Election's Historicity (Doctrinal Counter Perspective)

[Grip Docility]

Peter said he was ministering to the Jewish and Gentile (1:10) Christians "chosen for obedience to Jesus Christ" scattered throughout Asia Minor (1 Pe 1:1-2).

1 Peter 1:10 Concerning this salvation, the prophets, who spoke of the grace that was to come to you, searched intently and with the greatest care,

1:10? I actually see Peter double down that it's to Israel of Blood... as The Prophet's spoke to Israel. Matthew 23 verifies that in a painful way.

 

[Grip Docility]

Since you say it can’t mean any different, there’s no point in continuing. There’s absolutely no reason (when looking at the context)besides your tradition to think it must mean what you say it means.

Look at the Greek in Colossians 1... The ALL is bound to Jesus Christ's Supremacy. You can't play determinist games with all, without marginalizing Christ's supremacy. Please, by all means... Look at the Greek. I posted it and the exhaustive Greek on it in earlier posts.

Link to #5 Colossians 1, while 6 and 7 are spoilers containing the exhaustive Greek.

 

[Grip Docility]

The context shows that creation there does not refer to human beings.

If you desire to claim that the context is not towards ALL of Creation, by the Greek, you again are reducing the scope of Christ's Supremacy over all things, including Human Beings. This is how Colossians 1 reads by the actual Greek.

 

[Hammster]

Look at the Greek in Colossians 1... The ALL is bound to Jesus Christ's Supremacy. You can't play determinist games with all, without marginalizing Christ's supremacy. Please, by all means... Look at the Greek. I posted it and the exhaustive Greek on it in earlier posts.

Link to #5 Colossians 1, while 6 and 7 are spoilers containing the exhaustive Greek.

I’m not talking about the Greek. I’m talking about the context.

But since you want to bring up Greek, pas can mean all without exception, or it can mean all types. So grammatically, all men can mean either. So you chose “all without exception” because it fits your tradition, not because the text demands it.

So both grammatically and contextually, it could mean all types of men. If you insist that it cannot, it’s definitely evidence that you are putting more weight on your tradition than on the text itself.

 

[Grip Docility]

I’m not talking about the Greek. I’m talking about the context.

But since you want to bring up Greek, pas can mean all without exception, or it can mean all types. So grammatically, all men can mean either. So you chose “all without exception” because it fits your tradition, not because the text demands it.

So both grammatically and contextually, it could mean all types of men. If you insist that it cannot, it’s definitely evidence that you are putting more weight on your tradition than on the text itself.

Which is why Colossians 1 is the tie breaker.

 

[Hammster]

Which is why Colossians 1 is the tie breaker.

Why won’t you admit that John 12:32 could mean all types of people?

 

[Grip Docility]

Why won’t you admit that John 12:32 could mean all types of people?

Because, Colossians 1 is King in this discussion and compromising the intended Meaning of ALL in any other passage that discusses this matter would then immediately reduce the scope of Jesus Christ’s Authority.

 

[Hammster]

Because, Colossians 1 is King in this discussion and compromising the intended Meaning of ALL in any other passage that discusses this matter would then immediately reduce the scope of Jesus Christ’s Authority.

So you admit that you are willing to ignore context and grammar to support your tradition. Thats all I wanted to know.

 

[Grip Docility]

So you admit that you are willing to ignore context and grammar to support your tradition. Thats all I wanted to know.

This is Ad Hominem.

 

[Hammster]

This is Ad Hominem.

No, it’s a summation. Textually and grammatically it could mean all types. But you won’t even acquiesce to that point. You keep going outside the text.

 

[Grip Docility]

No, it’s a summation. Textually and grammatically it could mean all types. But you won’t even acquiesce to that point. You keep going outside the text.

Logical fallacy. Colossians 1 establishes the meaning of All, on behalf of our Lord God, Jesus Christ.

 

[Clare73]

Paul was to the Gentiles and Peter was to the Circumcision, per Paul. Remember when Paul and Peter got into a tiff at Antioch? Paul won. Paul had rank. I'll quote Galatians 2:6-7 now that I am home.

Galatians 2:7-8 On the contrary, they saw that I had been entrusted with the gospel for the uncircumcised, just as Peter was for the circumcised, 8 since the One at work in Peter for an apostleship to the circumcised was also at work in me for the Gentiles.​

Paul iterates Peter specifically to The Jews... Twice.... and again... Peter refers specifically to the Diaspora (Jews)

1 Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ,​

​

To God’s elect, exiles scattered throughout the provinces of Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia, 2 who have been chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through the sanctifying work of the Spirit, to be obedient to Jesus Christ and sprinkled with his blood:​

The exact word that Peter uses "Exiles" is the Greek word for the Jewish Diaspora

Spoiler

​

◄ διασπορᾶς ►

​

Englishman's Concordance διασπορᾶς (diasporas) — 1 Occurrence 1 Peter 1:1 N-GFS GRK: ἐκλεκτοῖς παρεπιδήμοις διασπορᾶς Πόντου Γαλατίας NAS: To those who reside as aliens, scattered throughout Pontus, KJV: to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, INT: to [the] elect exiles of [the] dispersion of Pontus of Galatia

Peter directly calls out the Diaspora (Dispersed Jews) and Calls them Elect, just like Paul leads up to in Romans 11.

Romans 11:28 Regarding the gospel, they are enemies for your advantage, but regarding election, they are loved because of the patriarchs

Election = the remnant.

The gifts and irrevocable call are being fulfilled in a remnant.

 

[Grip Docility]

Election equals the remnant.

When you say "remnant", could you please expound, so that I can understand your use of the word? It is a Theologically steeped word.

 

[Hammster]

Logical fallacy. Colossians 1 establishes the meaning of All, on behalf of our Lord God, Jesus Christ.

It’s not any type of fallacy. I’m pointing out that you won’t even acknowledge that there’s a possibility of another understanding. And it’s because of your tradition.

 

[Grip Docility]

It’s not any type of fallacy. I’m pointing out that you won’t even acknowledge that there’s a possibility of another understanding. And it’s because of your tradition.

This is again "Ad Homonym". I do not reference commentary when studying and exegeting. I acknowledge that my understanding is fallible, because Jesus alone, IS THE TRUTH.

Would you care to share how many extra biblical sources that it requires to master reformed theology, for the sake of "sola scriptura"?

 

[Clare73]

When you say "remnant", could you please expound, so that I can understand your use of the word? It is a Theologically steeped word.

Few instead of all.

 

[Hammster]

This is again "Ad Homonym". I do not reference commentary when studying and exegeting. I acknowledge that my understanding is fallible, because Jesus alone, IS THE TRUTH.

Would you care to share how many extra biblical sources that it requires to master reformed theology, for the sake of "sola scriptura"?

An ad hominem would be be saying that you are a failure for not acknowledging that there’s a legitimate possible understanding. Pointing out that there is a possible understanding and that you ignore it because of your tradition is not an ad hominem.

 

[Clare73]

1 Peter 1:10 Concerning this salvation, the prophets, who spoke of the grace that was to come to you, searched intently and with the greatest care,

1:10? I actually see Peter double down that it's to Israel of Blood... as The Prophet's spoke to Israel. Matthew 23 verifies that in a painful way.

I see Peter's reference to "the empty way of life handed down to you" as addressing the Gentiles (1 Pe 1:18).

So Peter was writing to both Jews and Gentiles in the church of Asia Minor.

 

[Grip Docility]

Few instead of all.

I will take your post number 58 as clarification to this answer.

 

[Grip Docility]

An ad hominem would be be saying that you are a failure for not acknowledging that there’s a legitimate possible understanding. Pointing out that there is a possible understanding and that you ignore it because of your tradition is not an ad hominem.

Ad Hominem is to personally attack the person arguing, instead of addressing the argument.