An articulate well balanced approach. What say you?

In other words, there is no election. I can see why you would recommend this article.

 

Reply to Archangel,

(1) I do not need to explain the passage in Greek, but simply explain what the Greek says in English.

(2) The Greek supports my position and demonstrates you have no knowledge of Greek or you are willing to misrepresent.

(3) You again have demonstrated a complete lack of knowledge of the "common usage" rule of the copyright law.

(4) I have already presented my commentary or interpretation of Ephesians 1:4 including how the verse fits into the context of the passage. So again you demonstrate an inability to even read let alone understand what I have written.

(5) Here is what I posted previously: "He chose us in Him" refers to the corporate election of everyone who will be redeemed by the Chosen Redeemer. When we are individually chosen and placed spiritually in Christ, we receive blessings from heaven, the first being we were chosen corporately before the foundation of the world. God's love toward us is from everlasting.

 

This is one instance where your bible translations may disagree.
Revelation 13:8 says...

(KJV, NIV, and some others) "whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world."

(ESV, NASB, and others)
"everyone whose name has not been written before the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb who was slain."

ESV & NASB base their different translation on a parallel statement in Rev. 17:8 that says "whose names were not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world". Apparently it is not immediatly clear in greek whether the description "from the foundation of the world." should apply to the verb "written" or the verb "slain." Apart from outside context, either could be correct.

So if you think the new versions have messed up the KJV, Then Jesus was slain from the foundation of the world.

If you believe that the new version have good reason for there alternate translation, then Jesus was NOT slain from the foundation of the world.

Simple, right?

 

Think refers here to God knowing us in the sense that He foreknows His own people, by Himself initiate and causing the relationship to happen...

God chose and placed us, the redemned, in Christ from Eternity past, and He personally and directly determined that we would be saved by him and in him!

 

Neither way helps convicted1. If the adverbial phrase is modifying the omission of names from the Book of Life, then they were omitted before any of the condemned existed. So there is still a predestination based on the will of God, and not on the will or works of men.

 

Yes 12Strings, Revelation 13:8 and 17:8 teach the same thing. Because of the difficult grammar of Revelation 13:8 some versions read slain from the foundation of the world. But the NASB and many others render the grammar as saying the names were not written from the foundation of the world. The logical inference is that other names were written "from" the foundation of the world, teaching that no names were written in the Lamb's book of Life before the foundation of the world. So these verses indirectly demonstrate that the Calvinist idea of individual unconditional election before the foundation of the world is a mistaken view.

 

Hi Jesusfan, why to you post such absurd assertions. Of course I know sometimes the English translations miss the message as indicated by syntax. I have posted extensively on that observation. So why suggest I am unaware of it. Does truth have no meaning for you??

I do not know, but I rely on the experts who tell me what the Greek means. Same as you. You learned Greek and if what you learned from experts was wrong, then you know nothing. So by the very same standards you use, I "know" what the Greek says based on experts in Greek. Folks all Calvinists have is ad hominem arguments against either my character or my qualifications. Anyone who systematically uses logical fallacies is a false teacher.

Lots of commentaries agree with my view of the grammar. That is where I got my view of the grammar. Lets take "he chose" in the middle voice, rather than the active voice.
That means the result of God choosing Himself, Christ to be the Redeemer, He chose us in Him. The underlying action is taken on or for Himself. Many commentaries support this view.

I could go on but it would be a waste to time, you have shown no ability to understand and actually respond to the content of my posts. You just ask questions. Fiddlesticks.
A computer could be programed to respond with "and why do you think that way?"

 

The thing is, and this is something I think you have no concept of, those of us who know Greek (actually know it, mind you, as opposed to you who can only read what others say without any evaluation whatsoever) have been taught to read, parse, etc. the text itself. What you are doing is reading what others have written about the text. I (as well as others) are actually reading the text itself.

As for my Greek teachers, they were PhDs in New Testament, one having done his dissertation on Revelation and, as a missionary, teaching Greek in Spanish.

Quite simply, I don't have to rely on what the experts say. I can read the text for myself. Do I consult commentaries and grammarians? Sure. But, and here's the gulf of difference between us, I can evaluate what the commentators and grammarians are saying and offer an educated agreement or disagreement. You, on the other hand, could not even tell if the text being referenced was the New Testament, the Septuagint, or the selected writings of Plato without someone telling you.

I guess what I'm trying to say is this: You may have, at some point, learned about Greek. Myself (and others) actually learned Greek itself.

Actually, someone who claims to know something that doesn't actually know it--like Greek, in your case--is a false teacher.

And, for the record an ad hominem argument is an argument against the man. It is a rhetorical tactic. Its rhetorical use implies--the ad hominem--that the only thing left to do in attempting to win an argument is to attack the person. I have done none of that. I have simply, and probably painfully for you, pointed out that your claim to know Greek or to know what the Greek is saying is patently false and misleading. This is not an ad hominem. An ad hominem would be--rather than counter your Greek exegesis (of which you really have none)--to accept your exegesis and, rather than debate your exegesis, attack your character or appearance, etc. I have not attacked your character. Instead, I have pointed out you are a poser when it comes to Greek, knowing absolutely nothing about the language itself.

Certainly, I'd like to know which commentaries these are. Maybe you'll try to post some "George Glass" commentary which seems to support your errant position. (For those of you who don't know, George Glass was Jan Brady's imaginary boyfriend on one episode of The Brady Bunch).

Anyone who has actually studied Greek will tell you that the middle voice is reflexive. In Ephesians 1:4, which I assume you are referencing, the verb "he chose" is, indeed, in the middle voice.

But, the middle does not and cannot do what you are suggesting. The grammar and syntax are such that the verb "he chose," being in the middle voice" can and should be translated as "he chose for himself." What was chosen? Himself? Is it "he chose himself for himself?" No. It is, in fact, "he chose for himself." But, whom did he choose? This is where the direct object answers the question. In Ephesians 1:4 the direct object (found in the accusative case) is "us." So, the translation can be properly stated "he chose us for himself."

So, if you have a commentary that says he chose himself, perhaps you should demand your money back. It is likely that commentary was not written by a biblical scholar. Instead, it would appear it may have been written by a plumber.

The Archangel

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Van
Folks all Calvinists have is ad hominem arguments against either my character or my qualifications. Anyone who systematically uses logical fallacies is a false teacher.

Actually, someone who claims to know something that doesn't actually know it--like Greek, in your case--is a false teacher:thumbs::thumbs: Archangel has correctly identified the issue......your claims are weighed in the balances and found wanting!

Looks like you were just schooled my friend...repent of your error

your false views are seen and identified for what they are:tonofbricks:

 

I guess it's easy to say you don't need to do that which you cannot do.

Oh...and I think that's pretty much the text-book definition of a "cop out."

Later, ironically, you say I have "an inability to even read...what [you] have written."

Let's look at the sentence in #2 above. You say the Greek supports your position and the Greek demonstrates that I have no knowledge of Greek. How can the Greek demonstrate an ability or inability on my part. The Greek is an inanimate noun (ie. not a person) and is, therefore, unable to demonstrate anything.

Now, had you said you had demonstrated that I have no knowledge of Greek, that would be proper English. Of course, if you wanted to demonstrate how I've mishandled the text, you'd have to be able to handle the text yourself--something we know you're incapable of.

So, how can you say the Greek supports your position when you know no Greek? If you're following a commentary, then you can say "so-an-so, in his or her commentary, says..." But, you have no expertise or acumen in the Greek and, therefore, you have no standing to offer any commentary on my correctness or incorrectness.

I know the "common usage" rule quite well. And, I'm not even really talking about that. Plagiarism is different (yet still related) from the copyright laws. Plagiarizing is a crime against both the original author and the reader (while copyright infringement is mostly a crime against the original author who holds intellectual property rights over his or her own work).

Common usage allows the reprinting of copyrighted works especially in, say, research papers, other scholarly works, books, etc. But, one is still not allowed to quote, at length or otherwise, the work(s) of someone else without proper citation.

You keep on saying that commentaries support your position. Post them and prove it. And, cite the work so that the rest of us can check the veracity of your reference.

I have read what you have written, but what you've written is dead wrong. You may have, indeed, presented your "commentary" or "interpretation" of Ephesians 1:4 but your commentary is so far afield of what the verse and the passage actually say, you might as well be giving commentary or interpretation on the merits of studying the floristics of the Serengeti.

The verse says this: He chose us before the foundation of the world. There is no way around that in either Greek or English, both of which have apparently fallen prey to your errant presupposition.

The Archangel

 

There are hundreds of scholars who read Greek as well or better than you who disagree with your understanding of Scripture.

Calvinists sometimes seem to rely more on human wisdom rather than on the Spirit of God to enlighten the Word of God.

 

I will grant that many scholars read Greek better than I do. I will grant that there are scholars who disagree with my understanding of Scripture. And, I will gladly grant those things.

However, there are myriads of scholars who read Greek better than I do who absolutely agree with me.

The issue here--in Ephesians 1:4--is not an issue of interpretation. Rather, it is an issue of "what does the text itself say." If it were an issue of interpretation, we'd be asking "what does this text mean?" But, in order to properly understand what a text means it is first necessary to understand what a text actually says. This is the crux of the issue here.

There are rules in Greek grammar (and English grammar, for that matter) which, first, help to show us what a text says and, second (in many cases) help to show us the meaning. What we are here debating is Greek syntax and grammar. If we cannot go past that point, then asking what the text means is moot.

Of course, in this text (Ephesians 1:4), the text actually gives the meaning too--God chose us in Him before the foundation of the world. What the verse says and what the verse means are settled. Now, people can debate whether that choosing is by foreseen faith or God's electing choice, but that isn't what's going on here. No, the debate is, proverbially, on what the meaning of "is" is.

As if the Arminians don't? There is a reason that many evangelical scholars (especially the New Testament scholars) are Calvinists in one incarnation or the other (5-Point or 4-Point). Once one knows the nuance of the Greek, it is very difficult to deny God's sovereign and electing choice.

Learning Greek and studying the text in Greek was, indeed, a major influence in my becoming a Calvinist--though originally I reacted violently against Calvinism (being a staunch, indoctrinated Arminian). After studying the text in Greek there were too many points of the Calvinist argument that I could no longer deny and stay true to the text of Scripture. I'm sure others have had a similar experience; I'm sure others have had a dissimilar experience.

The Archangel

 

Hi Archangel, Paul says we have nothing we have not received. You view is unbiblical.

 

All you do is disparage, sir. I did not claim to know Greek, so Archangel simply puts words in my mouth, and then you, just another of the gang, agree with him. It is an old play, I have posted on it before, and it is all you have. Zero content, only disparagement of individuals with the goal of derailing the thread. So repetitive.

 

When Calvinists do not answer simple questions with a yes or a no, now that is a cop out.
I explained Ephesians 1:4 in English and said the Greek grammar allows that understanding.

That fact you could not understand how Greek rightly understood would demonstrate that someone who wrongly presents it does not understand. This again shows Archangle does not understand Greek or is willing to misrepresent it. Notice how he misrepresented my remark by editing it. Does it all the time.

 

Next Archangel implies, but does not say that the Greek rules out the idea that the election before creation was corporate. However, the Greek allows that understanding.
What actual scholars say is this or that is more likely but none rule out either one. So again Archangel has demonstrated either a lack of knowledge of Greek or a willingness to misrepresent it.

 

Next, the misrepresentation king asks me to prove I am right. LOL Prove I am wrong. What intellectual ignorance. As for common usage, I can put sentences and phrases in quotes and address them as in a critique. That is not stealing ideas from others and claiming them for oneself. Almost all of the Calvinist arguments presented as original with the poster are simply restatements of other arguments. That is why they offer anti-Arminian arguments to address my non-Arminian views. A dead give-a-way.

 

Last response folks, here is what the misrepresentation king posted:
The verse says this: He chose us before the foundation of the world. There is no way around that in either Greek or English, both of which have apparently fallen prey to your errant presupposition.

Do you note that he edited out "in Him" from the text. Pay no attention to this spirit, what he says does not reflect God's word.