Election

B

brightfame52

Well-known member
The purpose of elect is the glorification of God. It's not to add glory to the already perfect God, but to reveal His glorious perfections which manifest themselves in the work of redemption to angels and men, in order that in reflecting upon them felicity may be experienced.
It's purpose is, by glorifying and praising Him, to end with all things in Him in whom all things must end, and thus to afford Him all honor and glory.
The purpose is to be glorified in His saints, and to be admired in all them that believe
Click to expand...

This is why Election is part of the Gospel of God, the Gospel of Gods Grace !
 
R

Roger Thornhill

Well-known member
DO NOT discuss moderation
Johnnybgood said:
I just read this thread see how they treat trinitarians over there . I’m not interested in learning from them in that forum. One person is trying to run the last 2 trinitarians off of the forum .

𝅴 - Leaving...

I thought I posted this earlier but apparently it didn't go through. I will no longer participate in this forum. Why? 1) The same subjects, post over and over, ad infinitum ad nauseam. 2) I'm tired of being lectured in Greek by people who don't even have minimal competence in the language. 3)...
forums.carm.org
Click to expand...
That's not true. I would love them to come back and actually use Greek grammar to defend their beliefs.

But the prominent ones would just state their opinion and not give reasons. And commonly attack a position without defending their own.

But no one asked them to leave. In fact they left while engaged in discussions.

EDIT DO NOT discuss moderation

But I have often said I learn more from those who I don't agree with.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
ReverendRV

ReverendRV

Well-known member
Roger Thornhill said:
Theological arguments are presuppositions looking for a justification.
Click to expand...
I was going to ask you about that, thanks. Are you opposed to Systematic Theology?

Isn't it true that All Scripture is Good for Doctrine, for reproof, for correction, and for training in Righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every Good Work?

Welcome to the Theology Boards...
 
R

Roger Thornhill

Well-known member
ReverendRV

ReverendRV

Well-known member
Roger Thornhill said:
I see it abused. I'm not a fan.



Yes, in context.
Click to expand...
I'm a Fan of both Systematic Theology and Grammatical Arguments. Since there are differences on the Biblical Languages Board, apparently the Grammar can be abused too; so I agree. When something is misused, obviously the whole is not cast out...

When Grammatical Arguments butt heads, a Systematic Theology is a Good thing that can help us, right?
 
R

Roger Thornhill

Well-known member
ReverendRV said:
I'm a Fan of both Systematic Theology and Grammatical Arguments. Since there are differences on the Biblical Languages Board, apparently the Grammar can be abused too;
Click to expand...

When I have seen grammar abused there it was by someone who apparently knows Greek and just wanted his credentials to give credibility to an argument, but would not provide details. For example he said that θεος at John 1:1c was definite and was identified with θεος at 1:1b but it was not modalism. He just thought Wallace et al was wrong but would go no further.

ReverendRV said:
so I agree. When something is misused, obviously the whole is not cast out...

When Grammatical Arguments butt heads, a Systematic Theology is a Good thing that can help us, right?
Click to expand...

I will say I use grammatical arguments systematically and won't accept a theological construct unless it's arrived at grammatically first.

Word studies are not valuable here. Syntax is what matters and I don't agree that one's view of the "context" can overthrow grammar.

I just remembered one of my first posts on the languages forum on my hermeneutics.

I'll save this now and look it up.


Thread 'Biblical Hermeneutics'
https://forums.carm.org/threads/biblical-hermeneutics.701/
 
ReverendRV

ReverendRV

Well-known member
Roger Thornhill said:
When I have seen grammar abused there it was by someone who apparently knows Greek and just wanted his credentials to give credibility to an argument, but would not provide details. For example he said that θεος at John 1:1c was definite and was identified with θεος at 1:1b but it was not modalism. He just thought Wallace et al was wrong but would go no further.



I will say I use grammatical arguments systematically and won't accept a theological construct unless it's arrived at grammatically first.

Word studies are not valuable here. Syntax is what matters and I don't agree that one's view of the "context" can overthrow grammar.

I just remembered one of my first posts on the languages forum on my hermeneutics.

I'll save this now and look it up.


Thread 'Biblical Hermeneutics'
https://forums.carm.org/threads/biblical-hermeneutics.701/
Click to expand...
Oh, I can't argue the Greek at all. I can only look up things in Concordances and Lexicons. Hang out for a while, and there are a few regular Posters who will enjoy testing you on the Greek. I do okay when it comes to Theology though...

Would you say that 1st Timothy 2:5 tells us that the Human Being Jesus Christ is a Present Tense Mediator?

What if @Sethproton accepts what you are discussing on the Biblical Languages Board, but wouldn't accept you saying that Jesus Christ is still a Human Being? Might he accept your Greekpertise in one case, but reject it in another, since he doesn't believe in the Bodily Resurrection?
 
R

Roger Thornhill

Well-known member
ReverendRV said:
Oh, I can't argue the Greek at all. I can only look up things in Concordances and Lexicons. Hang out for a while, and there are a few regular Posters who will enjoy testing you on the Greek. I do okay when it comes to Theology though...

Would you say that 1st Timothy 2:5 tells us that the Human Being Jesus Christ is a Present Tense Mediator?
Click to expand...

The present tense refers to his role as mediator, not his identification with humanity. Verse 6 is he gave himself with the aorist participle as a human. It's not present tense.

ReverendRV said:
What if @Sethproton accepts what you are discussing on the Biblical Languages Board, but wouldn't accept you saying that Jesus Christ is still a Human Being?
Click to expand...

That won't happen. One gloss for BDAG on this verse says "d. Jesus Christ is called α. as one who identifies with humanity."

ReverendRV said:
Might he accept your Greekpertise in one case, but reject it in another, since he doesn't believe in the Bodily Resurrection?
Click to expand...

Jesus was raised in a spiritual body that Paul says in 1 Co 15 was not composed of dust like Adam. He was raised as a life-giving spirit.

Does that help?
 
ReverendRV

ReverendRV

Well-known member
Roger Thornhill said:
The present tense refers to his role as mediator, not his identification with humanity. Verse 6 is he gave himself with the aorist participle as a human. It's not present tense.



That won't happen. One gloss for BDAG on this verse says "d. Jesus Christ is called α. as one who identifies with humanity."



Jesus was raised in a spiritual body that Paul says in 1 Co 15 was not composed of dust like Adam. He was raised as a life-giving spirit.

Does that help?
Click to expand...
No, that doesn't help...

Since I'm not a Greekspert, I'll Lurk here and see what others have to say about it...
 
R

Roger Thornhill

Well-known member
Johnnybgood said:
So you do not believe in the physical resurrection of Jesus ?
Click to expand...

I believe what Paul teaches at 1 Corinthians 15, that his spiritual body is not composed of dust and is now incorruptible and immortal, that he was raised as a life-giving spirit.

Does that cohere with your description of a physical body? Do you see the word "natural" at 1 Co 15:44? It is ψυχικός and BDAG says it means "physical body" at 15:44ab. It is contrasted with spiritual body of which BDAG says "having to do with the divine spirit."

1 Co 15:44 it is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. (ASV)
 
ReverendRV

ReverendRV

Well-known member
Johnnybgood said:
I’m not able to argue the resurrection at your level. I’m sure other posters such as @TibiasDad , @Theo1689 and @civic and some others will be able to interact with you at your level .
Click to expand...
It's why we should keep Systematic Theology in Mind. Jesus was Resurrected in a Spiritual Body; one that he called Flesh and Bone, all the while differentiating himself from a Spirit. There are good reasons to use Systematic Theology...
 
Last edited:
R

Roger Thornhill

Well-known member
ReverendRV said:
It's why we should keep Systematic Theology in Mind. Jesus was Resurrected in a Spiritual Body; one that he called Flesh and Bone, All the while differentiating himself from a Spirit. There are good reasons to have Theology...
Click to expand...
Where did Jesus say he was resurrected with flesh and bone? And what was the reason he said it?

It looks like your line of reasoning is pitting a saying of Jesus who was not teaching about the composition of the resurrection body against what Paul said when he was teaching about the resurrection body.

1 Co 15:35 But some one will say, How are the dead raised? and with what manner of body do they come?

He answers:
The resurrection body is not made of dust (1,3), it is of a heavenly nature. (2)

---

1 BDAG χοϊκός, ή, όν (Rhet. Gr. I 613, τούτους τοῦ χοϊ κοῦ βάρους; Hesych.; Suda) made of earth/dust (χοῦς), earthy ὁ πρῶτος ἄνθρωπος ἐκ γῆς χοϊκός 1 Cor 15:47 (cp. Gen 2:7 ἔπλασεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν ἄνθρωπον χοῦν ἀπὸ τῆς γῆς; SibOr 8, 445 of Adam, χοϊκῷ πλασθέντι; GNaass 252, 59.—Philo, Leg. All. 1, 31 differentiates the οὐράνιος fr. the γήϊνος ἄνθρωπος).—Vss. 48; 49.—DELG s.v.χέω. M-M. TW.

2 BDAG οὐρανός, οῦ, ὁ 24:31 (Hom.+; ‘heaven’ in various senses) … b. Christ is ἐξ οὐρανοῦ from heaven, of a heavenly nature 1 Cor 15:47

3 Thayer χοϊκός, χοικη χοικον (χοῦς, which see), made of earth, earthy: 1 Cor. 15:47-49. (γυμνοί τούτους τοῦ χοϊκοῦ βαρους, Anon. in Walz, Rhett. i., p. 613, 4; (Hippolytus haer. 10, 9, p. 314, 95).)*
 
ReverendRV

ReverendRV

Well-known member
Johnnybgood said:
Agreed and this is one of those cases where one isolates a single verse in 1 cor 15 to form a doctrine . We use all scripture on a subject and look at it as a whole and see if our conclusion agrees or contradicts the rest of the Bible on the resurrection.
Click to expand...
I can do Systematic Theology :)
 
Last edited:
R

Roger Thornhill

Well-known member
Johnnybgood said:
Agreed and this is one of those cases where one isolates a single verse in 1 cor 15 to form a doctrine . We use all scripture on a subject and look at it as a whole and see if our conclusion agrees or contradicts the rest of the Bible on the resurrection.
Click to expand...
Nope, it's the entire passage. The single verse argument is aptly illustrated with Jesus saying that ghosts don't have flesh and bone.

I harmonize the two.
 
eternomade

eternomade

Well-known member
Roger Thornhill said:
I believe what Paul teaches at 1 Corinthians 15, that his spiritual body is not composed of dust and is now incorruptible and immortal, that he was raised as a life-giving spirit.

Does that cohere with your description of a physical body? Do you see the word "natural" at 1 Co 15:44? It is ψυχικός and BDAG says it means "physical body" at 15:44ab. It is contrasted with spiritual body of which BDAG says "having to do with the divine spirit."

1 Co 15:44 it is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. (ASV)
Click to expand...
Do you think this passage relates to 2 Corinthians 3:17 and maybe even Romans 8:9-11?

"Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty."
 
R

Roger Thornhill

Well-known member
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top