Choosing

[BobRyan]

I understand the Historic Baptist interpretation of Christ's statement, but I am confused about how the Pelagian/Arminian/Finneyian Baptist -- sorry, I do not know how to rightly distinguish you -- interprets this statement. .

In John 1 "He came to His OWN and His OWN received Him not" --

But in John 15 Christ speaks specifically of the disciples - whom He chose to serve in that ministry. Just as in 1Cor 12 the Holy Spirit chooses the gifts to give - and the ministry of those who are already saved.

The selection of Ministry is specific to the individual - but the "whosoever will" for salvation is for all - "I will draw ALL unto Me" John 12:32.

God is "Not WILLING that ANY should perish but that ALL should come to repentance" 2Peter 3.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[The Biblicist]

He is addressing apostles. That itself speaks to the "audience," which is one of primary considerations in establishing the context of the passage and thus a proper hermeneutic.

This is the same kind of lame logic that newlighters use to claim the entire content of letters addressed to congregatins must be restricted to congregations simply because it is addressed to congregations.

Your problem is the immeidate context does not concern itself with the authority, office or mission of the apostle - period! You are simply reading your theology into the text and that is eisgesis to the hilt plain and simple.

 

[Skandelon]

Given that you failed to respond to a majority of my last post...most of which already rebuts your reply...I'll simply allow it to stand as is....

He is addressing apostles. That itself speaks to the "audience," which is one of primary considerations in establishing the context of the passage and thus a proper hermeneutic. You cannot conclusively claim that the context is not about apostleship when the audience is made up only of apostles. Plus, this rebuttal still fails to address the point that both Winman and I pointed out to you regarding the chosen one's response-ability after being chosen.

So, you are asking us to ignore who the audience is in this context and you then have the audacity to suggest I'm not using a proper hermeneutic?



What does the text tell us? That God chose his apostles, those trained by Christ himself from the nation of Israel. They didn't choose him as their rabbi, as would have been the Jewish custom of that day, but HE INITIATED that relationship with them. That is all this texts establishes. You hear that and decide it means that God unconditionally chooses a preselected number of people who He will effectually cause to believe this apostle's message....and again you accuse me of reading something into the text??? Really??

It is called a "parallel" or an "example." Jonah, like the apostles, were chosen messengers of God. How does that not relate to our discussion? It only is unrelated IF YOU'RE IGNORING who the audience is in the text...divinely appointed messengers.

Again, you avoided answer the question regarding Jonah's story. Why do you suppose God would use outward normative means, like a storm and a big fish, to convince Jonah, a believer, to change his will, all the while using irresistible, inward, supernatural means to convince Jonah's sinful audience to believe his message? Can you answer that?

 

[BobRyan]

He is addressing apostles. That itself speaks to the "audience," which is one of primary considerations in establishing the context of the passage and thus a proper hermeneutic. You cannot conclusively claim that the context is not about apostleship when the audience is made up only of apostles.

This is particularly true given the book of John and John 6 "have I not chosen the 12 and one of you is a devil".

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Iconoclast]

BobRyan;

God is "Not WILLING that ANY should perish but that ALL should come to repentance" 2Peter 3.

God is very willing that multitudes perish......2 peter says no such thing:thumbsup: Those referred to in 2pet3 are saved.....everyone of them.

 

[Skandelon]

"What then? Shall we try to put another meaning into the text than that which it fairly bears? I trow not. You must, most of you, be acquainted with the general method in which our older Calvinistic friends deal with this text. "All men," say they, —"that is, some men": as if the Holy Ghost could not have said "some men" if he had meant some men. "All men," say they; "that is, some of all sorts of men": as if the Lord could not have said "all sorts of men" if he had meant that. The Holy Ghost by the apostle has written "all men," and unquestionably he means all men. I know how to get rid of the force of the "alls" according to that critical method which some time ago was very current, but I do not see how it can be applied here with due regard to truth. I was reading just now the exposition of a very able doctor who explains the text so as to explain it away; he applies grammatical gunpowder to it, and explodes it by way of expounding it. I thought when I read his exposition that it would have been a very capital comment upon the text if it had read, "Who will not have all men to be saved, nor come to a knowledge of the truth." Had such been the inspired language every remark of the learned doctor would have been exactly in keeping, but as it happens to say, "Who will have all men to be saved," his observations are more than a little out of place. My love of consistency with my own doctrinal views is not great enough to allow me knowingly to alter a single text of Scripture. I have great respect for orthodoxy, but my reverence for inspiration is far greater. I would sooner a hundred times over appear to be inconsistent with myself than be inconsistent with the word of God. I never thought it to be any very great crime to seem to be inconsistent with myself, for who am I that I should everlastingly be consistent? But I do think it a great crime to be so inconsistent with the word of God that I should want to lop away a bough or even a twig from so much as a single tree of the forest of Scripture. God forbid that I should cut or shape, even in the least degree, any divine expression. So runs the text, and so we must read it, "God our Saviour; who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth."" —Spurgeon "Salvation By Knowing the Truth"

 

[The Biblicist]

"What then? Shall we try to put another meaning into the text than that which it fairly bears? I trow not. You must, most of you, be acquainted with the general method in which our older Calvinistic friends deal with this text. "All men," say they, —"that is, some men": as if the Holy Ghost could not have said "some men" if he had meant some men. "All men," say they; "that is, some of all sorts of men": as if the Lord could not have said "all sorts of men" if he had meant that. The Holy Ghost by the apostle has written "all men," and unquestionably he means all men. I know how to get rid of the force of the "alls" according to that critical method which some time ago was very current, but I do not see how it can be applied here with due regard to truth. I was reading just now the exposition of a very able doctor who explains the text so as to explain it away; he applies grammatical gunpowder to it, and explodes it by way of expounding it. I thought when I read his exposition that it would have been a very capital comment upon the text if it had read, "Who will not have all men to be saved, nor come to a knowledge of the truth." Had such been the inspired language every remark of the learned doctor would have been exactly in keeping, but as it happens to say, "Who will have all men to be saved," his observations are more than a little out of place. My love of consistency with my own doctrinal views is not great enough to allow me knowingly to alter a single text of Scripture. I have great respect for orthodoxy, but my reverence for inspiration is far greater. I would sooner a hundred times over appear to be inconsistent with myself than be inconsistent with the word of God. I never thought it to be any very great crime to seem to be inconsistent with myself, for who am I that I should everlastingly be consistent? But I do think it a great crime to be so inconsistent with the word of God that I should want to lop away a bough or even a twig from so much as a single tree of the forest of Scripture. God forbid that I should cut or shape, even in the least degree, any divine expression. So runs the text, and so we must read it, "God our Saviour; who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth."" —Spurgeon "Salvation By Knowing the Truth"

First, quote the text properly which none of you do! Here is its full reading:

2Pe 3:9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is long-suffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

"us-ward" refers to the elect and is the antecedent for "all" which is anarthous in construction and thus means "all without distinction" as the elect are found in all levels of society, all races and all genders.

 

[Van]

Calvinists love to have it both ways. When I cited this passage, using it to demonstrate we were chosen during our lifetime out of this world, a Calvinist chimed in this only applies to the disciples but not to everyone else. Now, another Calvinist says yes indeed, this applies to the disciples and everyone else, and therefore our individual election occurs not before the foundation of the world, but during our lifetime.

Now knowing they are changing their hermeneutics to pour their doctrine into the text, they charge those who use a consistent hermeneutic with their behavior. An so it goes.

 

[Rippon]

God is very willing that multitudes perish......2 peter says no such thing:thumbsup: Those referred to in 2pet3 are saved.....everyone of them.

Agreed. Anything that God wills will take place. He has no unfulfilled desires.

 

[Skandelon]

First, quote the text properly which none of you do!

Hey, that was a quote from Spurgeon, who is not living anymore, so you will have to correct him when you get to heaven on his inability to quote the text properly. :laugh:

 

[Van]

Anytime you see a Calvinist citing Greek grammar in supposed support of Calvinism, take it with a grain of salt. Nearly 100% of the time the grammar suggests no such assertion.

Case in point, 2 Peter 3:9 is claimed to be directed toward the elect. But as anyone who simply reads it knows, God is long suffering toward us believers, to provide us with the opportunity to spread the gospel toward the lost because He is unwilling that any (of the lost) should perish but all (of the lost) should come to repentance. Thus the antecedent of "all" is any.

 

[BobRyan]

Anytime you see a Calvinist citing Greek grammar in supposed support of Calvinism, take it with a grain of salt. Nearly 100% of the time the grammar suggests no such assertion.

Case in point, 2 Peter 3:9 is claimed to be directed toward the elect. But as anyone who simply reads it knows, God is long suffering toward us believers, to provide us with the opportunity to spread the gospel toward the lost because He is unwilling that any (of the lost) should perish but all (of the lost) should come to repentance. Thus the antecedent of "all" is any.

Certainly you are making some good points there.

3 This second epistle, beloved, I now write unto you; in both which I stir up your pure minds by way of remembrance:
2 That ye may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us the apostles of the Lord and Saviour:
3 Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts,



Both the saved and the lost in that text so far sadly for Calvinism


4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.
5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:
6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:


Here again - the entire world was engulfed in water at the flood the wicked are certainly not being dismissed from the text.


7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.
8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.


The subject is the coming of Christ and the future judgment - and the wicked are not be excluded from the text - as much as Calvinism may have hoped we could ignore them at this point.


9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

The promise in this case is the world shattering "second coming' event that "was promised" and that Peter says has special application to the wicked since it is the day of executing judgment on the wicked living at the end of the world.


To bend and wrench this text ("God is not willing for ANY to perish but for ALL to come to repentance" into saying that "God only wants the saved saints already converted at the time of the writing of this letter - and none of the lost world who would one day in the future become saved" is to limit the text beyond all reason.


To try to weave into a Calvinist "well it is the saved saints at the time Paul is writing and then all the lost who would one day be saved" - is going to far just to eisegete Calvinism into the text - since nothing in the text has used that as the meaning or scope or context to that point in time.


in Christ,
Bob

 

[Winman]

Yes, it is obvious Calvinists continually wrest scripture in a vain attempt to make it agree with their false doctrine. They must write a mini-novel to attempt to reinterpret "all men" to mean "the elect only" for example. They are continually doing this with many dozens of verses and definitions of words. Non-Cals do not have to redefine or wrest words, the words naturally agree with their doctrine.

What is amazing to me is how that Calvinists themselves can hear themselves wresting scripture and not be deeply convicted and terrified. It is a dangerous thing to wrest the word of God.

 

[BobRyan]

Agreed. The "rewrite the Bible campaign" is nothing at all in the Arminian camp as compared to the "at every turn" problem for that in the Calvinist group.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Rippon]

2 Peter 3:9 is claimed to be directed toward the elect. But as anyone who simply reads it knows, God is long suffering toward us believers,

Uh Van, elect = believers FYI. :laugh:

 

[webdog]

Uh Van, elect = believers FYI. :laugh:

No, it means chosen. Christ is called Elect. He has no reason to believe in himself.

 

[Van]

Calvinists simply post obfuscation. Case in point, the first part of 2 Peter 3:9 addresses believers, the second part addresses the lost. So rather than address that the second part addresses the lost, Calvinists simply muddy the water by introducing a diversion.

John 15:16 has Jesus addressing His disciples, chosen during their lifetime out of this world (verse 15:19). Scripture includes the very acts of Jesus when He chose His disciples. They believed in God the Father and were looking for the Messiah.

The fact that this verse (15:16) is not applicable to God choosing believers for salvation, per 2 Thessalonians 2:13 should be clear since those chosen for salvation were chosen through (or on the basis of) faith in the truth as determined by God.

 

[Iconoclast]

Van

Anytime you see a Calvinist citing Greek grammar in supposed support of Calvinism, take it with a grain of salt. Nearly 100% of the time the grammar suggests no such assertion.

Do not make archangel come in and correct you again:laugh:

 

[The Biblicist]

Hey, that was a quote from Spurgeon, who is not living anymore, so you will have to correct him when you get to heaven on his inability to quote the text properly. :laugh:

First, Spurgeon was a five point Calvinist. I happen to have Spurgeon's sermons on each point and so don't tell me I am mistaken. Second, I understand Spurgeon's deeper explanation of his approach which is that He made a distinction between God's revealed will versus His sovereign will and according to His revealed will it is God's desire that men do not sin, do not violate any of his commandments, do repent and be saved. He may be correct in his approach however, that is not my approach to this text but Peter has reference to the second coming of Christ and is giving a reason why the Lord has not yet returned. The reason is because of His purpose of election toward "usward" the elect. He will not return until all the elect are saved not willing that any should perish.

 

[Van]

Iconoclast presents fiction once again. Dr. Dan Wallace's view has not been corrected by any so-called expert advocating Calvinism. Calvinists just make things up and post the falsehoods one after another.

2 Thessalonians 2:13 clearly presents election, God chose you for salvation through the sanctification by the Spirit and faith in the truth.

John 15:16 has Jesus addressing His disciples, chosen during their lifetime out of this world (verse 15:19). Scripture includes the very acts of Jesus when He chose His disciples. They believed in God the Father and were looking for the Messiah.

The fact that this verse (15:16) is not applicable to God choosing believers for salvation, per 2 Thessalonians 2:13 should be clear since those chosen for salvation were chosen through (or on the basis of) faith in the truth as determined by God.