Calvinism

[Stan]

Unconditional election: This doctrine asserts that God has chosen from eternity those whom he will bring to himself not based on foreseen virtue, merit, or faith in those people; rather, it is unconditionally grounded in God's mercy alone. God has chosen from eternity to extend mercy to those He has chosen and towithhold mercy from those not chosen. Those chosen receive salvation through Christ alone. Those not chosen receive the just wrath that is warranted for their sins against God[11]

John 6:37
On the contrary, Calvinism affirms the scriptures that God's election is unconditional so that NONE may boast.
God's election is not being a respecter of persons, because the election itself is not conditional. There is absolutely no way God can "prefer" one over the other, therefore he is not respecting anybody because each man's status is the same. Spiritually dead.

I will not go through the whole list you supplied Aenon, it is to onerous. The above verse I will address.

John 6:37; All that the Father gives me will come to me, and anyone who comes to me I will never turn away.(MOUNCE)

Now what is important to do in ALL cases of scripture is to use the text within it's proper context and along with scriptures around it that convey the full message of what is being said. In this case John 6:35-40;
Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life; the one who comes to me will never go hungry, and the one who believes in me will never be thirsty again.But as I told you, you have seen me and still you do not believe. All that the Father gives me will come to me, and anyone who comes to me I will never turn away. For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will but to do the will of him who sent me. And this is the will of the one who sent me: that of all that he has given me I should lose none but raise them up on the last day. For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who considers the Son and comes to believe in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.” (MOUNCE)

The "one who comes to me", Jesus says will never go hungry. His spiritual hunger will always be satiated.
The "ones who were given" to Jesus were His apostles. The fact is though that in this section of scripture, Jesus does not address Judas as one who would be lost. So did He lie?
For the second time, Jesus states the will of His Father in verse 40. He states; everyone who considers the Son and comes to believe in Him, should have eternal life.
God defintely draws these people to Jesus, but they themselves consider the Good News(Jesus) and they either believe or don't. Just as many of the verses you quoted in this post, this verse does NOT support 'unconditional election'.
Please give me just one verse out off all you have supplied, that actually DOES support the concept of unconditional election. Just one.

 

[Stan]

Then explain Acts 13:48 and/or 2 Thess. 2:13.

Be glad to:

Both are explained by Paul in Romans 8:28-30

 

[Jack Williamson]

I was hoping for an exegetical analysis, not just the reference to the passages. How do these passages indicate an Arminian understanding of Acts 13:48 and 2 Thess. 2:13?

 

[Stan]

I was hoping for an exegetical analysis, not just the reference to the passages. How do these passages indicate an Arminian understanding of Acts 13:48 and 2 Thess. 2:13?

I am not Arminian. The verses you quoted can be explained by the facts Paul states in Romans 8:28-30. Is it that you don't understand what Paul says in Romans 8?

 

[Jack Williamson]

I understand Paul's teaching in Romans 8 to be perfectly consistent with unconditional election of Acts 13:48 and 2 Thess. 2:13. I wanted to understand how your thinking that they aren't. That would take some exegetical analysis. Theologians of all stripes believe in the existence of those verses as noted by the references, and just the references wouldn't explain that.

 

[Stan]

I understand Paul's teaching in Romans 8 to be perfectly consistent with unconditional election of Acts 13:48 and 2 Thess. 2:13. I wanted to understand how your thinking that they aren't. That would take some exegetical analysis. Theologians of all stripes believe in the existence of those verses as noted by the references, and just the references wouldn't explain that.

Well then I guess you understand it wrongly.
Romans 8:28-30 (MOUNCE)
And we know that all things work together for good for those who love God, for those who are called according to his purpose, because those he foreknew he also predestined to become conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. And those he predestined, these he also called; and those he called, these he also justified; and those he justified, these he also glorified.

Here is the order:

1. Those He foreknew
2. Those who love His Son Jesus
3. Those He predestined
4. Those He conformed
5. Those He called
6. Those He justified
7. Those He glorified

To properly understand this part of scripture, one must read it also within the context of verses 18-30. The fact is that God predestined us to be conformed to the image of His Son. That predestination was based on His forknwoledge of who would love and accept His Son as their Saviour.

 

[Jack Williamson]

You've given me no reason to doubt my understanding at all. You're explanation is not an exegetical analysis, it is merely your personal opinion. Thanks anyway.

 

[Stan]

You've given me no reason to doubt my understanding at all. You're explanation is not an exegetical analysis, it is merely your personal opinion. Thanks anyway.

Well then I guess you didn't like my exegesis or you don't accept it. As far as it being exegetical, which means explanatory BTW, it was that. Maybe you can provide your own exegesis. Dismissing someones explanation without offering one, is usually typical of someone who does NOT have an explanation. No thanks required.

 

[Jack Williamson]

I wouldn't label your response "exegesis" in the first place. What raises my curiosity is the fact that forty-five years ago, I saw that passage the way you do now. I know how I got that understanding and I'm wanting to know how you derived it. I certainly have an exegesis of the passage and I'll be more than happy to share it and I may do that. Paul, you and I all begin with God's foreknowledge. How do you arrive at the second step in your progression that that statement is speaking of those who "love Jesus"? Keeping in mind the omniscience of God that God has always known all things and never learned anything.

 

[Stan]

This kind of dismissiveness does not warrant any further response from me. You are typical of those who believe in this so-called unconditional election but have nothing really germane to say about it or provide scriptures accordingly.

 

[Jack Williamson]

I wasn't being dismissive at all; I was trying to find out how you understand the Scripture and the biblical rationale for your position. I can more than provide scripture for my position if you ever wanted to debate it, I was attempting to find out yours. Obviously, you don't want to explain it and that's fine no one says you have to. I'm a theologian and seminary teacher by profession and I enjoy understanding how other people see things and interpret the Bible.

 

[calvin]

I'm a theologian and seminary teacher by profession and I enjoy understanding how other people see things and interpret the Bible.

Heh heh fasten your seat belt then and hang on.
An alternate approach to Acts 13:48. "And when the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord, and as many as were appointed to eternal life believed." Hmmm well the first presumptuous thing I want to say is that IMNSHO the Greek Grammar used by (Luke??) here is not so good. But first, and to illustrate my point, consider verses 51 & 52. The disciples were filled with joy and the Holy Spirit. OK so why? What happened? Paul and co. shook the dust from there sandals and stormed off in disgust to some other place that is what happened. Is that a good reason for the disciples to be filled with joy? I wouldn't think so. Better scenario would be that after Paul & co had finished their ministry there, the disciples were filled with Joy and the Holy Spirit. Then.................because of the hardness of heart demonstrated by the Jews, Paul & co. shook off the dust and caught the first bus out of town.
Can you see that there is a sort of illogical order of events portrayed in the texts? Greek is a very logical language, even Helenist Greek.
Note that I'm not saying that the translations are wrong, just that the thought order seems to be a bit skewed.

Back to V48. That is probably a bit sus grammatically as well. It could run something like this analogy:- when they heard it was raining, those who stood outside got wet.
So...when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many believed, (stood outside) were appointed to eternal life (got wet). Now I know that is not how a literal translation runs, but it does fit in nicely with other passages from scripture that talk about 'come to me all who..', behold I stand at the door and knock...... and so on.
BTW, despite my name, I am not Calvinist, nor Armenian nor republican not communist nor any other 'ist'. Just plain lovable me

 

[Jack Williamson]

CALVIN:

Heh heh fasten your seat belt then and hang on.
An alternate approach to Acts 13:48. "And when the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord, and as many as were appointed to eternal life believed." Hmmm well the first presumptuous thing I want to say is that IMNSHO the Greek Grammar used by (Luke??) here is not so good.

JACK: You've raised a number of interesting points. Luke, contrary to John and Peter, was one of the better educated among the followers of Jesus and the grammar he displayed in both his gospel and in Acts is extraordinarily well developed. Probably only Paul exceeds his language skills. But, regardless of that point, I happen to believe in the verbal and plenary inspiration of the Bible that means every word is the Word of God. The text is not in dispute, but many people differ over how they interpret it.

CALVIN: First, and to illustrate my point, consider verses 51 & 52. The disciples were filled with joy and the Holy Spirit. OK so why? What happened? Paul and co. shook the dust from there sandals and stormed off in disgust to some other place that is what happened. Is that a good reason for the disciples to be filled with joy? I wouldn't think so. Better scenario would be that after Paul & co had finished their ministry there, the disciples were filled with Joy and the Holy Spirit. Then.................because of the hardness of heart demonstrated by the Jews, Paul & co. shook off the dust and caught the first bus out of town. Can you see that there is a sort of illogical order of events portrayed in the texts? Greek is a very logical language, even Helenist Greek. Note that I'm not saying that the translations are wrong, just that the thought order seems to be a bit skewed.

JACK: Greek is a very orderly and logical language with very few exceptions to its rules and principles. You are making several assumptions here that I think are unwarranted. You're assuming that the events in verses 51-and 52 occurred close enough in time to affect the expression that Luke used and distort his language, and there is nothing in the text to suggest that. There are several events that are stated in verses 49 & 50 and we don't know how long they took.

CALVIN: Back to V48. That is probably a bit sus grammatically as well. It could run something like this analogy:- when they heard it was raining, those who stood outside got wet. So...when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many believed, (stood outside) were appointed to eternal life (got wet). Now I know that is not how a literal translation runs, but it does fit in nicely with other passages from scripture that talk about 'come to me all who..', behold I stand at the door and knock...... and so on.

JACK: I've taught New Testament Greek for thirty-five years and I have an earned PhD in a related field. Your understanding of the grammatical sequence is untentable. The passage is very accurately translated in the NASV when it says, "When the Gentiles heard this, they [began] rejoicing and glorfying the word of the Lord; and as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed." The word "appointed" is TASSO which is a military order. The passage, in my understanding, quite clearly conveys the thought that all those ordered by God to eternal life believed.

CALVIN: BTW, despite my name, I am not Calvinist, nor Armenian nor republican not communist nor any other 'ist'. Just plain lovable me

JACK: You certainly seem like a very lovable person. It may be better if we took this debate over to the Bible Study board as this General Discussion isn't suppose to have Doctrine issues on it and this is certainly a doctrinal issue. Isn't this fun?

 

[Stan]

I wasn't being dismissive at all; I was trying to find out how you understand the Scripture and the biblical rationale for your position. I can more than provide scripture for my position if you ever wanted to debate it, I was attempting to find out yours. Obviously, you don't want to explain it and that's fine no one says you have to. I'm a theologian and seminary teacher by profession and I enjoy understanding how other people see things and interpret the Bible.

And I told you my understanding Jack. Your counter was to say

You've given me no reason to doubt my understanding at all. You're explanation is not an exegetical analysis, it is merely your personal opinion. Thanks anyway.

That is being dismissive. If you ARE a theologian and Seminary Teacher by profession, then you should have understood what I said, and responded like a theologian and teacher, and not like a Pharisee.

 

[Jack Williamson]

And I told you my understanding Jack. Your counter was to say That is being dismissive. If you ARE a theologian and Seminary Teacher by profession, then you should have understood what I said, and responded like a theologian and teacher, and not like a Pharisee.

I did respond as a seminary teacher. If one of my students had been required to turn in a paper showing exegesis and wrote what you wrote, I would have said exactly the same thing, returned the paper to him, given him a day or two to resubmit it or get a failing grade. That isn't exegesis, wasn't even close; it was merely your opinion. That's not dismissive at all; it's simply stating a fact. I know what you opinion is; I was interested in how you arrived at your opinion and I sense you really don't want to discuss it and that's fine. Sorry I asked.

 

[Stan]

Yeh well there's your other problem I guess. Condescendingly treating those here who are your PEERS, like students who really don't KNOW much. If you actually have something to say exegetically about Romans 8:28-30, then please do so, and stop saying you can, otherwise I'm not interested in your rhetoric.

 

[Jack Williamson]

If you seriousy want to discuss Romans 8, as I said to Calvin, let's move this over to the "Bible Study" forum as this forum is not to have doctrinal matters. The first link in the chain is "God's foreknowledge." For what reason do you inject "Those who love his son" into that chain? Is it because the entire chain has to do with soteriology?

 

[forgivenWretch]

I know this will probably not be received received very well, especially so late in, but I must ask...

How do Calvinism, Arminianism, or any other 'ism hold any right place in Christianity? Who is being followed, God or man?

 

[Stan]

I know this will probably not be received received very well, especially so late in, but I must ask...

How do Calvinism, Arminianism, or any other 'ism hold any right place in Christianity? Who is being followed, God or man?

They do not necessarily hold a "right" place. They came about in general as a result of Christians NOT having access to God's Word. As it was in Jesus' day, where Pharisees and Teachers of the Law TOLD believers WHAT to believe,this continued down through the centuries and mostly in the last couple of centuries, God's Word has been more and more available to the common masses. New doctrines continue to happen and unfortunately over the last two centuries, many cults have sprung up as well. It shows that many people are just like sheep and follow whatever voice they find attractive to their own reasoning. It seems many people are more willing to let others tell them what to believe, instead of letting God tell them and write it on their hearts. This trait has been warned against many times in the Bible, but it has to be read to be paid attention to.

 

[Jack Williamson]

I know this will probably not be received received very well, especially so late in, but I must ask...

How do Calvinism, Arminianism, or any other 'ism hold any right place in Christianity? Who is being followed, God or man?

Unfortunately, a lot of theological systems have acquire human labels. Arminianism was around long before Jacob Arminus and Calvinism was around long before John Calvin. I don't like either label. Even "Catholicism" is derived from a Latin root meaning "universal," and it isn't universal. Many features of what we call Calvinism today was developed by a 6th century African bishop named Augustine while elements of what we know as Arminianism were systematized by Pelagius at about the same time. What is even worse, in my opinion, is that unlike other disciplines, theology has no recognized standards of definitions. Lawyers have "Black Law Dictionary" and physicians have "Grey's Anatomy" to give industry-wide defintion of terms, but theology doesn't have any such thing. What one person calls a "cult" and other would not, etc. It even gets to the point where common terms that we would assume all people would define the same way become murky. What a Mormon means by "exaltation" isn't what a Baptist would mean by that same word. A Catholic would define "death" completely differently from a Jehovah's Witness. So, you have certainly brought up a very valid point.

Some of the theological systems within Christianity do follow man-made ideas, so above all else it is important that any theological endeavor follow Scripture and begin with the presuppositions that the Bible is the Word of God, has been inspired by God, and is inerrant and infallible. Working from that starting place, it is important to draw our understanding of what God has taught and believe regardless of whatever we call it. And beginning at that starting point, there is certainly room for some honest differences of opinion.