Theology Club: Open Theism Destroys Arminianism??

[Derf]

So do you deny that the first use of the word "your" in this verse is not referring to an individual's faith?:

"Receiving the end of your faith, even the salvation of your souls" (1 Pet.1:1-2,9).​

I would say that the words in this verse are addressed to multiple people and it is speaking of those people's "individual" faith.

I see no evidence anywhere in the Scriptures that speak of a "corporate" faith which results in a "corporate" salvation among Christians, do you?

I don't personally hold to the idea of corporate faith bringing about a corporate salvation, except in the sense that a family (or nation) that upholds God's truths has a lot more people in that family (or nation) that will be saved. I don't believe God saves children based on their parents beliefs, for instance, but parents who diligently instruct their children in God's ways are more likely to have believing offspring. And children who are sent to atheistic schools end up with atheistic children.

In regard to the article on the KJV we read: "thee, thine, thou are singular. Ye, you and your are plural."

Let us look at these words of the Lord Jesus spoken to Nicodemus:

"If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things?" (Jn.3:12; KJV).​

Why should anyone believe that the words "you" and "ye" in this verse are "plural" since the Lord Jesus was speaking to no one but Nicodemus?

Well, the Greek seems to indicate the plural. Should anyone believe the Greek? Or do we ignore what's written and use our own interpretation despite what we read?

The structure of the sentence was that Jesus "had" ("have" in the verse, used as an auxiliary verb to make it present perfect) told him these things before, possibly in other places at other times. Therefore, the "you" and "ye" could easily be the group he belonged to, the pharisees, whom Jesus had addressed on numerous occasions and told numerous "earthly" things, which they didn't usually believe.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

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.

The Lord did not put on a new nature but instead was clothed in an earthly body. Here Paul likens our bodies to being "clothed upon":

"For we know that if our earthly house of this tabernacle were dissolved, we have a building of God, an house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens. For in this we groan, earnestly desiring to be clothed upon with our house which is from heaven: If so be that being clothed we shall not be found naked. For we that are in this tabernacle do groan, being burdened: not for that we would be unclothed, but clothed upon, that mortality might be swallowed up of life" (2 Cor.5:1-4).​

Paul refers to the "inner man" and that is man's essence and his outward appearance is something that is likened to putting on clothes.

I say that the Lord Jesus had two natures while He walked on the earth, being fully Man and fully God. And we read this about Him:

"Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever" (Heb.13:8).​

Since He remains the same then before He came to the earth He had two natures. According to your idea we must believe that the Lord Jesus remains the same as He was before even though He took on a new nature when He came to the earth. Let us look at this verse:

"And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the son of man which is in heaven" (Jn.3:13).​

The Lord Jesus descended from heaven when He was the "Son of Man." That can only mean that before he came down to earth He was in heaven as the "Son of Man."

The following verse also makes it plain that the Lord Jesus was in heaven as the "Son of Man" before He came to the earth:

"What and if ye shall see the son of man ascend up where he was before?" (Jn.6:62).​

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.

Your understanding of what is said in those verses is flawed or else we must believe that the second man was the Lord Jesus (1 Cor.15:47). And we know that is not true. The verses which you quoted can only be understood by this verse which precedes the verses which you quoted:

"Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual. The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven. As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy: and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly. And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly" (1 Cor.15:46).​

Paul is using these things to illustrate the principle that our first body is an earthly, natural body and we will be resurrected into a heavenly, spiritual body.

So when Paul speaks of the first man being of the earth he is referring to the kind of body belonging to Adam. Then when He speaks of the Lord from heaven being the second man then he is speaking of the Lord having a spiritual body.

I don't personally hold to the idea of corporate faith bringing about a corporate salvation, except in the sense that a family (or nation) that upholds God's truths has a lot more people in that family (or nation) that will be saved.

The verse is speaking of the salvation of the soul. So you must believe that the faith being spoken of in the verse is "individual." Right?

Let us look at this passage again:

"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"(1 Pet.1:1-2).​

The words in "bold" are speaking of the way which "individuals" are saved, according to what Paul says here:

"But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth" (2 Thess.2:13).​

 

[Jerry Shugart]

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.

Let us look at this passage again:

"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"(1 Pet.1:1-2).​

The words in "bold" are speaking of the way which "individuals" are saved, according to what Paul says here:

"But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth" (2 Thess.2:13).​

 

[Derf]

Your understanding of what is said in those verses is flawed or else we must believe that the second man was the Lord Jesus (1 Cor.15:47). And we know that is not true.

Hey Jerry, please take a minute to review the statement in the quote. Does it need to be edited to say:
"Your understanding of what is said in those verses is flawed or else we must believe that the second man was NOT the Lord Jesus (1 Cor.15:47). And we know that is not true. "

If correct as written, then it seems the reference contradicts you, so check and see.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

No, what I wrote is what I mean. We cannot take what is said here in a literal sense unless we want to assert that the Lord Jesus was the second man:

"The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven" (1 Cor.15:47).​

Do you think that the Lord Jesus was the second man? In order to understand the meaning of this we must look at the context which is speaking of the two different bodies. Paul says that the "body" which is first is natural and that what is second is spiritual. So at 1 Corinthians 15:47 Paul continues that thought, using Adam to illustrate the "natural" body and the Lord Jesus "from heaven" to illustrate the "spiritual" body.

Do you undertand that?

 

[themuzicman]

Let us look at this passage again:

"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"(1 Pet.1:1-2).​

The words in "bold" are speaking of the way which "individuals" are saved, according to what Paul says here:

"But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth" (2 Thess.2:13).​

Nice Scripture Smash. Unfortunately, both contexts are plural, and thus corporate in nature. You're assuming the conclusion. If God elects by rule, by "whosoever believes", then God foreknows He will save those who believe, and those who believe become part of those who are foreknown.

So, when we discard your assumption of the conclusion, your conclusion isn't naturally made.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Nice Scripture Smash. Unfortunately, both contexts are plural, and thus corporate in nature.

Since Paul is writing to "multiple" people of course he would address them using a "plural" pronoun. No one disputes that.

However, even though he was writing to multiple people he was telling them about things regarding "individual" salvation.

Since you think that the "salvation" in this verse is in regard to a "corporate" entity are you willing to argue that the "belief of the truth" is also "corporate" in nature?:

"But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth" (2 Thess.2:13).​

Anyone who has the slightest bit of spiritual discernment knows that "salvation" and "believing" are both in regard to individual salvation, as the following verse demonstrates:

"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).​

 

[themuzicman]

Since Paul is writing to "multiple" people of course he would address them using a "plural" pronoun. No one disputes that.

However, even though he was writing to multiple people he was telling them about things regarding "individual" salvation.

As I said before, if we remove the assumption of individual election, it isn't to be found here, anymore. Even the last section you highlighted in 2 Thess 2:13 argues against you. They were chosen through their faith, meaning that because they believed, they became chosen.

Yes, "believing" is individual. Election, however, is not.

Since you think that the "salvation" in this verse is in regard to a "corporate" entity are you willing to argue that the "belief of the truth" is also "corporate" in nature?:

"But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth" (2 Thess.2:13).​

Anyone who has the slightest bit of spiritual discernment knows that "salvation" and "believing" are both in regard to individual salvation, as the following verse demonstrates:

"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).​

(1) This actually says the man and his house, so if I were arguing against a corporate salvation, you'd have failed already.
(2) You are now conflating salvation and election because you are assuming the conclusion. We become part of the chosen through believing. We aren't chosen before we believe.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

This actually says the man and his house, so if I were arguing against a corporate salvation, you'd have failed already.

So are you saying that when the jailer believed then as a result his household was saved?

Yes, "believing" is individual. Election, however, is not.

You still have not answered what is in "bold" in this verse:

"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"(1 Pet.1:1-2).​

The words in "bold" are speaking of the way which "individuals" are saved, according to what Paul says here:

"But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth" (2 Thess.2:13).​

Therefore, it is evident that 1 Peter 1:1-2 is speaking about "salvation" and nothing less.

 

[Derf]

No, what I wrote is what I mean. We cannot take what is said here in a literal sense unless we want to assert that the Lord Jesus was the second man:

"The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven" (1 Cor.15:47).​

Do you think that the Lord Jesus was the second man? In order to understand the meaning of this we must look at the context which is speaking of the two different bodies. Paul says that the "body" which is first is natural and that what is second is spiritual. So at 1 Corinthians 15:47 Paul continues that thought, using Adam to illustrate the "natural" body and the Lord Jesus "from heaven" to illustrate the "spiritual" body.

Do you undertand that?

I understand what you're saying, but Jesus also had a natural body, so it wasn't a full dichotomy. Being the "second man" didn't mean the second in a line of men that are the same, but Jesus was starting a new line, one that didn't have the sin nature. Adam was the first "race" of man, and Jesus is the second--one that is not headed toward death.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

I understand what you're saying, but Jesus also had a natural body, so it wasn't a full dichotomy. Being the "second man" didn't mean the second in a line of men that are the same, but Jesus was starting a new line, one that didn't have the sin nature. Adam was the first "race" of man, and Jesus is the second--one that is not headed toward death.

Derf, the whole "context" is about the two different bodies which the Christian will put on. You ignore the context and place a total and unrelated meaning on what Paul is discussing.

Let us look at this passage again:

"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"(1 Pet.1:1-2).​

The words above which are "underlined" are speaking of the way which "individuals" are saved, according to what Paul says here in "bold":

"But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth" (2 Thess.2:13).​

Since this verse is speaking about salvation "through sanctification of the Spirit" then why would we not think that 1 Peter 1:2 is also speaking about salvation?

What do you think that the words "through sanctification of the Spirit" mean?

Thanks!

 

[themuzicman]

So are you saying that when the jailer believed then as a result his household was saved?

No. I'm saying that this verse does not prove your point.

You still have not answered what is in "bold" in this verse:

"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"(1 Pet.1:1-2).​

Interesting that you should think that salvation comes through sanctification and not justification.... Are you becoming Catholic?

However, I think you're attempting to tie "chosen" to "sanctification" a bit too closely. The original text reads:

πετρος αποστολος ιησου χριστου εκλεκτοις παρεπιδημοις διασπορας ποντου γαλατιας καππαδοκιας ασιας και βιθυνιας

Peter, an apostle of Christ, to the chosen refugees who are scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia

The use of "who are chosen" is an attempt to smooth out Greek phraseology, so that the subsequent prepositional phrases make sense.

Also, you are attempting to connect these prepositional phrases together, and I don't think there is warrant for that. Peter is making three distinct assertions about them: Foreknown, sanctified, obedient, and sprinkled.

So, the text as it was written doesn't support your contention.

The words in "bold" are speaking of the way which "individuals" are saved, according to what Paul says here:

"But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth" (2 Thess.2:13).​

Therefore, it is evident that 1 Peter 1:1-2 is speaking about "salvation" and nothing less.

Again, unless you're embracing Catholic soteriology, you have a problem, as you've just claimed that we are saved by sanctification, not justification.

And the fact remains that they became chosen when they believed. Paul is referring to the time when this church began.

So, once again, without the assumption of individual election, we cannot conclude individual election.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

No. I'm saying that this verse does not prove your point.

It does indeed prove my point that salvation is in regard to "indiviuals" and is not "corporate" in nature. The following verse proves what I said is correct:

"For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth" (Ro.1:16).​

Don't overlook the words in "bold."

Interesting that you should think that salvation comes through sanctification and not justification.... Are you becoming Catholic?

Let us look at this verse again:

"But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth" (2 Thess.2:13).​

Do you deny that the words "through sanctification of the Spirit" have nothing to do with receiving salvation? I have already explained what those words mean to you but I will repeat what I said. Please note what is in "bold" here:

"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"(1 Pet.1:1-2).​

In this passage 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." Therefore, we can understand that the being elected or chosen mentioned at 1 Peter 1:1-2 is in regard to being baptized into the Body of Christ by One Spirit; therefore it is "salvation" which is in view at 1 Peter 1:2 and hence it is the "individual" which is foreknown by God.

If I am wrong then give me your own interpreation of the meaning of the words "through sanctification of the Spirit."

Thanks!

 

[themuzicman]

(1) You ignored what I said about the wording of 1 Peter 1:1-2. Peter identifies the elect refugees from the various regions, and then says that they are saved through sanctification. The connection doesn't exist as you attempt to make it.

(2)Let's read some context in 2 Thess 2:

13 But we ought always to give thanks to God for you, brothers beloved by the Lord, because God chose you as the firstfruits to be saved, through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth. 14 To this he called you through our gospel, so that you may obtain the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.

They became chosen by the Spirit and belief in the truth. Believing came before becoming chosen.

Further, they were called to become chosen by the preaching of the gospel.

So, once again, you've assumed the conclusion and missed the text. "Chosen" or "elect" is the result of faith, not the cause of it. Thus, when we (corporately) are said to be chosen, it is because we have already believed.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

They became chosen by the Spirit and belief in the truth. Believing came before becoming chosen.

That is not what the verse says. Instead, it says that they were chosen by belief in the truth and "through sanctification of the Spirit."

Why didn't you answer what I said here?:

If I am wrong then give me your own interpretation of the meaning of the words "through sanctification of the Spirit."​

You didn't prove that anything which I said is error and you did not even attempt to give your interpretation of those words. Instead, you just ignored the "word "sanctification" as if that word was not even in the verse.

 

[Derf]

Jerry, I went back to this post, as you answered my question about it, and the ripostes were just side conversations to this one, as far as I can tell.

The Lord did not put on a new nature but instead was clothed in an earthly body. Here Paul likens our bodies to being "clothed upon":

"For we know that if our earthly house of this tabernacle were dissolved, we have a building of God, an house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens. For in this we groan, earnestly desiring to be clothed upon with our house which is from heaven: If so be that being clothed we shall not be found naked. For we that are in this tabernacle do groan, being burdened: not for that we would be unclothed, but clothed upon, that mortality might be swallowed up of life" (2 Cor.5:1-4).​

If so, then it seems that new body, the corruptible one, of Christ's, is one that He is stuck with forever. Because even after the resurrection, He had nail prints in His hands, and a hole in His side. But I guess you're saying He had those from all eternity, right, since He is the same yesterday, today, and forever.

Paul refers to the "inner man" and that is man's essence and his outward appearance is something that is likened to putting on clothes.

I say that the Lord Jesus had two natures while He walked on the earth, being fully Man and fully God. And we read this about Him:

"Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever" (Heb.13:8).​

Since He remains the same then before He came to the earth He had two natures. According to your idea we must believe that the Lord Jesus remains the same as He was before even though He took on a new nature when He came to the earth. Let us look at this verse:

"And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the son of man which is in heaven" (Jn.3:13).​

The Lord Jesus descended from heaven when He was the "Son of Man." That can only mean that before he came down to earth He was in heaven as the "Son of Man."

As the "Son of Man", He must have come from somebody, and therefore is someone's son, and that someone must have been a man. The only person who could be Jesus' father, if Jesus was the Son of Man from eternity, is God, the Father, right? So that makes God a man. But God tells us He is not a man. Here are 3 verses stating God is not a man:

[1Sa 15:29 KJV] 29 And also the Strength of Israel will not lie nor repent: for he [is] not a man, that he should repent.
[Job 9:32 KJV] 32 For [he is] not a man, as I [am, that] I should answer him, [and] we should come together in judgment.
[Num 23:19 KJV] 19 God [is] not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do [it]? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?​

I would put forth that Jesus was not a man either, at the time of those verses, but at the very least, God the Father was not a man and is not a man, so Jesus title of Son of Man must not be a title He has held from all eternity--His receipt of that title must have happened after the time of Numbers 23:19. Therefore, the Heb 13:8 passage must have a different meaning than you are trying to put into it. Or, we face the possibility that Jesus is not God.

The following verse also makes it plain that the Lord Jesus was in heaven as the "Son of Man" before He came to the earth:

"What and if ye shall see the son of man ascend up where he was before?" (Jn.6:62).​

And what if Jerry Shugart's children were to see their father and their mother's husband return to his birthplace, from whence he came? Does that mean you were born both married and with children? You read much more into that passage than is there.

Your understanding of what is said in those verses is flawed or else we must believe that the second man was the Lord Jesus (1 Cor.15:47). And we know that is not true. The verses which you quoted can only be understood by this verse which precedes the verses which you quoted:

"Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual. The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven. As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy: and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly. And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly" (1 Cor.15:46).​

I was trying to show what your interpretation was leading to. If I misrepresented your statement, I'd appreciate the correction. Let me go back through that conversation and see where I got your statement wrong.
You said:

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.
​

I replied:

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.​

I think in more recent posts you have confirmed what I said--that you believe Jesus was really the first man, and Adam was really the second man. Do I have your view correct? Does it bother you that such a view is not only dismissing the literality of the verse, but is making it devoid of any meaning whatsoever, since the "reality" is the opposite of the message in the verse? If we can take biblical passages that way, can we trust anything the bible says? Or is it always possible that the "real" meaning is exactly the opposite of the apparent meaning?

That leads to such problems as interpreting John 3:16 as, "For God didn't love the world, and He didn't give His son, who really wasn't begotten at all, so that everybody would perish, and nobody would have everlasting life."

Paul is using these things to illustrate the principle that our first body is an earthly, natural body and we will be resurrected into a heavenly, spiritual body.

So when Paul speaks of the first man being of the earth he is referring to the kind of body belonging to Adam. Then when He speaks of the Lord from heaven being the second man then he is speaking of the Lord having a spiritual body.

I agree that Paul is pointing out that we start out earthly, with a natural body that will be changed when we are either raptured or resurrected. But I don't think he is trying to say Jesus had only a spiritual body (is that an oxymoron?). When He was here on earth, He had a physical body. When that physical body died, His resurrected body retained the scars from His physical body. I don't pretend to know how that works or all that it means, but there seems to be a direct correlation between the two bodies.

I do believe that Jesus is the federal head of a new race of man, one that is populated by those who believe in Him. And the only other federal head of an entire race was Adam. Therefore Jesus is the "second man" and the "last Adam". But if He is the "second man" or "last Adam", then He must not have been man before Adam. Man is a created being, and Jesus was not man from all eternity. But as far as I can tell, He will be a man for all eternity. Thus there's a distinct dividing line between eternity past and eternity future. And so there may not be something like what we experience as time, but there's definitely some sort of sequence, a "before" and "after", or a progression. Which in my mind eliminates the idea of an "eternal now".

The verse is speaking of the salvation of the soul. So you must believe that the faith being spoken of in the verse is "individual." Right?

Let us look at this passage again:

"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"(1 Pet.1:1-2).​

The words in "bold" are speaking of the way which "individuals" are saved, according to what Paul says here:

"But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth" (2 Thess.2:13).​

Are you saying that we are saved by the foreknowledge of God? I thought it was the blood of Jesus that saves us, and belief in the truth. But those things aren't bolded in either verse. Maybe I could use another clarification from you.

Thanks Jerry!

 

[themuzicman]

That is not what the verse says. Instead, it says that they were chosen by belief in the truth and "through sanctification of the Spirit."

Why didn't you answer what I said here?:

If I am wrong then give me your own interpretation of the meaning of the words "through sanctification of the Spirit."​

You didn't prove that anything which I said is error and you did not even attempt to give your interpretation of those words. Instead, you just ignored the "word "sanctification" as if that word was not even in the verse.

Paul is obviously as interested, here, in their final salvation as he refers to our "sanctification." And in that sense, we are foreknown after we believe to that final sanctification.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

As the "Son of Man", He must have come from somebody, and therefore is someone's son, and that someone must have been a man.

Let us look how Paul used the term "son of..." when speaking to a sorcerer named Elymas:

"O full of all deceit and all fraud, you son of the devil, you enemy of all righteousness, will you not cease perverting the straight ways of the Lord?" (Acts 13:10).​

Of course Paul was not saying that Elymas was a literal son of the devil. Instead, he was saying that the "nature" of Elymas is that of the devil. So when it is said that the Lord Jesus is the "son of man" what is being said that His nature is that of man.

Therefore, the Heb 13:8 passage must have a different meaning than you are trying to put into it.

No, my interpretation of what is said at Hebrews 13:8 is supported by what is said here:

"For I am the LORD, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed" (Mal.3:6).​

According to your ideas the LORD had only one nature before He came to the earth and then later He took on another nature and He experienced no change. The LORD says that He does not change but you say that He does.

But God tells us He is not a man. Here are 3 verses stating God is not a man:

[Num 23:19 KJV] 19 God [is] not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do [it]? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?​

This translation expresses better what is said:

"God is not like people. He tells no lies. He is not like humans. He doesn't change his mind. When he says something, he does it. When he makes a promise, he keeps it" (Num.23:19; God's Word Translation).​

Here Balaam is saying that God is not like the people of the earth who lie.

And what if Jerry Shugart's children were to see their father and their mother's husband return to his birthplace, from whence he came? Does that mean you were born both married and with children? You read much more into that passage than is there.

You are misreading what is said here:

"And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the son of man which is in heaven" (Jn.3:13).​

According to this no "man" has ascended up to heaven except for the Man Jesus Christ, the same Man who is now in heaven.

I was trying to show what your interpretation was leading to. If I misrepresented your statement, I'd appreciate the correction.

OK, let us look at these verses:

"So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption: It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power: It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body. And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit. Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual. The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven. As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy: and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly. And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly. Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption" (1 Cor.15:42-50).​

From start to finish the subject under discussion by Paul concerns the two types of bodies which Christians will possess at one time or another. He always mentions the "natural" body first and the "spiritual" body second. Then he says, "Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual."

So in the following verses when Paul uses the word "first" he is using Adam as an example of a natural body. Then when he uses the word "second" he is using the Lord Jesus' body (as it is now in heaven) as an example of a spiritual body. Nothing more and nothing less.

I think in more recent posts you have confirmed what I said--that you believe Jesus was really the first man, and Adam was really the second man. Do I have your view correct? Does it bother you that such a view is not only dismissing the literality of the verse, but is making it devoid of any meaning whatsoever, since the "reality" is the opposite of the message in the verse? If we can take biblical passages that way, can we trust anything the bible says? Or is it always possible that the "real" meaning is exactly the opposite of the apparent meaning?

The verses which I quoted are only in regard to the different bodies which Christians possess or will possess in the future and nothing more. You are reading into these verses which are not said. Let us look at these words and interpret them they way that you are trying to interpret these verses:

"The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven" (1 Cor.15:47).​

Of course we know that the Lord Jesus was not the "second" man because we know that Cain was the second man.

Are you saying that we are saved by the foreknowledge of God? I thought it was the blood of Jesus that saves us, and belief in the truth. But those things aren't bolded in either verse. Maybe I could use another clarification from you.

In this verse Paul speaks of the process by which men are chosen or elected:

"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"(1 Pet.1:1-2).​

In this passage 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." Therefore, we can understand that the being elected or chosen mentioned at 1 Peter 1:1-2 is in regard to being baptized into the Body of Christ by One Spirit; therefore it is "salvation" which is in view at 1 Peter 1:2 and hence it is the "individual" which is foreknown by God.

If I am wrong then give me your own interpreation of the meaning of the words "through sanctification of the Spirit."

Thanks!

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Paul is obviously as interested, here, in their final salvation as he refers to our "sanctification." And in that sense, we are foreknown after we believe to that final sanctification.

So you are finally admitting that the LORD foreknows the individuals who will be saved. And since the LORD foreknows those who will be saved then He also foreknows those who will believe. And those are the ones who He ordains to eternal life here:

"And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed" (Acts 13:48).​

The LORD first ordained or appointed some Gentiles to eternal life and then every single one of them who were ordained believed.

 

[themuzicman]

So you are finally admitting that the LORD foreknows the individuals who will be saved. And since the LORD foreknows those who will be saved then He also foreknows those who will believe. And those are the ones who He ordains to eternal life here:

Funny how when people here realize that they can't refute what's been said, that they resort to this kind of obvious straw man fallacy, clearly twisting what I've said, because the appropriate response would be to concede, and cognitive dissonance takes over.

If you'll bother to read what I said, I said that we become foreknown after we believe, that we are foreknown to our eventual sanctification.

It is interesting that you appear to be Catholic in your beliefs regarding justification and sanctification, as protestants fairly universally separate the two.

"And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed" (Acts 13:48).​

The LORD first ordained or appointed some Gentiles to eternal life and then every single one of them who were ordained believed.

Again, you've returned to what has already been proven false by a simply exegetical examination of the chapter. I suppose this is probably the result of your cognitive dissonance, too.