Age of Accountability

[Hupomone10]

1 Peter 2:8
and, “A stone that causes people to stumble and a rock that makes them fall.” They stumble because they disobey the message—which is also what they were destined for.

A.T. Robertson said the following on this verse in his "Word Pictures in the New Testament", 1933

(eis ho kai etethēsan). First aorist passive indicative of tithēmi. See this idiom in 1Ti_2:7 ("For this I was appointed").
“Their disobedience is not ordained, the penalty of their disobedience is” (Bigg). They rebelled against God and paid the penalty.

This interpretation is in keeping with the rest of scripture, especially Peter's own writings, since he said
"But false prophets also arose among the people... even denying the Master who bought them" (2 Pet 2:1)
"The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance. (2 Pet 3:9)" (scripture is the best commentary on scripture; especially when it's the same author).

We've all heard the interpretation that we're supposed to read into this verse that by "all" Peter meant "all the elect only". Of course he did have the option of writing that if he meant that, for he was familiar with the word "elect" or "chosen." He also could have said "all of us."

But he didn't. So, I think there's just no way around it, we're simply going to just have to accept what Peter said, and what the Holy Spirit meant by it, regardless of our need to "read into."

Exegesis: reading out of scripture truth that is there. What did the author mean?
Eisegesis: reading into scripture truth that is in my head. What should the author have meant?

Man...if only we could say that believe was of ourselves! But we can't!

Give it up; it's an obsession.

"Get into the car and let's go to the store."
"Wait, where did the gas come from?"
"Nevermind, you keep asking people that and I'll go to the store."

 

[98cwitr]

A.T. Robertson said the following on this verse in his "Word Pictures in the New Testament", 1933

(eis ho kai etethēsan). First aorist passive indicative of tithēmi. See this idiom in 1Ti_2:7 ("For this I was appointed").
“Their disobedience is not ordained, the penalty of their disobedience is” (Bigg). They rebelled against God and paid the penalty.

This interpretation is in keeping with the rest of scripture, especially Peter's own writings, since he said
"But false prophets also arose among the people... even denying the Master who bought them" (2 Pet 2:1)
"The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance. (2 Pet 3:9)" (scripture is the best commentary on scripture; especially when it's the same author).

We've all heard the interpretation that we're supposed to read into this verse that by "all" Peter meant "all the elect only". Of course he did have the option of writing that if he meant that, for he was familiar with the word "elect" or "chosen." He also could have said "all of us."

But he didn't. So, I think there's just no way around it, we're simply going to just have to accept what Peter said, and what the Holy Spirit meant by it, regardless of our need to "read into."

Exegesis: reading out of scripture truth that is there. What did the author mean?
Eisegesis: reading into scripture truth that is in my head. What should the author have meant?

Give it up; it's an obsession.

"Get into the car and let's go to the store."
"Wait, where did the gas come from?"
"Nevermind, you keep asking people that and I'll go to the store."

"Get into the car and let's go to the store."
"Wait, where did the gas come from?"
"I'll explain on the way to the store."

No man left behind

If you think I'm taking that verse out of context so be it...it still stands to reason that people are predestined to stumble b/c that verse explicitly says so.

 

[Hupomone10]

"Get into the car and let's go to the store."
"Wait, where did the gas come from?"
"I'll explain on the way to the store."

No man left behind

If you think I'm taking that verse out of context so be it...it still stands to reason that people are predestined to stumble b/c that verse explicitly says so.

When they are disobedient to the Word they are predestined to stumble.

I'm just trying to show first that this verse can be taken either way with equal clarity, and second that a major Baptist Greek scholar says based on the language in the verse it must be taken that all who are "disobedient to the word" are appointed to it because of their disobedience to the Word, not that they were appointed to that doom even before they were disobedient.

I am curious about one thing, though. On April 25 you said the following in another thread:

__________, I'm in the same boat dude...I know if I died today I'd go to hell. God sustains me anyway, and in this act I trust there is a reason for it..."

I think that because I have tested myself, seen the work of my hands and the fruits that they have produced and the summation of which has, via Scripture, led me to believe contrary to a saved state.

http://www.christianforums.com/t7554869/#post57330342

Has something significant changed in the last 3 weeks?

I think we're both familiar with the following verse, and the general consensus about it:
1 Corinthians 2:14
But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God; for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised.

The general consensus being that the "natural man" is referring to an unsaved person, a person without the Holy Spirit within. And I think you would agree that a person who has the Holy Spirit indwelling is a child of God and is not going to hell; and that a person going to hell is a person therefore without the Holy Spirit within to guide.

My question then, is if you believe you are going to hell and therefore at best have to doubt you have the indwelling Holy Spirit, how can you be so confident that you are understanding spiritual things and are understanding spiritual doctrine such as election, predestination and the doctrine of faith, when Scripture says that the natural man cannot understand these things? How is it that you believe you understand them enough to be so adamant about it that you are trying to convince other born again persons that they are wrong?

Second, why would you care? If I thought I was going to hell, I would make that my utmost priority to look into that issue rather than debating doctrinal points with saved Christians, spiritual truth that Scripture says I can never be sure I understand until I at least get the issue settled about whether my spirit has been regenerated or not, the hell-or-Heaven thing settled.

Please don't take offense at this; I really am having a hard time understanding the emphasis and priority you place on these things. This is not to suggest that I am right on these doctrinal issues and you are wrong; just to ask the question why would you think you are when the natural man can at best only hope he is right and has stumbled onto some truth.

God bless,
H.

 

[Skala]

Of course he did have the option of writing that if he meant that, for he was familiar with the word "elect" or "chosen." He also could have said "all of us."

But it wasn't necessary because of the simple rules of grammar

"Class, everyone sit down"

You'd call me crazy if I asserted the teacher was telling everyone - the whole of the human race, past present and future - to have a seat. You'd tell me I was ignoring grammar, the context, and who she was addressing.

Yet you find it ok to do the same with 2 Peter 3:9 and it's mind boggling. shrug

As for 1 Peter 2:8, a friend and pastor has a different understanding, that he supports with exegesis:

======
I am preaching on 1 Peter 2: 8 tonight which reads;

“καὶ λίθος προσκόμματος καὶ πέτρα σκανδάλου• οἳ προσκόπτουσιν τῷ λόγῳ ἀπειθοῦντες εἰς ὃ καὶ ἐτέθησαν.”*

I want to share my exegesis with you all. Now it might be that some don’t accept my doctrine, if so argue your case based on my exegesis – show me how the Greek says something different please! Or it might be that some want to know more, if so please ask and I will do my best to explain further .

Those of us familiar with the discussion of the Greek text regarding Eph 2:8 may recognize a similarity. With Eph 2:8 the neuter pronoun heutos (“that”) does not have a neuter antecedent in the words faith(feminine), grace(feminine) or salvation(masculine) hence we conclude that the most natural reading is that the gift is the whole preceding idea, “For by grace are ye saved through faith.” Greek students refer to this as the demonstrative pronoun.

Well here it is again in 1 Peter 2:8 it is the neuter singular relative pronoun “Ho” and there is no specific neuter noun which it claim to be its antecedent – hence when we exegete the passage we conclude that Ho refers back the whole of the proceeding idea just expressed, this is the natural reading. Hence, “They stumble, being disobedient to the word,” is the thing to which they are appointed.

Notice then Peter's emphasis here, they are appointed to stumble over Christ in disobedience. However the reason they stumble is because they are disobedient. God holds people accountable for their disbelief, it is the sinners fault they don’t repent, yet in the sovereign decree of God that is what they have been appointed to.

If ever there was a text in scripture that clearly demonstrates the biblical ‘tension’ that exists between man’s responsibility and the sovereignty of God this has to be it.

Now read on;

ὑμεῖς δὲ γένος ἐκλεκτόν and note the logical constrastive δὲ “but” you are a chosen(elect) nation. In contrast to the ones Peter describes as being appointed to stumble through their own disobedience his readers have been chosen or elected to something entirely different.

Notice then also the difference in the words Peter uses, the reprobate is not merely appointed (ἐτέθησα&#957 whereas the believer is chosen or elected (ἐκλεκτό&#957. That difference is hugely significant in showing us the difference between reprobation and election. In reprobation God appoints some to remain in their lost state, in election God lifts some out of that condition and makes them into something better!
========
(Thanks RB @ WarrantedFaith)

 

[PrincetonGuy]

1 Peter 2:8. and, “A STONE OF STUMBLING AND A ROCK OF OFFENSE”; for they stumble because they are disobedient to the word, and to this doom they were also appointed. (NASB, 1995)

If you think I'm taking that verse out of context so be it...it still stands to reason that people are predestined to stumble b/c that verse explicitly says so.

Hupomone10 quoted from A. T. Robertson where he wrote,

Whereunto also they were appointed (eis ho kai etethesan). First aorist passive indicative of tithemi. See this idiom in 1Ti_2:7. “Their disobedience is not ordained, the penalty of their disobedience is” (Bigg). They rebelled against God and paid the penalty.

The name “Bigg” in parentheses is the name of the scholar that Robertson is quoting from, Rev. Charles Bigg, D.D., Late Canon of Christ Church, and Regius Professor of Ecclesiastical History in the University of Oxford. The quote is from Bigg’s commentary on the epistles of Peter and Jude in The International Critical Commentary series. Here is his quote in context,

εις ο και ετεθησαν. “Whereunto also they were appointed” by the ordinance of God; cf. εις ο ετεθην εγω κηρυξ, I Tim. ii. 7; 2 Tim. i. 11; John xv. 16; Acts xiii. 48. The antecedent to eis ho is the main verb προσκοπτουσιν: this follows as a necessary consequence from the subordination of the participle. Hence those who (like Calvin and Beza) make the relative refer to απειθουντες, and those who find the antecedent in both προσκοπτουσιν and απειθουντες, are no doubt mistaken. The sense, therefore, is “they disobey, and for that reason they stumble”; “because they disobey, God ordains that they shall stumble.” Their disobedience is not ordained, the penalty of their disobedience is.

Note: In the original text of the quote above, there is a typographical error = “Acts xiii. 47” where it should have read “Acts xiii. 48” as in my amended quote above.

1 Peter 2:8 does NOT explicitly say that “people are predestined to stumble”; 1 Peter 2:8 explicitly says that people who are disobedient to the word are “appointed” to stumble.

The Bible is not a toy to be played with; the Bible is God’s word to man—and, therefore, deserves to be carefully and prayerfully read.

 

[PrincetonGuy]

But it wasn't necessary because of the simple rules of grammar

"Class, everyone sit down"

You'd call me crazy if I asserted the teacher was telling everyone - the whole of the human race, past present and future - to have a seat. You'd tell me I was ignoring grammar, the context, and who she was addressing.

Yet you find it ok to do the same with 2 Peter 3:9 and it's mind boggling. shrug

As for 1 Peter 2:8, a friend and pastor has a different understanding, that he supports with exegesis:

======
I am preaching on 1 Peter 2: 8 tonight which reads;

“καὶ λίθος προσκόμματος καὶ πέτρα σκανδάλου• οἳ προσκόπτουσιν τῷ λόγῳ ἀπειθοῦντες εἰς ὃ καὶ ἐτέθησαν.”*

I want to share my exegesis with you all. Now it might be that some don’t accept my doctrine, if so argue your case based on my exegesis – show me how the Greek says something different please! Or it might be that some want to know more, if so please ask and I will do my best to explain further .

Those of us familiar with the discussion of the Greek text regarding Eph 2:8 may recognize a similarity. With Eph 2:8 the neuter pronoun heutos (“that”) does not have a neuter antecedent in the words faith(feminine), grace(feminine) or salvation(masculine) hence we conclude that the most natural reading is that the gift is the whole preceding idea, “For by grace are ye saved through faith.” Greek students refer to this as the demonstrative pronoun.

Well here it is again in 1 Peter 2:8 it is the neuter singular relative pronoun “Ho” and there is no specific neuter noun which it claim to be its antecedent – hence when we exegete the passage we conclude that Ho refers back the whole of the proceeding idea just expressed, this is the natural reading. Hence, “They stumble, being disobedient to the word,” is the thing to which they are appointed.

Notice then Peter's emphasis here, they are appointed to stumble over Christ in disobedience. However the reason they stumble is because they are disobedient. God holds people accountable for their disbelief, it is the sinners fault they don’t repent, yet in the sovereign decree of God that is what they have been appointed to.

If ever there was a text in scripture that clearly demonstrates the biblical ‘tension’ that exists between man’s responsibility and the sovereignty of God this has to be it.

Now read on;

ὑμεῖς δὲ γένος ἐκλεκτόν and note the logical constrastive δὲ “but” you are a chosen(elect) nation. In contrast to the ones Peter describes as being appointed to stumble through their own disobedience his readers have been chosen or elected to something entirely different.

Notice then also the difference in the words Peter uses, the reprobate is not merely appointed (ἐτέθησα&#957 whereas the believer is chosen or elected (ἐκλεκτό&#957. That difference is hugely significant in showing us the difference between reprobation and election. In reprobation God appoints some to remain in their lost state, in election God lifts some out of that condition and makes them into something better!
========
(Thanks RB @ WarrantedFaith)

Perhaps you should purchase for your friend and pastor a copy the Concordance to the New Testament by W. F. Mouton, A. S. Geden, and H. K. Moulton and suggest to him that he look up all of the occurrences of the Greek words ἐτέθησαν and ἐκλεκτόν so that he can see how gravely incorrect his exegesis is.

 

[Hupomone10]

But it wasn't necessary because of the simple rules of grammar

"Class, everyone sit down"

You'd call me crazy if I asserted the teacher was telling everyone - the whole of the human race, past present and future - to have a seat. You'd tell me I was ignoring grammar, the context, and who she was addressing.

Yet you find it ok to do the same with 2 Peter 3:9 and it's mind boggling. shrug

"Class, sit down.

1 hr later...

Now class, we've been studying in Bible Class and in political science that everyone is created equal."

You'd call me crazy if I asserted that the teacher was telling the students that everyone - the whole of the human race - is created equal. Right?
:o

Doesn't sound so good when you put it into a real context, a context closer to the one actually in the letter of Peter instead of one created through the filter of 5-Point calvinism, does it?

The fact that you could not see the shallowness and slantedness of your analogy is, if I can borrow someone's expression - mind-boggling.

 

[PrincetonGuy]

But it wasn't necessary because of the simple rules of grammar

"Class, everyone sit down"

You'd call me crazy if I asserted the teacher was telling everyone - the whole of the human race, past present and future - to have a seat. You'd tell me I was ignoring grammar, the context, and who she was addressing.

Yet you find it ok to do the same with 2 Peter 3:9 and it's mind boggling. shrug

As for 1 Peter 2:8, a friend and pastor has a different understanding, that he supports with exegesis:

======
I am preaching on 1 Peter 2: 8 tonight which reads;

“καὶ λίθος προσκόμματος καὶ πέτρα σκανδάλου• οἳ προσκόπτουσιν τῷ λόγῳ ἀπειθοῦντες εἰς ὃ καὶ ἐτέθησαν.”*

I want to share my exegesis with you all. Now it might be that some don’t accept my doctrine, if so argue your case based on my exegesis – show me how the Greek says something different please! Or it might be that some want to know more, if so please ask and I will do my best to explain further .

Those of us familiar with the discussion of the Greek text regarding Eph 2:8 may recognize a similarity. With Eph 2:8 the neuter pronoun heutos (“that&#8221 does not have a neuter antecedent in the words faith(feminine), grace(feminine) or salvation(masculine) hence we conclude that the most natural reading is that the gift is the whole preceding idea, “For by grace are ye saved through faith.” Greek students refer to this as the demonstrative pronoun.

Well here it is again in 1 Peter 2:8 it is the neuter singular relative pronoun “Ho” and there is no specific neuter noun which it claim to be its antecedent – hence when we exegete the passage we conclude that Ho refers back the whole of the proceeding idea just expressed, this is the natural reading. Hence, “They stumble, being disobedient to the word,” is the thing to which they are appointed.

Notice then Peter's emphasis here, they are appointed to stumble over Christ in disobedience. However the reason they stumble is because they are disobedient. God holds people accountable for their disbelief, it is the sinners fault they don’t repent, yet in the sovereign decree of God that is what they have been appointed to.

If ever there was a text in scripture that clearly demonstrates the biblical ‘tension’ that exists between man’s responsibility and the sovereignty of God this has to be it.

Now read on;

ὑμεῖς δὲ γένος ἐκλεκτόν and note the logical constrastive δὲ “but” you are a chosen(elect) nation. In contrast to the ones Peter describes as being appointed to stumble through their own disobedience his readers have been chosen or elected to something entirely different.

Notice then also the difference in the words Peter uses, the reprobate is not merely appointed (ἐτέθησα&#957 whereas the believer is chosen or elected (ἐκλεκτό&#957. That difference is hugely significant in showing us the difference between reprobation and election. In reprobation God appoints some to remain in their lost state, in election God lifts some out of that condition and makes them into something better!
========
(Thanks RB @ WarrantedFaith)

I need to comment on this paragraph also,

Well here it is again in 1 Peter 2:8 it is the neuter singular relative pronoun “Ho” and there is no specific neuter noun which it claim to be its antecedent – hence when we exegete the passage we conclude that Ho refers back the whole of the proceeding idea just expressed, this is the natural reading. Hence, “They stumble, being disobedient to the word,” is the thing to which they are appointed.

The antecedent of the Greek relative pronominal adjective ho is neither a noun nor “the whole of the proceeding idea just expressed”; it is the verb προσκοπτουσιν as proven by Dr. Charles Bigg in the commentary that I quoted from in post #165 above. This fact is further substantiated by J. Ramsey Michaels (B.A. from Princeton University, B.D. from Grace Theological Seminary, Th.M. from Westminster Theological Seminary, Ph.D. from Harvard University) in his commentary on 1 Peter in the “Word Biblical Commentary Series” where he writes on 1 Peter 2:8, “The antecedent of εις ο is the ‘stumbling’ expressed in the verb προσκοπτουσιν.”

 

[Hupomone10]

1 Peter 2:8. and, “A STONE OF STUMBLING AND A ROCK OF OFFENSE”; for they stumble because they are disobedient to the word, and to this doom they were also appointed. (NASB, 1995)



Hupomone10 quoted from A. T. Robertson where he wrote,

Whereunto also they were appointed (eis ho kai etethesan). First aorist passive indicative of tithemi. See this idiom in 1Ti_2:7. “Their disobedience is not ordained, the penalty of their disobedience is” (Bigg). They rebelled against God and paid the penalty.

The name “Bigg” in parentheses is the name of the scholar that Robertson is quoting from, Rev. Charles Bigg, D.D., Late Canon of Christ Church, and Regius Professor of Ecclesiastical History in the University of Oxford. The quote is from Bigg’s commentary on the epistles of Peter and Jude in The International Critical Commentary series. Here is his quote in context,

εις ο και ετεθησαν. “Whereunto also they were appointed” by the ordinance of God; cf. εις ο ετεθην εγω κηρυξ, I Tim. ii. 7; 2 Tim. i. 11; John xv. 16; Acts xiii. 48. The antecedent to eis ho is the main verb προσκοπτουσιν: this follows as a necessary consequence from the subordination of the participle. Hence those who (like Calvin and Beza) make the relative refer to απειθουντες, and those who find the antecedent in both προσκοπτουσιν and απειθουντες, are no doubt mistaken. The sense, therefore, is “they disobey, and for that reason they stumble”; “because they disobey, God ordains that they shall stumble.” Their disobedience is not ordained, the penalty of their disobedience is.

Note: In the original text of the quote above, there is a typographical error = “Acts xiii. 47” where it should have read “Acts xiii. 48” as in my amended quote above.

1 Peter 2:8 does NOT explicitly say that “people are predestined to stumble”; 1 Peter 2:8 explicitly says that people who are disobedient to the word are “appointed” to stumble.

The Bible is not a toy to be played with; the Bible is God’s word to man—and, therefore, deserves to be carefully and prayerfully read.

Thanks for clarifying that and looking it up.

This makes 1 Peter 2:8 agree with Scripture rather than stand out from it.
For instance it agrees with the same author, Peter, when he says in 2 Peter 2:1
"But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will also be false teachers among you, who will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing swift destruction upon themselves."

First we see that the Lord Jesus bought these false teachers just as he did the "you" to which Peter is speaking. Then we see that the reason given for their swift destruction was the fact that they denied the Master. Put this together with 1 Peter 2:8 and the correct interpretation is obvious.

Because of our flesh, our needs drive much of what we think and the opinions we develop. Then our "good flesh" tries to pass them off as God's doctrine and interpret Scripture in the light of the filter of these ideas. We all do that, myself included.

 

[Skala]

Doesn't sound so good when you put it into a real context, a context closer to the one actually in the letter of Peter instead of one created through the filter of 5-Point calvinism, does it?

I'm a 5 point Calvinist because of Scripture my friend. Not vice versa.

Also, you never showed any context for your understanding of 2 Peter 3:9. You'v basically implied that you ignore the pronouns and grammar and continue to cling to what you want the verse to say.

Thanks for clarifying that and looking it up.

It seems to me that you are simply looking for an answer you agree with. That's not "clarifying" anything All you're doing is looking for affirmation of your already-existing stance brother.

 

[Fencerguy]

I'm a 5 point Calvinist because of Scripture my friend. Not vice versa.

Also, you never showed any context for your understanding of 2 Peter 3:9. You'v basically implied that you ignore the pronouns and grammar and continue to cling to what you want the verse to say.



It seems to me that you are simply looking for an answer you agree with. That's not "clarifying" anything All you're doing is looking for affirmation of your already-existing stance brother.

So basically, since some people are appointed to stumble through disobedience, rather than stumbling because of disobedience, our free will is pretty much thrown out the window.....God will do what God will do, who are we to try and live according to His commands, since we don't actually have any assurance of salvation?

 

[Skala]

So basically, since some people are appointed to stumble through disobedience, rather than stumbling because of disobedience, our free will is pretty much thrown out the window.....God will do what God will do, who are we to try and live according to His commands, since we don't actually have any assurance of salvation?

Fencer, do you realize your argument here is the exact same objection that the Apostle Paul anticipated after explaining the doctrine of unconditional election? (That God elects people for different purposes, some for wrath or mercy, based on his own will, not based on what the people will do?)

So then, God has mercy no whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills.

You will say to me then, "how can God hold us accountable for what we do, since everything is God's will anyways?" But who are you, O man, to reply against God? Will what is formed say to Him who formed it, "Why have you made me like this?"

Has the potter no right over the clay to make out of the same lump one vessel for honor and one vessel for dishonor?

What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory--

-Romans 9:19-23

 

[Fencerguy]

Fencer, do you realize your argument here is the exact same objection that the Apostle Paul anticipated after explaining the doctrine of unconditional election? (That God elects people for different purposes, some for wrath or mercy, based on his own will, not based on what the people will do?)

So then, God has mercy no whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills.

You will say to me then, "how can God hold us accountable for what we do, since everything is God's will anyways?" But who are you, O man, to reply against God? Will what is formed say to Him who formed it, "Why have you made me like this?"

Has the potter no right over the clay to make out of the same lump one vessel for honor and one vessel for dishonor?

What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory--

-Romans 9:19-23

Actually, I only ask you why God wants a relationship with us, since we are no more than clay in His hands? Surely he could fashion beings with which to have a relationship that would be more meaningful that lumps of clay that He can do whatever with....

This response only confirms in my mind that we really have no assurance of our salvation, because maybe we are just fooling ourselves into thinking we are saved....We may not be......Its up to God to decide after all....

 

[Hupomone10]

I'm a 5 point Calvinist because of Scripture my friend. Not vice versa.

It seems to me that you are simply looking for an answer you agree with. That's not "clarifying" anything All you're doing is looking for affirmation of your already-existing stance brother.

I'm sure there are cases, but in 30+ years of talking with and observing Christians I don't know a single one who studied scripture alone and came away from it with the 5-points of Calvinism, all 5, and then ran across 5-Point Calvinism and said "hey, that's what I got out of the scriptures identically!" They all had to be indoctrinated into it.

In every case of which I'm aware, in spite of the fact that He has the Spirit of God within him, he doesn't reach those conclusions until he has talked with other 5-pointers and read the books and then read the scriptures in light of what the books and friends said.

This happens to a certain extent to all of us. We just need to realize what kind of interpretation it is when it does occur - eisegesis. The best thing we can do when that happens is to try to look at those passages inductively in spite of what we've heard and read.

Also, you never showed any context for your understanding of 2 Peter 3:9. You'v basically implied that you ignore the pronouns and grammar and continue to cling to what you want the verse to say.

I defer to what PrincetonGuy has already pointed out regarding the grammar. The correct grammar only strengthens my case, not weaken.

I realize we are not going to resolve this issue, but we need to learn to accept one another's interpretation in some of these instances as an equally valid possibility or at least understand how they could arrive at the conclusion. Almost every single time I have a discussion such as this with a 5-point Calvinist, (there are exceptions, and I'm thankful for those) I get the feeling he believes I just haven't arrived where he is yet, and that what I believe is a corruption of the Gospel if not an outright false Gospel. It's the same impression I get when talking with a Charismatic who feels you just need the emotional experience he has, and until you get it you are "less than."

H.

 

[Skala]

That is not true at all brother and I hope I don't come across that way. I simply defend these doctrines vigorously because I believe they are what the Bible teaches.

As for your argument that you've never heard of someone coming away from scripture with the 5 points, let me point out a few issues:

1) The only Christians you've talked to are 21st century Christians who are already living in a society that glorifies free will and "have it my way".

This is especially true in America with the "pull yourself up by your own boot straps" mentality. Decisionism and altar calls are the way the majority of evangelicalism operates today, so obviously the majority of Christians you talk to are probably from backgrounds like this. America has been radically influenced by Charles Finney's approach to evangelism, there's no denying it. Thus, the Christians you communicate with and discuss things with are already from a certain ideology. You know how I know? Because I was one of them.

2) Would your argument hold true with a doctrine such as the Trinity? Have you ever met an un-educated Christian who said "hey, I was reading the Bible and I discovered that God is 3 persons, yet 1 God?" I seriously doubt it. Everything I know about the Trinity (while it is taught in scripture) I learned because other people told me about the doctrine, not because I suddenly discovered it on my own.

How about dispensationalism?
Amillenialism?
Preterism?

None of those doctrines are casually discovered by a reader, are they? Yet they exist and each person who believes them can substantiate their claims with scriptural arguments.

3) As for the 5 doctrines of TULIP itself, though some of the doctrines are more obvious in scripture than others, I have 2 responses:

3a) TULIP, as 5 doctrines, was never created or invented by any Calvinist, anywhere. Nobody sat down and write out 5 distinct doctrines. Rather, the 5 points are responses to 5 disagreements the Arminians had with the dutch reformed church. So the 5 points of TULIP are a negative response to 5 arguments, not a positive affirmation of doctrine.

In other words, it is not Calvinists fault that their doctrine is in 5 points. They never articulated them that way, originally. The Armininan remonstrance expressed their disagreement with reformed theology in 5 statements, and the Synod of Dordt responded to those 5 disagreements with what they thought were scriptural responses. That's where TULIP came from. (You can see their responses called the Canons of Dordt here

The Canons of Dordt

If you feel that their responses are unbiblical, by all means please address them and start a thread, I'm sure it would be some good discussions

Long story short: this fact addresses your argument that "nobody ever sat down and discovered TULIP". Of course not. But then again, nobody ever claimed that that's how Calvinism or TULIP came about to begin with. Calvinism is not TULIP exclusively. It is a rich Christian tradition that is embedded in history and the reformation that has a high view of God's sovereignty and Christ's atoning work, and God's promise to keep those He saves. The only reason TULIP exists at all is because the Remonstrance disagreed with them and issued 5 points of disagreement.

3b) As for you not being able to find TULIP in scripture, really?

T = you don't find in scripture that sin has affected man and made him a slave and that he is unwilling and unable to come to God without God's intervention?

U = obviously this one's tougher, but let me point out something to you: even the most fervent Armininians believe in Election. Election cannot be denied: it's crystal clear in the Bible. The question is not "Does the Bible teach that God chose who to save before they are born?" Because both Arminians and Calvinists answer "Yes". The question is: "On what basis does God choose who to save?" Arminians say: God's foreknowledge of their free will choice and Calvinists say: God's grace and mercy alone.

You don't find in scripture anywhere that God chose us before the foundation of the world? And predestined us for adoption? Or appointed us to eternal life? Or chose us from the beginning for salvation? As I type each of these sentences, several bible verses are coming to mind. But you don't see them anywhere? Not even a little bit? *scratches head*

L = Brother, the Bible everywhere speaks of Christ's atoning work as effectual and accomplishing salvation. He will bear their sins and justify many. He will save his people from their sins. He was the propitiation for our sins. He died for his bride to make her holy and without blame.

Since the Bible speaks of Christ's work as effectual, Calvinists simply believe that Christ actually saved every single person he died for. The scriptural arguments are plenty but that's for another thread. Or might I recommend you read John Owens' excellent work "The Death of Death".

I = You don't find in scripture the illuminating, effectual calling of the Holy Spirit? So you don't find in scripture the idea of conversion by God alone? Or that salvation is described as God making dead people alive?

P = You don't find in scripture that the saints persevere in the faith because it is God who is working in them to do and to will his good pleasure? And you don't find in scripture that God keeps his promises? And that justification is by faith alone?

I find it hard to believe you can't find any of that in scripture, even by means of casual reading, brother.

 

[Skala]

Actually, I only ask you why God wants a relationship with us, since we are no more than clay in His hands? Surely he could fashion beings with which to have a relationship that would be more meaningful that lumps of clay that He can do whatever with....

This response only confirms in my mind that we really have no assurance of our salvation, because maybe we are just fooling ourselves into thinking we are saved....We may not be......Its up to God to decide after all....

Is your question to me, or the Apostle Paul? Because he already gave a response to your objection.

Do you hate his response?

 

[Hupomone10]

(regarding my comment)

Almost every single time I have a discussion such as this with a 5-point Calvinist, (there are exceptions, and I'm thankful for those) I get the feeling he believes I just haven't arrived where he is yet, and that what I believe is a corruption of the Gospel if not an outright false Gospel.

That is not true at all brother and I hope I don't come across that way. I simply defend these doctrines vigorously because I believe they are what the Bible teaches.

Then I accept your word at that, brother.

First let me say you make some excellent points. I'll come to that, but first the points of disagreement...

As for your argument that you've never heard of someone coming away from scripture with the 5 points...

I find it hard to believe you can't find any of that in scripture, even by means of casual reading, brother.

"with the 5-points of Calvinism, all 5". That was my contention, not that there is not scriptural support for some of it.

L = Brother, the Bible everywhere speaks of Christ's atoning work as effectual and accomplishing salvation. He will bear their sins and justify many. He will save his people from their sins. He was the propitiation for our sins. He died for his bride to make her holy and without blame.

He also said Christ died for the "all." And He only justifies the "many" because the "many," as opposed to the "all", have fled for refuge to the Cross.

I = You don't find in scripture the illuminating, effectual calling of the Holy Spirit? So you don't find in scripture the idea of conversion by God alone? Or that salvation is described as God making dead people alive?

Yes I do. I do see God opening the eyes, drawing the sinner, calling him, converting him (no one converts themselves), God making man's dead spirit alive, followed by his dead body alive. But as we've already discussed, I believe there are specific scriptures that indicate God and His grace can be resisted. You have resolved that with the belief that there are two kinds of God's grace. I don't see scriptural support for that personally.

However, you make some good points. One is regarding some of these other doctrines also come through learning from others and books - Dispensationalism, Amillenialism, preterism, trinity. No one is immune from influence from others they respect, nor should we be. We should all learn, as I think you and I have to a certain degree, to take what re read from man with a grain of salt. Having said that, the reason that I have a hard time accepting Amillenialism and Preterism is because I can't walk away from those teachings and accept the scriptures as the literal Word of God. The fact that they tend to teach what sounds logical but is in opposition to literal scriptures. I cannot see how I could study scriptures and ever come to those two conclusions. Dispensationalism I have accepted much as you're saying, because the best teachers I've known personally teach this. I would never have come up with this myself; but the difference to me personally is that when walking away from it to scriptures I think I see where they are coming from, but with reservations. I'm way behind on my review of dispensationalism. This is very similar though to what you're saying about Calvinism being learned from others.

And I agree that our society glorifies "do it my way" and my own right to do as I please. I think our society today also is becoming an entitlement society, though, so the influence of society can be a two-edged sword. Although people in the past centuries came to conclusions of the TULIP system by teaching and study, apart from the inner needs of Self, it is possible that a generation growing up with the ethic "I am entitled" would be quick to embrace a theology that says you are special and have been selected, and what's even better: you have to do absolutely nothing in response from yourself, "no participation" in the salvation process, as another person worded it. Election is true and scriptural regardless, but it is possible for people to adopt these doctrines for fleshly reasons just as easily as the doctrine of working my way.



T = total depravity, no problem with that.

U = I agree with God's election. I believe it is much more complex and complicated than to merely deliver it as though God just chooses one and rejects another.

You don't find in scripture anywhere that God chose us before the foundation of the world? And predestined us for adoption? Or appointed us to eternal life? Or chose us from the beginning for salvation? As I type each of these sentences, several bible verses are coming to mind. But you don't see them anywhere? Not even a little bit? *scratches head*

here you are probably attacking the generic straw man of Arminianism, for I do believe these doctrines. Don't feel bad; I do the same thing.

P = Perseverance of the saints. According to my understanding of it, yes I do. And I believe the spirit of man is regenerated and will never have the Holy Spirit nor eternal life taken from it, much as a glass of water with food coloring mixed in it cannot just have the food coloring taken out. Our spirit is merged with the Holy Spirit (1 Cor. 6:17)

I believe emphatically that justification is by faith alone. By grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone, by the power of the Spirit alone.

I don't believe the saints are predestined to persevere in victory over sin because of the verse you mentioned, but I do believe they cannot turn away from to the extent of disowning Him. But that one is more from the teaching of man than from direct scriptures. There are definitely enough scriptures to support security of the saints and acceptance of the saints based only on Christ's work and Presence, through faith.

Blessings,
H.

 

[Skala]

Humo, if you don't mind I'd like to talk a bit more about some of the things you mentioned:

You have resolved that with the belief that there are two kinds of God's grace. I don't see scriptural support for that personally.

This is an excellent point and gets really close to the heart of the matter, maybe another thread is best? Either way, let me throw one passage at you that comes to mind:


1Co 1:22-31
(22) For Jews demand signs and Greeks seek wisdom,
(23) but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles,
(24) but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.

Now notice. Christ is a stumbling block and foolishness to men, in an all inclusive sense, I'm guessing, because of the way Peter worded it. "Jews and Gentiles, aka all men, find Christ as folly and a stumbling block"

But, Peter says, to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ is (no longer a stumbling block and folly, but rather), is the power and wisdom of God.

It seems to me that there is a calling that results in Christ not being folly or a stumbling block, but instead, it results int hem finding Christ the wisdom and power of God.

Then, Peter goes on to explain to his listeners, "consider your calling". Ponder it. Take a look around in your church. Not many wise or noble or strong were called. But God chose what is weak, despised, and base.

Why?

So that no human can boast in God's presence.

(25) For the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men.
(26) For consider your calling, brothers: not many of you were wise according to worldly standards, not many were powerful, not many were of noble birth.
(27) But God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise; God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong;
(28) God chose what is low and despised in the world, even things that are not, to bring to nothing things that are,
(29) so that no human being might boast in the presence of God.
(30) And because of him you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, righteousness and sanctification and redemption,
(31) so that, as it is written, "Let the one who boasts, boast in the Lord."

Hupo, what kind of calling is Peter talking about? The general call that goes out to all men whereby God commands them to repent? It cannot be, based on the above.

This calling results in something. Then, Peter says "consider your own calling". God called you in this particular way (He choosing you, rather than you choosing him), so that you cannot take credit for your salvation.

So I know it is not the general, universal call Peter is talking about.

And I know that this calling was done in a certain way so that I cannot boast in my salvation. I cant' take any credit for it. Brother, let me ask you, if the weak and the foolish chose God (ultimately), how does that remove human boasting? If the weak and the foolish chose God, this passage doesn't make any sense. Imagine Peter's argument:

"Consider that you chose God. You were weak and foolish and despised, and you chose God. God set it up this way so that you cannot take credit for your salvation. Not many weak and foolish people chose God, but you did. God did it this way to shame the strong and the wise."

I hope this makes sense, I just ate lunch so I'm a little tired There's no possible way this passage is talking about anything other than a special calling, whereby God chooses you, and it effectually results in your salvation, and that God did it that way to remove grounds of boasting or taking credit for your salvation.

it is possible that a generation growing up with the ethic "I am entitled" would be quick to embrace a theology that says you are special and have been selected, and what's even better: you have to do absolutely nothing in response from yourself, "no participation" in the salvation process, as another person worded it. Election is true and scriptural regardless, but it is possible for people to adopt these doctrines for fleshly reasons just as easily as the doctrine of working my way.

The part in bold got my attention. But that is not what Calvinists believe is it? We believe in unconditional election.

The "un-" is the important part. There are no conditions, in you, that God considered when He chose you. He chose you, not because of qualities about yourself, but because he wanted his own grace and mercy to be displayed.

Therefore, it is literally impossible to feel "special" for being chosen and saved by God, because nothing in the person was a factor in God choosing them. Nothing. It is humbling to be chosen because God is merciful and you deserve hell but God decided to have mercy on you.

It is prideful to think you are chosen for a reason in yourself. Because you're better or more special, or more spiritual, or more humble, or you somehow broke the shackles of the corruption of sin and became willing to embrace Christ, because you're just a strong person, and you can really see the truth of the gospel when others either cannot or are unwilling.

But that's starting to sound like Arminianism isn't it? That's starting to sound like conditional election. That's what Arminians believe.

Calvinists believe in UNconditional election. There are no conditions for being elected. It is completely and totally free and unmerited. That's the very definition of grace!

I don't believe the saints are predestined to persevere in victory over sin because of the verse you mentioned, but I do believe they cannot turn away from to the extent of disowning Him

Bro, as the synod of dordt worded it: election is unto faith and obedience (not because of it)

In other words, it's the same as what Paul said: We are chosen and saved in order to do the good works that God predestined us to do. He prepared them beforehand that we should walk in them:


Eph 2:8-10
(8) For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God,
(9) not a result of works, so that no one may boast.
(10) For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.

He chose us in order that we should be holy, not because we were holy:

ph 1:4 even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him.

So again, it is impossible to be one of God's elect and yet somehow not participate in or experience the facets of salvation: faith, good works, obedience, etc.

Be blessed

 

[Fencerguy]

The "un-" is the important part. There are no conditions, in you, that God considered when He chose you. He chose you, not because of qualities about yourself, but because he wanted his own grace and mercy to be displayed.

I would think then, that God would want to choose people who are truly the worst of any society; the homeless, or the most down-and-out.....What better example would there be of God's unconditional election? It seems that his grace and mercy would be most displayed in someone like......Osama bin LAden coming to faith?

Therefore, it is literally impossible to feel "special" for being chosen and saved by God, because nothing in the person was a factor in God choosing them. Nothing. It is humbling to be chosen because God is merciful and you deserve hell but God decided to have mercy on you.

This worries me quite honestly; why did God give us free will at all if we have nothing whatsoever to do with God choosing us? Furthermore, what assurance of salvation do we really have?

It is prideful to think you are chosen for a reason in yourself. Because you're better or more special, or more spiritual, or more humble, or you somehow broke the shackles of the corruption of sin and became willing to embrace Christ, because you're just a strong person, and you can really see the truth of the gospel when others either cannot or are unwilling.

Is it really prideful to choose one of the most widely disrespected, most widely scorned religions in the world? It would seem to me that--looking objectively--there are many other religions one could participate in out of pride.....It seems almost paradoxical that a proud person would want to identify themselves with Christ.........If we are drafted into this faith, it seems much more likely that we would be prideful......"God chose me, God decided that I was worth saving...."

But that's starting to sound like Arminianism isn't it? That's starting to sound like conditional election. That's what Arminians believe.

Is that inherently wrong?

Calvinists believe in UNconditional election. There are no conditions for being elected. It is completely and totally free and unmerited. That's the very definition of grace!

Being chosen without any consideration of what you might think or feel about it sounds more like a draft to me than grace....

In other words, it's the same as what Paul said: We are chosen and saved in order to do the good works that God predestined us to do. He prepared them beforehand that we should walk in them:


Eph 2:8-10
(8) For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God,
(9) not a result of works, so that no one may boast.
(10) For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.

So if we are truly saved, then we can't help ourselves with doing good works? Where does the sinful nature of man go? Why do some "christians" still struggle with sins their whole lives?

So again, it is impossible to be one of God's elect and yet somehow not participate in or experience the facets of salvation: faith, good works, obedience, etc.

But if we are elected to faith, then we are actually kind of given no choice to do good works, etc.......still sounds like a draft...

 

[Hupomone10]

Humo, if you don't mind I'd like to talk a bit more about some of the things you mentioned:

This is an excellent point and gets really close to the heart of the matter, maybe another thread is best? Either way, let me throw one passage at you that comes to mind:
1Co 1:22-31

But, Peter says, to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ is (no longer a stumbling block and folly, but rather), is the power and wisdom of God.

It seems to me that there is a calling that results in Christ not being folly or a stumbling block, but instead, it results int hem finding Christ the wisdom and power of God.

Then, Peter goes on to explain to his listeners, "consider your calling". Ponder it. Take a look around in your church. Not many wise or noble or strong were called. But God chose what is weak, despised, and base.

Why?

So that no human can boast in God's presence.

(25-31)

Hupo, what kind of calling is Peter talking about? The general call that goes out to all men whereby God commands them to repent? It cannot be, based on the above.

This calling results in something. Then, Peter says "consider your own calling". God called you in this particular way (He choosing you, rather than you choosing him), so that you cannot take credit for your salvation.

So I know it is not the general, universal call Peter is talking about.

And I know that this calling was done in a certain way so that I cannot boast in my salvation. I cant' take any credit for it. Brother, let me ask you, if the weak and the foolish chose God (ultimately), how does that remove human boasting? If the weak and the foolish chose God, this passage doesn't make any sense. Imagine Peter's argument:

"Consider that you chose God. You were weak and foolish and despised, and you chose God. God set it up this way so that you cannot take credit for your salvation. Not many weak and foolish people chose God, but you did. God did it this way to shame the strong and the wise."

I hope this makes sense, I just ate lunch so I'm a little tired There's no possible way this passage is talking about anything other than a special calling, whereby God chooses you, and it effectually results in your salvation, and that God did it that way to remove grounds of boasting or taking credit for your salvation.
...
Be blessed

I know you really meant "Paul" not Peter (unless it was a test to see if I really read it )

I realize the following concerns the extent of Christ's sacrificial death, not about calling, but anyway...

1 Timothy 4:10
"For it is for this we labor and strive, because we have fixed our hope on the living God, who is the Savior of all men, especially of believers."

"First, concerning the provision Christ made by His death on the cross, it is universal in that it is sufficient to pay the penalty for the sins of the world. As sin and iniquity is universal, so also is the provision Christ made on the cross.

"And second, concerning the application of the blood of Christ, its benefits are gained only by the believing sinner. The application side of the Atonement is part of the special will of God for those who come to faith."

-taken from a letter expanding the 1984 Doctrinal Statement of the IFCA, link below. Although the church I attend is not IFCA, I find myself in much agreement with this gentleman's letter.

IFCA Executive Directors Desk » Understanding the Atonement​

Augustine on atonement, 5th Century: sufficienter pro omnibus, efficienter pro electis (“sufficient for all; efficient for the elect”).
(same source)