I'm Sorry, We all make assumptions--let's START OVER

I guess you could say that. But, obviously it's a little more than that. I believe texts like Eph. 1 support my view more clearly than Calvinisms view, for the reasons I've presented already. (Which, I'll point out, have yet to be refuted on this board)

I know many Calvinist who may not have ever been persuaded to adopt Calvinism had they seen this interpretation laid out for them as a viable alternative when they were first presented with these doctrines.

I've personally have sat down with numerous young men (and a couple of women) in my church who were introduced to this Calvinist resurgance that we have seen in the last decade through men like Sproul, MacArthur, Packer and Piper. I've read all of these men's books and many other more historical works grappling with these issue myself, but not one of them, that I'm aware of, has handled this rendering of the text.

I ran across a few, like the ones Pastor Larry mentioned, that speak toward the "we/us" versus "you" pronouns, but they do not, to my rememberance (correct me if I'm wrong Pastor) handle the points that I mention concerning chapter 3 in regard to chapter 1, which as you can see is essential to understand the author's intent in this passage. (If one of you could point me to someone who does specifically handle my arguments in Eph. 1, I would be most appreciative.)

Anyway, every single person that I have sat down with and showed this interpretaton walks away relieved that they don't have to submit to the "Calvinistic" system. Believers, in my experience, don't like Calvinism when they are first confronted with it. Some of you can attest to that---if your honest. I've read numerous Calvinists who speak about how they came to these so called "truths" begrudgingly but were persuaded by the "clear" teachings of scripture.

Now, as you well know, Calvinist use that to support themselves by arguing that the bible is full of paradoxes, and the gospel is "foolishness" to those who are perishing (1 Cor.1), etc. So, we should expect our belief of the gospel to be paradoxal and "foolish", the Calvinist contends.

I disagree. Yes, it is "foolishness" that God die for mankind to those who don't believe it to be true, but no where does it say that believers will find the gospel "foolish" or confusing for that matter. Questions flood the believers mind when confronted with the possiblity of Calvinism, most of these questions are unanswerable ones, others lead to conclusions about God that I don't believe the scripture ever affords.

No where does the Bible tell us to accept the paradox that seemingly leaves God responsible for Sovereingly decreeing both good and evil. Yes, He uses both to accomplish his will for His glory, no doubt, but this is an act of His permissive will not his Sovereign decrees, which is a clear distinction in scripture.

And I don't mean "evil" as in merely suffering from the everyday enviromental hurts, ie weather, disease, "acts of God". I'm speaking of those things that violate the character of God, those things that Christ died for. God's hand's are completely clean of responsiblity for sin, yet the Calvinistic system when taken to its logical conclusion still leaves Him holding the bag, explaining it away by saying, It's a paradox. I don't think so.

So, Sturgman, I say all of that to say: Yes, it can be argued both ways (though I have yet to read an argument against my Eph 1 interpretation of the text). But, if you were deciding between premill or postmill and one of the two systems created a paradox causing years of devisivness among believers because it's logical conclusions suggest that God apparently pretends to say one thing but mean another and sends people to eternal torment without ever having a hope of salvation. And the other system, which was at least equally as supported by the text, didn't create these paradoxes, and gave explaination to these hard to interpret passages without causing apparent contradictions with the "geniune" call of the gospel to all mankind that's seen throughout the scripture.

Which of the two systems would you choose?

Honestly, if Eph. 1 and Romans 8-9 weren't in our Bible, would this board even exist? Maybe. But I really doubt it. And I've shot down Eph. 1 without refutation so far. I've only got one more to go.

With Respect,
Bro. Bill

 

Your right we do both bring assumptions to Eph.1, but consider what my interpretation above has proven:

To adopt the Calvinistic assumption you must believe that Paul's REFERENT (us/we) changes from meaning "all the saints" in verse 3 and 4 to meaning "only the aposles" in verse 9, back to meaning "all the saints" in verse 11. And then ultimatly ignore the fact that his pronouns changes from "we" to "you" in verse 13 and following. That is the ONLY possible way the Calvinistic assumption could be supported in this text (grammatically or not).

Sturgman, are you saying that your willing to apply that kind of hemeneutic to a text simply because it supports your ASSUMPTIONS?

You should know that I'm not going to let you off the hook that easy. This passage is not a merely grammatical difference as my post above in response to Pastor Larry clearly shows.

I must press you all to show me how this passage could possibly support the Calvinistic assumptions without the application of very poor hermeneutics?

Of course, I realize that and I wasn't try to say the whole debate rests on Eph. 1. But, as I think you will see, my assumptions are not only supported here, but throughout the scripture as well.

My sinfulness in not lessoned by my assumptions as you seem to assert here. I'm still just as depraved as when I was a Calvinist, the difference is I don't take "total depravity" to mean "total inability for all expect the elect." As you can read in my post on the "Redemption" topic a man's conscience is defiled, not dead.

Your first line of this quote is exactly correct! We all believe what we believe based upon the assumptions we bring to the text. Which is why you see Romans 9 and Colossians 3 in the light that you do.

I'll handle Romans 9 at a later time, but as for Colossians 3:12 I would refer you to my answers to the two Thess. passages presented by Dallas and Mike, because a lot of the same information applies here.

Sturgman, you have to understand the issues Paul was dealing with in his time. God had 'CHOSEN' or 'ELECTED' to allow the Gentiles to enter convenant with Him. That is a huge deal everyone, especially Paul for he is the "Apostle to the Gentiles." Israel was always seen as the "chosen seed" or the "elect ones" but now both Jews and Gentiles are "chosen" to gain access into a Covenant with the God who loves the world, no longer just the Jews as they once believed. Keep that in mind as you read the scripture and I think verses like this will seem less about "personal election of individual souls from before the foundation of the world" to "the election" of God to include the Gentiles in his plan of redemption.

Remember Calvinism and Arminianism was never an issue Paul specifically addresses. He is addressing the the ingrafting or inclusion of the Gentiles, by God's Sovereign decree or choice. I hope that clarifies those passages in light of my assumptions.

I challenge you to stop approaching scripture with the "calvinistic doctrinal approach" because it may be wrong and you won't be able to tell unless you are willing to look at the text from another perspective. Instead approach the scripture with objectiveness and without any "doctrinal approach," then and only then will you be able to apply good hermenuetics to the text.

The fact that you, a believer, don't "like" what Calvinism says about God should make you at least question it's validity, don't you think. I don't see how you can believe that the Scripture presents the character of God as being one who decieves men by presenting a "geniune call" to all, while not actually giving all the ability to respond to that call. God's "character" is better than that.

I'm sorry if I came across arrogant, that is not my intent. Honestly, I'm trying to provoke response because unless one is pressed on these issues they will avoid them, at least that has been my experience.

Once again, Sturgman, let me remind you that the text as it stands now supports my assumption, even without the grammatical arguments of Eph. 2. The bulk of my support comes from Eph. 1 in light of Eph. 3, which has not been dealt with by anyone, yet. That's all I'm trying to say.

And I respect you for that!

At the risk of offending you, I humbly disagree. Look at our history. Calvinism (assuming it's wrong) has been the fault line through Christianity since Augustine stamped his approval on it. The devisivness, bitterness, anger, and overall confusion that I believe Calvinism has presented to Christendom has only weakened our work for the sake of the gospel. By causing in fighting within our own ranks the armies of darkness keep us at bay. That's the danger any false teaching affords. (Of course, I'm speaking with the assumption that I'm right and Calvinism is wrong, so this would be true in the reverse light as well, which is why all of us must be so careful to hold a pure and undefiled doctrine.)

With Respect,
Bro. Bill

 

God still recieves the glory, eventhough we make the decision. If you say, "NO, that can't be, you take away God's Glory by claiming something from yourself."

No, God get's the glory for my choice, but he still left the choice to me. And I can always claim its a paradox just as you do. Your paradox says God chooses but man is responsible, My paradox says man chooses but God gets all the glory if he says yes. What's the difference? Your paradox leaves absolutly no room for man's response; therefore, no logical reason for His being responsible, thus leaving God holding the bag. If your honest about it, my paradox makes God look a lot better than your paradox does. He is free from responsiblity for those who don't choose him and yet he recieves the Glory for those who do. That's a paradox worth accepting.

Stugman, you making an assumption that God's character must be the character that the Calvinistic system presents: "Sovereign and Self Centered"

Do you think that is the character that God presents in the scripture? "Sovereign and Self-Centered"

Wow. I don't see that when I read the pages of scripture at all. Jesus said, "When you've seen me you've seen the Father." Yet, Jesus, who is God, was not Self-Centered, he was a humble servant who gave up his life for us. How does that display God's character of "Self-Centeredness?" I realize that " to the praise of God's Glory" is the ultimate end, but God's motive of Love cannot be downplayed in his act of redemption, otherwise it decreases the praise of his glory within the hearts of those who fail to see the "kind intentions of His Will." God is Love. I know to a Calvinist that often seems like emotional, feely stuff, but love is the theme of the gospel. "Of faith, hope and love the most important of these is love." "God demonstrates his love in this, that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us." But not only for us, but for the sins of the world.

And your view of Sovereingty is highly debatable. Would a Sovereign God, by your defination of Sovereign, give the world over to darkness to rule? Sovereign can mean that he chooses to be permissive and that nothing happens without his approval, much like we see in Job's life. But it does not have to mean that God "controls" or "causes" everything as you seem to assume.

We can discuss these verse more fully after we have dealt with Eph. 1. You haven't answered my question concerning Eph. 1:9 in light of Eph. 3:3-5, which clearly teaches that the referent in both of these passage must be the Apostles, because they are the only ones (beside the Prophets) that have received the revelation of d

 

God still recieves the glory, eventhough we make the decision. If you say, "NO, that can't be, you take away God's Glory by claiming something from yourself."

No, God get's the glory for my choice, but he still left the choice to me. And I can always claim its a paradox just as you do. Your paradox says God chooses but man is responsible, My paradox says man chooses but God gets all the glory if he says yes. What's the difference? Your paradox leaves absolutly no room for man's response; therefore, no logical reason for His being responsible, thus leaving God holding the bag. If your honest about it, my paradox makes God look a lot better than your paradox does. He is free from responsiblity for those who don't choose him and yet he recieves the Glory for those who do. That's a paradox worth accepting.

Stugman, you making an assumption that God's character must be the character that the Calvinistic system presents: "Sovereign and Self Centered"

Do you think that is the character that God presents in the scripture? "Sovereign and Self-Centered"

Wow. I don't see that when I read the pages of scripture at all. Jesus said, "When you've seen me you've seen the Father." Yet, Jesus, who is God, was not Self-Centered, he was a humble servant who gave up his life for us. How does that display God's character of "Self-Centeredness?" I realize that " to the praise of God's Glory" is the ultimate end, but God's motive of Love cannot be downplayed in his act of redemption, otherwise it decreases the praise of his glory within the hearts of those who fail to see the "kind intentions of His Will." God is Love. I know to a Calvinist that often seems like emotional, feely stuff, but love is the theme of the gospel. "Of faith, hope and love the most important of these is love." "God demonstrates his love in this, that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us." But not only for us, but for the sins of the world.

And your view of Sovereingty is highly debatable. Would a Sovereign God, by your defination of Sovereign, give the world over to darkness to rule? Sovereign can mean that he chooses to be permissive and that nothing happens without his approval, much like we see in Job's life. But it does not have to mean that God "controls" or "causes" everything as you seem to assume.

We can discuss these verse more fully after we have dealt with Eph. 1. You haven't answered my question concerning Eph. 1:9 in light of Eph. 3:3-5, which clearly teaches that the referent in both of these passage must be the Apostles, because they are the only ones (beside the Prophets) that have received the revelation of divine "mysteries". In light of this, do you believe that the referent changes from meaning "all saints" in verses 3-4, to "the apostles only" in verse 9, then back to "all saints" in verse 11? Are you saying that you accept that method of interpretation for the support of your assumption?

In light of the responses, or lack thereof, concerning my very consistant and clear arguments in Ephesians it seems to me that it is the Calvinist's "confidence" in their "assumptions" that are not being proved in the scripture. I'm not being arrogant, I'm just stating it the way I see it. Look back through this post. What do you see?

1. Npetreley says my arguments don't merit a response and ridicules me and my beliefs without ever addressing any of my points.
2. Dallas, poked fun at me then named another verse for me to exegete. I did and I still await his response.
3. Mike quoted verse 1 pointing out that the saint were the receipents of this letter, which wasn't in dispute. He came back also quoting another verse, once again avoiding any of the arguments in Ephesians.
4. Rev. G and TomMann poke there heads in to take a jab still avoiding the Ephesians passage, I responded to there posts and have yet to hear any response.
5. Pastor Larry chimed in saying, "Notice how, in a thread about assumptions. you make a major one with no proof to back it up. I totally disagree with this." I responded pointing out to him once again that I did have proof of my arguments. I have still yet to hear back from him concerning my support.
6. You have been the only one who has even seemed to read my arguments and you have even confirmed that you could at least see where I got my assumptions. And you even said that if there was any way to be an Arminian and still hold to scripture that this would be the only way, thus confirming that this debate is at least worth consideration. Even still, you and I have discussed the "you" pronoun in chapter 2, but you have not addressed my arguments concerning 1:9 in light of 3:3-5.

So you can see why I might think that it is your assumption is the one that is not supported here. No one seems to be able to support it.

[quoteSo whether you let me off the hook or not, you have not convinced me that these viewpoints are the correct interpretation of these scriptures. [/QUOTE]
Why not? Why have I not convinced you. You must have a reason or an argument to support your assumption if your going to continue to hold to it in this text. What is it?

I've proven, without refute so far, that you are the one who has to do the grammatical explaination of the change between "us/we" to "you." And that you, not me, have to explain verses 3, 4 and 11 differently than you do verse 9. As the argument stands right now, you are the one who is forced to "cut and paste" in order to support your assumptions. Please explain how you don't see it that way.

With Respect,
Bro. Bill

 

Dallas, Dallas, Dallas.

I don't assume that some of these characteristic mentioned about the apostles in verses 3-12 absolutely can't apply to all believers. In verse 13 Paul says the "you" have "trusted" like us and "you" have believed and have received the guarentee of the Holy Spirit just like the apostles. There are some definite comparisons between the apostles and saints, I don't dispute that point.

Let me try it this way. This is what we are certain of from THIS TEXT:

Apostle = saved by grace, believed, trusted, predestined, elected before foundation of the earth, revelation from Christ Himself (mysteries revealed), sealed with the Holy Spirit

Saint = saved by grace, believed, trusted, heard the messages from the apostles (which would require faith to have belief/trust), sealed with the Holy Spirit.

Key principle: Whatever applies to all the saints also applies to the apostles, but whatever applies to the apostles may or may not apply to all saints?

Keep in mind that Paul was a "saint" too, but what made him unique as apostle was his "election/predestination/mystries revealed."

So, you still haven't addressed my arguments.

With Respect,
Bro. Bill

 

Remember Sturgman that I prefaced the beginning of my arguments by presenting each of our assumptions. We both agreed that neither of our assumptions can necessarily be proven, but they can most definitly be supported through scripture.

If, for arguments sake, I'm right about Ephesians 1, then I have provided support for my assumption, not proof. (That's not possible, as we have stated.) But I've taken away one passage that supports the Calvinistic assumption, which is that everyone who believes is predestined, and I have shown that it accutually supports my assumption, which is that only the apostles were predestined. I hope that shows the significance of this particular point.

I understand your point. Trust me, I do. And I agree that scripture must interpret scripture. But again, when you bring your assumptions to any scripture, it seems right to you. Which is why each text must be viewed objectively.

I realize there are other Calvinistic support texts out there, I'm not blind to that. But, don't take the fact that I haven't dealt with everyone of them as a proof that I'm not using scripture to interpret scripture. It takes time, as you can see, to handle each of these texts in turn. So, bare with me as we wade through it all.

Point heard. But there a many reason's why people wouldn't assume that we are saved through the same means as the apostles. 1. Their unique role in salvific history. 2. Their divine appointing as authorative apostles. 3. Their unique salvation experiences. (not just Paul, any of the apostles--a man walks up and says follow me so you drop your life and follow him, that's divine) 4. Their unique powers given by God. 5. Their divinly inspired words.

You spoke about "the means" by which salvation comes the other day. You have to admit the means by which the apostles were appointed are unique. In this regard the Calvinist must make an assumption upon another assumption. You all assume that all saints are "sovereignly elected" so you also must assume that God sovereingly controls the means by which everyone is saved, as you have stated. Well if you take away both of those assumptions and look at salvation actually being a choice that man makes, you can see why it was necessary for God to not only elect the apostles but also elect the means by which they were saved. He had to Sovereignly elect them to guarantee that His will was carried out, this doesn't apply to the rest of humanity in the same way that it would have applied to the prophets and the apostles.

In considering these things you've also got to keep in mind the problem that those two assumptions create for God. It creates the paradox of God presenting a "geniune call for all the world" but only really sovereignly decreeing the means for the elect, thus making God out to be a liar. That should be enough to make you examine your assumptions a little more closely. It also makes God ulimately responsible for sending people to hell who eternal torment without supply any means for their salvation, all the while saying that they do have a means. That's deceptive, and God wouldn't go against his character.

Do you see my point.

As to your point concerning Phil. I'm sorry but your going to have to explain your argument. I'm not sure I understand what you're saying.

I've stated that Paul does have faith, in that he must believe that what has been revealed to him is truly going to come to pass. But, He was not required, as we are, to believe in Christ by faith. Faith deals with the unseen. Paul saw Jesus, as did the other apostles. Like I've stated before, Thomas did not believe by faith but because of sight. There is a difference, no matter how much you want to downplay that difference you must reconize that it is different. The "means" of salvation are different for those who personally saw Christ. Faith is still in play because they had to believe that he was going to do what he promised, but faith in his being the Son of God was proven to them by divine revelation from Christ himself. I hope that makes since.

With Respect,
Bro. Bill

 

Sturgman,
I was very careful to point out to you that these assumption cannot be proven. Yours nor mine. Go back and read it again.

I said it supports my view, not proves my view.

However, if you keep Eph. 3:1-7 in mind we do know that the mysteries were for the apostles only and he goes on to point out his "effectual calling" in verse 7 within that same context. Therefore, it is not unreasonable to ASSUME that if Paul would make the effort to point out these unique traits of his apostleship that "election and predestination" would be included within the uniqueness of the apostlolic calling. Otherwise, why would he even mention them in regard to his apostleship, if they are not unique to apostles?

It just doesn't seem to make sense to mention the uniquness of something in order to validate your authority if the thing you mention isn't unique at all.

For example, if everyone was born of a virgin would that be something that the gospel writers would even mention as to Christ's uniqueness. Do I make my point clear?

With Respect,
Bro. Bill