Featured Two Interpretations of 2 Thess. 2:13-14

Not sure you saw this question...

Additionally, why were the Jews uniquely referred to a the 'elect of God' while the Gentiles were not if indeed they believed the Gentiles were elect as well?

 

You do not understand the analogy. I did not know what was wrong with me, it was the doctor that told me I had a brain tumor that would soon kill me, and it was the doctor who assured me he could heal me.

Likewise, it is the Word of God that tells us we are sinners in danger of eternal damnation for our sins, but it also the Word of God that tells us Jesus died for our sins, and if we will trust him he will save us.

No man takes credit when a doctor heals him, all men give credit and honor to the doctor. Likewise, when Jesus saves us we give credit to him. We would not have even known our fatal condition had not the Great Physician examined us and given his prognosis. And it was Jesus the Great Physician who provided our cure. We have only Jesus to thank.

I have never known any person to boast on themselves when a doctor healed them, but perhaps you run around with very proud persons who think very highly of themselves. Perhaps they think they alone are very special and elect.

 

That would be refreshing. :thumbsup:

You don't see how this explains Paul's intent while saying 'I thank God for choosing you?' to a group of Gentiles who are being told they are not of the elect group...and that they would have to become Jews to be elect?

I thought it was pretty clear and I did reference the verse in the analogy. I wasn't attempting to provide an exegesis, but a shift in perspective. I was helping you to see it from OUR perspective...and I believe Paul's perspective. He was speaking to a predominately Gentile congregation as a Jew during a time where people believed the Jews were chosen of God and that Gentiles were like dogs. That perspective is essential to understanding our perspective of this verse. I'm not asking you to agree with it but to understand, acknowledge and maybe restate it in your own words so I know you hear me.

Give me time...one step at a time. I referenced that request... You can start with Adam Clarke commentaries. The list is endless...

Both use scripture, as did I. We are talking about the perspective which starts with HISTORICAL CONTEXT...the first step in good hermeneutics. My analogy was helping you to see the historical context of Paul from a different perspective...apparently it wasn't understood a such.

Then why are you writing your opinion now, shouldn't you be just quoting scripture and leaving it at that? You explain your perspective your way and I do the same my way. I chose an analogy to help explain my perspective which, if you are objective, I think you will understand is viable and maybe even probable.

He also chooses individuals to deliver his messages to these groups, which can add to the interpretive confusion on this issue.

Jonah, for example, was chosen to take the message to Nineveh. But proof that Jonah's will was provoked by normative outward means (storm, big fish) to make him desire to go, is not proof that God uses inward effectual supernatural means (irresistible calling) to make the hearers desire to believe and repent.

 

Your response is again rediculous! You are again perverting the facts. The Jews did not believe there was ANOTHER WAY to be saved but ONE WAY and that was through Judaism. You are again confusing NATIONAL with INDIVIDUAL election to salvation. Rahab the harlot, Ruth, Ninevites, Jesus asserting that they compass land and sea to make one PROSELYTE, the court of the gentiles, the court of the women all give testimony that the Jews beleived in INDIVIDUAL choice by God of gentiles unto salvation. They did not believe in TWO DIFFENENT ways of salvation but ONE way - through Judaistic legalism. The Issue of Gentiles was no more than the issue of woman as second class citizens IN God's kingdom rather than ANOTHER kind of salvation for entrance into God's kingdom.

Peter knew first hand that God personally chose Corneilus to salvation but yet that whole JEWISH CHRISTIAN generation could not get over their own ethnic bias and so Peter, James and John chose to restrict their ministry to the circumcision (Gal. 2:9) while confirming God had called Paul as an apostle to the Gentiles. However, neither side denied that the only NATIONAL election by God was of Israel. No one believed God chose any other NATION other than Israel. Both acknowleged INDIVIDUAL election by God to salvation of both Jews and Gentiles.

Your whole soteriology is based upon HUMANISTIC PHILOSOPHICAL rationalizations that repudiate the Biblical context.

The soteriology of Paul was recognized by Peter to be DIFFICULT for many to receive and yet that is not true of Armininianism as that is the most natural and easiest view for FALLEN man to receive.

Paul anticipated objections to his teaching of election in Romans 9 that characterize the very essence of Arminianism's response to Calvinism.

Your responses to John 6 have no objective Biblical basis but are pure speculative and based wholly upon humanistic philosophical rationalism. This is why you, Van and Winmans rely primarily upon non-Biblical illustrations to and humanistic rationalism to defend your positions.

 

Your very rationale betrays a biased view of the Thessalonica congregation. Paul ALWAYS went to the Jews first and then to the Gentiles and the same is true in Thessalonica. Your approach the text as though no Jewish believers were members of this congregation and as though Paul is first separating the Gentile aspect from the Jewish aspect of the congregation when addressing the congregation in 2 Thes. 2:13. That is pure unwarranted imagination on your part. Inclusion of the gentile membership is certain but specialization of this text to merely the Gentile membership is simply imaginary on your part and that is precisely the heart of your approach and rationale behind your intepretative argument.

If you had any historical basis for your argument that would be a proper perspective to begin with but you don't! You are simply manufacturing out of pure imagination what is not there in history. The Judiaizers did not believe in TWO ways of INDIVIDUAL salvation, one for the Jewish believer and another way for the Gentile believer as your argument demands but only ONE WAY for both equally - through the law of Moses. The issue was NEVER about INDIVIDUAL election to salvation but the MANNER of salvation for both as INDIVIDUALS. The issue was how Gentiles and WOMEN were to be treated IN the kingdom not how they enter the kingdom. You are simply manufacturing pure fantasy to escape the obvious and clear teaching of 2 Thes. 2:13 that God chooses individuals TO salvation THROUGH chosen means regardless of ethnicity, gender or class and from the beginning of the world and thus BEFORE they were born and therefore election is not something AFTER salvation but TO salvation.

Both your historical perspective and analogy are totally non-Biblical and the product of pure humanistic rationalization to explain away the Scripture not to explain it.

The context is not about WHO God chooses to DELIVER the gospel to individuals but when and how God chooses individuals TO salvation. You do not have one objective bone in your body as you are completely given over to the spirit of error and it is obvious because one perversion only leads to another perversion.

Quite the reverse! The fact that God must work IN BELIEVERS to both will and to do His will (Philip. 2:13) at least equallly argues for, if not much more so argues for the same in unbelievers. Your position is really irrational in this regard. The fact that Christ asserts a UNIVERSAL NEGATIVE in regard to human ABILITY to come to Christ totally repudiates your whole system of soteriology - "NO MAN CAN COME TO ME" - Jn. 6:44. You repudiate these words of Christ by doing the very same thing you have imagined about the Jews - you deny the UNIVERSAL statement and turn it into a restricted ETHNIC statement "NO PRESENT DAY JEWS can come to me." You talk about pure bias and mangling the Word of God - that takes the cake. However, that is what your purely imaginary humanistic philosophical mindset is forced to do.

 

To be more precise, I should have said, "The context is not about WHO God chooses to DELIVER the gospel to individuals but WHEN God chooses Individuals TO salvation and WHAT God uses after they are born to bring them to predetermined salvation."

Skandlon completely perverts the text and attempts to infer that the text may be speaking about the choice of the person who delivers the gospel message rather than God's choice of individuals TO salvation through chosen means (sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth). Romans 10:14-16 would fit Skandlon's idea but not 2 Thessalonians 2:13 or Ephesians 1:4-13. This is a demonish attempt to pervert the truth of this scripture.

Romans 8:28-32 proves that personal election from the beginning is based upon God's purpose (Rom. 8:28) of PERSONAL REDEMPTION (to whom.....them...the elect) and is effectual to the conclusion ("glorified").

 

This is like the umpteenth time the Biblicist has spelled this wrong. Its ridiculous. Please take note for future reference.

Back to the discussion.

 

This post shows the complete level of ignorance or intellectual dishonesty of the hyper Calvinist.

 

Yeah, some habits are hard to break. I have the same problem pronouncing "specific" as I usually say "pacific." I know how to spell ridiculous and pronounce "specific" but some habits are hard to break. Thanks for the correction.

 

No, he is being technically very accurate. In many of these areas it is all a matter of cause and effects and the Arminian reverses cause and effects in some of these instances. They believe the new heart is the effect rather than the cause of faith. They believe they are not spiritually "dead" but are spiritually able to come to Christ in faith with a little help. Hence, they believe they already have eyes capable of seeing, ears capable of hearing but it is just a matter of getting a little help from the Holy Spirit to be willing to see and hear.

Many in this debate on the Arminian side deny total depravity altogether and deny original sin but have humans coming into this world perfectly capable hearing, seeing and obeying in a spiritual sense.

 

No, his post shows the complete level of ignorance or intellectual dishonesty of the hyper Calvinist.

 

That's incorrect. As has been pointed out many times, we have consistently supported a HIGHER, not lower, view of God's Sovereignty than our Calvinistic brethren, and I think AW Tozer explains exactly why that is:

"God sovereignly decreed that man should be free to exercise moral choice, and man from the beginning has fulfilled that decree by making his choice between good and evil. When he chooses to do evil, he does not thereby countervail the sovereign will of God but fulfills it, inasmuch as the eternal decree decided not which choice the man should make but that he should be free to make it. If in His absolute freedom God has willed to give man limited freedom, who is there to stay His hand or say, 'What doest thou?' Man’s will is free because God is sovereign. A God less than sovereign could not bestow moral freedom upon His creatures. He would be afraid to do so." - A.W. Tozer, The Knowledge of the Holy: The Attributes of God

 

Why would you think I would disagree with this statement? Your entire rebuttal of my post rests upon this erroneous concept that I think Jews believed there was another way to be saved??? When did I ever suggest that. I've said that the Jews of that day were insisting that the Gentiles were NOT the elect of God, but only they were. Thus, for the Gentiles to be saved they would have to become a Jew...i.e. follow the law. Paul was fighting this issue in almost every letter he wrote to the predominately Gentile congregations that he, the 'apostle to the Gentiles,' had started.

For someone to address a predominately non-Jewish congregation by calling them the elect of God was unheard of in those days, yet you all want to make it your proof text for Calvinism's view of individual election. Clearly that is a unfounded and unbiblical conclusion with no contextual merit whatsoever.

Have you all ever wondered why the issue of Calvinism/Arminianism never took root in Eastern Christianity? Does it strike you as peculiar that this is a uniquely Western issue? Considering that Westerners tend to think individualistically (its all about me, I, my) this shouldn't surprise us. But go talk to Christian scholars who grew up in a more family, clan, village, tribal type of culture and you won't find this debate at all. In fact, they laugh at this debate because it is so preposterous in their minds to think the way both Arminian and Calvinists think.

Notice I included Arminians, because in this regard I'm not one. I don't hyper-individualize the text like both Western groups tend to do. The Corporate view of election doesn't take either approach in this regard and our view doesn't create the dilemmas these systems have manufactured.

 

I'm sure he would feel likewise about you, which is typically a sign of a question begging fallacy, which is one of the lowest forms of debate. I do wish we could strive for better discussions.

 

No rage whatsoever...and blowing over straw huts is better left to the Big Bad Wolf.