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.
Is there a retitle suggestion for Calvinism and Arminianism
Discussion in 'Baptist Theology & Bible Study' started by agedman, Jan 9, 2012.
Page 10 of 13
-
-
-
-
Reply to Agedman,
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.
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. -
-
By God’s Grace a redeemed, reformed, re-destined Baptist -
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.”
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.
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.
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.
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. -
-
Still think monergism and synergism is the way to go here.
-
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.
However, using your illustration appropriately presents no problem when taken in the unity of the God.
God chose you for salvation from the beginning. He chose you individually for salvation after creation. -
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.
We are not chosen when we are set apart. We are chosen and as a result are re-titled.
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?
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.
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.
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.
So, the timeline remains as the Scriptures state, election, sanctification, purification.
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.
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.
And as such the triune God is indivisible except in divine responsibilities and properties related to existence.
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. -
Reply to Agedman,
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.
[See next post for the rest of response.] -
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 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.
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.
-
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. -
Van said: ↑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.Click to expand...
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! -
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.
Van said: ↑As I stated before "en" is not being used to indicate movement as through (dia) might be used.Click to expand...
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.
Van said: ↑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.Click to expand...Van said: ↑Yes, set apart does indicate motion, to be moved from among others and to be placed apart from the others.Click to expand...Van said: ↑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.Click to expand...Van said: ↑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.Click to expand...
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.”
Van said: ↑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.Click to expand...Van said: ↑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.Click to expand...
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. -
Reply to Van - part two of two
Van said: ↑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.Click to expand...
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.
Van said: ↑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.Click to expand...
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.
Van said: ↑I agree, Hebrews 11 clearly teaches that individuals during their lifetime gained approval by faith.Click to expand...Van said: ↑I disagree, my verse is Romans 4:4-5 which says God accepts our faith when He credits it as righteousness.Click to expand...
Van said: ↑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.Click to expand...
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.”
Van said: ↑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.Click to expand...
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 said: ↑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.Click to expand...Van said: ↑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.Click to expand...
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. -
agedman said: ↑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.Click to expand...
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! -
Van said: ↑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.Click to expand...
Page 10 of 13