Is there a retitle suggestion for Calvinism and Arminianism

I wrote the prior posting 'tongue in check" as I do agree with you on just how the Lord saves us via the DoG, as against those who would hold to more "co assisting God" theology!

 

Lets retitle Calvinism as Redefinition rather than Reality, the doctrine of RRR.

Santification means to set apart for God.

The Greek word "en" is used in several ways, one of which is "by means of" which is the usage of 2 Thessalonians 2:13.

Therefore 2 Thessalonians 2:13 says God chose you for salvation "by means of" sanctification by the Holy Spirit and faith in the truth. Now to choose someone by means of faith in the truth requires the person have faith in the truth as a basis for being chosen. Any other view is twaddle.

 

From the beginning means during or after the beginning, but cannot mean before the beginning. Therefore our individual election for salvation occurs after creation and not before. Therefore logical necessity requires that the election of Ephesians 1:4 be corporate, when God chose Christ to be His Redeemer, His Lamb, He also chose us corporately as those the redeemer would redeem.

 

Could you refresh my memory? I looked back through the thread and didn't find anything that rank a bell about this. I'm sure it's there, I just didn't find it.

 

:) There you go. I was starting to think that maybe I had thought it without posting it.

 

The idea of corporate election smacks of the "corporate salvation" of Roman Catholicism.

God does not save people corporately or in mass, He saves people one at a time.

Ephesians 1:4 says to the observant reader that God chose us in Jesus Christ before the foundation of the would.

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:

Don't get too excited about Paul's use of the word "us". Paul is writing to the Church at Ephesus and includes himself among the ones chosen unto salvation in Jesus Christ before the foundation of the world.

 

Perhaps you are not trinitarian? You seem to be wanting to embrace the definition of one that is not.

or

You are confusing two different Greek prepositional words "en" for "eis."

"en" - a static (fixed) condition, place. (on, at, by, under, over, ...)

"eis" - a dynamic (moving) condition (into, out of, outward, toward, through, ...)

 

"From the beginning" can also mean "from the start."

When was the start?

When God "created the heavens and the earth" and "the earth was without form and void, dark"

Therefore, "from the beginning would be "before creation" and in total agreement with Ephesians.

 

Here is an interesting piece on corporate election (at least I think it is interesting)

http://evangelicalarminians.org/Klein-Is-Corporate-Election-Merely-Virtual-Election

 

Reply to Old Regular

Corporate election does not equate with corporate salvation. To rail against corporate salvation to disparage corporate election is unsound. My view and I have expressed it over and over is that we are individually elected, that would be one at a time, Sir, during our lifetime just as 2 Thessalonians 2:13 says.

Yes, God did choose us before the foundation of the world, but this choice was "in Him." Apparently we disagree on what being chosen in Him means. I say God chose His Redeemer, and therefore chose corporately all those His redeemer would redeem, thus He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, but did not choose us individually back then, but rather He chose us individually during our lifetime, i.e. from the beginning. Therefore those chosen had been chosen individually during their lifetime and therefore had been redeemed and therefore had been chosen corporately before the foundation of the world.
This is the only view that actually fits with what is actually said.

 

Folks we find in scripture two phrases, before the foundation of the world and from the foundation of the world. The Calvinists would have you accept they mean the same thing. Twaddle

And please note the slight alteration of the text, Gen 1:1 says "In" not from. John 1:1 reads: "In" also. From the beginning refers to the creation week and after, but before creation is excluded. This is not rocket science.

 

No, rather we try to explain things by what the Bible actual stated and said, try to discern the meaning intended, but NOT just giving it the opposite meaning cals would automatically!

As I know neither you or MB seem to acdcept this, but even other Non cals here would admit that sometimes" even cals got it right!"

 

2 Thessalonians 2:13 demonstrates that the Calvinist view of Ephesians 1:4 is mistaken.

First, the election of Ephesians is "in Him" which is open to interpretation but in my view indicates a corporate election of those the redeemer would redeem. Why this view? Because 2 Thessalonians 2:13 indicates God chose you for salvation from not before creation, and since God would not choose us twice for the same thing, Ephesians must refer to a corporate election.

Second God chose you "through" sanctification. Now sanctification means to be set apart for God. The "through" translates the Greek word "en" as "by means of" and so the various translations render it either through or by. So we were chosen by means of being set apart for God by the Holy Spirit. This is consistent with being put in Christ spiritually by God, and being baptized into the body of Christ by the Holy Spirit. Christ is our sanctification, when we are put in Christ we are set apart.

And third, God chose us for salvation through sanctification by the Holy Spirit and faith in the truth. We did not have faith in the truth until we heard, understood and believed from our heart in Jesus. Therefore God chose us when we were alive, not before we were created.

It is a lock.

 

Reply to DaChaser1:

My responses are not simply the opposite of Calvinism, sometimes I agree with Calvinism such as once saved, always saved, or that God saves us, we do not save ourselves.

Calvinism does NOT explain things by what the Bible actually says, I do. Calvinism says From the Beginning means the same as from the foundation of the world, which is true, and also before the foundation of the world which is not true.

What I am saying is most of what Calvinism has taught you about the TULIP is wrong.

 

Reply to Slander

First to suggest I do not believe in our triune God is simply an attack on me and is typical of all Calvinists, they disparage others because they cannot defend their doctrines.


Agedman claims he is so ignorant that he does not know that among the ten ways "en" is used, is "by means of". Will any other Calvinist post that "en" is sometimes used as "by means of." I expect not.

Folks, God chose you for salvation from the beginning by means of sanctification by the Holy Spirit and faith in the truth. No amount of shuck and jive will alter that truth.

 

You want it to mean something, and in such a great desire you need to see it as "open to interpretation." There is no "open to interpretation as to what "in Him" means. For the Scriptures do not leave us without the Holy Spirit to guide us into all truth.

Again we see you missing the use of the word "en" attempting to make it into "eis."

It is not. Never will be. And although you want to state your view as factual, it isn't.

The word "through" can be used as, "Greta peered through the eyes of love at the stinky diapered baby."

The word "through" can be used as, "Greta walked through the room to pick up the stinky diapered baby."

The first statement uses "en" as the "static" position warrants.

The second statement uses "eis" as the "dynamic" position warrants.

Van, you continue to attempt conformity of "en" to that of "eis" and that is not Scriptural.

Typical, of you.

Calling it a "lock" when it is only a hinge.

You were doing really good until you got to the last sentence.

But, that has been typical of the conversation. You will state something that is true, but then determine a conclusion which is faulty.


Therefore the rest of your view would need to be according to your own word, "twadle."

 

I believe "Sir" that you are "eisegeting" more than "exegeting". How else would God the Father choose anyone for Salvation except "in HIM, that is Jesus Christ"? After all He, Jesus Christ, is the one and only Redeemer. He, Jesus Christ, tells us: I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

You persist in saying that God chose Jesus Christ as Redeemer. That statement in itself is meaningless at best and nonsense at worst. Salvation is the work of the Triune Godhead, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit! God the Father chooses, God the Son, Incarnate as Jesus Christ, pays the penalty for sin, God the Holy Spirit applies the work of Jesus Christ to those chosen in Jesus Christ for Salvation!

 

van has to realise that "choosing' from the perspective of God is from eternity past, has always been!

Jesus was the only begotten of the father, when was he begotten, always was/has been!

 

I wasn't attacking you.

I was asking a question.

Did you answered the question? Nope

Instead you step away from the question and become aggressive as if that actually answered the question.

The fault is laid at your own door, Van. Not mine.

Is it not you that have shown the desire to shift blame, claim the high ground of being attacked, and that Calvinist thinkers "run away."

None of that has been true in my postings to you, and if you doubt, look back at all the posts in which we responded to each other.

Van, I have posted the meaning of the word, and I have posted the entire verse with the Greek in English script followed by the meaning of each word.

I have repeatedly asked that the Greek scholars of the BB look upon my work, and were I may have been mistaken to bring correction. I am not afraid of being shown where I am in error. It wouldn't be the first nor probably the last time.

I am certainly not the smartest person on the BB, but neither am I ignorant.

I have shown the practical application of "en" that fits the definition. You want it to mean whatever you determine is right in your own eyes.

This last part of your post is something that all would agree, at least those that hold the Scriptures as the final authority.

 

lol...I was suggesting others had strayed away from sound doctrine, not you brother! :thumbsup: