Calvinist, Reformed Theology No Longer Allowed

Chosen for salvation by the work of the Holy Spirit and our faith in Christ...not chosen for salvation, then the Holy Spirit works, then faith in Christ. Happens all at once.

 

Are you saying "chosen" means "saved"?

 

In that verse, yes, as the prepositional phrase "for salvation" follows, reverting back to "chosen". As I pointed out to you a while back, there is a number of choosings.

 

Yet the verse does not read that way.

 

You can be among the chosen/elect and not be saved (yet). But you can't be saved and not be among the chosen/elect. People like skypair try to make them equivalent in order to build up that straw man and then knock it down.

 

I like this qualification on what it means to be elect and what it means to be saved. :thumbs:

 

So, if "chosen" means "saved" in 2 Thess. 2:13, the we could say

"God has "saved" you from the beginning for salvation"?


TC, what does the greek say?

 

do you not agree that "chosen for salvation" means saved? The word chosen itself doesn't mean salvation, but what the choosing is in regards to.

Let me ask you this. If God has said that He has chosen me to have a heart attack through the eating of saturated fats and not exercising...could I have the heart attack any other way? Did He choose me to have the heart attack...then saw to it that I ate saturated fats...then made sure I got no exercise, or is this all lumped up into one event, with each chain of events being the cause?

 

The key term in this verse is the little Greek preposition eis, translated "for"--pointing toward.

 

No, I do not agree. I refer you to NP's explanation.

No. And you could not receive salvation any other way either. You must be chosen. But, thanks for making my point.

Even though you have been chosen for a heart attack, you don't neccessarily have the heart attack until many years later. So, the choosing and the heart attack itself are two different events.

 

Is this a semantics game? chosen for salvation is not in regards to salvation?

I, too, thank you for making my point

I edited my response above #68. God would not choose me to have a heart attack...THEN see to it that I didn't eat right and exercised. A plain, logical reading of that statement is common sense.

Why did I have a heart attack? Because God chose it...or because I didn't eat right and exercise?

How did I have a heart attack? Because the saturated fats clogged my arteries and the lack of exercise. The heart attack is not pinned on God, but lifestyle choices He knew I would make.

 

I don't see how I made your point, but whatever.

If God were to choose you to have a heart attack, then have a heart attack you will. Otherwise, His choosing has no effect or power. There would be no reason for Him to choose.

At least you're admitting we were chosen "for" salvation. (I think you are) Unless you are going to change your analogy in mid stream again.

 

You are still denying the "through", as npet and the rest do. If we chop Scriptures up into pieces we can get it to say what we want. The whole phrase needs to be taken into account. Example:

"The fool says in his heart there is no God"

"The fool says in his heart."
Here you have a fool that is speaking to himself, obviously trying to convince himself of something.

"there is no God".
Here is a stated fact. It doesn't say there "might" be, or "could" be. The fool must be trying to convince himself of something deemed foolishness, apparently that there really is a God, but since we read here that there is no God, now we know why he's such a fool...he's trying to convince himself there is.

See what happens when you break up Scripture to explain away what you want it to say? Take the verse at face value: we are chosen for salvation through the work of the Holy Spirit and faith in Christ.

 

1. And that is the necessary weight of the preposition eis, "for," one thing leads to another and are not the same.

2. I was given a 10000 for a car. The mil is not the car, but was designated for the car.

3. Likewise, we were chosen for salvation, but chosen is not salvation.

 

Seems we've...

...managed to "spike" another topic without resolution. Is that maybe because some can't figure out how to receive salvation.

You know -- it seems scriptures say such different things to different theologies, don't they.

But do ya really think that God says, "Stand fast. Do nothing?"

The one theme of the whole Bible is repentance toward God before salvation. Anyone want to start on "square one" with me on that? That that "act" would require knowing what you are doing, agreeing to do it, and prior to being saved?

skypair

 

I think your posts (or lack thereof) would benefit from that attitude, especially since you continue spewing the nonsense that Calvinists think that way no matter how many people correct you, and no matter how many times you've been corrected. So, by all means, please stand fast and do nothing from now on. You stand the best chance of edifying your brothers and sisters that way.

 

I feel as if I am indeed starting from Square One again. Do you really think that because someone believes what is variously known as "Calvinism", "Reformed theology" and "The Doctrines of Grace", they cannot possibly believe that repentance and faith are necessary? Have you really heard or read of such a person saying or writing something such as: "Sinners must just stand fast and do nothing. If God wants to save them, He will"? I don't know of anyone who believes that.

 

There are a lot of people on this board that believe just that. They believe that repentence and "Lordship salvation" constitute works and have no place in the "Theology of Grace."

 

As I stated prior, I don't think you have full understanding what LS really is. Requiring an upfront commitment to a lifetime of following Christ...BEFORE salvation, and IN ORDER to be saved is ludicrous, and indeed frustrates grace as Lou mentioned.

 

Understanding of the use of the primary preposition, eis, if not made clear, obviously results in a misapplication of the passage. This preposition is translated:

Into – 571 times To -- 282 times Unto -- 208 times In -- 131 times For -- 91 times On -- 57 times Toward -- 32 times That -- 30 times Against -- 25 times Upon -- 25 times At -- 20 times Among -- 16 times Concerning -- 5 times.

So to casually assume and conveniently pick its translation among this list to best fit a theological scheme is nothing short a most unremarkable theology. While men may come to disagreement on the translation, it should at least be due to something other than a cursory consideration convenienced by picking what best reflects a theological system.

First the directive and local functions of the preposition must be considered. Sometimes it is obvious and sometimes it is dependent upon the preceding verb as well as other resultant or remote considerations.

For example pros and eis both can mean to or toward, but when pros is used, its locality, while directionally toward something is always viewed before it. For example: “She walked toward her friend”.

On the other hand, eis, which can be translated to or toward has a locality in and among the object. For example, “Here is some money to or toward your retirement” (meaning money that is to go “into” your retirement).This is why eis is understood and translated most commonly “into” which is the dominant meaning.

The function of the preposition is “toward or to something” (directive) with the view of being “into” or “among” (locality) that something.

The NIV provides a very good translation reflected this construction:

As well does the ESV:

The choice, is that you be saved THROUGH (the instrumental preposition en) the Sanctifying work of the Spirit and through belief in the truth.

Hence, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved" is echoed here. One is not saved first and then believes. One believes and then is saved. God has not chosen that we work our way, that we hustle our way or any other way but that we are saved through belief through the sanctifying work of the Spirit.

Finally, take a look at the text. Paul encourages those he has heard are fearful that the day of the Lord has come that it has not. And then points out those who have rejected the truth. They have willingly believed a lie. They "refused to love the truth and so be saved".

By contrast we are to thank God that we are chosen to be saved through belief in the truth through the sanctifying word of the Spirit. It is the method of salvation that has been chosen here and is reflected in the construction of the verse and its context. And we are to thank God that he made such as choice, seeing that we have believed the Gospel.

As Paul says at in verse 14(NIV)