500 years ago today

pauldla

Peregrinus wrote: »

You're not suggesting that Pauldla is a fallen angel, are you?

Peregrinus

Is there anything you'd like to tell us at this point, pauldla?

pauldla

Peregrinus wrote: »

Is there anything you'd like to tell us at this point, pauldla?

I'm not sure if I'm destined to tell or not, P....

ouxbbkqtswdfaw

pauldla, God loves you and your family and will not let you down. You are a child of God and you will not perish.

Blessed be the Power of the Lord.

uck51js9zml2yt

It's times like this when I miss hinault

ouxbbkqtswdfaw

Khalil Polite Flag wrote:

It's times like this when I miss hinault

You do not speak what you claim to believe.

antiskeptic

Firstly, apols for having heavily edited the post you respond to below, you responding to the former version (which was based on a mis-reading of an essential point of yours).

I'll attempt to rectify and re-address to get us back on track

solodeogloria wrote: »

We don't get there from the passage. God has done X, Y and Z to us even as He chose us. The action of what God does is distinguished from the act of choice. (verses 3 and 4)

The critical point is how we are to read "chose us in him" so I'll focus on that in this post. There isn't much point on expanding to other scripture of we can't resolve this so I've halted at vs 4/5


First I'd note that:

vs 3 is a statement of fact. God has done this wonderful thing.
vs 4 starts with a "For" a.k.a. "because". Paul is now going to expound on these spiritual blessings so as to justify and undergird his "Praise be to God" opening statement in vs 3.


I'd approach vs. 4 on the basis of simple linguistics. We are first and foremost dealing with text and so the rules of how text is to be read ought to apply.

You can chose something in something and then do something with it. You can chose > the cookies in the cookie jar > throw them in the bin as they are stale. The 'cookies in the cookie jar' are a distinct set. This set isn't defined by the choosing action but exists for other reasons
(the cookies where placed in the jar a week ago). This otherwise-defined set is the object chosen to be subjected to the action described.

You cannot chose something in something and thereby create a set where none previously existed. Not linguistically anyway. Some kind of special pleading would be required to overcome the lack of linguistic sense. If you think otherwise, then I'd challenge you for a cookie-like example to show how this is done in an everyday way. For you are saying that choosing us in Christ is a set-creating act. It somehow moves us from the set of the lost to the set of the found.


In order to underscore this linguistic point, I'd ask that you use the full term "us in Christ" whenever making a point involving it. You omit "in Christ" above (bolded) for instance, whereas if you included it, the linguistic difficulty of your position would be manifest. If the text said "God chose us (certain individuals plucked from the category Lost) to be holy and blameless (a badge of the Saved) or "chose to put us (the cookies) in Christ (the cookie jar)" then you would have a clear case for your position. Your position is, afterall, that this choosing is a saving choosing.

But that isn't what's written.

Moreover - we also see God comparing this predestination as adoption. God chose His children to be a family. The family language is intentional there. (verse 5).

Assuming the argument above is established, then the "us" in this case is defined by the context of vs. 4. The audience is still us-in-him (the set). We would have a simple repeat: God's action (adoption) being applied to the set.

Paul is simply expounding on the spiritual blessing he says we (the us-in-hims) have been given

The assumption that this group is abstract rather than specific isn't present in the passage.

You've got more work to do to show that "us" is abstract rather than specific.

I'm not sure what you mean by abstract. If it were a football coach fore-choosing what is to occur to a set whose members aren't known, or might not ever exist ("Next year, assuming anyone joins the group, we will add target practice the the Under-8 training schedule") then you would be dealing with an abstract set. But God already knows who every individual in-Christ person will be (without that having that to be chosen or predestined by God), so there is nothing abstract about it.

Anyway, the point hinges on how we are to read us-in-him. If there is no option but to suppose the set of us-in-him's being detached from the choosing in v.4 then so be it.

This is where I disagree. The passage clearly says that God chose us in Him in Christ and that He predestined us as sons. This adds to the specific nature of the choice highlighted in verse 4.

The passage doesn't say "God chose us in him in Christ" anywhere (not that I'd be sure what that means anyway).

It says "he chose us in him" (vs 4) and that "God predestined us .. through Christ" (vs 5). Vs 4 is subject to the argument already given. Vs.5, where "us" is contextually understood as the set "us in him"

He does choose us. He chooses us in Christ (verse 4) and through Christ (verse 5). The means by which God chooses us namely through Christ doesn't nullify that God has chosen His people specifically. We see that through Christ is referring both to His death and His resurrection. These are the means by which His people are His.

1. You'll have addressed choosing already somewhere above

2. He doesn't chose us through Christ. He predestines us to adoption through Christ

We need to be rigorous in this.

.

I disagree. What those who are chosen receive is distinguished by the word "even" in verse 4. There are two acts. We were chosen in Christ from the foundation of the world and these things happened to us even as we were chosen.

Which version are you using here. I don't see the word "even" in in the NIV or the KJV. Anyway, the point hinges first on how we treat "us in him".

-

For the sake of brevity I'll pause here. There is no point in moving onto Romans 9 etc unless we can clear up Ephesians 1.



-

EDIT: it's worth pointing out that I hold both to predestination and human responsibility because both of these are Biblical.

better said: both of them are based on a persons biblical understanding (given so much is nominally biblical). The issue is whether these are reconcilable. If not, then the biblical understanding ought to be modified.

The idea that you can have God predestining people for salvation without any reference to the will of the person (from whence, their responsibility) is irreconcilable with the person being responsible. The usual "resolution" to this dilemma is to cite God's Sovereign Choice or The Mystery of God. It says, in effect that God can mysteriously create square circles.

I've no issue with God predestining people for salvation because they've fulfilled some pre-salvation criteria for him acting so. Their fulfilling of that criteria becomes the hinge point for the salvation which follows.

I wouldn't say that Christians should sit back and stop evangelism. We don't have the privilege of knowing who God's elect are.

If predestination apart from the person's will then what point, other than following God's instruction. It's not going to alter their being saved

I also would probably say yes that I chose God but only as a result of Him choosing me. Both are sides of the same coin. They must be held together.

You don't chose something that is pressed upon you by inevitability. If it is forced upon you, without you having any say in the matter then choice it is not. You can say it's so because you understand the bible to say its so but there is no rational argument for it. I prefer to hold to a theology which is based on a biblical understanding which has a grounding in rational conciliation.

solodeogloria

Good afternoon!

I'll reply on a new thread later. We should keep this one to discussing the Reformation.

I think you should include your assessment of Romans 9 also. My case is systematic. It involves a number of passages and not just one.

This is a conversation. For this reason it's important that we engage with the totality of what is said. I'm not expecting your agreement. The Bible is clear that this isn't a first order issue. It is a secondary disagreement.

I'll happily respond later.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

antiskeptic

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good afternoon!

I'll reply on a new thread later. We should keep this one to discussing the Reformation.

Good idea.

I think you should include your assessment of Romans 9 also. My case is systematic. It involves a number of passages and not just one.

Everyone's case should be adequately supported, I agree. The more legs supporting a stool the stronger and more stable it will be. But each leg needs its own integrity if it is to take it's place in the overall structure.

And so the focus on vs. 4 (and the case for it being an exposition of the declaration in vs.3). If a leg (e.g. a verse) hasn't got internal integrity (by virtue of a linguistically problematic reading) then that undermines the stability of the whole.