• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Is there a retitle suggestion for Calvinism and Arminianism

Status
Not open for further replies.

glfredrick

New Member
I have to apologize to the board... When Van first came aboard, I began informing him as to his many intentional fallacies and his faulty use of Greek. Now he believes that he understands how to use all that terminology and brings it up constantly against others. My bad... :tear: :laugh:
 

DaChaser1

New Member
I have to apologize to the board... When Van first came aboard, I began informing him as to his many intentional fallacies and his faulty use of Greek. Now he believes that he understands how to use all that terminology and brings it up constantly against others. My bad... :tear: :laugh:

So you ARE the One hear that taught van how to use the Greek NT to "prove" that Calvin was a heretic, and that as regards to sotierology, calvinism is also!
 

glfredrick

New Member
So you ARE the One hear that taught van how to use the Greek NT to "prove" that Calvin was a heretic, and that as regards to sotierology, calvinism is also!

No, alas, he came here with that concept fully in play. I did look him up on other forums and he is just as big a pain in some of them -- the ones that still allow him onboard.
 

Van

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Reply to Agedman,

In an attempt to shorten the book length responses we are giving, I hope I have combined and deleted some of the replies appropriately.
Another approach would to stick with 2 Thessalonians 2:13

Van, you are not being consistent in your statements.
Or your understanding of my view is incorrect?

You state “en” is "not being used to indicate movement," but then you try to show through multiple responses that there is movement.
"En" is being used to show who or what is performing the action.

[QUOTE}To restate, there is no movement involved. Here is an illustration using through and by. [/QUOTE] Again, why not address my position, "en" is being used to show who or what is performing the action. You really need to address this view.

Fred is through with his work.
This illustration has no application to our discussion."Fred worked through subordinates to complete the work" is how "en" is used in our verse.

The work by Fred is done.
This is exactly how "en" is used in our verse.

Both statements demonstrated completed work.
Yes, but if the example read, the work by Fred will be done tomorrow, then the work would not be done. This has no application to our verse.

Sanctification using “en” is a completed work not a process indicating movement.
No. This is completely wrong. "En" is being used in the verse to show who performed the choice and the method of the choice. Hence God chose you for salvation through sanctification and faith.

Sanctification is accomplished not by movement such as a pawn on a chess board, but by declaration of God.
Yet another attempt to redefine what the word means. It means to set apart, to pick out from among others and place in a set apart from others place.

You are viewing election as occurring as a result of the process of sanctification taking place.
No I am not. Why not quote what I wrote before? We are chosen when we are set apart. This is my actual view.

Sanctification has two meanings as I have said before. One, to be set apart. That is the meaning in our verse, and in 1 Peter 1:1-2. The other meaning refers to the "process" of growing more mature and Christ-like as we follow Christ after we are born again.


If you need another illustration, lets say I have decided to select vehicles for my own possession. I decide to select vehicles that I believe have the characteristic of trustworthy performance. I make this decision 2 months ago, and so when I send my agent out to set aside the vehicles I will save, it is according to my foreknowledge, or plan I had made two months before. This is my Ephesians 1:4 moment, where I established the plan, picked the agent, but had not yet set part any particular vehicle.

Now my agent travels to the car lot, lets call it the realm of darkness and as it comes across a vehicle that I have told him is trustworthy, he moves it from the realm of darkness into the kingdom car lot, where it is washed, and given a new motor.

You have claimed agreement with the foreknowing of God and election, and yet fail to acknowledge that God has performed just as I showed by listing specific people from the Scriptures.
I have said what foreknowledge and foreknowing means as used in the bible. Thus far I do not see where you have shown any understanding of the words.


You can only look at the past and present and assume the future may follow some pattern just as some weather forecaster.
This is not my view. Why do you keep making false statements as to my position? God causes what He declares to occur, and therefore His prophecies are 100% true. He said Jesus would die in such and such a manner in Isaiah 53 hundreds of years before Christ died according to God's predetermined plan and foreknowledge.

Our discussion is supposed to be about 2 Thessalonians 2:13, and what it actually says. It says God chose you (an existent individual) for salvation through the sanctification of the Holy Spirit and faith in the truth.

You have seemed not to comprehend the use of "en" to show who or how an action is performed.

You have seemed not to comprehend the meaning of sanctification as "to set apart for God" but that is what it means. A one time event action of movement from the realm of darkness into the Kingdom of Christ. Sanctification has a second meaning, but this first meaning applies to our verse.
 

agedman

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
2 Thessalonians 2:13 ...


I am going to deal with three areas with this post.

First, addressing “en” and “sanctification:”

Here, is a quick copy of the Thessalonian verse with the Greek words written in English script and a translation of each. Again, I call on the Greek scholars on the BB to correct any error that I may have made. I follow it with two other translations.

“God (theos – the exceeding divinity, God) hath (haireomai – choose to take to himself, preferred you) from (apo – at the time of) the beginning (arche – beginning, start) chosen (haireomai – chosen to take to himself, preferred you) you (humas – you) to (eis – into, unto) salvation (soteria – salvation, delivery) through (en – a fixed position relating to time, place, space) sanctification (hagiasmos – purity, holiness) of the Spirit (pneuma – Holy Spirit) and (kai – and, also) belief (pistis – assurance, fidelity) of the truth (aletheia – truth, veracity)"​

American Standard Translation:
“God always for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, for that God chose you from the beginning unto salvation in sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth”​

Young’s Literal Translation:
“God always for you, brethren, beloved by the Lord, that God did choose you from the beginning to salvation, in sanctification of the Spirit, and belief of the truth”

Specifically, God does not “move the believer.” He did not take us from one place and put us in another. He did not remove us from the earth.

Rather, He proclaimed the believer as His and no longer of this world system or the property of the god of the fallen system. We underwent a change of ownership.

It is as a king’s signet ring sealing a document showing ownership and authority. That is the “state” a believer is “in sanctification of the (Holy) Spirit.” It is as a title or deed, stamped by the authority of the state showing whom ownership is assigned.

You want to state I do not seem to know what sanctification means.

But you are mistaken.

I have moved away from the typical “set apart” definition because it is obviously a confusing definition and really isn’t accurate to the original in our modern age.

The words "set apart" seems to be used by you to indicate what one might do when they have finished taking a swig of Dr. Pepper and setting down the can apart from them so it doesn't get knocked over onto the keyboard.

But, "set apart" were words originally used to assigning a specific significance to something or someone. The temple was sanctified, the worship center is sometimes called a sanctuary, the sanctity of marriage are all terms that indicate no movement but assignment of significance.

If you think I am wrong, I suggest you call forward the Greek scholarship that would demonstrate that I am wrong.

Just so you know, the 1 Peter 1:1-2 phrase, “through (by, to) sanctification,” is used EXACTLY the same way as in Thessalonians. Look at it in the original and you will see I am correct.



Second, your application using a “subordinate:”

I would not think that you are placing the Holy Spirit as a subordinate to Christ or the Father. That doesn’t work.

Again, the Spirit is given to one as a seal of a king’s signet wring. Not as someone “moving the vehicle.” If you’re going to use that illustration make it fit.

It is God that has the foreknowing ability who does the choosing.

The Spirit applies “the seal to the deal” sort of like a vehicle title will have a government seal showing the authority.



Third, defining foreknowledge:

Foreknowledge means – knowing the facts or fully consciousness of events that are going to happen before they happen.

In the case of the Scripture, the word (foreknowledge) is used only twice – In Acts and Peter.

In both places the Greek word is the same – “prognosis.”

In our modern medical world, we don’t even bother using a translation of the word, but use the Greek in English script. It is used as giving medical opinions that indicate what possibly will be the likely diagnosis’s outcome, to forecast the course of a disease, to predict some conclusion of a condition…

Because God is not limited in mental acuity and has total understanding knowledge of the past, present and future, the word “opinions” and “likely” would need to be removed from the definition.

The definition would then read: before time, God possessing infinite entire knowledge of the diagnosis and outcome, the complete certain cognition of the course of a disease, and the determiner of the conclusion of a condition.



Unless you have something more to offer that would persuade me I am wrong, I would consider we have pretty much run the length of the Thessalonians verse.

What shall you desire we consider, next?
 

DaChaser1

New Member
I am going to deal with three areas with this post.

First, addressing “en” and “sanctification:”

Here, is a quick copy of the Thessalonian verse with the Greek words written in English script and a translation of each. Again, I call on the Greek scholars on the BB to correct any error that I may have made. I follow it with two other translations.

“God (theos – the exceeding divinity, God) hath (haireomai – choose to take to himself, preferred you) from (apo – at the time of) the beginning (arche – beginning, start) chosen (haireomai – chosen to take to himself, preferred you) you (humas – you) to (eis – into, unto) salvation (soteria – salvation, delivery) through (en – a fixed position relating to time, place, space) sanctification (hagiasmos – purity, holiness) of the Spirit (pneuma – Holy Spirit) and (kai – and, also) belief (pistis – assurance, fidelity) of the truth (aletheia – truth, veracity)"​

American Standard Translation:
“God always for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, for that God chose you from the beginning unto salvation in sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth”​

Young’s Literal Translation:
“God always for you, brethren, beloved by the Lord, that God did choose you from the beginning to salvation, in sanctification of the Spirit, and belief of the truth”

Specifically, God does not “move the believer.” He did not take us from one place and put us in another. He did not remove us from the earth.

Rather, He proclaimed the believer as His and no longer of this world system or the property of the god of the fallen system. We underwent a change of ownership.

It is as a king’s signet ring sealing a document showing ownership and authority. That is the “state” a believer is “in sanctification of the (Holy) Spirit.” It is as a title or deed, stamped by the authority of the state showing whom ownership is assigned.

You want to state I do not seem to know what sanctification means.

But you are mistaken.

I have moved away from the typical “set apart” definition because it is obviously a confusing definition and really isn’t accurate to the original in our modern age.

The words "set apart" seems to be used by you to indicate what one might do when they have finished taking a swig of Dr. Pepper and setting down the can apart from them so it doesn't get knocked over onto the keyboard.

But, "set apart" were words originally used to assigning a specific significance to something or someone. The temple was sanctified, the worship center is sometimes called a sanctuary, the sanctity of marriage are all terms that indicate no movement but assignment of significance.

If you think I am wrong, I suggest you call forward the Greek scholarship that would demonstrate that I am wrong.

Just so you know, the 1 Peter 1:1-2 phrase, “through (by, to) sanctification,” is used EXACTLY the same way as in Thessalonians. Look at it in the original and you will see I am correct.



Second, your application using a “subordinate:”

I would not think that you are placing the Holy Spirit as a subordinate to Christ or the Father. That doesn’t work.

Again, the Spirit is given to one as a seal of a king’s signet wring. Not as someone “moving the vehicle.” If you’re going to use that illustration make it fit.

It is God that has the foreknowing ability who does the choosing.

The Spirit applies “the seal to the deal” sort of like a vehicle title will have a government seal showing the authority.



Third, defining foreknowledge:

Foreknowledge means – knowing the facts or fully consciousness of events that are going to happen before they happen.

In the case of the Scripture, the word (foreknowledge) is used only twice – In Acts and Peter.

In both places the Greek word is the same – “prognosis.”

In our modern medical world, we don’t even bother using a translation of the word, but use the Greek in English script. It is used as giving medical opinions that indicate what possibly will be the likely diagnosis’s outcome, to forecast the course of a disease, to predict some conclusion of a condition…

Because God is not limited in mental acuity and has total understanding knowledge of the past, present and future, the word “opinions” and “likely” would need to be removed from the definition.

The definition would then read: before time, God possessing infinite entire knowledge of the diagnosis and outcome, the complete certain cognition of the course of a disease, and the determiner of the conclusion of a condition.



Unless you have something more to offer that would persuade me I am wrong, I would consider we have pretty much run the length of the Thessalonians verse.

What shall you desire we consider, next?

the Foreknowledge of God in regrads to salvation is determinitive mode, basically, the Lord knows who are his own because he has chosen/selected them out,before HAND, AND thattahT IS WHY HE KNOWS OF US BEING THE ELECT IN CHRIST, AS HE PLACED US HIMSELF INTO THAT ELECTION PROCESS DIRECTLY!
 

Van

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
You are right, Agedman, I cannot offer any proof for how "en" is used other than all the major translations render "en" as through or by and not as "in." Your failure to accept this obvious truth says it all.

Second, you have redefined sanctification, changing the meaning of the verse without any support. Your failure to accepting the normal accepted meaning of words says it all.

Your effort to pick at my illustration by claiming I implied the Holy Spirit was subordinate also says you are desperate to muddy the waters.

In summary, like every single other Calvinist, you have run away from the verse with redefinition track shoes.

And as I said at the beginning, if we cannot agree on what one verse says, using the word meaning in context and the grammar of the Greek, we cannot come to a common understanding. So sad.
 

Van

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Returning to Topic, Calvinism is a mistaken view of scripture that rewrites scripture to pour Calvinism into the text. Now, besides redefining choice to mean non-choice, world to mean whatever fits the Calvinist template, we have sanctification no longer meaning to be set apart for God, but rather being retitled under new ownership. Twaddle
 

DaChaser1

New Member
Returning to Topic, Calvinism is a mistaken view of scripture that rewrites scripture to pour Calvinism into the text. Now, besides redefining choice to mean non-choice, world to mean whatever fits the Calvinist template, we have sanctification no longer meaning to be set apart for God, but rather being retitled under new ownership. Twaddle

You do realise that we are Elected out beforehand by God, that causesus to become justified, and once justified, start thr process of "progressive sauntification!"
 

jbh28

Active Member
Returning to Topic, Calvinism is a mistaken view of scripture that rewrites scripture to pour Calvinism into the text. Now, besides redefining choice to mean non-choice, world to mean whatever fits the Calvinist template, we have sanctification no longer meaning to be set apart for God, but rather being retitled under new ownership. Twaddle

And all this comes from the same poster that said...

One way would be to address positions rather than persons. Anytime you see a person's behavior rather than his or her position being discussed, you are seeing uncivil behavior. To disparage a position by disparaging the person is disingenuous, and therefore uncivil. Civil behavior requires we treat others with honesty rather than fallacy calculated to score points. This adds heat but not light.

Let's see... we have the following accusations:

1. re-writing Scripture, which would imply a denial of the inerrancy of Scripture if it needs to be "rewritten"

2. Changing definitions of words for the purpose of a doctrine.

3. And we have finally the accusation of foolish writing or nonsense nonsense writings. "twaddle"
 

agedman

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
You are right, Agedman, I cannot offer any proof for how "en" is used other than all the major translations render "en" as through or by and not as "in." Your failure to accept this obvious truth says it all.

Strange that you offer no translation work to refute what I have posted from English showing the Greek words in English script with definitions of those words.

I showed two well known and to some more accurate translations than the NIV or KJU.

In more than one post and in the last more than once, I appealed to the scholars on the BB to correct any translation/application error I may have made.

Yet, you proclaim that it is my "failure to accept this obvious truth..."

No, I have accepted the truth - the truth of the Scriptures over your concept of the Scriptures.

Second, you have redefined sanctification, changing the meaning of the verse without any support. Your failure to accepting the normal accepted meaning of words says it all.

Putting sanctification into the context of original use in which it was defined as being "set apart" is not "changing the meaning."

Because you continued to use "set apart" in a format that provided an occasion to allow movement, doesn't declare what I stated as wrong. Considering the obvious misinformed application you continue to use, it became prudent to use illustration and even rewording in an attempt to show you the meaning and application of sanctification as it is to be appropriately used. I clearly stated why the rewording was necessary.

By showing, with each illustration you gave, the weakness and misapplication of how you used the word and then by restating your own illustrations with appropriate modifications as to how the word could be used properly, I hoped to bring your understanding into focus. But you refused.

It is not my "failure to accept(ing) the normal accepted meaning of words" that has been the problem, but your lack.

In hope that you see your error, here are three illustrations that use a derivative of sanctify or sanctification:
Is the building moved when the assembly proclaims a designated part as the sanctuary?
Is the bride and groom moved in the sanctity of marriage?
Were the pieces set in motion when the temple of the wilderness (building, instruments, clothing,...) were sanctified?

You don't dispute with just my meaning, but dispute with the very word of God.

Your effort to pick at my illustration by claiming I implied the Holy Spirit was subordinate also says you are desperate to muddy the waters.

The only thing I am desperate to do is go leave this body and be clothed with the new in His presence.

If I didn't apply your illustration appropriately to whom you were attempting to illustrate, then identify who the "subordinate" of your illustration pertains too.

Was it Christ, the preacher or other believers, the new nature, ...?

In your thinking, who is the "subordinate" that has the authority of God to pick up sanctification as if it were some piece of furniture and move it to you?



In summary, like every single other Calvinist, you have run away from the verse with redefinition track shoes.

Hello,

I am still here.

I never run away. I may hobble, shuffle, crawl, perhaps one day move about in a chair with two large wheels - but I would prefer that electric kind.

Van, to date, you have not shown me appropriate renderings of the Scripture from the original languages that could be held up to the scholarship of the BB for validation. Yet, I posted the whole verse and gave two other major translation works for the sake of veracity - I didn't run away from the truth.

Don't use "running away" as an excuse to not see what is veridical.


And as I said at the beginning, if we cannot agree on what one verse says, using the word meaning in context and the grammar of the Greek, we cannot come to a common understanding. So sad.

At least we agree on something.
 

agedman

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
I like it. Hardshell for the Primitive Baptists and Softshell for us 5-pointers.

Good for you, Old Regular. Glad to see you get us back on track with the OP.

Continuing with the OP in stating the non-cal side:

Would no-shell be the arminian and skinned-alive the pelagian?
 

preacher4truth

Active Member
Continuing with the OP in stating the non-cal side:

Would no-shell be the arminian and skinned-alive the pelagian?

:laugh: :thumbsup:

And we have one arguing on another thread that one can adhere to, teach, and believe in Pelagian doctrine, yet, not be a Pelagian. And, that Scripture supports error. :wavey:
 

DaChaser1

New Member
:laugh: :thumbsup:

And we have one arguing on another thread that one can adhere to, teach, and believe in Pelagian doctrine, yet, not be a Pelagian. And, that Scripture supports error. :wavey:

Guess that supports the commonly held notion here that only calvin and his calvinists are the "Christian heretics!"

thats it is indeed a good thing to be able to support more of a man centered approach to biblical theology!
 

preacher4truth

Active Member
Guess that supports the commonly held notion here that only calvin and his calvinists are the "Christian heretics!"

thats it is indeed a good thing to be able to support more of a man centered approach to biblical theology!

What happened to adhering to sound doctrine brother? Embracing false teaching had its birth early in the church age and continues to this day.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top