Calvinism and Context?

[posthuman]

I'm not twisting Paul's words. He's saying God chooses people----> this way.....through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth. Pauls focus is on the Spirit and truth,not the individual.

but bro, it doesn't say
'from the beginning God chose sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth for arbitrary people to be saved'

it says
'from the beginning God chose you for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth'

and it doesn't say 'we are bound to give thanks always for the method by which arbitrary people are saved'
it says 'we are bound to give thanks always for you' -- you, the individuals he is writing to. the individuals chosen by God from the beginning for salvation. the individuals being sanctified. the individuals to whom God will be faithful to complete the work in.

 

[posthuman]

but bro, it doesn't say
'from the beginning God chose sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth for arbitrary people to be saved'

it says
'from the beginning God chose you for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth'

and it doesn't say 'we are bound to give thanks always for the method by which arbitrary people are saved'
it says 'we are bound to give thanks always for you' -- you, the individuals he is writing to. the individuals chosen by God from the beginning for salvation. the individuals being sanctified. the individuals to whom God will be faithful to complete the work in.

grappling with the implications of a God who is specifically and personally saving you is another thing. but the plain structure of the language doesn't leave room to interpret these statements as being abstract generalizations about methods; the verb 'chose' has a subject and an object: God did the choosing, and 'you' are the thing described as chosen.

there are other passages where for example it is said, God chose 'the foolish things of the world in order to shame the wise' -- but right here, this is saying God chose the people he is saving in Thessolonica. it's not because i'm bringing some kind of theology and laying it on top of the text as a filter -- this is what the text itself says, and it's what i have to believe if i'm going to agree with the Bible.

 

[throughfaith]

The teachings of Calvin, like any teaching, has a result. What is the result of a Christian embracing Calvin? And if it produces a problem, how serious is it in comparison to what is true?

Well what do you think? if it is the case that all 5 points are false how much remains of Calvinsm thats true ?

 

[throughfaith]

And Christmas began in Babylon nearly three thousand years before Augustine, and Christians embrace and love it without a comment from anyone. It seems to me that you have decided that Calvin's teaching, or present day version is wrong. But you have yet to answer your own question in posting #1. Don't you owe to us, your brothers, to show the truth when you possess it?

I think many on here are sharing the truth with Calvinists . I don't claim to have all truth and understanding by any stretch. in fact I think I'm terrible at all this lol but I care to want to share the truth of the Gospel and about Jesus . Many a good brother I know has come away from Calvinism and is all the better for it .

 

[throughfaith]

And Christmas began in Babylon nearly three thousand years before Augustine, and Christians embrace and love it without a comment from anyone. It seems to me that you have decided that Calvin's teaching, or present day version is wrong. But you have yet to answer your own question in posting #1. Don't you owe to us, your brothers, to show the truth when you possess it?

I think I have . Everyman can believe the Gosepl to be saved ( 1 cor 15. 1-4 . Rom 1.16 , Rom 10 .9 ) . Jesus died for everyman ( 2cor .5.19) Thats good news to tell everyone . How amazingly simple is that ? This pleases God . God’s sovereignty in salvation means that he executes it in accordance with Scripture.( 1 cor 1.21)

 

[throughfaith]

The teachings of Calvin, like any teaching, has a result. What is the result of a Christian embracing Calvin? And if it produces a problem, how serious is it in comparison to what is true?

Heres a great example of the problems Calvinism causes .

its from about the 50 min mark.

 

[Journeyman]

but bro, it doesn't say
'from the beginning God chose sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth for arbitrary people to be saved'

it says
'from the beginning God chose you for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth'

and it doesn't say 'we are bound to give thanks always for the method by which arbitrary people are saved'
it says 'we are bound to give thanks always for you' -- you, the individuals he is writing to. the individuals chosen by God from the beginning for salvation. the individuals being sanctified. the individuals to whom God will be faithful to complete the work in.

Brother, the believers decision isn't arbitrary. It's based on reason, like "the prodigal son", taht was in a destitute position and thought of how well how well his fathers house was, or the Israelites, who groaned under their taskmasters in Egypt and then heard from Moses about deliverance. Jesus said,

If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him. Jn.14:23

So when repent, afterward the the Holy Spirit is given, as Acts 19:2 also shows. In 2Thes.2, Paul is saying God chise chose you through his predetermined method.

 

[posthuman]

In 2Thes.2, Paul is saying God chise chose you through his predetermined method.

It is not saying the believer chose God, it is not saying the believer was smart or clever, and it is not saying God simply chose a method so that arbitrary people could choose themselves.

It is very clearly saying God chose the individual, and that He did so 'from the beginning' before any works or determination on the part of the one who was chosen.

Dealing with the implications is a whole other kettle of fish. But before we can look at the implications we have to accept the scripture as it is written.

 

[Runningman]

One of the things I don't like about Calvinism, and there are several, is merely that they call things they aren't.

Think of the numerous doctrines Calvin picks out of the Bible, repackages, and rebrands them as Calvinism. Now, if you believe in XYZ doctrine you're suddenly labelled a Calvinist rather than a Bible scholar. In fact, I think it's probably a stumbling block to spreading the gospel of Christ.

Now people have to spend time defending themselves against being called a Calvinist which has become a derogatory term in its own right. It's just a distraction and has caused countless fights and arguments.

 

[posthuman]

doctrines Calvin picks out of the Bible, repackages, and rebrands them as Calvinism.

All this started after John Calvin. Calvin just called it 'doctrine' and he was the one said he didn't preach anything that Augustine and others before him had also preached.

Like you said, it's people who oppose doctrine that lump it all together and use his name like a slur. I can't just read 2 Thessalonians and take it for what it literally says without being accused of being 'calvinist' - when all I'm actually doing is believing what I read as it is written.

 

[throughfaith]

Brother, the believers decision isn't arbitrary. It's based on reason, like "the prodigal son", taht was in a destitute position and thought of how well how well his fathers house was, or the Israelites, who groaned under their taskmasters in Egypt and then heard from Moses about deliverance. Jesus said,

If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him. Jn.14:23

So when repent, afterward the the Holy Spirit is given, as Acts 19:2 also shows. In 2Thes.2, Paul is saying God chise chose you through his predetermined method.

I think I agree with you lol .

 

[Corban]

Here is a proposal to 2nd Thessalonians 2:13, keeping, as requested by the OP, context. Let us see if it has anything to do with Calvin.

We know that there are various "salvations" in the Bible. Peter was "saved" from sinking after he followed the Lord's instructions about walking on water. 1st Timothy 2:15 says a woman is "saved" by childbearing. This is very different from being saved as in Ephesians 2:8. So what if we take the advice of the OP and put the verse in context.
The context of 2nd Thessalonians was that in the midst of severe persecution (1:4), some had appeared and said that the Great Tribulation had started and that they had missed the escape from God's wrath (1:7-10, 2:2)
The context of Chapter 2 is our "gathering to him" in verse 1 and that the things that must first be have not happened yet.
That means that the "salvation" mentioned in verse 13 has to do with being "saved" from the coming dreadful events on earth - NOT to do with escaping the Lake of Fire and/or losing one's salvation or not.

• Verse 1 sets the immediate context, "...the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him"
• Verse 2 says that "the Day of CHRIST" is not yet at hand. This is in contrast to the "the Day of the LORD." In all the usages of these two phrases in the whole New Testament, the "DAY of CHRIST" concerns the "gathering and judging of the CHURCH. "The DAY of the LORD" on the other hand is that DAY when God's wrath is poured out on the nations. That means that the day when we, the Church, are gathered to the clouds and the judgement Seat of Christ (Rom.14:10; 2nd Cor.5:10) has not yet come.
• Verse 3 admonishes, "Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except ...
• Verse 4 - 9 set forth events that must happen BEFORE the DAY of CHRIST and our gathering to Him
• Verse 10 speaks of those NOT SAVED by the gospel and their destruction.

Now, verse 13 starts with a "BUT WE ..." By using "BUT", Paul CONTRASTS the fate of the unbeliever from the fate of Christians at Thessaloniki. And the use of "WE" Paul CONTRASTS those who will perish from those who will be saved. But what shall they perish from??? It is NOT HELL. It is the GREAT TRIBULATION! They who perish are those LIVING at the end of this age who BELIEVE THE DECEPTION OF THE MAN OF LAWLESSNESS!

The SALVATION of verse 13 is not the salvation of Ephesians 2:8! It is the salvation from the Great Tribulation! And how is this salvation effected? BY OUR GATHERING TO CHRIST. If it was the "DAY of the LORD" then we would NOT be gathered to Him. He would COME TO US for Armageddon is ON EARTH. It is the "DAY of CHRIST" that comes BEFORE the "DAY of the LORD".

And what is more, the day we are "gathered" is the day when we, "... obtain of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ" (v.14). When is this day? RESURRECTION DAY (1st Cor.15:35, 40-45, 1st Jn.3:2). And resurrection day is the day of RAPTURE (1st Thess.4:15-17) - our gathering to Him in the clouds. And both 1st Thessalonians 4:18 AND verse 17 of our text end with COMFORT!!! Why? Because the promise is that we are NOT APPOINTED TO WRATH - BUT SALVATION (1st Thess.5:9). What "wrath" - The Great Tribulation. What "salvation" - the Rapture, the "gathering of us to Him".

I propose that 2nd Thessalonians 2:13 has NOTHING to do with CALVIN or his doctrine.

 

[Bbrdrd]

I kinda agree with you. But what is mysterious is that nobody actually answered the last question of the OP. There are a plenty of accusations against Calvin, but no one seems to want to tell the truth. Most seem to have consigned Calvin to the ranks of a heretic, but having judged his theology, they refuse to tell us all the true meaning.

I can see what you mean, though it seems to me the verse only half supports Calvin as is typical. It certainly establishes the idea that God in some sense chooses those who are in the end saved, but the basis of that choice being purely God's whim with no condition in those chosen is absent. Remember, the original dispute was between unconditional and conditional election.

Realistically the system is built on the premise least often debated since both Calvinists and Arminians follow Augustine in his anthropology, namely the idea that man is completely incapable of genuinely responding to the gospel in a positive manner and we are all equally guilty before God.

 

[Corban]

I can see what you mean, though it seems to me the verse only half supports Calvin as is typical. It certainly establishes the idea that God in some sense chooses those who are in the end saved, but the basis of that choice being purely God's whim with no condition in those chosen is absent. Remember, the original dispute was between unconditional and conditional election.

Realistically the system is built on the premise least often debated since both Calvinists and Arminians follow Augustine in his anthropology, namely the idea that man is completely incapable of genuinely responding to the gospel in a positive manner and we are all equally guilty before God.

Yeah. On the content of your posting we can agree. But if my posting #32 is left standing, then the "saved" in verses 13 is not the "saved" Calvin or Arminius talked about, and even if it was, the selection is conditional - conditional on being a Christian in the Assembly at Thessaloniki.*

* Including only the Assembly at Thessaloniki might seem a strange position, but I have a reason for it. Reading 1st Thessalonians Chapters 1 and 3, and 2nd Thessalonians Chapter 1, it would seem by Paul's comments that this was an exceptional Church. They might have been temporarily discomforted by the strange doctrines that the "troublers" brought, but their Christian testimony is exemplary. In both Luke 21:36 and Revelation 3:10, escape from the Great Tribulation is reaffirmed, but it is conditional on the Christian being found "worthy" (Luke 21:36) and being found a "keeper of the Lord's word of patience" (Revelation 3:10). It would seem that even this "saved" stands in jeopardy for the slothful Christian.

 

[posthuman]

It certainly establishes the idea that God in some sense chooses those who are in the end saved, but the basis of that choice being purely God's whim with no condition in those chosen is absent.

The verse does say 'chosen from the beginning' - - so we have to sort out, beginning of what?

If we arrrive at 'the beginning' means THE beginning, Genesis 1:1, then this passage is saying the same thing as the similar topic in Romans 9, where Paul explicitly points out Jacob was chosen over Esau before either was born, before they could have possibly done anything good or bad, and that this is "so that His purpose in election might stand"

So this may in fact be telling us about predestination as well as sovereign choice after all - depends on what he means by 'beginning'

 

[Bbrdrd]

The verse does say 'chosen from the beginning' - - so we have to sort out, beginning of what?

If we arrrive at 'the beginning' means THE beginning, Genesis 1:1, then this passage is saying the same thing as the similar topic in Romans 9, where Paul explicitly points out Jacob was chosen over Esau before either was born, before they could have possibly done anything good or bad, and that this is "so that His purpose in election might stand"

So this may in fact be telling us about predestination as well as sovereign choice after all - depends on what he means by 'beginning'

Sovereign choice, sure, but that still doesn't establish that it is done without condition. It doesn't matter when/where God makes the choice the question is whether God chooses based on some criteria known only to Him, or if there is no criteria on which He's choosing.

My big dispute with Calvinism is not the idea that God is choosing individuals based on His purpose, it is the distortion that simply because we don't know His criteria that He does not have a criteria. That there is not something besides what essentially amounts to luck of the draw that separates those He selects and those He leaves to their own.

 

[Journeyman]

It is not saying the believer chose God, it is not saying the believer was smart or clever, and it is not saying God simply chose a method so that arbitrary people could choose themselves.

It is very clearly saying God chose the individual, and that He did so 'from the beginning' before any works or determination on the part of the one who was chosen.

Dealing with the implications is a whole other kettle of fish. But before we can look at the implications we have to accept the scripture as it is written.

Posthuman, dont just restate your belief. Describe how the prodigal son, orthe Israelites in Egypt used no reason for the decision they made. Here,

 

[Journeyman]

It is not saying the believer chose God, it is not saying the believer was smart or clever, and it is not saying God simply chose a method so that arbitrary people could choose themselves.

It is very clearly saying God chose the individual, and that He did so 'from the beginning' before any works or determination on the part of the one who was chosen.

Dealing with the implications is a whole other kettle of fish. But before we can look at the implications we have to accept the scripture as it is written.

Posthuman, dont just repeat your belief. Explain how the prodigal son, or the Israelites in Egypt didnt use reason in their decision. Here,

and the children of Israel sighed byreason of the bondage, and they cried, and their cry came up unto God by reason of the bondage. Ex.2:23

Explain how this would be arbitrary.

 

[Journeyman]

Please excuse the double posts. I lose the first one before completing it.

 

[Journeyman]

I think I agree with you lol .

Behold, how good and howpleasant it is
For brethren to dwell together in unity! Psa.133:1