "chosen" is an adjective.


I did not assume chosen was a verb, I said it was a adjective.
Here is what I said:

"Hi Archangel, my study does not rely on turning an adjective into a verb. If you read the post, you see I address how chosen aliens became that way as the heart of what Peter was saying."

All this was posted before he misrepresented my position.

 

[percho]

I need to clarify what you are saying, Percho. Are you saying that the "belief" expressed in 2 Thessalonians 2:13 is God's belief and not ours?

And you are basing this concept on Romans 3:25 which you are suggesting that God is having faith in the Blood of Christ?

Am I understanding you correctly?

The Archangel

I did not express correctly the first time. More correctly here is how I should have put it.

Verse 24 Jesus, V:25 Whom God (The Father) hath set forth [to be] a propitiation (mercy seat) through (the) faith (of Christ) in his blood, to declare his (God's) righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;

My question is, does the Greek support this bearing in mind all that is stated?

That above is what brought about verse 21,22 But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets; Even the righteousness of God [which is] by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:

There is a reason I underlined the above and will get back to it.

Peter said David speaking as a prophet said this of Christ. Ps 16:10 For thou wilt not leave my soul in hell; neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption. Acts 2:31 He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ. It is all about the resurrection. Christ the firstfruits.

These passages are also about resurrection.
2 Cor. 4:14 Knowing that he which raised up the Lord Jesus shall raise up us also by Jesus, and shall present [us] with you. Verse 11 For we which live are alway delivered unto death for Jesus' sake, that the life also of Jesus might be made manifest in our mortal flesh. This is the same resurrection David wrote about in Ps 16.

2 Cor. 4:13 We having the same spirit of faith, according as it is written, I believed, and therefore have I spoken; (Go and read Psalm 116 and Psalm 16 and ask is not David also speaking as the Christ concerning resurrection? Is this not the spirit of the faith of Christ being spoken of?)we also believe, and therefore speak;

Those that believe in Rom. 3 are given the earnest of the Spirit of faith brought by the righteousness of God.
2 Peter 1:1 to them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ:

I am bound to prove that it is the faith of Christ. It is the faith of Jesus the Christ that brings the righteousness of God and by which we shall be saved. We are not called because we have faith. We have faith because we have been called/ chosen.

 

[The Archangel]

What Van said:

Next we encounter phrases, which modify or describe how his audience became chosen aliens. First it was according to the foreknowledge of God – God’s redemption plan was to choose believers for His own possession. Second they became chosen aliens by the sanctifying work of the Spirit. Here “sanctifying work” refers to God setting the person apart – spiritually in Christ – rather than the process of sanctification that occurs once a person is placed spiritually in Christ. And third, we have the phrase “to obey Jesus Christ and be sprinkled with His blood.

What Archangel said Van said:

"he insists that 1 Peter 1:1-2 says we are "chosen [verb] according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, by the sanctifying work of the Spirit, to obey Jesus Christ and be sprinkled with His blood"

He is assuming that "chosen" is a verb simply because the NASB renders it as such. In fact, "chosen" is an adjective.


I did not assume chosen was a verb, I said it was a adjective.
Here is what I said:

"Hi Archangel, my study does not rely on turning an adjective into a verb. If you read the post, you see I address how chosen aliens became that way as the heart of what Peter was saying."

All this was posted before he misrepresented my position.

This is an outright lie.

Here's your quotes again (with the link to the original):

Your first quote listed above comes from here:

Next we encounter phrases, which modify or describe how his audience became chosen aliens. First it was according to the foreknowledge of God – God’s redemption plan was to choose believers for His own possession. Second they became chosen aliens by the sanctifying work of the Spirit. Here “sanctifying work” refers to God setting the person apart – spiritually in Christ – rather than the process of sanctification that occurs once a person is placed spiritually in Christ. And third, we have the phrase “to obey Jesus Christ and be sprinkled with His blood.

Notice the time stamp to that post is 11:38 AM EST.

Here is your second quote from above, listed third. It can be found here:

Hi Archangel, my study does not rely on turning an adjective into a verb. If you read the post, you see I address how chosen aliens became that way as the heart of what Peter was saying.

Notice the time stamp to that post is 12:21 PM EST.

Now, notice my quote from above, listed second. It can be found here:

On a side-note. Van is using the NASB and is taking all his grammar from the English grammar in the NASB. In his discussions here and other places, he insists that 1 Peter 1:1-2 says we are "chosen [verb] according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, by the sanctifying work of the Spirit, to obey Jesus Christ and be sprinkled with His blood"

He is assuming that "chosen" is a verb simply because the NASB renders it as such. In fact, "chosen" is an adjective.

Notice the time stamp is 11:38 AM EST.

Now, of course your second quote, which you claim was "posted before he misrepresented my position" is easily demonstrated to be posted after and not before my original post to John of Japan--and that by almost an hour.

Your first post in the "Understanding 1 Peter 1:1-2" thread was posted only 5 minutes before I posted my reply to John of Japan. Considering that my reply was quite long; considering that the paragraph to which you refer is far down in the text; and considering there is only a disparity of 5 minutes between your posting and mine (yours preceding mine by 5 minutes) it cannot be said that yours was "already posted" when I wrote my response to John of Japan.

Do you know what an anachronism is? Perhaps you should look it up. It really is too bad that the posts automatically time-stamp themselves, otherwise this attempt at deception might not have been noticed.

But, again, we see that you don't deal with the technical substance of an argument. No, instead you attempt to manufacture lies to besmirch me, possibly because you're intimidated??? (just a guess).

So, you, by your own actions, are giving us a window into your character...and that look isn't good.

The Archangel

 

[Van]

Let me see. The OP in the Understanding 1 Peter 1:1-2 was posted today, April 8 at 8:33 am. Archangel wrote I was using chosen as a verb when it is an adjective at 8:50 in that thread. I wrote that I was using "chosen aliens" and the phrases were describing how they came to be chosen.

This is consistent with this quote from Archangel: Grammatically, these prepositional phrases are adjectival--since they are modifying the adjective "elect."

Then at 11:38, after I had objected to the misrepresentation at 9:21, Archangel posts this, "On a side-note. Van is using the NASB and is taking all his grammar from the English grammar in the NASB. In his discussions here and other places, he insists that 1 Peter 1:1-2 says we are "chosen [verb] according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, by the sanctifying work of the Spirit, to obey Jesus Christ and be sprinkled with His blood"

He is assuming that "chosen" is a verb simply because the NASB renders it as such. In fact, "chosen" is an adjective."

I did not lie or misrepresent anything as far as I can tell.

 

[Skandelon]

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 many 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. 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.

 

[The Archangel]

Let me see. The OP in the Understanding 1 Peter 1:1-2 was posted today, April 8 at 8:33 am. Archangel wrote I was using chosen as a verb when it is an adjective at 8:50 in that thread. I wrote that I was using "chosen aliens" and the phrases were describing how they came to be chosen.

This is consistent with this quote from Archangel: Grammatically, these prepositional phrases are adjectival--since they are modifying the adjective "elect."

Then at 11:38, after I had objected to the misrepresentation at 9:21, Archangel posts this, "On a side-note. Van is using the NASB and is taking all his grammar from the English grammar in the NASB. In his discussions here and other places, he insists that 1 Peter 1:1-2 says we are "chosen [verb] according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, by the sanctifying work of the Spirit, to obey Jesus Christ and be sprinkled with His blood"

He is assuming that "chosen" is a verb simply because the NASB renders it as such. In fact, "chosen" is an adjective."

I did not lie or misrepresent anything as far as I can tell.

Apparently, you do not realize you can set your timezone. If you want to refer to the time stamps, do so with the timezone, as I have done.

You claim that your Understanding 1 Peter thread was posted at 8:33...was that PT or EDT? Of course, since you claim to be in CA, had you posted at 8:33 EDT that would be 5:33 AM PT. Now, you might be an early riser...I know not; I care not.

However, the time stamp on your post is 11:33 EDT or 8:33 PT. These are one in the same.

My post at 11:38 was also posted EDT, which would have been 8:38 PT. Hence the difference in posting is only 5 minutes, not 3 h., 5 m.

But, in the end, you made your claim--a false one--that I was intentionally misrepresenting your view. This is demonstrably false and, you are invited to acknowledge your mistake.

The Archangel

 

[Gabriel Elijah]

I could go on, but I'll stop. Several somebodies owe Van an apology. What are his credentials, you ask. What does it matter? He could be a novice at Greek or he could have a Ph. D. What matters is the truth. He was right in these two points if not others. (I've not thought through and examined the whole thread.)

John—I truly hope all is well (or at least as well as possible considering all that has recently taken place in Japan) & want you to know that we are truly praying for you & those around you during this time of hardship in your home land.
Although we’ve never interacted in a thread before, I’ve seen your posts & read your profile before this & although I didn’t always agree with your conclusions, I’ve always respected the time & effort you put into your thoughts. This being said, I think you misconstrue the purpose of those of us who are opposing Van in this thread. Maybe if you would have read the entire thread or his many past posts—you’d understand the concern of those who are writing against him. To begin with, you need to realize that this is not a Calvinist/Reformed attack on someone who simply won’t agree with a certain understanding of theology (ie won’t conform to the Reformed interpretation), but instead is a rebuke of an individual who comes awfully close to those described in Titus 1:10-11. It’s not that Van’s interpretation of 2 Thess 2:13 is not grammatically possible, it’s the fact that he insists on arguing with evidence that he honestly does not fully comprehend. By calling into question his knowledge of the original language, he is forced to begin to actually study the Greek for himself (and not just parrot an unnamed commentary) if he wants to reply with any counteraction that is at least half way feasible. I for one don’t have a problem with individuals who disagree with my own interpretation as long as they actually understand the terminology they are using to offset my own premise. The problem with Van is that he is a syncretism type thinker & doesn’t mind picking & choosing what he wants from opposing theological ideas & putting them together even if they contradict each other. Further, he will take Scripture out of context to prove points that are obviously nothing more than an attempt to gain some kind of personal acclaim for himself. Then when you show him the observable flaw in his theory, he either fails to give a rebuttal or tosses accusations of ad hom, instead of taking the time to think through his theories, polish them up, & conform them to Scripture. It is his very type that runs the risk of infusing heresy in the church, just for the sake of nonconformity. Just so he can say he is different & thinks for himself, when in reality he is nothing more than a classic example of someone who likes to hear himself talk—simply b/c he loves the sound of his own voice. Despite this situation---John—I will continue to pray for you & yours in Japan, & although we might not see eye-to-eye always theologically speaking—I have great respect for what you are doing with your service to Jesus Christ through your mission work & have nothing but the utmost admiration for you as an individual. God Bless!

 

[Van]

And the character assassination attempts keep coming from Calvinists. I am getting a lesson in long suffering from my well meaning brothers and sisters.

2 Thessalonians 2:13 says God chose the Thessalonians for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and faith the truth.
Since 1 Peter 1:1-2 says the chosen aliens were chosen through the sanctifying work of the Spirit, then it is reasonable to accept
that God chooses people for salvation based on crediting the faith in the truth.