Calvinism and Context?

[Bbrdrd]

I was not speaking about whether they were Jew are Gentile, both are under the same program, but in different times. Otherwise, I don't disagree with your point. The inclusion of the Gentiles, would have infuriated the pious Jews. But why? Because it would seem that Jesus was including them (gentiles) into the seed of Abraham. Would it not? Were not the Jews to be the blessed ones and not Gentiles?

You're forcing the point when it's not necessary. The jews were angry because Jesus was highlighting that God showed favor to gentiles even though there were Jews in the same predicament. It was directly against their view of themselves as the elect, and there's no reason they would have taken it as an expansion but simply been insulted by the highlighting of men of God attending to gentiles over Jews.

 

[awelight]

You're forcing the point when it's not necessary. The jews were angry because Jesus was highlighting that God showed favor to gentiles even though there were Jews in the same predicament. It was directly against their view of themselves as the elect, and there's no reason they would have taken it as an expansion but simply been insulted by the highlighting of men of God attending to gentiles over Jews.

Every time a discussion breaks out and you are involved, it turns into nit-picking a particular verse, as if you have no preconceived agenda. What point are you trying to make? Your last two posts basically accomplish nothing. You treat the verse as if you were a literary teacher - do you see no spiritual point in what is being taught?

Want to add what Albert Barnes got out of it:

Luke 4:28
Filled with wrath - They were enraged, probably, for the following reasons:
1. They saw that the cases applied to themselves, because they would not receive the miraculous evidences of his mission.
2. That he would direct his attention to others, and not to them.
3. That the “Gentiles” were objects of compassion with God, and that God often showed more favor to a “single” Gentile than to multitudes of Jews in the same circumstances.
4. That they might be “worse” than the Gentiles. And,
5. That it was a part of his design to preach the gospel to the Gentiles, and not confine his labors to them only.
On these accounts their favor was soon turned to wrath, and the whole transaction shows us:

1. That popular applause is of little value.
2. That the slightest circumstances may soon turn the warmest professed friendship to hatred. And,
3. That people are exceedingly unreasonable in being unwilling to hear the truth and profit by it.

 

[Bbrdrd]

Every time a discussion breaks out and you are involved, it turns into nit-picking a particular verse, as if you have no preconceived agenda. What point are you trying to make? Your last two posts basically accomplish nothing. You treat the verse as if you were a literary teacher - do you see no spiritual point in what is being taught?

I treat it as if it has a real meaning in its context, which requires scrutinizing it- or as you put it "nit-picking." Failing to account for your own personal biases is to impose a meaning on the text that isn't there, especially when you express motives for people that do not make sense to the text.

In the case of the verse you used, there is no hint of election in it so to overlay it with election is to read it into the text. The conclusion is simple enough to recognize that Jesus was highlighting that there were plenty of Israelites God could have helped but instead helped gentiles, which enraged the Jews.

I certainly have biases and agendas that I bring to the text, but by methodically looking to the context including things like type of literature and surrounding narratives such tendencies can be mitigated to draw out what the text itself is saying instead of reading my doctrine into the text.

 

[awelight]

I treat it as if it has a real meaning in its context, which requires scrutinizing it- or as you put it "nit-picking." Failing to account for your own personal biases is to impose a meaning on the text that isn't there, especially when you express motives for people that do not make sense to the text.

In the case of the verse you used, there is no hint of election in it so to overlay it with election is to read it into the text. The conclusion is simple enough to recognize that Jesus was highlighting that there were plenty of Israelites God could have helped but instead helped gentiles, which enraged the Jews.

I certainly have biases and agendas that I bring to the text, but by methodically looking to the context including things like type of literature and surrounding narratives such tendencies can be mitigated to draw out what the text itself is saying instead of reading my doctrine into the text.

The verses show God's choices, do they not? He went to two and ignored others, did He not? These two were not a part of national Israel and as such were not included in the Abrahamic Covenant, as the Jews understood it, correct? Therefore, the teaching is clear. God provides His Grace to him He choses, not as religionist would have it or expect it.

 

[Bbrdrd]

The verses show God's choices, do they not? He went to two and ignored others, did He not? These two were not a part of national Israel and as such were not included in the Abrahamic Covenant, as the Jews understood it, correct? Therefore, the teaching is clear. God provides His Grace to him He choses, not as religionist would have it.

That's a different animal, but still needs more support to show it truly is within the text than what you've presented. My main point was you were assigning a motive to their wrath that was inappropriate to the audience claiming that they would have been thinking of election in those terms.

Your conclusion at the end is especially spurious which becomes apparent if we look to the stories themselves from the OT. Israel was faithless and God treated them according to their faithlessness. To then infer a teaching about sovereign choice when the stories are of gentiles showing more faith than the supposed people of God and being rewarded for it may seem appropriate if you don't actually know the stories, but it doesn't cut it if they are known.

 

[cv5]

So the other peeps were created but never given the opportunity to receive God’s grace, hence they were created for wrath and destruction?

I am sure a diligent and dedicated Bible study will provide you with the answers you are seeking.

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

This "rejection", is not to say, that any of these rejected a Decree of God. They rejected what John was saying. To repent and be Baptized. John's proclamation had it's truthfulness in the good counsel of God. God's counsel is always for good but those who rejected it, could see no point in John's demands. It found no place in their heart and so they were not motivated to carry it out. Man continually rejects God's council in the same way he rejects many of God's laws. However, no man can reject a Decree brought forward by God, from eternity. If he could, then God is not God and man now controls creation.

The greek word translated "counsel" (βουλην), is used 12 times in the New Testament and generally carries the meaning of: "To advise, purpose or will". How it is to be understood is a matter of context.

Here in Luke 7:30, it means the oral commandment of God, as given by another. For it was good in God's sight for men to repent and be baptized. This commandment was discarded by the Pharisees and lawyers, because they could see no need for repentance.

In verses like Acts 2:23, the word "counsel" is given it's meaning by the word "determinate", which means the word "counsel" should be seen as a Decree or Divine Purpose. Act 2:23 him, being delivered up by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye by the hand of lawless men did crucify and slay:

In 1 Cor. 4:5, it is the counsel of man's heart that will be revealed: 1Cor 4:5 Therefore judge nothing before the time, until the Lord come, who both will bring to light the hidden things of darkness, and will make manifest the counsels of the hearts: and then shall every man have praise of God. Obviously, this has nothing to do with a Decree from God. It is motivation brought to light of each persons life.

So "counsel", like any other word must be determined by immediate context. I also believe you know what is being said here is true but for the purpose of your argument, you remain willfully ignorant. With all do respect.

Okay, what I think I hear you saying is that Ephesians 1:11's "according to the counsel/boulen/purpose [G1012] of the will/wish [G2307] of Him" doesn't necessarily mean He planned this BEFORE the world began, since the word "determinate" isn't used in the verse?

I doubt you are suggesting this ,

...but if you want to then go back and point at verse 4, it also is not saying that His "plan" was to pick [before time] certain individuals for salvation, and/or certain other individuals for damnation. That is not what "hath chosen us IN HIM *before [G4253 - pro] the foundation of the world" speaks of. This is speaking of His will to have an entity called "the Church WHICH IS HIS BODY" [Eph1:20-23 WHEN (as to its existence)] in this "present age [singular]" (to/for/about whom "our Rapture" SOLELY pertains, for example... not to all other saints of all OTHER time periods... iow, v.10 is not speaking of this "present age [singular]" as the rest of the epistle is covering).

 

[cv5]

Your post reminds me of a post I made quite awhile ago (where there's another verse using this "REJECT [G114]" word):

[quoting old post]


Luke 7:29-30 - "29 And all the people that heard him, and the publicans, justified God, being baptized with the baptism of John. 30 But the Pharisees and lawyers rejected [G114] the counsel [G1012 - boulēn] of God against [as to / unto] themselves, being not baptized [having not been baptized] of him."

--G1012 - boulēn - used also in Ephesians 1:11, the verse Calvinists use to say "no one can reject/resist" THIS, God's decreed [determined-plan] will [G1012]... yet Luke 7:30 clearly says the Pharisees and lawyers "rejected the boulēn G1012 of God..." (which, for that time then in existence, the decreed-will of God was: "the baptism of John").

The point being, they did indeed "reject the boulēn G1012 of God". Something that Calvinists say is impossible.


From Bible Hub:

Definition: counsel, deliberate wisdom, decree.

HELPS Word-studies

1012 boulḗ – properly, a resolved plan, used particularly of the immutable aspect of God's plan – purposefully arranging all physical circumstances, which guarantees every scene of life works to His eternal purpose.

This level of God's plan (1012 /boulḗ) demonstrates He is the Lord of history, i.e. always in charge!

[1012 (boulḗ) is more than God's immutable plan of physical circumstances. It always also includes the Lord's purpose in them – and hence arranging all the physical scenes of history before creation (Ps 139:16; Jn 1:3).]


[and... quoting]

HELPS Word-studies

Cognate: 1014 boúlomai – to plan with full resolve (determination). See 1012 (boulē).

1014 /boúlomai ("resolutely plan") is a strong term that underlines the predetermined (and determined) intention driving the planning (wishing, resolving). In contrast, 2309 (thélō) focuses on the desire ("wishfulness") behind making an offer (cf. TDNT, 1, 629).

[While God's "thelō-offers" can be rejected (see 2309 /thélō), His 1014 /boúlomai ("planning") always works out His purpose, especially in conjunction with presetting the physical scenes of history.]

[end quoting from BibleHub]


They clearly "rejected the boulēn G1012 of God," according to that text.

One might think to answer, well they are just doing what comes naturally (to natural man), but that is to miss the point. The point is, Calvinists say that "no one can reject/resist His 'boule / boulen [G1012]' will (that is to say, His 'decreed' will)." But Luke 7:30 says these clearly did so.

And I agree with those saying that "Calvinism" and "Arminianism" are NOT the only options.

[end quoting old post]

Interesting observation. I for one do not hold to the tenets of Calvin line item by line item. Truthfully I probably do not know them all and I certainly could not recite them.

Off the cuff I would say that they rejected because they were not elected!

 

[awelight]

That's a different animal, but still needs more support to show it truly is within the text than what you've presented. My main point was you were assigning a motive to their wrath that was inappropriate to the audience claiming that they would have been thinking of election in those terms.

Your conclusion at the end is especially spurious which becomes apparent if we look to the stories themselves from the OT. Israel was faithless and God treated them according to their faithlessness. To then infer a teaching about sovereign choice when the stories are of gentiles showing more faith than the supposed people of God and being rewarded for it may seem appropriate if you don't actually know the stories, but it doesn't cut it if they are known.

Your argument comes across as one who lacks spiritual interpretation and understanding. You see the literal story, like one sees the text of a novel but has no deeper insight to it's meanings. God does not reward one with favor, unless he chose to do so and if he chose to do so, this would have been decided before the world began. Not because of their faith or the nature of their flesh.

Is all of this taught here? No. Not in the word for word literal sense. But it is understood by the discerning mind. If one cannot see these things, then no spiritual discernment and no amount of word study are reading will ever change that. Every text has multiple lessons to the discerning mind. The literal understanding and the spiritual understanding. Many can understand the literal but the spiritual lessons are only discerned by those who are lead by the Spirit. They see the deep things of God and not just to superficial meaning. To this end, this is why those who heard the parables got little from them. Only those who had hearing ears and discerning minds, understood the real meanings behind the words. The same applies to this text. it goes to the purpose of Christ in picking this particular subject.

Which are you? One who discerns the spiritual lessons or a superficial literarian.

 

[cv5]

It seems to me you are being evasive, I am speaking about the non-elect and how are they held accountable for a choice they did not have?

You may not like the sound of this.........but I don't know.
Does anyone really know? I mean really?

The best Paul could do was exonerate God of any wrongdoing, and then break out in a doxology of praise.

Don't expect me to do any better. And I won't expected it of you either.

 

[cv5]

There's always this accusation of denying God's free will, yet it is the distortion of God's will that we object to.

A great example of this is the way you use "has mercy on whom He will" as a means of denying mercy to some. Yet every time that phrase occurs its an expanding of mercy, with God expressing His desire to show mercy. After all, He did turn all to disobedience so He could have mercy on all.

To deny that the gospel is available too all is to deny the gospel. It is only by setting yourself as a judge of Scripture prioritizing the exclusive-sounding verses over the inclusive ones that such a view can stand. It is only by ignoring the "whosoevers" and the "all" that the doctrine of particular election stands, and to what end except to shut the door of heaven to some?

Expanding mercy? Debatable.
Redirecting mercy and extending mercy? Sounds a lot better to me.

 

[awelight]

Okay, what I think I hear you saying is that Ephesians 1:11's "according to the counsel/boulen/purpose [G1012] of the will/wish [G2307] of Him" doesn't necessarily mean He planned this BEFORE the world began, since the word "determinate" isn't used in the verse?

I doubt you are suggesting this ,

...but if you want to then go back and point at verse 4, it also is not saying that His "plan" was to pick [before time] certain individuals for salvation, and/or certain other individuals for damnation. That is not what "hath chosen us IN HIM *before [G4253 - pro] the foundation of the world" speaks of. This is speaking of His will to have an entity called "the Church WHICH IS HIS BODY" [Eph1:20-23 WHEN (as to its existence)] in this "present age [singular]" (to/for/about whom "our Rapture" SOLELY pertains, for example... not to all other saints of all OTHER time periods... iow, v.10 is not speaking of this "present age [singular]" as the rest of the epistle is covering).

No that's not what I said or the conclusion I came too. Will you folks please take the time to read a post fully.

I was not even discussing Eph. 1:11. In that verse "counsel" of His own will, is magnified in the context with, "according to the purpose of Him" , thus a Decree is in focus here. As such, it cannot be rejected.

Eph 1:11 In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will: Our obtaining an inheritance, is because God predestined believers according to His Purpose. That Purpose came out of His Sovereign counsel by His own will. The counsel of His own will, means it excluded anyone or thing from being apart of the decision making process.

 

[Bbrdrd]

Your argument comes across as one who lacks spiritual interpretation and understanding. You see the literal story, like one sees the text of a novel but has no deeper insight to it's meanings. God does not reward one with favor, unless he chose to do so and if he chose to do so, this would have been decided before the world began. Not because of their faith or the nature of their flesh.

Is all of this taught here? No. Not in the word for word literal sense. But it is understood by the discerning mind. If one cannot see these things, then no spiritual discernment and no amount of word study are reading will ever change that. Every text has multiple lessons to the discerning mind. The literal understanding and the spiritual understanding. Many can understand the literal but the spiritual lessons are only discerned by those who are lead by the Spirit. They see the deep things of God and not just to superficial meaning. To this end, this is why those who heard the parables got little from them. Only those who had hearing ears and discerning minds, understood the real meanings behind the words. The same applies to this text. it goes to the purpose of Christ in picking this particular subject.

Which are you? One who discerns the spiritual lessons or a superficial literarian.

If your "spiritual lesson" cannot make sense of the literal story then it is not of the Spirit of God. It sounds to me like you're just looking for an excuse to continue to read your biases into the text without doing the work of understanding the text for what it says first.

And there indeed is a spiritual lesson in the passages you cited, but it is not "God chooses who He chooses for no reason." Indeed, the reason for God's choice is plain to those who understand the context of the passages along with the source stories. The Sidonese woman had faith while Israel was faithless. Naaman showed faith while Israel was faithless. From front to back the value of faith is plain.

All your escape rationalizations to simply preserve your twist on the Bible when the contextual leg work shows there's no grounds for such a conclusion is nothing more than your own self-deception showing. You claim to desire to know what Scripture says, but then when it is discussed for its plain meaning you don't want that but instead want what you've read into it and spiritualize your self-deception and teachings of men.

 

[Bbrdrd]

Expanding mercy? Debatable.
Redirecting mercy and extending mercy? Sounds a lot better to me.

Spin it how you want, the point is that when that phrase is used the focus is on His desire to show mercy to people that would not be expected previously not to deny mercy on capricious grounds.

Yet whenever I see it from Calvinists it's always to support a lack of mercy not a new group that is being shown mercy.

 

[cv5]

Spin it how you want, the point is that when that phrase is used the focus is on His desire to show mercy to people that would not be expected previously not to deny mercy on capricious grounds.

Yet whenever I see it from Calvinists it's always to support a lack of mercy not a new group that is being shown mercy.

Beggars can't be choosers. Some mercy any mercy is much preferred to no mercy.
Certainly we should always pray for God's long-suffering never to be curtailed for any man.

 

[Bbrdrd]

Beggars can't be choosers. Some mercy any mercy is much preferred to no mercy.
Certainly we should always pray for God's long-suffering never to be curtailed for any man.

If you believe that God chose some specifically to be damned, wouldn't that be praying against His will?

 

[cv5]

If you believe that God chose some specifically to be damned, wouldn't that be praying against His will?

Only if you say so. Are you saying so?

 

[posthuman]

You're forcing the point when it's not necessary. The jews were angry because Jesus was highlighting that God showed favor to gentiles even though there were Jews in the same predicament. It was directly against their view of themselves as the elect, and there's no reason they would have taken it as an expansion but simply been insulted by the highlighting of men of God attending to gentiles over Jews.

i don't think to be insulted is the right reaction to jealousy ((Deuteronomy 32:21))

 

[Bbrdrd]

Only if you say so. Are you saying so?

Certainly seems it would be.

No problem for me since I don't believe it within God's character to be the lone effective cause between salvation and damnation.

But if you believe God's sovereign choice is to damn people, and you're praying that God would continue to suffer them then you are going directly against what you claim to believe God wills.

 

[Bbrdrd]

i don't think to be insulted is the right reaction to jealousy ((Deuteronomy 32:21))

I'd agree, but then again the ones who were displaying wrath aren't being portrayed as being right.