An Unanswered Argument for all the Bible Believing Calvinists

[William C]

Originally posted by npetreley:

Colossians 1:25 ...of which I became a minister according to the stewardship from God which was given to me for you, to fulfill the word of God, 26 the mystery which has been hidden from ages and from generations, but now has been revealed to His saints.

Npety, its so funny that you use this verse to back up your assumption. It clearly states that it was given to Paul first, and it was hidden from ages and from generation, BUT NOW has been revealed to His saints.

Notice the shift from it being hidden to being "given to" Paul and then being revealed to the Saints.

It's the "given to" Paul part of this passage I want to look at. When did this happen? Before the message had been made known to the Gentiles? Yes. It happened on the Road to Damascus before the Gentiles had come to know of this mystery.

The process by which Paul was given these mysteries must be of some importance don't you think? Why should the people of Ephesus listen to Paul? He must establish the authority of his apostleship which is why in this verse he starts by saying "God has given this to me."

That is exactly what he is doing in Eph. 1:3-12. Before he reveals the mystery, which he does fully in Chapter 2, as you pointed out, he must tell them the process by which they (the Apostles, Remnant) were uniquely "elected from before the foundation of the world" and 'predestined for the adoption as sons" as apposed to the rest of Israel who were at that time being Hardened according to Rom. 11.

Many commentators, as even Pastor Larry points out, refer to Paul's change in pronouns in verse 13 could be a change from talking about Jews to talking about Gentiles. Jews believers, being the remnant that were chosen to carry out God's plan of redemption from eternity past, were seen as being "predestined/elected." The Gentile nations, to this point in history, were seen as God's enemies who were just now being grafted in through faith. You would like to ignore the distinction from the Jews and the Gentiles because it doesn't help your view, but it is clear in scripture that this "distinction" is the biggest issue that everyone at that time was having to deal with. You have to deal with it too.

Bill

 

[npetreley]

Okay, last try, then I give up. Let's just punch in exactly what you're saying. If this doesn't expose how ludicrous your position is, then I don't know what will.

5 which in other ages was not made known to the sons of men, as it has now been revealed by the Spirit to His holy apostles and prophets:

It doesn't matter to you that Paul reveals the mystery to all men in Ephesians 1, or Colossians, or that the most likely interpretation here is that Paul is simply declaring his role in bringing the Gospel to Gentiles. Rather, you say this is meant to uniquely identify the apostles (and prophets), so that when Paul earlier revealed the mystery in Ephesians 1:9 ---

9 having made known to us the mystery of His will,

-- he must have also been talking only about apostles and prophets. As if that's not a big enough stretch, you reason (if such a thing could possibly be called reason) that because of this pseudo-connection, whenever Paul says "us" and "we" in Ephesians 1, he must be referring only to the apostles and prophets. And Paul does so up until Paul switches to "you" in verse 13, after which Paul differentiates between the "apostles and prophets" group and "us po-folk".

Now assuming you, dear reader, are a reasonable Bible student, then when you manage to contain your laughter, continue below to read Ephesians 1 adjusted according to the theology of Pronounism to reflect the above premise and conclusion.

This is not at all an exaggeration -- it is simply a straightforward find and replace according to Pronounism, with only one or two minor adjustments for clarity and grammar.

3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed the apostles and prophents with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ, 4 just as He chose the apostles and prophets in Him before the foundation of the world, that apostles and prophets should be holy and without blame before Him in love, 5 having predestined the apostles and prophets to adoption as sons by Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will, 6 to the praise of the glory of His grace, by which He made the apostles and prophets accepted in the Beloved.
7 In Him the apostles and prophets have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of His grace 8 which He made to abound toward the apostles and prophets in all wisdom and prudence, 9 having made known to the apostles and prophets the mystery of His will, according to His good pleasure which He purposed in Himself, 10 that in the dispensation of the fullness of the times He might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven and which are on earth--in Him. 11 In Him also the apostles and prophets have obtained an inheritance, being predestined according to the purpose of Him who works all things according to the counsel of His will, 12 that the apostles and prophets who first trusted in Christ should be to the praise of His glory.

13 In Him you non-apostles and non-prophets, also trusted, after you non-apostles and non-prophets heard the word of truth, the gospel of the salvation for non-apostles and non-prophets as opposed to the salvation of apostles and prophets; in whom also, having believed, you non-apostles and non-prophets were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise, 14 who is the guarantee of the inheritance to the apostles and prophets until the redemption of the purchased possession, to the praise of His glory.

 

[William C]

You are the only one still debating me on this issue of the referant because you are the only unreasonable one who refuses to see the most basic distinction in this text. Even if you don't concede that the Referant changes from Apostles in 3-12 to the Saints in 13 you must at least admit the referant changes from those "who first trust in Christ" and those who trust later. According to verse 12 the referent of "us/we" has to be those who first trusted, there is no debating that point.

Sturgman has stated it could be seen both ways but contends that it doesn't prove that we are not elect too. Even Pastor Larry along with the commentators he refers to at least reconize the change of Referants in verse 13. Pastor Larry wrote:

Several good writers address this topic. I know because I just preached on it in the month of January. Some believe that the "we first/you also" is a reference to Jews and Gentiles (cf. Obrien, Bruce). Others believe that the "we first/you also" is a reference to the chronological order of their salvation. For a number of reasons that is my preference. AT Lincoln (WBC) adequately defends this view.

Though, Pastor Larry, disagreed that verse 3-12 could not be applied to the saints in verses 13-14 he obviously conceeded long ago the point you have been belaboring for the last week. Give it up. The referant changes and that something your going to have to live with, like it or not. I agree that my interpretation doesn't completely disprove election of all believers, but the change in referants obviously supports my view more clearly than it does yours, which is why you refuse to concede.

And because the referant changes it is you who assumes that the Predestination of those who first trusted in Christ must also apply to those who believed later. The scripture does not provide that link, you have to supply it with your assumptions.

Until you are willing to concede the point that the rest of Christian scholarship has conceded long ago, our debate is fruitless. You are trying so desprately to defend your view that you're not even willing to admit the points that should be common among us. It is impossible to debate any further with you until you can see that.

 

[grateful4grace]

Dear Bill,

I believe that I am familiar with your position.... you are nit picking the fact that I used the word "preaching" instead of the word "aposstleship" respecting your view of election. My point was perspicuous.... (despite its being truncated.... or decapitated, rather! lol) .... that the passage which I cite (Eph.1:5-7), references predistination beyond any shadow of a doubt as applying to Gentiles and in respect to SALVATION, not apostleship, which is what you are trying to deny..... right?

g4g

Originally posted by Brother Bill:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by grateful4grace:
ealed was that men are predestined to salvation, v. 5-7, "Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will, to the praise of the glory of his grace where in he hath made us accepted in the beloved, In whom we have redeption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace." To the degree that you will attempt to posit that these verses teach that this is not speaking of predestination to salvation, but to the office of preaching, then to that degree you will CONTINUE to embarass your position. But that's OK by me.... its good for the cause. That's why we keep responding, Bill.

You must be new to our discussion. I provide an interpretation to Eph. 1 in my thread titled "I'm sorry, We all make assumptions, lets START OVER"

I explain there that the apostles are the referants in verses 3-12 while Paul is using the "us/we" pronouns but his referant obviously changes from him and those "who first trusted in Christ" to his audience, "those who believed through their message" when his pronouns change to "you in verses 13 and following. You can see the full argument if you read through that thread.

I never state that the apostles are merely being predestined to preach as you seem to assert. You may need to explain further. Thanks.

With Respect,
Bro. Bill </font>[/QUOTE]

 

[Brutus]

Bro.Bill;Let me see now,you claim that you desire to gain understanding of the Calvinist position in light of the arguements that you have presented! Correct me if I'm wrong ,but did you not say in a previous thread that you were at one time a Calvinist?But, according to you you saw the light and crossed over to the other side! Then,Bro.Bill,you already have a first hand knowledge of the Calvinist's position in light of the arguements that you have presented!So,are you having fun playing your little game?Michael

 

[Brutus]

Bro.Bill; If what you say about Eph.1 is correct then what do you say about 1Thess.1:4-5? And what about Peter?Is he reffering to the Apostles when he writes to God's elect? What about 2Tim.2:10? Was Paul again reffering to the Apostles?"I endure everything for the sake of the elect,that they also may obtain salvation in Christ Jesus with its eternal glory?" Michael

 

[William C]

Originally posted by Brutus:
Bro.Bill; If what you say about Eph.1 is correct then what do you say about 1Thess.1:4-5? And what about Peter?Is he reffering to the Apostles when he writes to God's elect? What about 2Tim.2:10? Was Paul again reffering to the Apostles?"I endure everything for the sake of the elect,that they also may obtain salvation in Christ Jesus with its eternal glory?" Michael

I've handled these texts in my "START OVER" post but I'll copy and paste them for you here:

2 Thess. 2:13
He is speaking to a primarily gentile audience. The biggest issue of that day has nothing to do with free will or Sovereignty, it has to do with the Gentiles being allowed into Covenant with God. That is the issue that Paul is having to fight all the time with the Judiazers and non-believing Jews. That has to be understood when appling interpretations to the text.

Your right, this text does seem to support your assumption in light of the Calvinism vs. Arminian debate. But in light of the historical context of what Paul is dealing with each day, your assumed intent is probably not correct. It's possible, I agree, but not probable.

You're looking at this text with Calvinistic colored glasses. Step back and look at if from Paul's perspective, one who has written chapter upon chapter confronting Jews who are persecuting him for teaching that the Gentiles can enter covenant with God. Even among the believing Jews (Judiazers) there was opposition to allowing the Gentiles to be saved without becoming a Jew first (Gal. 5 addresses this further)
In light of that, could Paul be saying to the predominantly Gentile audience, "We thank God for you (Gentiles), brothers loved by the Lord, because God from the beginning chose you (the Gentile nation) for salvation....through belief in the truth." I think if you're honest you can see that this COULD be a viable translation of this text.

quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by tnelson:
1 Thessalonians 1:3-5
remembering without ceasing your work of faith, labor of love, and patience of hope in our Lord Jesus Christ in sight of our God and Father, knowing, beloved brethren, your election by God. For our gospel did not come to you in word only, but also in power, and in the Holy Spirit and in much assurance, as you know what kind of men we were among you for your sake.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mike, this is a great question. If you could look back at my post on the first page of this thread posted February 09, 2003 07:44 PM. Look at my comments concerning 2 Thessalonians because they also would apply here.
By the way, in this passage he does not call them "the elect" as if the word eklogai was a noun, but it literally reads "brothers having been loved by God, the choice of you, because the gospel of us became not to you in word only, but also in power..." That's as literal as the Greek can be rendered here.

The Thessalonians were primarily Gentiles, so like the 2 Thess. 2:13 passage I've already discussed this passage could easily be understood as Paul's expression of joy for choosing to reveal his salvation to not only the Jew (Israel) but also the Gentiles.
Yes, this passage does seem to support your view in light of the Calvinism/Arminian debate we're in right now, but read it with Paul's perspective and I think you can see that my interpretation is also valid.

I hope this answers your questions.

Bill