Is there a retitle suggestion for Calvinism and Arminianism

[agedman]

Has anyone used "three R Baptist" as a title?

Being Texan I think it would make a pretty good name for a ranch church brand.

 

[jbh28]

Perhaps as Van and I discuss under watchful eye of the forum folks, your wisdom of Scriptures will be obliged to keep us both on track and honest to the Authority of the Word of God.

Van and I hope to come to some Scriptural agreement. Not by stating personally held views and naming camps, but by a thorough discussion of the verses, with the hope the Spirit of God will illuminate us - those watching and participating in the discussion - the truth.

If the discussion falls apart, I am determined not to be the cause.

Good, discussions of verses are always good without all the other junk that typically gets put into a discussion.

 

[Tom Butler]

Has anyone used "three R Baptist" as a title?

Being Texan I think it would make a pretty good name for a ranch church brand.

What's a three-R Baptist?

 

[Van]

Reply to Agedman,

Good, we agree that it is a one non-time specific event in this verse.

To be clear, both 2 Thessalonians 2:13 and 1 Peter 1:1-2 refer to being set apart.

You are adding to scripture to say the choice was made before and independent of being set apart. Not what 2 Thessalonians 2:13 says. God chose you for salvation through the sanctification by the Spirit and faith in the truth.
If something is done through something, the through comes before the something. Say you enter a room through the door. Did you go through the door before or after you entered the room? Before or at the same time if you would quibble.

In the same way, when God chose you through sanctification, the setting apart occurs before or at the same time as the choosing, not after. Thus you are adding what is not said to the verse.

If we were to use your application of the illustration,any apple might just happened to fall in the cart as the cart was passing by and be considered "set apart." The apple may be rejected by the owner of the cart and thrown back. The rest of the apples might complain about their position, ability, and chance in comparison to other apples. The apples complaint is centered upon the apples and whatever reason the apple didn't fall into the cart.

No, the apples are set apart by the Spirit, not by chance or any other thing other than the Spirit.

But faith is not under a person's ownership. Paul speaking to believer in Romans says that "God has dealt to every man the measure of faith."

This refers to our area of ministry within the body of Christ, and has nothing whatsoever to do with our trusting in Christ before we are chosen.

You need to get the idea that I have some hidden agenda out of your thinking if we are to work toward some agreement on scriptures. I haven't shown other than what I consider proper work in the Scriptures. I have even taken what you offered and shown it applicable with appropriate modifications to the principle of what we are discussing.

I do not think your agenda is hidden, you understand scriptures based on additions by Calvinism. But if you continue to read and consider what I say, that would be remarkable, not one Calvinist in my many years did not run from what I believe is the plain truth of scripture.

We agree that God chose you for salvation is accurate, but you have not shown the choosing nor the salvation as "conditional." I again refer you to Paul's statement in Romans, and restated in Ephesians that faith is given by God.

One of the difficulties in discussing scripture is that a Calvinist will say that view cannot be correct because of some other falsehood of Calvinism. That is why we need to stick to our verse and come to a common understanding of what it says, or perhaps agree it might say this or it might say that. But if you cannot see that my view of the verse is in according with the word meaning, grammar and context, it will be hard sledding.

Just for readers to know, here is the verse Van referred:

"But we are bound to give thanks always to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth:"​

I see - the reason they are greatly loved is because God choose them from the beginning (creation)
Recall where I pointed our that from the beginning is in or after the creation week, but before creation is inconsistent with the text. Next consider that the verse does not say what beginning. You are adding to the text to claim from the beginning refers to from creation. What if God chose us based on crediting our faith in the truth? Then the beginning would be the Cross and the New Covenant in His blood. We were not put in Christ before His death of the cross.

I see - the results of having been chosen were salvation.
Chosen for salvation through sanctification by the Holy Spirit and faith in the truth resulted in salvation.


I see - the believers believed the truth. When chosen?


I agree that "being set apart refers to election" Yes we agree here is your statement consistent with what you said above?

I disagree that something has to be created before being set apart. I have shown by stating the names of the parents of those not yet conceived yet specified as sanctified (set apart) by God, in the previous posts.

Let me try this again. Lets refer to the chooser as God the Father. Now say He chooses to set apart someone not conceived yet, maybe 400 years before, and He says this person will do such and such by name. How was this non-existent person set apart. In God the Father's plan. He was not set apart by the sanctifying work of the Spirit. He was not set apart spiritually in Christ was he. Apples and Oranges in my opinion.

 

[convicted1]

What's a three-R Baptist?

Roast, ribs, and ravioli? I don't think so, but they sure sound good....yummy!! :wavey: :laugh:

 

[agedman]

What's a three-R Baptist?

I neglected to include it in the post, didn't I.



By God’s Grace a redeemed, reformed, re-destined Baptist

 

[agedman]

To be clear, both 2 Thessalonians 2:13 and 1 Peter 1:1-2 refer to being set apart.

You are adding to scripture to say the choice was made before and independent of being set apart. Not what 2 Thessalonians 2:13 says. God chose you for salvation through the sanctification by the Spirit and faith in the truth.
If something is done through something, the through comes before the something. Say you enter a room through the door. Did you go through the door before or after you entered the room? Before or at the same time if you would quibble.

By your example of going through a door to enter a room, aren't you placing the word (sanctification) as a transition or movement rather than specifically a place? It seems your use of “en” (through) does not denote a fixed position but rather a movement - a transportation.

Would it not be better (using your illustration) to consider the room represents sanctification rather than the door?

Isn’t a person placed into a state of sanctification, rather than the person moving themselves through sanctification.

In the same way, when God chose you through sanctification, the setting apart occurs before or at the same time as the choosing, not after. Thus you are adding what is not said to the verse.

Then would it be accurate that you are stating that before being chosen a person is already sanctified?

Doesn’t this seem a bit out of order?

Even in our natural living that order doesn’t happen, rather the choice is made first of which is to be placed or set apart.

Even the choosing involves a thought process of separating (setting apart) what is acceptable to the one doing the choosing and what is not.

No, the apples are set apart by the Spirit, not by chance or any other thing other than the Spirit.

I agree.

This refers to our area of ministry within the body of Christ, and has nothing whatsoever to do with our trusting in Christ before we are chosen.

I disagree.

Paul is stating that because God is the giver of faith, there is no place for one believer to be puffed up over another. That because God (Jesus) is the “author and finisher of our faith” (Heb 12:2) there is no claim of boasting or pride of position that one can establish over another.

Therefore, the Romans verse compliments Ephesians where it states,

“Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus: That in the ages to come he might show the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward us through Christ Jesus. For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.”​

On a side, it is important that the reader distinguish that the word “through” in “through Christ Jesus: is “en” (specifying a position, placement) and the “through” in “saved through faith” is “dia” which has the connotation of passing along a passage

I do not think your agenda is hidden, you understand scriptures based on additions by Calvinism. But if you continue to read and consider what I say, that would be remarkable, not one Calvinist in my many years did not run from what I believe is the plain truth of scripture.

Well, I am not known to run - a bit slow and feeble in my old age.

But I am not convinced that you have shown the plain truth of Scripture, either.

In each case, I have shown both by the original language and by matching Scripture with Scripture the truth.

One of the difficulties in discussing scripture is that a Calvinist will say that view cannot be correct because of some other falsehood of Calvinism. That is why we need to stick to our verse and come to a common understanding of what it says, or perhaps agree it might say this or it might say that. But if you cannot see that my view of the verse is in according with the word meaning, grammar and context, it will be hard sledding.

I have no problem with working on common ground and arriving at agreement.

However, I am not convinced that you have demonstrated your view to be accurate in “word meaning, grammar, and context” to warrant what you hold as the only acceptable view.



NOTE: During this next part the BOLD parts are my statements immediately followed by the replies by Van.

I see - the reason they are greatly loved is because God choose them from the beginning (creation)
Recall where I pointed our that from the beginning is in or after the creation week, but before creation is inconsistent with the text. Next consider that the verse does not say what beginning. You are adding to the text to claim from the beginning refers to from creation. What if God chose us based on crediting our faith in the truth? Then the beginning would be the Cross and the New Covenant in His blood. We were not put in Christ before His death of the cross.

If you hold that it was "within the creation week," would that not disprove and conflict with what you have presented?

Wouldn’t supporting your view of variable starting dates occurring create a huge problem when it is stated in Ephesians 1:4,

“According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love?”​

And, would also be in disagreement with Hebrews 4:1-3

“Let us therefore fear, lest, a promise being left us of entering into his rest, any of you should seem to come short of it. For unto us was the gospel preached, as well as unto them: but the word preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in them that heard it. For we which have believed do enter into rest, as he said, ‘as I have sworn in my wrath, if they shall enter into my rest’: although the works were finished from the foundation of the world.”​

Please note two items:

First that faith had to be mixed with the gospel – again this is in accord to the “measure of faith” in Romans, and the “saved through faith” of Ephesians. Faith is given and measured by God to the person who hears the Gospel that they become a believer.

Second, this was accomplished (ginomai - brought to pass, finished) “from (apo – by, the completion) the foundation of the world.”
​

I see - the results of having been chosen were salvation.
Chosen for salvation through sanctification by the Holy Spirit and faith in the truth resulted in salvation.

I remind the readers that the word “through” does not indicate a movement of transportation but rather a place - state of being.

From the human view, salvation places the believer in a sanctified state.

From God’s view, this was accomplished when the foreknowing God chose the believer before the foundations of the world.

I see - the believers believed the truth. When chosen?

No, not "when chosen."

According to the Scriptures, the believers believed the truth when, by the grace (unmerited favor) of God, they were given faith by God which being mixed with the Gospel being given by God through the believer doing the work of the commission of Christ.

I agree that "being set apart refers to election" Yes we agree here is your statement consistent with what you said above?

Good. It does well when there is agreement.

However, do not confuse election and sanctification. The election (choosing) is a process of separating what is acceptable and not acceptable.

The sanctification is the state of existence of that (those) chosen.

Let me try this again. Lets refer to the chooser as God the Father. Now say He chooses to set apart someone not conceived yet, maybe 400 years before, and He says this person will do such and such by name. How was this non-existent person set apart. In God the Father's plan. He was not set apart by the sanctifying work of the Spirit. He was not set apart spiritually in Christ was he. Apples and Oranges in my opinion.

Here it seems, by your use of the illustration, that you do not consider the unity of the triune God.

However, using your illustration appropriately presents no problem when taken in the unity of the God.

To do so would be to state:

God, being all knowing, certainly does “foreknow” (even to specific name, thoughts and experiences…) a person, in whom the Spirit of God, in agreement with the Father, and through the work of the Son (being already considered as sufficient unto purification) is truly placed (set apart) in Him before the foundations of this world.​

 

[Tom Butler]

I neglected to include it in the post, didn't I.

By God’s Grace a redeemed, reformed, re-destined Baptist

That's good, I like it.

 

[Greektim]

Still think monergism and synergism is the way to go here.

 

[Van]

By your example of going through a door to enter a room, aren't you placing the word (sanctification) as a transition or movement rather than specifically a place? It seems your use of “en” (through) does not denote a fixed position but rather a movement - a transportation.

Would it not be better (using your illustration) to consider the room represents sanctification rather than the door?

Isn’t a person placed into a state of sanctification, rather than the person moving themselves through sanctification.

Let me return to the beginning. The word in the Greek is "en" which means "in" but is used to indicate the agent acting due to proximity, thus it is also translated "by" referring to the one doing the action, or "through" indicating the one doing the action.

So chosen for salvation through sanctification of the Spirit refers to being chosen by being set apart by the Holy Spirit.
Note the act of choosing is done by setting a person apart, therefore the setting apart occurs before or at the same time as the choosing, not after. This applies to 2 Thessalonians 2:13.

My room illustration did miss the mark, let me try "I got well through a doctors care." The doctors care occurred before or during my getting well, not after.

Then would it be accurate that you are stating that before being chosen a person is already sanctified?

No, I am saying that we are chosen when we are set apart, not we are set apart then chosen or we are chosen then set apart. This is not out of order.

Even the choosing involves a thought process of separating (setting apart) what is acceptable to the one doing the choosing and what is not.

The setting apart is not a thought process, it is an action by the Holy Spirit in accord with the Father's direction.

Paul is stating that because God is the giver of faith, there is no place for one believer to be puffed up over another. That because God (Jesus) is the “author and finisher of our faith” (Heb 12:2) there is no claim of boasting or pride of position that one can establish over another.

I am trying to discuss 2 Thessalonians 2:13 and the light it sheds on Election. You are now saying that view cannot be so because of your view of Irresistible Grace. I have other verses to discuss "the gift of faith" that show it is false doctrine too. Lets stick with individual election during our lifetime as indicated by 2 Thessalonians 2:13.

On a side, it is important that the reader distinguish that the word “through” in “through Christ Jesus: is “en” (specifying a position, placement) and the “through” in “saved through faith” is “dia” which has the connotation of passing along a passage

You are correct, my going through the door illustration goes with "dia" not "en".

In each case, I have shown both by the original language and by matching Scripture with Scripture the truth.

I disagree. God chose you for salvation from the beginning - not before the beginning. Through sanctification - setting apart - by the Spirit - the Spirit is the one that sets us apart - and through faith in the truth. We are set apart based on faith in the truth. Now for this to be true, it does not matter whether it is our faith, my view, or a gift of faith, your view, both require a person to exist to have that faith in the truth.

However, I am not convinced that you have demonstrated your view to be accurate in “word meaning, grammar, and context” to warrant what you hold as the only acceptable view.

At this point, I agree, since we are only looking at one election verse, so simply seeing that my view is a possible understanding of the verse in isolation would be a start.

If you hold that it was "within the creation week," would that not disprove and conflict with what you have presented?

No "during the week or after the week" fits with "from the beginning." What is eliminated is before creation.

Wouldn’t supporting your view of variable starting dates occurring create a huge problem when it is stated in Ephesians 1:4,

“According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love?”​

Yes, if this verse, Ephesians 1:4, referred to individual election as you assume. However, since it says chose us in Him, I believe this refers to a corporate election, before creation, not our individual election during our lifetime. But lets reach agreement of 2 Thessalonians 2:13 and then move on to any verse you like.

First that faith had to be mixed with the gospel – again this is in accord to the “measure of faith” in Romans, and the “saved through faith” of Ephesians. Faith is given and measured by God to the person who hears the Gospel that they become a believer.

To repeat the measure of faith refers to our area of ministry within the body of Christ and not to presalvation faith. Second you are assuming the faith that mixed with the gospel message did not refer to the person's faith. Let's stick to our verse.

Second, this was accomplished (ginomai - brought to pass, finished) “from (apo – by, the completion) the foundation of the world.”

On the contrary, this phrase says God's works (ie creation) were finished from the foundation of the world. Apo means from or since or after, not "by, the completion." The idea is His rest was available but they did not enter it.

From the human view, salvation places the believer in a sanctified state.

No scripture teaches that we are set apart in Christ when we are chosen. 1 Peter 1:1-2.

The sanctification is the state of existence of that (those) chosen.

Again I must return to what I though we had agreed upon, that sanctification refers to a one time event, being set apart, not the following condition of having been set part.

Here it seems, by your use of the illustration, that you do not consider the unity of the triune God.

The doctrine is God in three persons, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, each with the attributes of person-hood. Therefore the Holy Spirit doing what the Father Commands is completely in according with the doctrine of the Trinity.

However, using your illustration appropriately presents no problem when taken in the unity of the God.

To do so would be to state:

God, being all knowing, certainly does “foreknow” (even to specific name, thoughts and experiences…) a person, in whom the Spirit of God, in agreement with the Father, and through the work of the Son (being already considered as sufficient unto purification) is truly placed (set apart) in Him before the foundations of this world.​

Pure fiction, with no scriptural support. Lets return to 2 Thessalonians 2:13.

God chose you for salvation from the beginning. He chose you individually for salvation after creation.

 

[agedman]

Let me return to the beginning. The word in the Greek is "en" which means "in" but is used to indicate the agent acting due to proximity, thus it is also translated "by" referring to the one doing the action, or "through" indicating the one doing the action.

So chosen for salvation through sanctification of the Spirit refers to being chosen by being set apart by the Holy Spirit.
Note the act of choosing is done by setting a person apart, therefore the setting apart occurs before or at the same time as the choosing, not after. This applies to 2 Thessalonians 2:13.

My room illustration did miss the mark, let me try "I got well through a doctors care." The doctors care occurred before or during my getting well, not after.

I have no problem with the use of the word “en” as you define it, but remember it is a word indicating a static condition. Not moving or moving “through,” but rather in the designation of the placement.

Perhaps it is the wording “set apart” that is confusing the issue. It seems to have the connotation that some action is done that moves a person from one place to another.

But again “en” isn’t a word indicating movement. Sanctification isn’t the “act” of being set apart; rather it is like a will, title, or deed. Wills, titles, and deeds are indicators of ownership issued for a specific purpose (which is what Paul clearly states believers are to fulfill).

Therefore, the illustration that you give of getting well through a doctor’s care would not be applicable to illustrate the verse.

No, I am saying that we are chosen when we are set apart, not we are set apart then chosen or we are chosen then set apart. This is not out of order.

The evidence of the state of set apart is an indication of having already been chosen for some specific plan.

We are not chosen when we are set apart. We are chosen and as a result are re-titled.

The setting apart is not a thought process, it is an action by the Holy Spirit in accord with the Father's direction.

Good! I'm glad you agree with me!

By the above statement, you see that the Father had to first make a choice and THEN the Holy Spirit moved to confirm (title) that choice?

I am trying to discuss 2 Thessalonians 2:13 and the light it sheds on Election. You are now saying that view cannot be so because of your view of Irresistible Grace. I have other verses to discuss "the gift of faith" that show it is false doctrine too. Lets stick with individual election during our lifetime as indicated by 2 Thessalonians 2:13.

Not a problem now that we agree the progression is from chosen (elected), to sanctification, and then to purification.

I disagree. God chose you for salvation from the beginning - not before the beginning. Through sanctification - setting apart - by the Spirit - the Spirit is the one that sets us apart - and through faith in the truth. We are set apart based on faith in the truth. Now for this to be true, it does not matter whether it is our faith, my view, or a gift of faith, your view, both require a person to exist to have that faith in the truth.

From the human view:
Do you understand that if one is to claim they have “personal faith” apart from God, that faith is as fallen and unacceptable to God just as any other part of the human condition?

Either a person is completely lost, or the cross of Christ was not necessary. One cannot have even one part “not lost” or that part does not need sanctification for it is already sanctified and 2 Thessalonians is invalid.

From God's view:

A person does not need to "exist" for the work to already be completely accomplished. The election, sanctification, obedience, purification are all accomplished. He did not need to wait on time or existence.

No "during the week or after the week" fits with "from the beginning." What is eliminated is before creation.

I disagree. Paul clearly states, in Ephesians, “before (“pro” – in front of, in priority of) the foundations” and to assume a different view just because you want to hold this scripture in isolation, isn’t good principle in which to draw practical meaning and doctrine.

To hold to your timeline with "corporate salvation and individual salvation" would also fail to reflect the obvious foreknowledge of God that would be supported using Paul’s Ephesians statement.

Yes, if this verse, Ephesians 1:4, referred to individual election as you assume. However, since it says chose us in Him, I believe this refers to a corporate election, before creation, not our individual election during our lifetime. But lets reach agreement of 2 Thessalonians 2:13 and then move on to any verse you like.

This is a major mistake of some theological view(s).

I never will consider God as the leader of a corporation. I view the whole scheme of corporate election and the spinoffs as that which is not in agreement with the Scriptures.

Christ did not die for a corporation.

I reject the thinking that God was not involved with individuals throughout the OT in which the “corporate” view(s) consider was sporadic at best.

If that is the view that you are to put forth as the truth, you will have very little in common in Scripture with those of us that view God as holding each individual responsible and deals with each individual according to His plan.

To repeat the measure of faith refers to our area of ministry within the body of Christ and not to presalvation faith. Second you are assuming the faith that mixed with the gospel message did not refer to the person's faith. Let's stick to our verse.

There is only one faith that God accepts - it is His faith. Certainly, it is effective in both salvation and the ministry, but it is the same faith delivered (measured) to the person individually to be mixed with the gospel so that person will not only be saved but will also grow - "add" to that faith as both Paul and Peter state.

On the contrary, this phrase says God's works (ie creation) were finished from the foundation of the world. Apo means from or since or after, not "by, the completion." The idea is His rest was available but they did not enter it.

Define it as you desire, but, because of Paul’s statement in Ephesians which clearly uses “pro” (before) and hemas (us), Paul would dispute the meaning you would attach to 2 Thessalonians.


So, the timeline remains as the Scriptures state, election, sanctification, purification.

No scripture teaches that we are set apart in Christ when we are chosen. 1 Peter 1:1-2.

I chuckled when I read this, because you wanted to only write about 2 Thessalonians, and here you are discussing Ephesians and Peter.

The timeline Peter shows is: election by God, then sanctification (re-title), and then obedience and purification. The word “through” is “en” in this verse signifying that the sanctification is not a process or movement, but a static position.

This verse is in agreement with such 2 Corinthians 7:10 which distinguishes the result of obedience required for salvation compared to the world.

Again I must return to what I though we had agreed upon, that sanctification refers to a one time event, being set apart, not the following condition of having been set part.

Of course I agreed it was a one time event, just as election and salvation are one time events.

However, I perceived that you were still using the term “set apart” to indicate movement and motion.

The sanctification and salvation are a continuum of ownership by God. It requires no movement by man to initiate or maintain.

The doctrine is God in three persons, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, each with the attributes of person-hood. Therefore the Holy Spirit doing what the Father Commands is completely in according with the doctrine of the Trinity.

However, using your illustration appropriately presents no problem when taken in the unity of the God.

Just to make sure your view and mine of the Trinity is in agreement. I hold the Baptist Confession of Faith 1689 (with slight revisions by Spurgeon) as the view of the Holy Spirit proceeding from both the Father and the Son.

And as such the triune God is indivisible except in divine responsibilities and properties related to existence.

Pure fiction, with no scriptural support. Lets return to 2 Thessalonians 2:13.
God chose you for salvation from the beginning. He chose you individually for salvation after creation.

Not wanting to agree to the Scriptures is no proof that there is "no Scriptural support" and what I stated is "pure fiction."

There is only one election, one sanctification and one salvation. It did not happen before creation and then again later.

Because Paul clearly states that it happened before the foundations then that is what it is - believable, Scriptural.

 

[Van]

Reply to Agedman,

I have no problem with the use of the word “en” as you define it, but remember it is a word indicating a static condition. Not moving or moving “through,” but rather in the designation of the placement.

As I stated before "en" is not being used to indicate movement as through (dia) might be used. But it is being used to indicate the person performing the action or movement. Set apart is the movement and the person doing it is the Holy Spirit. This is not using "en" to indicate motion.

Perhaps it is the wording “set apart” that is confusing the issue. It seems to have the connotation that some action is done that moves a person from one place to another.

Yes, set apart does indicate motion, to be moved from among others and to be placed apart from the others.

Therefore, the illustration that you give of getting well through a doctor’s care would not be applicable to illustrate the verse.

I disagree, it is totally applicable, and consistent with the word meaning of "en" (attributing the action to an actor) and the meaning of sanctification is to be set apart for God. Thus the meaning is the Holy Spirit sets us apart for God.

The evidence of the state of set apart is an indication of having already been chosen for some specific plan.

I disagree, the evidence is we are chosen by being set apart. The verb is Chose and the act of choosing is carried out by the Spirit. That is actually what 2 Thessalonians 2:13 says.

We are not chosen when we are set apart. We are chosen and as a result are re-titled.

Here you seem to be redefining the meaning of being set apart. When a person is set apart they are saints, but they had to be transferred from among mankind to a separate spiritual condition.

By the above statement, you see that the Father had to first make a choice and THEN the Holy Spirit moved to confirm (title) that choice?

This is simply a rewrite, redefining the meaning of the words. God chose you ... through sanctification. Not God chose you and then He did something else. The grammar indicates that the choosing is done through the Holy Spirit.

Not a problem now that we agree the progression is from chosen (elected), to sanctification, and then to purification.

But since we do not agree, we are chosen through sanctification by the Holy Spirit.

From the human view:

Anytime anyone claims to look at anything other from the human view, they are selling popcorn.

Do you understand that if one is to claim they have “personal faith” apart from God, that faith is as fallen and unacceptable to God just as any other part of the human condition?

Strawman argument. We are talking about our faith credited by God as righteousness.

From God's view:

Unless you are claiming to have special insight, this reflects a human speculation on God's view:

A person does not need to "exist" for the work to already be completely accomplished. The election, sanctification, obedience, purification are all accomplished. He did not need to wait on time or existence.

This is all baloney, based on the clever stories of men with no support from scripture. What the Bible says is when God declares something will happen in the future, then He causes it to happen, He brings in about.

The Bible means nothing if you alter what it says with what you think God could do. God could put invisible pink elephants in orbit around Mars. The Bible says God puts everything in heaven that is in heaven. But for me to claim God did this because God could have done it, but without any verse, contextually considered that says He did is unsound.

Try this. I write "I ate an apple." You explain it to another, Van thought He would eat an apple and therefore He did not eat the apple, but He ate an imaginary able in His mind, and then two months later He picked up an apple - which Van had actually chosen to do months before, and set it apart because He had mentally set it apart months before... and so on. Not what I wrote. A pure fiction.

Paul clearly states, in Ephesians, “before (“pro” – in front of, in priority of) the foundations” and to assume a different view just because you want to hold this scripture in isolation, isn’t good principle in which to draw practical meaning and doctrine.

Yes we have two separate periods in view, Ephesians 1:4, before the foundation of the world, and two, from the beginning. You are claiming the beginning refers to creation, and I am claiming the beginning refers to the beginning of the New Covenant in His Blood. But setting that aside, "pro" means before and "apo" means out from. In order to move out from, the thing exited must exist. So we are talking about two separate elections or choices by God.

[See next post for the rest of response.]

 

[Van]

To hold to your timeline with "corporate salvation and individual salvation" would also fail to reflect the obvious foreknowledge of God that would be supported using Paul’s Ephesians statement.

Yet another strawman. I did not mention "corporate salvation" did I. So lets rewrite it to not be a misrepresentation of what I said. "To hold to your time-line with "corporate election" and "individual election" would also fail to reflect the obvious foreknowledge of God that would be supported using Paul's Ephesians statements.
But that is not the case. 1 Peter 1:1-2 says God's sanctifying work (our individual election) is according to God's foreknowledge. So God had a plan and His plan was to choose individuals by having the Holy Spirit set them apart from or after the beginning.

I never will consider God as the leader of a corporation. I view the whole scheme of corporate election and the spinoffs as that which is not in agreement with the Scriptures.

First, corporate election means the election of a target group, i.e those that will trust in Christ. Thus when God chose Christ to be His Lamb, His Redeemer, He also in effect chose those His Redeemer would redeem corporately. Thus He chose us in Him. But as 2 Thessalonians 2:13 says, God chose you for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and faith in the truth. In order for us to have faith, whether ours credited by God or faith given by God, we must be chosen during our lifetime.

Christ did not die for a corporation.

Strawman yet again, Christ died to be the propitiation of the whole world, He laid down His life for all. Again lets stick with individual election during our lifetime, the truth spoken by 2 Thessalonians 2:13 and we can come back to these other issues like your Limited Atonement.

I reject the thinking that God was not involved with individuals throughout the OT in which the “corporate” view(s) consider was sporadic at best.

I agree, Hebrews 11 clearly teaches that individuals during their lifetime gained approval by faith.

If that is the view that you are to put forth as the truth, you will have very little in common in Scripture with those of us that view God as holding each individual responsible and deals with each individual according to His plan.

As I said, there is no need to dispute what I have not explained, lets stick to individual election. When we get to Ephesians 1:4, then I will explain my view of that verse.

There is only one faith that God accepts - it is His faith.

I disagree, my verse is Romans 4:4-5 which says God accepts our faith when He credits it as righteousness.


I have presented the actual meaning of "measure of faith" twice, it refers to our sphere of influence within the body of Christ. It has nothing to do with Irresistible Grace. For our verse, it does not matter which faith you accept, only existent people have faith in the truth. Therefore God's choice of us for salvation is through faith in the truth, or more clearly through God crediting our faith in the truth as righteousness.

Define it as you desire, but, because of Paul’s statement in Ephesians which clearly uses “pro” (before) and hemas (us), Paul would dispute the meaning you would attach to 2 Thessalonians.

Yes God chose us in Him.
Now Paul was speaking to existent individually chosen people who had be placed, set apart, in Christ. And one of the blessings of being "in Christ" is that we were chosen corporately when God chose Christ before the foundation of the world. Therefore there is no dispute, no conflict when both verses and many others are viewed in this light.

The time-line Peter shows is: election by God, then sanctification (re-title), and then obedience and purification. The word “through” is “en” in this verse signifying that the sanctification is not a process or movement, but a static position.

To be chosen by the sanctifying work of the spirit puts being chosen and being set apart together on the time-line. Sanctification means set apart for God, not re-titled. Again, "en" is being used to show the actor of the action, not static location. That is why it is translated through or by.

However, I perceived that you were still using the term “set apart” to indicate movement and motion.

Yes, we are on the same wave-length now. Not in agreement but at least you know my position.

Just to make sure your view and mine of the Trinity is in agreement. I hold the Baptist Confession of Faith 1689 (with slight revisions by Spurgeon) as the view of the Holy Spirit proceeding from both the Father and the Son.

As I posted before my view is One God in three persons, Father, Son and Holy Spirit. And yes all three persons operate in accord with the other two. Thus the Holy Spirit's actions are in accord with the Father and the Son. But this whole discussion is off topic. Lets stick with 2 Thessalonians 2:13 and the meaning of election, sanctification and from the beginning.

There is only one election, one sanctification and one salvation. It did not happen before creation and then again later.

Two issues here, please address my position, I said an election occurred before creation, I did not say a sanctification or salvation occurred before creation. Secondly, what is the basis for saying there is only one election. If I assume you mean one individual election for salvation, then we agree. But if you are saying the election in Ephesians 1:4 which has us chosen in Him, is the same as the election of 2 Thessalonians 2:13 which has God chose you for salvation, then we disagree.

 

[DaChaser1]

Yet another strawman. I did not mention "corporate salvation" did I. So lets rewrite it to not be a misrepresentation of what I said. "To hold to your time-line with "corporate election" and "individual election" would also fail to reflect the obvious foreknowledge of God that would be supported using Paul's Ephesians statements.
But that is not the case. 1 Peter 1:1-2 says God's sanctifying work (our individual election) is according to God's foreknowledge. So God had a plan and His plan was to choose individuals by having the Holy Spirit set them apart from or after the beginning.

Forknowledge as used by the Bible though in these verses refer to God being sirectly the cause of the relection, thathe knows them as being saved, in the body, as He dtermined and placed them there by Act of his Will!

First, corporate election means the election of a target group, i.e those that will trust in Christ. Thus when God chose Christ to be His Lamb, His Redeemer, He also in effect chose those His Redeemer would redeem corporately. Thus He chose us in Him. But as 2 Thessalonians 2:13 says, God chose you for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and faith in the truth. In order for us to have faith, whether ours credited by God or faith given by God, we must be chosen during our lifetime.

again, the chosen here refers to God doing that act, as ALL of salvations springs from the fact that God Himself has dtermined to elect and chose us in Christ!

Strawman yet again, Christ died to be the propitiation of the whole world, He laid down His life for all. Again lets stick with individual election during our lifetime, the truth spoken by 2 Thessalonians 2:13 and we can come back to these other issues like your Limited Atonement.

jesus indeed died for the sins of the whole World, but ONLY is effectual as when applied, and ONLY those elected beforehand out by God will be the ones to chose Christ... 4 pointer here!

I agree, Hebrews 11 clearly teaches that individuals during their lifetime gained approval by faith.

As I said, there is no need to dispute what I have not explained, lets stick to individual election. When we get to Ephesians 1:4, then I will explain my view of that verse.

I disagree, my verse is Romans 4:4-5 which says God accepts our faith when He credits it as righteousness.

God ONLY accepts the faith in that we have been saved by the Cross of Chrsit, and he can credit it to us once we have been elected/redeemed by him! ONLY "credit" for us flows from and as a result of the Cross![.quote]

I have presented the actual meaning of "measure of faith" twice, it refers to our sphere of influence within the body of Christ. It has nothing to do with Irresistible Grace. For our verse, it does not matter which faith you accept, only existent people have faith in the truth. Therefore God's choice of us for salvation is through faith in the truth, or more clearly through God crediting our faith in the truth as righteousness.

faith is NOT what saves us, but the grace of the Cross, when God effextual applies that atonemnt on my behalf... Its the work of God, faith ONLY allows one to appropiate it, NOT causing it!

Yes God chose us in Him.

Now Paul was speaking to existent individually chosen people who had be placed, set apart, in Christ. And one of the blessings of being "in Christ" is that we were chosen corporately when God chose Christ before the foundation of the world. Therefore there is no dispute, no conflict when both verses and many others are viewed in this light.

except that the Apostle paul , by way that he constructed his passages and with greek used, was portraying to us that God himself is the cause of our salvation, that he chose to place us into the body, and that it was something determined from eternity past, act of God, and become actually real in us once Christ is received!

[quoye] You are sounding quite "bartian" here, as it seems
To be chosen by the sanctifying work of the spirit puts being chosen and being set apart together on the time-line. Sanctification means set apart for God, not re-titled. Again, "en" is being used to show the actor of the action, not static location. That is why it is translated through or by.


Yes, we are on the same wave-length now. Not in agreement but at least you know my position.

As I posted before my view is One God in three persons, Father, Son and Holy Spirit. And yes all three persons operate in accord with the other two. Thus the Holy Spirit's actions are in accord with the Father and the Son. But this whole discussion is off topic. Lets stick with 2 Thessalonians 2:13 and the meaning of election, sanctification and from the beginning.

Two issues here, please address my position, I said an election occurred before creation, I did not say a sanctification or salvation occurred before creation. Secondly, what is the basis for saying there is only one election. If I assume you mean one individual election for salvation, then we agree. But if you are saying the election in Ephesians 1:4 which has us chosen in Him, is the same as the election of 2 Thessalonians 2:13 which has God chose you for salvation, then we disagree.

the Father elected us based upon His own "free Will" act, the Son died in atonment for those elected by the Father, and the HS brings them elected and atoned for to life in Messiah!

 

[Van]

Hi DaChaser1, I had difficulty following your post because the "Quote" function was not used in a consistent way. Perhaps you could go back and edit it so my statements appear in quotes and your statements appear after the quote. Thanks.

You need to look at Romans 5:2 where our faith provides our access to the grace in which we stand. Your assertion that faith is given after we are saved by grace is un-scriptural. Note also Ephesians 2:8-9, where we are saved by grace through (dia) faith. Thus faith comes before the grace of salvation.

 

[DaChaser1]

Hi DaChaser1, I had difficulty following your post because the "Quote" function was not used in a consistent way. Perhaps you could go back and edit it so my statements appear in quotes and your statements appear after the quote. Thanks.

You need to look at Romans 5:2 where our faith provides our access to the grace in which we stand. Your assertion that faith is given after we are saved by grace is un-scriptural. Note also Ephesians 2:8-9, where we are saved by grace through (dia) faith. Thus faith comes before the grace of salvation.

Actually...

our faith itself is a gift from God towards us, as he applies/grants it to us BECAUSE of the fact that he has determined to elect us in Christ!

faith is a result of election, NOT the cause of it!

 

[agedman]

Reply to Van - part one of two

In an attempt to shorten the book length responses we are giving, I hope I have combined and deleted some of the replies appropriately.

Van, you are not being consistent in your statements.

You move toward the truth and then reverse yourself to return to untruth.

Look at the first statement.

As I stated before "en" is not being used to indicate movement as through (dia) might be used.

You state “en” is "not being used to indicate movement," but then you try to show through multiple responses that there is movement.

Consistently holding to the non- movement statement and showing examples of the application should be credited to whom? Not you.

Here are some of the responses from you.

But it is being used to indicate the person performing the action or movement. Set apart is the movement and the person doing it is the Holy Spirit. This is not using "en" to indicate motion.

Yes, set apart does indicate motion, to be moved from among others and to be placed apart from the others.

I disagree, it is totally applicable, and consistent with the word meaning of "en" (attributing the action to an actor) and the meaning of sanctification is to be set apart for God. Thus the meaning is the Holy Spirit sets us apart for God.

I disagree, the evidence is we are chosen by being set apart. The verb is Chose and the act of choosing is carried out by the Spirit. That is actually what 2 Thessalonians 2:13 says.

To restate, there is no movement involved. Here is an illustration using through and by.

Fred is through with his work. The work by Fred is done.

Both statements demonstrated completed work. Sanctification using “en” is a completed work not a process indicating movement.

Sanctification is accomplished not by movement such as a pawn on a chess board, but by declaration of God. God declares a person or item is sanctified, and the state of being has changed for that person or item.

Now, look at election.

You are viewing election as occurring as a result of the process of sanctification taking place.

Election and sanctification are two separate yet inseparable decisions of God. God elects (chooses) and then sanctifies (re-titles). Unless there is the election (decision of whom to chose), sanctification cannot happen.

Here is an illustration.

Do you own a vehicle?

Did you choose the vehicle from among any number available?

Assuming the vehicle has doors, windows, motor, tires, is road worthy, what separates that vehicle from all others in the world?

Was it separated before or as a result of when you choose it?

Was it separated when you drove it off the car lot in a test drive?

Or was it separated from the rest of the world’s vehicles when it was re-titled in your name?

Sanctification is establishing ownership. God declares, “That is mine.”

Here you seem to be redefining the meaning of being set apart. When a person is set apart they are saints, but they had to be transferred from among mankind to a separate spiritual condition.

This is all baloney, based on the clever stories of men with no support from scripture. What the Bible says is when God declares something will happen in the future, then He causes it to happen, He brings in about.

The Bible means nothing if you alter what it says with what you think God could do. God could put invisible pink elephants in orbit around Mars. The Bible says God puts everything in heaven that is in heaven. But for me to claim God did this because God could have done it, but without any verse, contextually considered that says He did is unsound.

Try this. I write "I ate an apple." You explain it to another, Van thought He would eat an apple and therefore He did not eat the apple, but He ate an imaginary able in His mind, and then two months later He picked up an apple - which Van had actually chosen to do months before, and set it apart because He had mentally set it apart months before... and so on. Not what I wrote. A pure fiction.

To some, the parting of the red sea and flood of Noah's time are pure fiction.

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. You seem to refuse to acknowledge that foreknowledge, election and sanctification of the yet non-conceived is nothing neither new nor inconsistent with the character and nature of God.

Your example above is faulty because you are not God.

You can only look at the past and present and assume the future may follow some pattern just as some weather forecaster.

But God has attributes and qualities that far exceed ours. He has always foreknown. There are no surprises, nothing is hidden, and only He is all powerful.

 

[agedman]

Reply to Van - part two of two

Yes we have two separate periods in view, Ephesians 1:4, before the foundation of the world, and two, from the beginning. You are claiming the beginning refers to creation, and I am claiming the beginning refers to the beginning of the New Covenant in His Blood. But setting that aside, "pro" means before and "apo" means out from. In order to move out from, the thing exited must exist. So we are talking about two separate elections or choices by God.

Ephesians and 2 Thessalonians present the same principle of election that the believer(s) are chosen in Him, before the foundation of the world. At least we agree in part.

Paul wrote the Thessaloniki believers while he was in Corinth. It is considered the earliest of the letters. Possibly 10 or more years passed between those letters and the Ephesians letters.

Therefore, the letter to Ephesus is not only a restatement of election as presented in the Thessaloniki letter, but reinforces by restatement the original Thessaloniki statement.

About this “exit must exist” statement, can you think of one Old Testament character that before they existed was already consider “set apart” by God? I can - more than one.

If you can, then you have falsified your “exit must exist” thinking. If you need help, look back at the list I previously posted.

If you can't, you are not in agreement with Scriptures.

First, corporate election means the election of a target group, i.e those that will trust in Christ. Thus when God chose Christ to be His Lamb, His Redeemer, He also in effect chose those His Redeemer would redeem corporately. Thus He chose us in Him. But as 2 Thessalonians 2:13 says, God chose you for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and faith in the truth. In order for us to have faith, whether ours credited by God or faith given by God, we must be chosen during our lifetime.

Do you hold to the view of “corporate” election/redemption… is an attempt by folks who take God dealing with Israel and pre-Noah generations as corporate rather than individuals?

Do you agree that using God’s dealing with Israel and pre-Noah generations and applying it to the NT believer that the view attempts to reconcile what it considers inconsistency in doctrine.

I agree, Hebrews 11 clearly teaches that individuals during their lifetime gained approval by faith.

I disagree, my verse is Romans 4:4-5 which says God accepts our faith when He credits it as righteousness.

Paul is declaring that Abraham did not use works as righteousness, but righteousness imparted unto him. Most believers refer to their faith as “my faith” because it was given to them as part of the unmerited favor of God. However, the Scriptures specifically state where “saving faith” (to use an old Baptist term) is derived, then it follows that the faith of Abraham was the faith that God implants and not merely Abraham’s fleshly ability.

I have presented the actual meaning of "measure of faith" twice, it refers to our sphere of influence within the body of Christ. It has nothing to do with Irresistible Grace. For our verse, it does not matter which faith you accept, only existent people have faith in the truth. Therefore God's choice of us for salvation is through faith in the truth, or more clearly through God crediting our faith in the truth as righteousness.

Certainly, there is application as to the type of ministry one might perform as a result of the faith God has implanted, but there is no “man’s faith” as equal or acceptable as “God’s faith.” The natural man may have a “hope so”, a self generating false (artificial) emotionalism, and, in the same condition, the natural man may display earthy sorrow, but it only results in death. God’s faith is placed (measured) to each believer according to the purpose and specifically to the plan of God.

If a person hears the gospel, there may be persuasion, greed, peer pressure or a number of elements pressing upon the person to believe. But, as has been testified and witnessed in a number of later conversions, there was no “saving faith” at the time the first decision was made.

In comparison, God’s faith, implanted into a person, recognizes the gospel and in agreement with the gospel brings the person to “Godly sorrow (that) works repentance to salvation.”

Yes God chose us in Him.
Now Paul was speaking to existent individually chosen people who had be placed, set apart, in Christ. And one of the blessings of being "in Christ" is that we were chosen corporately when God chose Christ before the foundation of the world. Therefore there is no dispute, no conflict when both verses and many others are viewed in this light.

The problem with your view is that if “we were chosen corporately” before the foundations of the world, then there is no foreknowing work of God to individuals.

This view must by application place limits to the foreknowledge and sovereignty of God. Limits that cannot be supported Scripturally as shown in previous posts listing by name the individual parents given specific information before the conception of the child.

To be chosen by the sanctifying work of the spirit puts being chosen and being set apart together on the time-line. Sanctification means set apart for God, not re-titled. Again, "en" is being used to show the actor of the action, not static location. That is why it is translated through or by.

Two issues here, please address my position, I said an election occurred before creation, I did not say a sanctification or salvation occurred before creation. Secondly, what is the basis for saying there is only one election. If I assume you mean one individual election for salvation, then we agree. But if you are saying the election in Ephesians 1:4 which has us chosen in Him, is the same as the election of 2 Thessalonians 2:13 which has God chose you for salvation, then we disagree.

Van,

Do you not see the inconsistency of your statements?

You state election (being chosen) and sanctification are "on the same timeline" and in other earlier posts actually state that sanctification must proceed the choosing (election). Then in some posts state that God can choose (elect) before the foundations, but the sanctification must be after birth...

You further the confusion by attempting to hold "en" as unmoved, and then stating it means movement.

Finally, you determine by some scheme that Ephesians is not a valid restatement in support of Thessalonians.

 

[DaChaser1]

Ephesians and 2 Thessalonians present the same principle of election that the believer(s) are chosen in Him, before the foundation of the world. At least we agree in part.

Paul wrote the Thessaloniki believers while he was in Corinth. It is considered the earliest of the letters. Possibly 10 or more years passed between those letters and the Ephesians letters.

Therefore, the letter to Ephesus is not only a restatement of election as presented in the Thessaloniki letter, but reinforces by restatement the original Thessaloniki statement.

About this “exit must exist” statement, can you think of one Old Testament character that before they existed was already consider “set apart” by God? I can - more than one.

If you can, then you have falsified your “exit must exist” thinking. If you need help, look back at the list I previously posted.

If you can't, you are not in agreement with Scriptures.



Do you hold to the view of “corporate” election/redemption… is an attempt by folks who take God dealing with Israel and pre-Noah generations as corporate rather than individuals?

Do you agree that using God’s dealing with Israel and pre-Noah generations and applying it to the NT believer that the view attempts to reconcile what it considers inconsistency in doctrine.





Paul is declaring that Abraham did not use works as righteousness, but righteousness imparted unto him. Most believers refer to their faith as “my faith” because it was given to them as part of the unmerited favor of God. However, the Scriptures specifically state where “saving faith” (to use an old Baptist term) is derived, then it follows that the faith of Abraham was the faith that God implants and not merely Abraham’s fleshly ability.




Certainly, there is application as to the type of ministry one might perform as a result of the faith God has implanted, but there is no “man’s faith” as equal or acceptable as “God’s faith.” The natural man may have a “hope so”, a self generating false (artificial) emotionalism, and, in the same condition, the natural man may display earthy sorrow, but it only results in death. God’s faith is placed (measured) to each believer according to the purpose and specifically to the plan of God.

If a person hears the gospel, there may be persuasion, greed, peer pressure or a number of elements pressing upon the person to believe. But, as has been testified and witnessed in a number of later conversions, there was no “saving faith” at the time the first decision was made.

In comparison, God’s faith, implanted into a person, recognizes the gospel and in agreement with the gospel brings the person to “Godly sorrow (that) works repentance to salvation.”





The problem with your view is that if “we were chosen corporately” before the foundations of the world, then there is no foreknowing work of God to individuals.

This view must by application place limits to the foreknowledge and sovereignty of God. Limits that cannot be supported Scripturally as shown in previous posts listing by name the individual parents given specific information before the conception of the child.





Van,

Do you not see the inconsistency of your statements?

You state election (being chosen) and sanctification are "on the same timeline" and in other earlier posts actually state that sanctification must proceed the choosing (election). Then in some posts state that God can choose (elect) before the foundations, but the sanctification must be after birth...

You further the confusion by attempting to hold "en" as unmoved, and then stating it means movement.

Finally, you determine by some scheme that Ephesians is not a valid restatement in support of Thessalonians.

is this view of election same as was in the book 'Elect in the Son" by believe Robert Shanks?

his takeon this was that God used corporate election, as in the fact that he chose the plan of the Church and jesus to be elected, and that our faith response places us into that election...

So the predestined plan of God to have the Church as Body of christ was elected, and the Plan tpo predestinate us once in the Church to image of Christ also elect, but up to our free will reponse in orderto get into that election process!

 

[jbh28]

Hi DaChaser1, I had difficulty following your post because the "Quote" function was not used in a consistent way. Perhaps you could go back and edit it so my statements appear in quotes and your statements appear after the quote. Thanks.

:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup: