Calvin vs. Arminius

[EricH]

[quote name='Bro David

[Guest Bro David™]

So in summary God chose us for himself. His choice was completed in the past but continues to have impact today. Actually there is a hint in the text as to what type of Aorist is being used here. Pau qualifies the verb by stating God's choice occured before the foundation of the world. This points to the Aorist being historical here since Paul is pointing to an historical event.

So what I have done here is :

1. Parse the verbs.

2. Exegete the passage based on the parsing and the context

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I agree with Part and dis-agree with Part of your Explanation.

But to keep it within cursory reading standards I will touch on some.

I am not sure where you are getting the Greek Grammar Language Explanation.

But here is what I have understood and the way it is Taught in my Seminary.

Word Tense

Word Voice

Word Mood

That is how a word is linked into ancient Greek to derive an interpretation.

In anycase Eric:

1894 T.R

Pure interpretation:

According as he hath chosen (5668) us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be (5750) holy and without blame before him in love:

Without Greeking the Text up.

Just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before Him. In love

Even in Greek it still implies should.

If indeed the choice had been already made, would not the author have used Would.

Indicating that a choice had been already made.

When translated into Modern Greek.

There should be a better reason to be using should in that even the modern Greek language supports the Grammar to be corresponding with the English Present Tense.

Should indicates a present and future reactions does it not.

How then does that verse say that a choice has been made.

It would have said would be to underline the fact that a choice had been made.

Not should which underlines a choice can still be made.

YBIC

[book_wirm]

[quote name='Bro David

[eric]

Nothing like a good healthy debate, especially the one between C and A, because as always there are no clear cut winners,because if there were then it would cease to be a debate. It is impossible for each debater to be 100% right, but it is not impossible for each debater to be wrong. It wont make a scrap of difference after you have reached your destination, but either way those who endure to the end, they shall be saved.

YIC'

e

[Guest Bro David™]

Nothing like a good healthy debate, especially the one between C and A, because as always there are no clear cut winners,because if there were then it would cease to be a debate. It is impossible for each debater to be 100% right, but it is not impossible for each debater to be wrong. It wont make a scrap of difference after you have reached your destination, but either way those who endure to the end, they shall be saved.

YIC'

e

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Thank you for your Graceful Words.

I will keep your words close, in that win-loose-draw it really does not matter.

I will remember that.

Now what is with all these Eric's and in one Thread .

LOL.

Ty Again.

YBIC

[Guest Bro David™]

First, in what way do you use the phrase "one at the cross saved all? From this I may be better  able to address your concern.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Firstly, one sees soteriology with the Basic Understanding that God sent the Only Son to suffer at the Cross, Die and rise and that same Jesus is now seated at the right hand of the Father.

It also calls into bearing that non can see the Father but by Him.

I used the term one at the Cross having saved all in the same flow of thought pertaining to the Authors use of Greek.

If the intonation is that before Him all were Dead, how then can the reverse be excluded without Malice.

2 Co 5:14

For the love of Christ constraineth us; because we thus judge, that if one died for all, then were all dead:

One has to read this verse has saying, that only some were dead into sin to extract that the all here means only some.

For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, That whosoever..... Believeth in Him should not perish. but have everlasting Life.

That is where I am coming from [ Whosoever]

Why be so specific with this verse, why not use the Greek word all which perhaps better displays the message that the death was promised only to some.

If indeed you calculate the all used here to be in conjunction with collective placed observations.

The scriptures are plain that where as many are called, few are chosen. I see no obstacle to saying that though we are commanded to go and preach the gospel it will have no benefit for those who are not drawn by the Father. To be sure their damnation is only made surer in that they have heard and now rejected. It is said that had Christ not come they (Isreal) had not had their sin unto rejection. But in that he did come and go to them they rejected  him. They could do no other having not been chosen, but did as they were. I would ask then what of those who never recieve any call? How is it that they shall be drawn by the Father? If your persuasion were able to aptly answer for the inequality of the call with respect to salvation I would at the least seriously review my stance.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No Pastor I think I did not explain my line of thought very well.

I apologize.

I agree that many will be called but few will be chosen,

I am saying if God pre-selects then God has already chosen those "chosen" ones in that verse.

But if you follow that line of thought, you must equate The righteousness that tests the spirit into Gold to be also God invoked.

That is where it stops making sense, if God gives the righteousness that tests us why the test ?

If righteousness is already given by God to the pre-chosen why are we then called to be righteouss in that it is pre-existing and pre-formed in a Supernatural way in those that are already chosen.

Perhaps more simply put, Will God give and test that which comes freely from Him ?

Apparently I do not visit this site often enough. I see the discussion has quickly spiraled on...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Nah we are just fast .LOL

I see it taught that all men (by which I mean every person ever to have lived) is born in sin, controlled by sin, and doomed (in essence, though not reality) to the fulfillment of sin: eternal punishment. That some are chosen of God as vessels of His mercy He provides them new birth in which is no sin thus fitting them to eternal Glory. That some are unregenerated by the Father leaves them only to the completion of what they are. They will run with speed toward the fires of hell for they can do no other...they cannot deny their nature.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You see Pastor, That particular stance leaves so many open doors that I would not know where to start.

It means the Bible was written only for the pre-select.

That prayer for the salvation of a soul can only work if God has chosen Him.

Ask and yes shall receive, why did Jesus say that or do you think that only the elect will be brought to ask and the elect will receive.

I bring you back to the Beginning Pastor.

God put the Tree there, already decreeing that Adam will fall.

Now if it was indeed pre-chosen of Adam to fall.

The choice was Gods.

Why then did God feel anger ?

When He was the one who chose Adam to Fall.

How did "Man" sin if God chose Adam to Fall ?

Why are we dead into sin in something we were helpless about to start with ?

Why are we afflicted if indeed God was full aware in His choice that Man should Fall.

In any case Pastor Eric do Take your Time.

This topic is of no importance to me or to us has Christians.

I just debate it with Gusto because it removes the Fatherly Nature From the God who pulled me a stray out of the Slumps.

I debate it with passion I guess, because I call Him Abba Daily. LOL

Praise the Lord.

[eric]

Bro David. This eric has no connection with either Pasror Eric or book wirm, who signs his posts with Eric. I wouldn't spell worm with an "i" and I am no pastor. Please do not confuse my posts with either of theirs. Thanks, Bro.

e

[book_wirm]

Bro David. This eric has no connection with either Pasror Eric or book wirm, who signs his posts with Eric. I wouldn't spell worm with an "i" and I am no pastor. Please do not confuse my posts with either of theirs. Thanks, Bro.

e

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes, I think the number of Erics is causing some confusion. I am also not a pastor, though I do spell worm with an "i" (an apparent source of angst for some ). I do, however, capitalize proper nouns. Perhaps that will appease...

In Christ,

Eric

Edited May 25, 2005 by book_wirm

[book_wirm]

[quote name='Bro David

[EricH]

[quote name='Bro David