A.W. Pink - The Doctrine of Election

[Van]

It is not a matter of interpretation, apo means from not before.

All Markwaltermd has to say is to find fault with me, rather than address the text.

By the numbers folks, we have Ephesians 1:3-4 addressing an election before the foundation of the world, and 2 Thessalonians 2:13 addressing an election from the beginning. Calvinism claims they are the same election, redefining from as meaning before. This is shoddy exegesis.

Next, names were entered or not from the foundation of the world, not before. So again, Calvinism rewrites the text to claim from means before.

Anyone who reads the text and claims from reads as before is simply not reading with open eyes.

 

[Van]

Folks, what we have here is a wholesale rewrite of multiple texts to cram Calvinism's mistaken doctrine into the text. Consider all the words that must be altered.

1) World means fallen mankind here, but the elect there.

2) All means everything imaginable here, but only what fits with the context there.

3) Regeneration means being born again as a new creation in Christ here, but being made spiritually alive separated from Christ there.

4) Choice means choosing between alternate outcomes here, but choosing the only option there.

Any manmade doctrine can be supported if words can be redefined, and scripture can be sliced and dices to alter the meaning. Behold Calvinism shoddy exegesis as exhibited by Mr. Pink.

 

[markwaltermd]

Van,

You're really all over the place with this. Your last several posts -- while not good exegesis or good doctrine -- identifies the source of your problem. While you attempt to disqualify Pink as a "shoddy" this or a "shoddy" that, your beef really isn't with Pink. Your follow up posts -- and perhaps the reason that you read just a few lines from this book to find something to rail against -- indicate that you are actually campaigning against "Calvinism." While I don't prefer the term Calvinism (neither would Calvin) to summarize these doctrinal truths, including the doctrine of election, it nonetheless appear that you a disturbed by these truths. So it really isn't Pink that you're offended by...it might just as well be Calvin himself, or Augustine, or Spurgeon, or Gill, or the major swath of Protestantism from the time of the Reformation until about 120 years ago in this country, or of a good number of the Bible writers.

Look at the situation. I make a free book offering, as I always do, and you drop in and read just enough to have something to disagree with. You could have said "thanks" or "no thanks," or you could have not read it at all. The reality is that you have a bone to pick. It doesn't surprise me that you don't like the book, being the uninspired work that it is, when you disagree with the same truths set forth in original form, in THE inspired book. That said, I've tried to help you on the matter, but your prejudices keep getting in the way of anything that you might hear. I don't intend to keep dancing with you this way, when your m.o. is clear. By now, its very apparent that you dislike Calvinists...ok, we know.

But there are plenty who have enjoyed the book and benefited by it. It has been downloaded many times since I posted it.

Stay tuned for the companion work, The Doctrine of Justification.

 

[Mexdeaf]

Van,

You're really all over the place with this. Your last several posts -- while not good exegesis or good doctrine -- identifies the source of your problem. While you attempt to disqualify Pink as a "shoddy" this or a "shoddy" that, your beef really isn't with Pink. Your follow up posts -- and perhaps the reason that you read just a few lines from this book to find something to rail against -- indicate that you are actually campaigning against "Calvinism." While I don't prefer the term Calvinism (neither would Calvin) to summarize these doctrinal truths, including the doctrine of election, it nonetheless appear that you a disturbed by these truths. So it really isn't Pink that you're offended by...it might just as well be Calvin himself, or Augustine, or Spurgeon, or Gill, or the major swath of Protestantism from the time of the Reformation until about 120 years ago in this country, or of a good number of the Bible writers.

Look at the situation. I make a free book offering, as I always do, and you drop in and read just enough to have something to disagree with. You could have said "thanks" or "no thanks," or you could have not read it at all. The reality is that you have a bone to pick. It doesn't surprise me that you don't like the book, being the uninspired work that it is, when you disagree with the same truths set forth in original form, in THE inspired book. That said, I've tried to help you on the matter, but your prejudices keep getting in the way of anything that you might hear. I don't intend to keep dancing with you this way, when your m.o. is clear. By now, its very apparent that you dislike Calvinists...ok, we know.

But there are plenty who have enjoyed the book and benefited by it. It has been downloaded many times since I posted it.

Stay tuned for the companion work, The Doctrine of Justification.

:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::applause:

 

[Mexdeaf]

Fresh out of the toaster and ready for download. Free as always!

http://www.thecalvinistcafe.org/

Stay tuned for the posting of the companion work, The Doctrine of Justification!

Thanks for the download. Look forward to reading it and conversing further.

 

[convicted1]

And so as practicing Christians (of every stripe) we must recognize that the foundation of the free offering of the gospel, is not election...it is Christ's promise to save all who come to Him. And so our charge of the great commission is to preach Christ crucified to all who will listen & to go out to the world to do so.

This'll preach in either the reformed or arm churches!! :thumbs::thumbs::thumbs::thumbs:

 

[Van]

Van,

You're really all over the place with this. Your last several posts -- while not good exegesis or good doctrine -- identifies the source of your problem. While you attempt to disqualify Pink as a "shoddy" this or a "shoddy" that, your beef really isn't with Pink. Your follow up posts -- and perhaps the reason that you read just a few lines from this book to find something to rail against -- indicate that you are actually campaigning against "Calvinism." While I don't prefer the term Calvinism (neither would Calvin) to summarize these doctrinal truths, including the doctrine of election, it nonetheless appear that you a disturbed by these truths. So it really isn't Pink that you're offended by...it might just as well be Calvin himself, or Augustine, or Spurgeon, or Gill, or the major swath of Protestantism from the time of the Reformation until about 120 years ago in this country, or of a good number of the Bible writers.

Look at the situation. I make a free book offering, as I always do, and you drop in and read just enough to have something to disagree with. You could have said "thanks" or "no thanks," or you could have not read it at all. The reality is that you have a bone to pick. It doesn't surprise me that you don't like the book, being the uninspired work that it is, when you disagree with the same truths set forth in original form, in THE inspired book. That said, I've tried to help you on the matter, but your prejudices keep getting in the way of anything that you might hear. I don't intend to keep dancing with you this way, when your m.o. is clear. By now, its very apparent that you dislike Calvinists...ok, we know.

But there are plenty who have enjoyed the book and benefited by it. It has been downloaded many times since I posted it.

Stay tuned for the companion work, The Doctrine of Justification.

Why address "my problems" rather than Pink's inability to discern the difference between "pro" i.e. before, and "apo" i.e. after.

The Book's introduction is a joke, loaded with ad homenim arguments against those who reject absurdity.

You seem unable to explain how the two different elections could be the same election, given that the one in Ephesians 1:3-4 refers to before the foundation of the world, whereas the one in 2 Thessalonians 2:13 refers to those that occur from the beginning or at a minimum after creation and I believe from the inauguration of the New Covenant in His Blood.

I would be willing to post problems with chapter 2, but since you seem unwilling to discuss the problems with the intro, there is no need.

Calvinism is based on the shoddy exegesis presented in this book where verses are edited to alter their meaning, and words are redefined so they say the opposite of what they mean. Any mistaken doctrine of man could be supported using that methodology.

 

[Yeshua1]

And so as practicing Christians (of every stripe) we must recognize that the foundation of the free offering of the gospel, is not election...it is Christ's promise to save all who come to Him. And so our charge of the great commission is to preach Christ crucified to all who will listen & to go out to the world to do so.

true, BUT the biblical truth is that the 'whoeverwills" to come to jesus to be saved are those whom the father WILLED Himself to come to the Son, IE, the Elect!

Its the Gospel preached AND the work of the Holy spirit to open up the sinner to be able to respond to it in faith and get saved!

 

[markwaltermd]

Why address "my problems" rather than Pink's inability to discern the difference between "pro" i.e. before, and "apo" i.e. after.

I've already answered this. Because your problems are driving your interpretation (but please, don't call it "exegesis," because that's not what it is).

 

[Yeshua1]

LOL, you are questioning my exegesis, by equating before the foundation of the world with from the foundation of the world. Absurd.

Next two strawman arguments. Only those in Christ are predestined. This is what all three references teach. Predestined to be conformed, adopted, and to receive an inheritance. Then the outright misrepresentation, that we are chosen based on merit.

Now let me go over it again by the numbers.

(1)Were we chosen in Him BEFORE the foundation of the Word? Yes, Ephesians 1:3-4. When God chose His Redeemer to be His Lamb, His redemption plan was to redeem believers and conform them to His Redeemer's image, and to adopt (resurrect) them bodily at His second coming, and for them to thus inherit eternal life. This was a corporate election.

(2) During our lifetime, after we have lived without mercy, we are individually chosen and placed in Christ, and therefore we are then individually predestined to be conformed, adopted and to inherit eternal life. This election occurs from the beginning not before the foundation of the world.

This view is consistent with all scripture, Calvinism alters the meaning of "from" to say it must mean before because that is what Calvinism claims.

predestination happens to those who will be saved into jesus by the act of the new Birth, and sinners MUST be enabled to even be able to respond by faith to jesus, as dead in their sins!

election in the NT is on an indivdual basis, per the Will of God, and those foreknown and chosen by God will indeed place their faith into jesus..

this all ties in together in the NT views expressed by paul, as sinners MUST be enabled by God to come to faith in Christ, the elect being those God wills and will bring into salvation...

jesus died for those whom he purchased back to the father, as his death was a real salvation offered, not a potential or waiting on us one!

 

[Van]

Pro means before and is translated as before in most places in most modern translations. So I am not "interpreting" before to mean after, which goes against the very meaning of the word, Pink is. The problem of shoddy exegesis is with Pink.

My understanding is driven by the text, not the Calvinist rewrite.

Folks Calvinism is defended by changing the subject, shifting discussion away from what scripture says. Here we have an election that occurred before the foundation of the world (Ephesians 1:3-4) and another election that occurs from the beginning. Nothing has been offered to provide any explanation, but only the claim that lots of Calvinists accept that after really means before because their man-made doctrine requires it.

Just read the two passages, folks, Ephesians 1:3-4 and 2 Thessalonians 2:13. Then ask yourself why Pink says our names are written in the book of life "before" the foundation of the world, when the text says "from" the foundation of the world (Rev. 17:8). And we are not supposed to notice this shoddy exegesis? LOL

Each and every word of scripture is inspired, the very words are chosen by God, and it is honoring to God to accept them and live by them, not play fast and loose with them.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

Question Begging. Neither you nor Van accept or reject anything in your deterministic model. You are merely clay vessels. My pointt stands, you cannot take umbgrage with Van's views, they have been determined already.

:thumbsup::thumbsup: Correct.....

Where is the link which takes us to this mysterious and esoteric doctrine of Pink??? I tried to follow the link but I merely was sourced to "Calvinistcafe" homepage or what-not....is there ANY legitimate link one might follow to read this? please post a legitimate link so all might learn of this.

 

[Van]

Hi HOS, when you click on the link provided in the OP, scroll down, and click on the "enter the E-book blog"

Then scroll down again past the "Sony" "Nook" and "kindle" options and click on the PDF. After the download, click down on the page arrows to page 8. Then click on Introduction and enjoy the prose.

 

[Mexdeaf]

Each and every word of scripture is inspired, the very words are chosen by God, and it is honoring to God to accept them and live by them, not play fast and loose with them.

Look in the mirror, read that paragraph to yourself very carefully and then heed it.

 

[Van]

Hi Mexdeaf, I read before to mean before and from to mean from. Two different meanings. So I am the one heeding to need to honor God and live by what scripture says, and Mr. Pink is the one changing what is said to refer to a verse that says from the foundation of the world, but claiming it said before the foundation of the world

We have an election that occurred before the foundation of the world (Ephesians 1:3-4) and another election that occurs from the beginning. Nothing has been offered to provide any explanation, but only the claim that lots of Calvinists accept that after really means before because their man-made doctrine requires it.

Just read the two passages, folks, Ephesians 1:3-4 and 2 Thessalonians 2:13. Then ask yourself why Pink says our names are written in the book of life "before" the foundation of the world, when the text says "from" the foundation of the world (Rev. 17:8). And we are not supposed to notice this shoddy exegesis? LOL

Each and every word of scripture is inspired, the very words are chosen by God, and it is honoring to God to accept them and live by them, not play fast and loose with them. .

 

[HeirofSalvation]

Hi HOS, when you click on the link provided in the OP, scroll down, and click on the "enter the E-book blog"

Then scroll down again past the "Sony" "Nook" and "kindle" options and click on the PDF. After the download, click down on the page arrows to page 8. Then click on Introduction and enjoy the prose.

Thank you sir, for your actually informative instructions....Thank you Van!!:thumbsup:

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

true, BUT the biblical truth is that the 'whoeverwills" to come to jesus to be saved are those whom the father WILLED Himself to come to the Son, IE, the Elect!

Its the Gospel preached AND the work of the Holy spirit to open up the sinner to be able to respond to it in faith and get saved!

Yeshua..... I will quote Samuel Rutherford, " The Reprobate has exactly the same warrant to believe in Jesus Christ as do the Elect." :smilewinkgrin:

 

[markwaltermd]

Van,

You exposition on those verses is about as sound as Barack Obama's on the Sermon on the Mount.




Heir,

I noticed that you have Augustus Toplady in your signature. I'm a fan of that Calvinist songwriter. Here's a brief writing of Toplady's on the the subject at hand...

When I consider the absolute independency of God, and the necessary total dependence of all created things on Him, their first cause, I cannot help standing astonished at the pride of impotent, degenerate man, who is so prone to consider himself as a being possessed of sovereign freedom, and invested with a power of self-salvation, able, he imagines, to counteract the designs even of infinite wisdom, and to defeat the agency of Omnipotence itself.

"Ye shall be as gods," said the tempter to Eve in paradise; and "ye are as gods" says the same tempter to her apostate sons.

One would be apt to think that a suggestion so demonstrably false and flattering, a suggestion the very reverse of what we feel to be our state, a suggestion alike contrary to Scripture and reason, to fact and experience, could never meet with the smallest degree of credit.

And yet, because it so exactly coincides with the natural haughtiness of the human heart, men not only admit, but even relish the deception, and fondly incline to believe that the father of lies does, in this instance at least, speak truth. The Scripture doctrine of predetermination lays the axe to the very root of this potent delusion. It assures us that all things are of God; that all our times and all events are in His hand.

Augustus Toplady


Rats! More of that "esoteric" Biblical doctrine.

God bless you both!

 

[Van]

According to Calvinism's Mr. Pink, it is sound to understand "from" or since or after to mean before. If anyone objects, then they are engaging in unsound exegesis.

Do those who oppose the mistaken doctrine of Calvinism think they are "possessed of sovereign freedom?" Nope, our autonomous choices are limited to what God allows. Nothing happens that God does not either cause or allow. Strike one.

Do those who oppose the mistaken doctrine of Calvinism think they are "invested with the power of self salvation?" Nope, it is God who credits our faith in Christ or not, it is God who spiritually places us in Christ or not, therefore salvation is not of ourselves but is the gift of God. Strike two.

Do those who oppose the mistaken doctrine of Calvinism think they can "defeat the agency" of our omnipotent God?" Nope, because God begs us to be reconciled with God rather than compels us. Strike three.

Calvinism is defended by railing against strawmen of their own construction, rather than by explaining why a word that means "from" must be redefined to mean "before" in a few verses so as to not nullify Calvinism's doctrine of pre-temporal individual election.

 

[markwaltermd]

Do those who oppose the mistaken doctrine of Calvinism think they are "invested with the power of self salvation?" Nope, it is God who credits our faith in Christ or not,

But you have just prescribed a program of meritorious saving faith, and that equates to self-salvation. The only merit to be applied is the actual atonement by Christ's atoning death. You can add nothing to that. Fallen man, natural man, cannot summon from himself affection for God and God's law, much less the sort of faith that saves himself. Faith is the command given by God: the command which is heeded by God's elect, who are enabled to it by the regeneration of the Holy Spirit.