It is you who is going beyond the text because the Scriptures will be searched in vain for any evidence that Paul preached differently to the Gentiles at one place than he did at another place.
Also, the idea that Paul would "command" others to eternal life is ridiculous. What did Paul say when he preached that way?: "I command you to eternal life and then after you receive eternal life then you will believe"?
Good question. The text doesn't tell us. However, from an exegetical standpoint, Paul's preaching is the active agent in this part of Acts 13, which, by the rules of hermeneutics, is the actor in the passive verb.
Yes, I know you depend on this verse to hold your systematic theology together, but you cannot change what the text says.
Perhaps you could explain to us how a being that doesn't experience before and after can create "ex nihilo." Seems to me that there needs to be a state of "nihilo" before creation can come from (ex) it.
While the foregoing tells me that Boettner's concept of time and timelessness is incorrect, I'm not real confident that I have a replacement concept to offer. I mentioned the idea that time is sometimes equated to increasing entropy. In that sense, I agree that God is "timeless"--that He doesn't experience any entropy (lack of order is a reasonable definition of entropy), and definitely not increasing entropy.
It's interesting that you should say that, especially considering what is said here:
"Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning" (Jas.1:17).
When I was looking for an explanation of what is said in "bold" I came across this:
"The word 'turning' is from the Greek 'trope.' When combined with the Greek for 'in' (that is, en), it becomes 'entrope,' which means in the Greek 'confusion' or 'shame.' We get our English word 'entropy' from this source, which thus literally means 'in-turning.' In science, any system which 'turns in' on itself, without drawing on external sources of energy or information (in other words, a 'closed system') will experience an increase of entropy, or disorganization. This is, so far as all evidence goes, a universal principle of science, and seems to reflect God’s primeval curse on 'the whole creation' (Romans 8:22). That is, even though all things are being conserved in quantity by God, they are deteriorating in quality, running down toward physical chaos and biological death. But God Himself, who imposed these laws on His creation, is not bound by them. There is not even a 'shadow of turning' with Him!"
It is you who changed the meaning of the verse when you insist that Paul could "command" men to eternal life. For now, let us look at this verse:
"Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ" (1Pet.1:2).
In this verse the Greek word translated "through" means "of the instrument or means by or with which anything is accomplished...by means of, by (through)" (Thayer's Greek English Lexicon).
So we can see that being "elected" is through the instrumentality of the sanctification of the Spirit. One of the meanings of the Greek word translated "sanctification" is "separation to God...1 Pet.1:2" (Vine's Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words).
Therefore, we can understand that being chosen or elected is through the instrumentality of the Spirit when He separates a person to God. That happens when a person is baptized into the Body of Christ by one Spirit:
"For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit" (1 Cor.12:13).
It is "indivduals" who are baptized into the Body of Christ. So these words must be in regard to the LORD foreknowing "individuals."
Given that I've demonstrated your claim about Acts 13 to be wrong, is the fact that you are moving on an indicator that you are abandoning your case, there?
As for 1 Peter 1, you don't even let Paul speak an entire sentence:
Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ,
To those who are elect exiles of the Dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, 2 according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, in the sanctification of the Spirit, for obedience to Jesus Christ and for sprinkling with his blood:
Notice that we're talking about groups and not individuals.
The fact that we are individually baptized has nothing to do with whether we are individually elected. I can select a group by rule (everyone in room 101 at 6pm), and still give every individual there a lollipop. So your logic simply doesn't follow.
Perhaps you could explain, now, how a being who doesn't experience before and after can create "ex nihilo" without the state of "nihilo" existing BEFORE creation.
We can understand that when Peter uses the pronouns "you" and "your" in this passage He is speaking of "individual" salvation":
"Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied...Receiving the end of your faith, even the salvation of your souls" (1 Pet.1:1-2,9).
Of course it is "individuals" who are saved because it is individuals who do the thing which results in salvation. Here we see Paul and those with him telling an "individual" how he can be saved:
"And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved? And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house" (Acts 16:30-31).
Do you want to argue that this is speaking about the salvation of a "group"?
It's interesting that you should say that, especially considering what is said here:
"Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning" (Jas.1:17).
When I was looking for an explanation of what is said in "bold" I came across this:
"The word 'turning' is from the Greek 'trope.' When combined with the Greek for 'in' (that is, en), it becomes 'entrope,' which means in the Greek 'confusion' or 'shame.' We get our English word 'entropy' from this source, which thus literally means 'in-turning.' In science, any system which 'turns in' on itself, without drawing on external sources of energy or information (in other words, a 'closed system') will experience an increase of entropy, or disorganization. This is, so far as all evidence goes, a universal principle of science, and seems to reflect God’s primeval curse on 'the whole creation' (Romans 8:22). That is, even though all things are being conserved in quantity by God, they are deteriorating in quality, running down toward physical chaos and biological death. But God Himself, who imposed these laws on His creation, is not bound by them. There is not even a 'shadow of turning' with Him!"
That is interesting! I can see both how "confusion" would be a concept far from describing God, and how it would also be a description of entropy, or disorderliness. I'm not so sure about the "in-turning" part, but I agree that in our universe, if there's no input from outside the system, the system goes downhill.
That is interesting! I can see both how "confusion" would be a concept far from describing God, and how it would also be a description of entropy, or disorderliness. I'm not so sure about the "in-turning" part, but I agree that in our universe, if there's no input from outside the system, the system goes downhill.
I mentioned the idea that time is sometimes equated to increasing entropy. In that sense, I agree that God is "timeless"--that He doesn't experience any entropy (lack of order is a reasonable definition of entropy), and definitely not increasing entropy.
Your version of timelessness doesn't just affect our existence/our world. It affects God and how He operates. If there is no "before" or "after" with God, then He has never done anything, nor will He ever do anything. He just "is". He can't create something like our universe, because that would suggest there was a point where the universe didn't exist, and then it did, showing progression, which we equate to "time". I think this is what [MENTION=81]themuzicman[/MENTION] was getting at with his "ex nihilo" comment. If there was nothing, then something, you have two states. If they exist at the same time, you have contradiction. God is not contradictory, is He? If so, then He could exist and not exist, thus proving that we indeed live in a post-modern universe, where both believers and unbelievers are correct. He could elect believers from before "time" began and also not elect those same believers before "time" began. All arguments on this forum would become completely baseless, since all positions could be true at the same time.
It all depends on how you define "time". If "time" is required for a progression of events, then God being timeless means that He has nothing at any point that is not already decided. He can't have done anything "before" the foundation of the world that He isn't still doing and will always be doing. Jesus can't have taken on human form, because that would suggest that He didn't have human form before that point, but if all things are to Him coincident (at the same time, since there is no time) then He never was NOT in human form. The bible speaks volumes about things that are different now than they were before "the Beginning".
So a definition of time that specifically talks about increasing disorder (entropy) allows for timelessness as well as non-coincident behavior and events.
There may be other definitions of time that work, but I haven't heard them yet.
Btw, this suggests, according to the laws of thermodynamics, that there really is a distinction between past and future. Future always means greater entropy (in the universe as a whole).
I don't have much scripture to back this up, except some verses that talk about "corruption" (which is a reasonable translation of "entropy"):
For thou wilt not leave my soul in hell; neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption. [Psa 16:10 KJV]
That he should still live for ever, [and] not see corruption. [Psa 49:9 KJV]
Behold, for peace I had great bitterness: but thou hast in love to my soul [delivered it] from the pit of corruption: for thou hast cast all my sins behind thy back. [Isa 38:17 KJV]
I went down to the bottoms of the mountains; the earth with her bars [was] about me for ever: yet hast thou brought up my life from corruption, O LORD my God. [Jon 2:6 KJV]
He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption. [Act 2:31 KJV]
And as concerning that he raised him up from the dead, [now] no more to return to corruption, he said on this wise, I will give you the sure mercies of David. [Act 13:34 KJV]
Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. [Rom 8:21 KJV]
So also [is] the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption: [1Co 15:42 KJV]
For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting. [Gal 6:8 KJV]
Corruption seems to be closely associated with death and hell. If death is the last enemy, then corruption (entropy?) is his bedfellow and will be cast into hell.
Your version of timelessness doesn't just affect our existence/our world. It affects God and how He operates. If there is no "before" or "after" with God, then He has never done anything, nor will He ever do anything.
Since we cannot even begin to understand a state that is "timeless" then when the LORD reveals things to us He must put it in terms which we can understand. That is why He speaks of things being done in sequence.
We can only understand things by our experiences in our four dimensional environment. But it is obvious that the eternal state is something entirely different from our present existence. For instance, Paul says this about things eternal:
"While we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen: for the things which are seen are temporal; but the things which are not seen are eternal" (2 Cor.4:18).
We also know that flesh and blood bodies cannot enter into heaven and to do that we will be given bodies which are described as being "spiritual" bodies (1 Cor.15:44). These bodies are described as being heavenly bodies.
So we do not really know anything except that in regard to the things of the eternal state. While our existence is made up of four dimensions the eternal state may exist in thousands of different dimensions as far as we know. Therefore, it makes no sense to base our arguments on the assumption that the environment in the eternal state is the same as the one in which we exist.
Jesus can't have taken on human form, because that would suggest that He didn't have human form before that point, but if all things are to Him coincident (at the same time, since there is no time) then He never was NOT in human form.
The very nature of the Lord Jesus is that of being fully God and fully Man. And since He is the same yesterday, today and forever then that means that His nature has always been that of being both God and Man.
According to what you said about this am I to conclude that you do not think that the nature of the Lord Jesus is that of "Man"?
Since we cannot even begin to understand a state that is "timeless" then when the LORD reveals things to us He must put it in terms which we can understand. That is why He speaks of things being done in sequence.
We can understand that when Peter uses the pronouns "you" and "your" in this passage He is speaking of "individual" salvation":
"Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied...Receiving the end of your faith, even the salvation of your souls" (1 Pet.1:1-2,9).
Of course it is "individuals" who are saved because it is individuals who do the thing which results in salvation. Here we see Paul and those with him telling an "individual" how he can be saved:
"And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved? And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house" (Acts 16:30-31).
Do you want to argue that this is speaking about the salvation of a "group"?
You miss my point. Because the word "your" in verse nine can only be in regard to "individuals" then the word "you" in verse two can only be speaking of the same thing, the election of "individuals."
Nothing could be more confusing to anyone than the idea that Peter would use the pronoun "you" in verse two to be referring to "corporate" election and then later to use the pronoun "your" to refer to "individual" salvation.
And of course the "you" is plural because Peter is addressing more than one person.
You miss my point. Because the word "your" in verse nine can only be in regard to "individuals" then the word "you" in verse two can only be speaking of the same thing, the election of "individuals."
Nothing could be more confusing to anyone than the idea that Peter would use the pronoun "you" in verse two to be referring to "corporate" election and then later to use the pronoun "your" to refer to "individual" salvation.
And of course the "you" is plural because Peter is addressing more than one person.
You miss my point. Because the word "your" in verse nine can only be in regard to "individuals" then the word "you" in verse two can only be speaking of the same thing, the election of "individuals."
Nothing could be more confusing to anyone than the idea that Peter would use the pronoun "you" in verse two to be referring to "corporate" election and then later to use the pronoun "your" to refer to "individual" salvation.
And of course the "you" is plural because Peter is addressing more than one person.
I'm going to jump back into this conversation, possibly against my better judgment . I've heard something a number of times about how the King James preserves the quantity value of second person pronouns, "thee" being singular and "ye" being plural. I don't know if it's always the case, but if true, it might shed light on your disagreement.
Here's a quick cut and paste from a site that holds to this theory (emphasis mine).
Spoiler
Why Thee and Ye is So Important in the KJV
John 3:7
Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.
Just a comment to why the King James use of the thee, thou, etc is very important. In old English, thee, thine, and thou is singular, while ye, you and your are plural. In modern English, "you" can be either singular or plural.
When reading the King James, by understanding thee and ye, I can immediately tell if the pronoun is singular or plural.
In John 3:7, I can immediately tell from the KJV that it is plural or universal. The Lord Jesus is not directing His statement only to Nicodemus, but He is making a universal statement to everyone: "Ye must be born again." You can only tell this from the King James Version.
If you look at the previous verses, you can tell that the Lord Jesus is speaking only to Nicodemus:
John 3:4 Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born? (5) Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
Here is the rule:
thee, thine, thou are singular.
Ye, you and your are plural.
By John McTernan: Defend and Proclaim the Faith
Jesus conversation with Nicodemus was private and personal--Jesus was speaking directly to Nico and to no one else, but He was using phraseology that was applicable to multiple people, thus He went back and forth between singular and plural pronouns.
With that info, I looked at the Greek from John 3:7, and the two words are:
1. thee = σοί, which is the dative case of σύ, which is described as "Personal pronoun of the second person singular"
2. ye = ὑμᾶς, which is the accusative case of ὑμεῖς, which is described as "Irregular plural of σύ"
(These are lifted from Strong's Lexicon, about which you can form your own opinion, on blb.org, which I highly recommend. It compares favorably with Thayer's and Smith's).
Ok, so what about 1 Pet 1:9? [1Pe 1:9 KJV] 9 Receiving the end of your faith, [even] the salvation of [your] souls.
First notice that the second "your" is added (though the added one would definitely scream PLURAL), so we're down to only 1 "your" in the verse, modifying faith. That "your" is ὑμῶν, which is the genitive case of ὑμεῖς, or the plural second person pronoun.
Conveniently, 1 Pet 1:8 ([1Pe 1:8 KJV] 8 Whom having not seen, ye love; in whom, though now ye see [him] not, yet believing, ye rejoice with joy unspeakable and full of glory) is filled with "ye's". Which are they? Well, the words for "ye" are not standalone words, so I had to go look up personal endings (this is all new to me, by the way, so check my work). Apparently the personal endings are
1. τε on ἀγαπᾶτε, for "ye love"
2. τες on ὁρῶντες, for "ye see"
3. θε on ἀγαλλιᾶσθε, for "ye rejoice"
These endings all indicate a plural "you", from what I can tell (I'm less sure on #2, but #1 and #3 both work, according to https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Ancient_Greek/Basic_Verbs, and #2 just has that extra "ς" on the end, which is part of the singular "you" ending, but also may mean something else). So on this verse, also, KJV agrees with the spoiler.
As far as I can tell, then, 1 Pet 1:9 can only be read as speaking to multiple people--it's not singular.
By your logic then, Jerry, 1 Pet 1:2 must also only be applied to multiple people. Personally, I don't think your logic is correct, and this passage is not a proof text for group election, but neither can it be a proof text for individual election.
And, happily, the plural/singular distinction in the KJV seems to hold, which makes it a unique translation compared to more modern ones for providing that information. Maybe we need a southern version that includes "y'all".
Ok, so what about 1 Pet 1:9? [1Pe 1:9 KJV] 9 Receiving the end of your faith, [even] the salvation of [your] souls.
First notice that the second "your" is added (though the added one would definitely scream PLURAL), so we're down to only 1 "your" in the verse, modifying faith.
Since we cannot even begin to understand a state that is "timeless" then when the LORD reveals things to us He must put it in terms which we can understand. That is why He speaks of things being done in sequence.
We can only understand things by our experiences in our four dimensional environment. But it is obvious that the eternal state is something entirely different from our present existence. For instance, Paul says this about things eternal:
"While we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen: for the things which are seen are temporal; but the things which are not seen are eternal" (2 Cor.4:18).
We also know that flesh and blood bodies cannot enter into heaven and to do that we will be given bodies which are described as being "spiritual" bodies (1 Cor.15:44). These bodies are described as being heavenly bodies.
So we do not really know anything except that in regard to the things of the eternal state. While our existence is made up of four dimensions the eternal state may exist in thousands of different dimensions as far as we know. Therefore, it makes no sense to base our arguments on the assumption that the environment in the eternal state is the same as the one in which we exist.
I'm going with themuz on this one. What it seems like you've done is develop your own understanding of something that's not described in scripture, then you play the mystery card when I question it. Bad form, Jerry!
The very nature of the Lord Jesus is that of being fully God and fully Man. And since He is the same yesterday, today and forever then that means that His nature has always been that of being both God and Man.
According to what you said about this am I to conclude that you do not think that the nature of the Lord Jesus is that of "Man"?
You astound me with this. Your argument, turned on its head, is used (pretty effectively imo) to argue against a rigid view of God's immutability. In other words, if the Logos actually took on a human nature (which He didn't have before), then it must mean that God is mutable in that sense--that He can acquire a nature that He didn't previously have.
As you use it, it suggests that Adam was not the "first" man and Jesus was not the "last" Adam (contrary to [1Co 15:45, 47 KJV] 45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam [was made] a quickening spirit. ... 47 The first man [is] of the earth, earthy: the second man [is] the Lord from heaven.), which doesn't seem biblical to me. [Jhn 1:14 KJV] 14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
You're trying to extract from the text what isn't there. By skipping verse 3-8, you're ignoring the fact that Peter has completed his opening statement, and moved on to the opening of his letter. The very fact that verse 1 and 2 are an opening statement should tell us not to try to extract too much from it.
. I've heard something a number of times about how the King James preserves the quantity value of second person pronouns, "thee" being singular and "ye" being plural. I don't know if it's always the case, but if true, it might shed light on your disagreement.