John Calvin’s errant views

[Van]

Reply to E,W & F,

Van, I hope you know that Calvins exist is not that critical to a Calvinist....he was a man like you & I and while I consider him a genius in putting together Systematic Theology, I don't believe anyone pontificates to him or agree with him completely, if we did we wouldn't be Baptists. I would venture to say that there are many Calvinists walking around that have not even studied Institutes. Instead of making Calvin the issue Id prefer to concentrate on Christ & worshiping Him alone.

Yes, I do know that Calvinism actually does not agree with John Calvin of some points. What this thread attempts to do, is demonstrate where John Calvin took scripture too far and came up with erroneous views.

I am not sure whether you meant Calvin's existence, or Calvin's exegesis, but either way, I agree, their beliefs are rooted in later works such as the Westminster Confession.

Yes, I believe most Baptists belief in some form of once saved, always saved, and most believe Christ died for all mankind.

You are right, John Calvin is not the issue, nor are the doctrines represented by the TULI, what is at issue is coming to a unified understanding the gospel of Christ and engaging in a more effective ministry for Christ.

 

[Havensdad]

Havensdad,

You can read my profile and see if you can answer your own off topic effort to attack my qualifications.

You do not know what kind of church it is and whether it is affiliated with any Baptist organization. One thing is for certain, my views are mine, and do not reflect the views of those that serve there in Christ's ministry.

What kind of charge against you do I need make, your posts speak for themselves.

What is wrong with you? No one has attacked you. You come on here and belittle and talk down to people, and then act like a whipped puppy (Poor me!)?

You need a reality check. YOU are the one attacking and being rude (even off topic in your own thread!).

 

[Havensdad]

2 Thessalonians 2:13 says what it says and not what the Calvinist rewrite says. 9

2Th 2:13 But we ought always to give thanks to God for you, brothers beloved by the Lord, because God chose you as the firstfruits to be saved, through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth.

Thats pretty clear. God chose them, they did not choose God. Note the "through"...God chose them THROUGH belief (faith), not BECAUSE of faith. God chose them, and then used faith as His instrument.

John Calvin's errant views have been exposed, and not too much has been put forth to defend his views.

Um, actually as has been shown, you have not posted anything by Calvin. When you do, we might respond to it.

My love of Christ and His ministry drives me.

Could have fooled me.

 

[Jarthur001]

Van,

It does not take a lot to wonder why Calvinist have not replied to your statements proper.

Lets look at your words and place what Calvin said beside them.

YOU..Not everyone hears the gospel. (True.)
Calvin..The covenant of life is not preached equally to all


YOU..Not everyone responds in the same way to the gospel. (True) Calvin......and among those to whom it is preached, does not always meet with the same reception

Now look at what you disagreed with..

YOU..The apparent injustice is acceptable because God’s election for His purpose aligns the seeming injustice with justice.

Now I knew as soon as I read this line that Calvin didn't say this. Calvin does not see election as unjust.
​

Calvin....This diversity displays the unsearchable depth of the divine judgment, and is without doubt subordinate to God’s purpose of eternal election.

See how much you changed the words??

That is not even close.

Shame on you

Please ask forgiveness for misleading others.

 

[Jerome]

Shame on who?

Mr. I-KNOW-CALVIN-AND-CALVIN-WOULD-NEVER-SPEAK-OF-APPARENT-INJUSTICE!, perhaps you missed this on the the CCEL website:

It is indeed, as the flesh imagines, a kind of injustice, that God should pass by one and show regard to another.

In order to remove this difficulty, Paul divides his subject into two parts; in the, former of which he speaks of the elect, and in the latter of the reprobate; and in the one he would have us to contemplate the mercy of God, and in the other to acknowledge his righteous judgment. His first reply is, that the thought that there is injustice with God deserves to be abhorred, and then he shows that with regard to the two parties, there can be none.

But before we proceed further, we may observe that this very objection clearly proves, that inasmuch as God elects some and passes by others, the cause is not to be found in anything else but in his own purpose

John Calvin Romans Commentary

 

[Van]

Thanks Jerome.

 

[pinoybaptist]

In book three, chapters 21, 22 and 24 of John Calvin’s “Institutes of Christian Religion” Calvin presents doctrine now known as Calvinism. It is underwhelming rather than compelling. But lets go through it, point by point and see what we shall see. The words in italics are partial quotes and paraphrases from his writings.

Not everyone hears the gospel. (True.) Not everyone responds in the same way to the gospel. (True) The apparent injustice is acceptable because God’s election for His purpose aligns the seeming injustice with justice. (False premise. The actual premise from scripture is that everyone deserves destruction, and so granting mercy to some does not undercut the justice encountered by all others.)

Election is a puzzling subject because it is hard to understand why some people are predestined to destruction and others mercy. (False premise, individual election before creation is the fundamental error of the doctrine.) God not giving grace to all, but only to some illustrates God’s grace. (Gibberish. Grace is not grace if based on works but God granting salvation by grace through faith rather than by works illustrates the unmerited favor of grace.) Not understanding this prevents true humility. (Ad hominem of no merit.)

Paul teaches that grace can only be understood if works are set aside, and it is recognized that grace is given only to predestined and foreseen individuals. (False premise, grace can be understood as God granting mercy to those who deserve justice. Also, in His sovereignty He chose to grant grace to those who call upon the name of the Lord because He is opposed to the proud (Habakkuk 2:4). What is not right within Calvinism, is arrogantly replacing “saved by grace through faith” with “saved by election through irresistible grace.”)

Calvin next begins his assertion concerning eternal security. To make us invulnerable to the discouragement of life and its hardships, God promises safety to all He has taken into his care. (True) Therefore those that argue against eternal security do a disservice to salvation. (False premise. All those that stay in God’s kindness, in their faith in God and His Christ, can be confident of their security in Christ. God wants us to live in fear of Him, but in fear of nothing else.) Security lies in the lap of predestination. (False premise. Security lies not in knowing that whoever is saved is predestined to eternal life, but in having confidence we are saved -wheat not tares - based on unwavering faith as protected by God Almighty, made stronger by acts worthy of repentance.)

Calvin closes part one of Chapter 21 with an appeal to stick with the truths revealed in the word, and not invent answers to mysteries, but rather accept and worship Him cloaked in part in mystery. (True)

Calvin opens part two with the statement that our first aim must be to know only the doctrine of predestination as set out in scripture. (True) Calvin closes part two with the statement we should rightly be alarmed about presumption, which could plunge us into ruin. (Amen.)

In part 7 of Chapter 21, Calvin asserts that whom God dooms to destruction are shut off from eternal life, by God’s perfect but incomprehensible judgment. (False. God’s Word explains that all deserve destruction, we are doomed from conception because of Adam, and we also appoint ourselves to destruction by our deeds including, if given the opportunity, when we reject Christ. Those that never had an opportunity of accept the gospel will receive perfect justice, being judged based on the Law written on their heart (Romans 1:20; 2:12-16).

In Chapter 22, Calvin continues his argument as follows: “People” imagine that God makes election according to merit, from foreknowledge he grants adoption as sons to the worthy, and condemns evil-doers. (False premise if applied to all people. Some people study God’s Word and conclude that God makes election based crediting our worthless faith as righteousness never merit.)

Next, his argument, as least as I understand the translation, drifts toward incoherency. Calvin rightly points out that the truth of God is clear and cannot be shaken by human authorities. But then he says that his “experience” proves his assertion that God makes His election unconditionally (False and incoherent. God does as He pleases, but if He pleases to grant salvation to whoever believes in His Son, He can do it without a blindfold.)

Calvin reveals the human logic that drove his doctrine as follows: If election precedes justification, (which it does) what does God see in our depraved dirty rags to persuade Him to elect us? (He sees through all our worthless works and finds in our depraved heart: belief, faith, love and commitment to Christ Jesus, our Lord and our God. He chooses us while we are yet sinners.) The underlying false premise of his doctrine is individual pre-selection for salvation; this drives everything else.

At the close of Chapter 22, Calvin seeks to support unconditional individual pre-selection by extrapolating the selection by Jesus of His apostles whom had been given Him by the Father. This is also a false premise. God does select individuals, in order to further his purpose and plan. He hardens hearts and causes calamities and otherwise supernaturally alters the natural course of events to bring His predestined plan to fruition. But, since His plan included choosing believers based on granting grace through faith, extrapolation of God’s choices not conditioned on faith, runs counter to the evidence presented in His Word. Scripture can and does support both corporate selection of the kind of people – believers - and individual selection. God did not choose Abraham for unknown reasons; but scripture says He found him a man of faith. Many times, God appears to include His evaluation of the human heart in His selections. When God chose Christ, Christ existed as the Word (John 1:1) Therefore, when God chose us in Him before the foundation of the world He chose us corporately -believers in Christ as the target group of His redemption plan, and then subsequently during our lifetime He chose us individually by putting us in Christ, choosing people whose faith He credited as righteousness, according to His redemption plan.

In Chapter 24, Calvin makes many solid points without muddling his exposition of God’s Word with false premises. He points out that hearing the gospel and responding sincerely are strong evidences of election. Faith and communion with Christ also should give us confidence. And if we have confidence, based on our past persistent faith, we should have confidence in our future security, for nothing can pluck us out of His hand. He correctly addresses the issue of those who sincerely thought they had responded to the call of the gospel, but subsequently went out from us because they never were of us. Salvation comes when God chooses us, not when we think we have chosen God.

In summary, the false premise of unconditional election of individuals before creation, rather than accepting the view of God’s corporate election of His target group - believers in Christ – before creation, followed by our individual election based on God choosing us through faith in the truth, is what drove Calvin into error.

I suppose YOUR views are inerrant, which gives you the privilege to attack Calvin's the majority of whose views have been agreed on by millions down through the centuries.

Kinda like reminds me of my seminary president, and pastor of the Baptist church I used to attend back in my old country. He says that Scoffield's commentaries in his Scoffield Bible were erroneous. Well, I do not agree at all with Scoffield in many of his commentaries myself, but I will not announce to one in all in a most assured manner as he (and you) did that somebody whose Bible edition along with its commentaries and doctrines to whom millions down the centuries have agreed is an ignoramus.

Also reminds me of two pastors, one Arminian, one Calvinist (at least when I knew him), in the Philippines, who were having some practical differences and somebody commented to the Calvinist that the Arminian seems to be getting out of line.

The Calvinist replied: Well, I'll listen to what you're suggesting if you can show accomplishments for the Lord on the same level as the dear brother.

Oh, and, yes, the comment in parentheses suggests he moved over to the "both-doctrines-are-in-the-Bible-so-both-are-true-and-correct" camp.....but in my opinion (mine) that's because a foreign church supporting his "ministry" is Arminian. What did Paul say now ?.....the love of money is the root of all evil."

 

[Van]

2Th 2:13 But we ought always to give thanks to God for you, brothers beloved by the Lord, because God chose you as the firstfruits to be saved, through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth.

ROFLOL, the NIV and ESV errant translation of the noun as a verb is actually put forth as scripture. Talk about translation shopping to support doctrine. Notice no mention of NASB, HCSB, NKJV, NET, Darby, KJV, and others. Only liberal translations using dynamic equivalence insert what they thought it meant, rather than what it said.

 

[pinoybaptist]

2Th 2:13 But we ought always to give thanks to God for you, brothers beloved by the Lord, because God chose you as the firstfruits to be saved, through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth.

ROFLOL, the NIV and ESV errant translation of the noun as a verb is actually put forth as scripture. Talk about translation shopping to support doctrine. Notice no mention of NASB, HCSB, NKJV, NET, Darby, KJV, and others. Only liberal translations using dynamic equivalence insert what they thought it meant, rather than what it said.

Here's that Scripture from the KJT:

13 But we are bound to give thanks alway 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:


Now, I much prefer the KJT, since I am not a KJT ONLY fanatic, but I really do not see such a big discrepancy here, except maybe in your befuddled mind ?

And also, "chosen to salvation" and "to be saved" ..... from what ? Eternal fire ? Damnation ? the coming judgment at the Great White Throne ?

Didn't Christ's blood do that ?

But if I may add, you, dear Van, are in need of salvation.....the same gospel salvation that Paul spoke of to the Thessalonians. Salvation in this world from idolatry and paganism and lies (which many of them practiced), through the separation, the calling out, (sanctification) of the Spirit, turning them to truth and to worshipping God in Spirit.

 

[Van]

Hi Pinoybaptist, why slander me?

Did I say or suggest that my views were inerrant, or when an error was pointed out by Iconoclast that I was using John 15:19 out of context, I saw he was right and I was wrong, and edited by post and thanked Iconoclast for helping me get it right. For the record, my views are my own and I do not argue as from authority. Scripture is our only authority - and isn't that a Reformed view?

Did I say John Calvin was an ignoramus? No, I included many of his valuable insights into God's word, but said he had taken scripture too far and made errors.

I have made no personal attacks except to say specific attacks on me were misrepresentations and slanders. In every case, I provided the evidence. As I have done in this post.

"Oh, and, yes, the comment in parentheses suggests he moved over to the "both-doctrines-are-in-the-Bible-so-both-are-true-and-correct" camp.....but in my opinion (mine) that's because a foreign church supporting his "ministry" is Arminian. What did Paul say now ?.....the love of money is the root of all evil." As I have posted, preaching the validity of paradoxes is not helpful to the ministry in my opinion. But that is a long way from saying the motivation is greed, and could not be a misguided desire to adhere to Ephesians 4:1-3.

 

[Winman]

Here's that Scripture from the KJT:

13 But we are bound to give thanks alway 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:


Now, I much prefer the KJT, since I am not a KJT ONLY fanatic, but I really do not see such a big discrepancy here, except maybe in your befuddled mind ?

And also, "chosen to salvation" and "to be saved" ..... from what ? Eternal fire ? Damnation ? the coming judgment at the Great White Throne ?

Didn't Christ's blood do that ?

Look up the word salvation here in any concordance and you will see it is a noun. The prepositional phrases following show ACTION and are therefore adverbial and MUST modify the verb. The verb in this verse is "chosen".
Adverbial clauses never modify a noun. That is why several of the MVs have altered the word salvation (which is a noun in this verse) to interpret it as a verb which Van pointed out. This is altering the word of God.

 

[Van]

The NASB translation does not render it "to salvation" but "for salvation" indicating the purpose of the choice.

And then yet another attempt at subject change, to the Calvinist's view of what Christ accomplished on the cross.

Returning to topic, John Calvin made a big mistake in trying to explain why some accept the gospel and some do not, with his concepts based on mistaken views of scripture.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

I suppose YOUR views are inerrant, which gives you the privilege to attack Calvin's the majority of whose views have been agreed on by millions down through the centuries.

Kinda like reminds me of my seminary president, and pastor of the Baptist church I used to attend back in my old country. He says that Scoffield's commentaries in his Scoffield Bible were erroneous. Well, I do not agree at all with Scoffield in many of his commentaries myself, but I will not announce to one in all in a most assured manner as he (and you) did that somebody whose Bible edition along with its commentaries and doctrines to whom millions down the centuries have agreed is an ignoramus.

Also reminds me of two pastors, one Arminian, one Calvinist (at least when I knew him), in the Philippines, who were having some practical differences and somebody commented to the Calvinist that the Arminian seems to be getting out of line.

The Calvinist replied: Well, I'll listen to what you're suggesting if you can show accomplishments for the Lord on the same level as the dear brother.

Oh, and, yes, the comment in parentheses suggests he moved over to the "both-doctrines-are-in-the-Bible-so-both-are-true-and-correct" camp.....but in my opinion (mine) that's because a foreign church supporting his "ministry" is Arminian. What did Paul say now ?.....the love of money is the root of all evil."

Amen my Brother Amen:applause:

 

[Jarthur001]

Shame on who?

Mr. I-KNOW-CALVIN-AND-CALVIN-WOULD-NEVER-SPEAK-OF-APPARENT-INJUSTICE!, perhaps you missed this on the the CCEL website:



John Calvin Romans Commentary

Jerome, Van,

When you misquote someone please allow a few pages to go by before you do. Its not a good idea to make it your next post.

You said...
Mr. I-KNOW-CALVIN-AND-CALVIN-WOULD-NEVER-SPEAK-OF-APPARENT-INJUSTICE

I said...

1...Now I knew as soon as I read this line that Calvin didn't say this.
2...Calvin does not see election as unjust.

1st I want to thank you for calling me "Mr", although I have a feeling it is facetious, still it is a step up in our relationship. Thanks again Mr Jerome.

2nd, I know Calvin would not say what he was quoted as saying. This I stand with. (not what you said I said)

Now you have posted something that you feel has overturned my logic. But why this is so, is not clear as of now, but it is my feeling you have not.

So lets look at the facts.

Calvin was indeed misquoted by VAN. There is no getting around this.

********

So how do I account for the quotes you give from Romans 9.

It's helpful to understand what an argument is and is not. An argument can be broken down into three major components: premises, inferences and a conclusion. Here Calvin has set a premise. Notice the few text for understanding and especially take note of how Calvin speaks of the counterintuitiveness in the human mind toward election.....

Is there unrighteousness with God? Monstrous surely is the madness of the human mind, that it is more disposed to charge God with unrighteousness than to blame itself for blindness. Paul indeed had no wish to go out of his way to find out things by which he might confound his readers; but he took up as it were from what was common the wicked suggestion, which immediately enters the minds of many, when they hear that God determines respecting every individual according to his own will.

NOW COMES YOUR QUOTE....

It is indeed, as the flesh imagines, a kind of injustice, that God should pass by one and show regard to another.

Please take not of....AS THE FLESH IMAGAINES.....this is the counterintuitiveness that I was speaking of. Calvin is setting the premise for the rejecting of election, but has stated just before this is "Monstrous surely is the madness of the human mind,".


He then moves toinferences of Scripture.

In order to remove this difficulty, Paul divides his subject into two parts; in the, former of which he speaks of the elect, and in the latter of the reprobate; and in the one he would have us to contemplate the mercy of God, and in the other to acknowledge his righteous judgment. His first reply is, that the thought that there is injustice with God deserves to be abhorred, and then he shows that with regard to the two parties, there can be none.


But before we proceed further, we may observe that this very objection clearly proves, that inasmuch as God elects some and passes by others, the cause is not to be found in anything else but in his own purpose; for if the difference had been based on works,

I do not have the time now to finish this...(CHURCH)....but maybe I will later.

Here is what Calvin says next.

Paul would have to no purpose mentioned this question respecting the unrighteousness of God, no suspicion could have been entertained concerning it if God dealt with every one according to his merit. It may also, in the second place, be noticed, that though he saw that this doctrine could not be touched without exciting instant clamours and dreadful blasphemies, he yet freely and openly brought it forward; nay, he does not conceal how much occasion for murmuring and clamour is given to us, when we hear that before men are born their lot is assigned to each by the secret will of God; and yet, notwithstanding all this, he proceeds, and without any subterfuges, declareswhat he had learned from the Holy Spirit. It hence follows, that their fancies are by no means to be endured, who aim to appear wiser than the Holy Spirit, in removing and pacifying offences.

The end game....

Election is not about being just or unjust. Its about mercy which I plan on showing Calvin teaches.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

I was listening to this sermon again on audio last night as I was exercising.....lots of meat in it for Christians struggling. If you like it I suggest you spend 15 min to read thru the whole thing. For me, it was life changing.

Blessings to all
Steve D.


The Method of Grace
by
George Whitefield
(1714-1770)

Jeremiah 6:14 - "They have healed also the hurt of the daughter of my people slightly,
saying, Peace, peace, when there is no peace."

As God can send a nation or people no greater blessing than to give them faithful, sincere, and upright ministers, so the greatest curse that God can possibly send upon a people in this world, is to give them over to blind, unregenerate, carnal, lukewarm, and unskilled guides. And yet, in all ages, we find that there have been many wolves in sheep's clothing, many that daubed with untempered mortar, that prophesied smoother things than God did allow. As it was formerly, so it is now; there are many that corrupt the Word of God and deal deceitfully with it. It was so in a special manner in the prophet Jeremiah's time; and he, faithful to his Lord, faithful to that God who employed him, did not fail from time to time to open his mouth against them, and to bear a noble testimony to the honor of that God in whose name he from time to time spake. If you will read this prophecy, you will find that none spake more against such ministers than Jeremiah, and here especially in the chapter out of which the text is taken, he speaks very severely against them _ he charges them with several crimes; particularly, he charges them with covetousness: `For,' says he in the 13th verse, `from the least of them even to the greatest of them, every one is given to covetousness; and from the prophet even unto the priest, every one dealeth false.' And then, in the words of the text, in a more special manner, he exemplifies how they had dealt falsely, how they had behaved treacherously to poor souls: says he, `They have healed also the hurt of the daughter of my people slightly, saying, Peace, peace, when there is no peace.' The prophet, in the name of God, had been denouncing war against the people, he had been telling them that their house should be left desolate, and that the Lord would certainly visit the land with war. `Therefore,' says he, in the 11th verse, `I am full of the fury of the Lord; I am weary with holding in; I will pour it out upon the children abroad, and upon the assembly of young men together; for even the husband with the wife shall be taken, the aged with him that is full of days. And their houses shall be turned unto others, with their fields and wives together; for I will stretch out my hand upon the inhabitants of the land, saith the Lord.' The prophet gives a thundering message, that they might be terrified and have some convictions and inclinations to repent; but it seems that the false prophets, the false priests, went about stifling people's convictions, and when they were hurt or a little terrified, they were for daubing over the wound, telling them that Jeremiah was but an enthusiastic preacher, that there could be no such thing as war among them, and saying to people, Peace, peace, be still, when the prophet told them there was no peace. The words, then, refer primarily unto outward things, but I verily believe have also a further reference to the soul, and are to be referred to those false teachers, who, when people were under conviction of sin, when people were beginning to look towards heaven, were for stifling their convictions and telling them they were good enough before. And, indeed, people generally love to have it so; our hearts are exceedingly deceitful, and desperately wicked; none but the eternal God knows how treacherous they are. How many of us cry, Peace, peace, to our souls, when there is no peace! How many are there who are now settled upon their lees, that now think they are Christians, that now flatter themselves that they have an interest in Jesus Christ; whereas if we come to examine their experiences, we shall find that their peace is but a peace of the devil's making _ it is not a peace of God's giving _ it is not a peace that passeth human understanding. It is matter, therefore, of great importance, my dear hearers, to know whether we may speak peace to our hearts.

For the full sermon:

http://www.biblebb.com/files/whitefield/GW058.htm

 

[Havensdad]

Look up the word salvation here in any concordance and you will see it is a noun. The prepositional phrases following show ACTION and are therefore adverbial and MUST modify the verb. The verb in this verse is "chosen".
Adverbial clauses never modify a noun. That is why several of the MVs have altered the word salvation (which is a noun in this verse) to interpret it as a verb which Van pointed out. This is altering the word of God.

Nevertheless, the preposition is showing instrumentality NOT cause. It is not saying "He chose you for salvation BECAUSE of sanctification and faith", but "through" or, "By using" sanctification and faith. Paul never uses "en" to denote cause.

 

[Jarthur001]

Nevertheless, the preposition is showing instrumentality NOT cause. It is not saying "He chose you for salvation BECAUSE of sanctification and faith", but "through" or, "By using" sanctification and faith. Paul never uses "en" to denote cause.

Indeed you are right Havensdad. I translate it ...."through the work of"

 

[Winman]

Nevertheless, the preposition is showing instrumentality NOT cause. It is not saying "He chose you for salvation BECAUSE of sanctification and faith", but "through" or, "By using" sanctification and faith. Paul never uses "en" to denote cause.

It shows HOW we are chosen. Simply break the sentence down and it becomes clear.

If I were to write;

Ye are chosen through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth.

Does that make sense? Is it a complete thought? Yes.

But what if I wrote;

To salvation, through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth.

or

Salvation, through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth.

Does this say something? Can it stand as a complete thought, a proper sentence? No.

Sanctification of the Spirit is God's part in salvation, belief in the truth is man's part.

 

[Robert Snow]

I suppose YOUR views are inerrant, which gives you the privilege to attack Calvin's the majority of whose views have been agreed on by millions down through the centuries.

This tired, old argument means absolutely nothing! Millions, down through the centuries have believed that the Catholic church is the real church. Millions, down through the ages have believed there is no God at all. Millions, down through the ages have believed slavery is an acceptable way to treat others.

Just because you can point to a large number means only that you can point to a large number, nothing else. It has no real value at all.

 

[Havensdad]

It shows HOW we are chosen. Simply break the sentence down and it becomes clear.

If I were to write;

Ye are chosen through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth.

Does that make sense? Is it a complete thought? Yes.

But what if I wrote;

To salvation, through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth.

or

Salvation, through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth.

Does this say something? Can it stand as a complete thought, a proper sentence? No.

Sanctification of the Spirit is God's part in salvation, belief in the truth is man's part.

That is ridiculous. There is just an "and" in between "sanctification" and "belief in the truth'!! Either we are saved "because" we are sanctified (holy) and have faith, or we are chosen and THROUGH faith and sanctification that choosing is carried out (instrumentality). You cannot insert imaginary delineation between two words connected with a direct correlative (Kai).

You said "sanctification of the Spirit" is God's part. Why? There is nothing in the sentence that says BOTH are not "God's part." There is nothing in the text that is saying what you are saying, and all of the grammatical and syntactical evidence says otherwise. Paul is saying HOW God chose THEM, not WHY God chose them, and there is a huge difference there. This is saying that God USED faith, and USED sanctification (as if He chose us because we were "holy"...BLAH!), as the MEANS of completing his choosing, not as the criteria for it...


A person with just a little Greek, is a truly dangerous thing. You can interpret a loophole into anything, if you are not willing to let the text say what it says.