Individual Election

No, it was a general comment directed to all. It seemed we were getting off topic with talk about unsubstantiated accusations and slander and the like. I didn't read closely enough to see what all it was referring to. I was encouraging all to police themselves and keep it on topic.

 

No, it was a general comment directed to all. It seemed we were getting off topic with talk about unsubstantiated accusations and slander and the like. I didn't read closely enough to see what all it was referring to. I was encouraging all to police themselves and keep it on topic. </font>[/QUOTE]OK, it was a fair question because my name was used in the post.

 

Absolutely a good question. I never thought of you thinking it was addressed to you in particular. Thanks for asking; sorry for the confusion. My bad.

 

Mike,

Here is what the text says:

29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate [to be] conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.

30 Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.

Notice that those He foreknew he also predestinated. Those He predestinated, He also called. Those He called He also justified. Those He justified He also Glorified.

Conclusion- Despite your claim to the contrary, Predestination "is" a guarantee of salvation. There is absolutely no break in this chain. The same person who is predestined is also glorified. This is individual election.

 

Mike,


There is no "break" in this chain, in the sense that the one who is predestined is "also" called. The one who is "called" is also glorified.
Hence the one predestined "will" be glorified!

How do you insert a break when Paul shows that those predestined will be called and glorified?

In Christ

 

aCtually, punctuation was added in later. The original writings had no punctuation.

Multiple problems here. First, kai is not a funny looking almost word. It is an actual word, one of the most common words in the GNT, and not funny looking in the least. Second, it does not show a separation, but a connection. It is conjunction, usually translated "and" or "also," sometimes "even." In this text, you are dead wrong, absolutely backwarods. It is properly translated "also" and means that all of the first group are "also" in teh second group, and so forth right on down to glorification. The "kai" shows that there is no way out of this line. Once in it, you are always in it.

Kai, to my knowledge, is never contrastive or adversative. It is usually conjunctive or connective, sometimes ascensive or comparative. You can look through the 4 1/2 columns devoted to it in BAGD if you want more information.

As I recall, you tried some Greek the other day and missed that one too. Perhaps that was someone else, I can't remember. In any event, you missed it badly here. It says exactly the opposite of what you tried to say.

 

Exactly, Larry.

Mike, in Greek that series is a series of dependent clauses that are linked to together. As I wrote to you previously, and on topic ...

In Romans 8:30, calling and justifying follow along as aorist tense, indicative mood, active voice as a result of having been foreknown and predestined, because there is a grammatical construction that involves a calling being a result of being predestined, and being justified is a direct result of calling. Predestination is thus one of the causes of being justified, not the other way around. This is the syntactical construction of the text. In short, "these he justified" is in aorist indicative active in a causal structure and part of a dependent clause of a conditional sentence (protasis). This means, justification depends on calling. Calling depends on predestination. Predestination depends of foreknowing.

As Pastor Larry says, there is no break in the chain at all, and once one is in that chain, one is subject to all the conditions in the text. There is not disjuncture, because CONjuctions are used here. "ous" is used twice. ("but" in English), but, as Dr. Reid, my old Greek professor said, "ous" does not contrast the way "but" does in English. The issue that helps us determine the correct use of "ous" here is the way that the verbs are being used. In this case in a series of dependent clauses that are linked grammatically in such a way that each one is dependent on the other one so that:

Foreknowledge depends on God. Predestining depends on foreknowledge. Calling depends on predestination. Justification depends on calling. Glorification depends on justification.
If one is not accomplished, the others are not accomplished. If one is accomplished, all the others are accomplished. The use of the aorist here indicates that they both have been and will be accomplished without exception. Thus, each condition in the chain is a result of the preceding condition and 'all' in the chain are assumed, not 'some' only, not 'all' here and there and "some" in other places.

Faith is never mentioned as a condition. "These" is mentioned, and "these" are people. Thus justification of people is dependent not on foreknown faith, but the person doing the foreknowing and predestining. Calling proceeds from the cause of predestination, and then justification IN THAT ORDER, because of the order and dependent relationship of each clause. therefore predestination can not be conditional on faith. Justification is by faith, and comes as a result of calling, paralleling John 6 exactly.

Ok, fair enough. However, I posted a treatment of these verses in Romans 8 and your view on Acts 13:48 approximately five posts above the above quote, and I asked you a question about Romans 3. You did not respond, and that was certainly on topic. I'm interested in your response to that treatment which appears in this post, and in your response to Acts 13:48 and the answer to my question about Romans 3.

 

Mike,

What lexicon are you using that gives that information? What is your source material? Also, any Greek student or teacher will tell you that the original Greek did not have punctuation in it. Photocopies are available of many mss on the internet if you need to see proof of this.

 

And where did you get this information from?

I gave the resources to check this out. You are completely wrong on this. You have listened to someone who has lied to you. You have unfortunately believed them without checking it out. I am not a Greek expert but I have translated about 1/2 of the NT and I know it well enough to know that you are wrong.

It is technically called a particle; it is a word and you can look it up in teh lexicon to see what it means.

I did not reference a modern Greek meaning (although it is probably the same). I referenced BAGD, the standard lexicon for NT Greek. You can look it up yourself.

I am wrong?? All I said was that punctuation was not in the original writings. THat is indisputable. You can look at copies of the early NT Greek documents and see that there is no punctuation in them. There is not even any spacing between the words.

I didn't appeal to the quotuation marks in that. They just happened to be in the right place. The point is that the context very clearly showed who was talking.

Mike, You are so desperately wrong on these basic issues of Greek. You apparently are way out of your field on this. That is okay, but you need to realize it. You are making mistakes that no first semester Greek student would make. These are among the very first things you learn in Greek. You don't help yourself by these types of posts. Learn the facts about the stuff before your post your opinion.

 

Mike,

You have fallen sway to the "root meaning" falacy. The etemology of a word does not dictate the meaning of the word. For more information on this topic, see D. A. Carson's "Exegetical Fallacies."

 

As I read this thread I was disappointed in the way honest discussion and debate is labeled "slander."

When a person makes a statement, it is subject to evaluation. Analyzing a statement and pointing out discrepancies is not slander.

It is sad that some have to resort to this level of interaction.

 

I still do not even see how the argument is even valid. Call me shallow but the one who is predestined is also called. The same one who was predestined and called is also justified. The same one who is predestined, called, and justified is also glorified.

Did I miss something? If so, someone explain how any part of going to the "greek" (Which you guys have been discussing) addressed the fact that if you are predestined then you "are" going to be glorified. What is true of one, is true of all.Someone please!

In Christ

 

I have 30 hours of Greek. I have translated about half of the NT. I translate almost weekly. I have within 10 feet of my desk the following: BAGD, Theological Dictionary of hte NT, Theological LExicon of the New Testament, New International Dictionary of New TEstament Theology, Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament, Liddell-Scott, Friberg's Lexicon, Louw-Nida, and numerous Greek text based commentaries. In other words, I can tell you what the word means, and you missed it.

No, but being right makes me right. I told you where you can look it up. You won't even tell me where you got your information.

I can't speak for Gene's ability in Greek.

More wrong information. John is hte fourth gospel, but in the NT, the books are in the same order in Greek as they are in English. It is the OT where the order is different.

Gene and I aren't trying to make you look bad. But when you say things that are wrong,they have to be pointed out and discussed, and evaluated. YOu have shown yourself to be wrong on many occasions in this matter. Your use of strong words against us will not change that.

One last comment, when I said that coming is believing, you said you disagreed. JOhn 6:35 uses both words in a parallel structure, thereby showing that both mean the same thing. The text says what it does. We have not changed the meaning. It is you who has done that.

 

I don't have a doctorate. I said I am not an expert. But I do know Greek and have immediate access to numbers of resources. And translating about half the NT (I don't know the exact proportion) is not that much work when you have had 30 hours of Greek. Greek classes are all about translating and reading Greek. But I don't know how old you think I am so I might be older than you think too ...

 

Larry,

You don't have to show your creditials. Your proper analysis speaks volumes of them and those who know greek well acknowledge who knows and who doesn't, that should be enough. I LUV LIGHT, brother... Where are you getting your information from? You said on other posts that you don't allow ANYBODY to teach you except God and His Word?... Seems to me your reading other things than God's word?... hmmm But from the things that your saying is just proving HOW far you are grasping to try to hold on to your humanistic beliefs... Like Dave Hunt... going to cultic renderings of didactic texts... pride comes before a fall...

 

Like Dave Hunt... going to cultic renderings of didactic texts...

Idiot.... I meant Redacted (Hebrew) texts...

Yes pride does come before a fall !