Calvinist Romance

[Guest]

Lewis-

I will to continue to humbly and prayerfully consider this text along with all my Bible study.

There are plenty of other text's that teach election much more explicitly.
I would invite you to keep in mind the culture and context of Corinth during that time. It wasn't exactly a "christian" haven. God was certainly protecting Paul at this point. Paul embraced suffering and suffered for Christ continually.

Something for us all to consider in our world so colored by relativism, existentialism, and postmodernism:

Defending the Brightness of the Broad-Day Sun

Into this morass of subjectivity came a Professor of Literature from the University of Virginia, E.D. Hirsch. Reading his book Validity in Interpretation during my seminary years was like suddenly finding a rock under my feet in the quicksand of contemporary concepts about meaning. Like most of the guides God sent along my path, Hirsch defended the obvious. Yes, he argued, there does exist an original meaning that a writer had in his mind when he wrote. And yes, valid interpretation seeks that intention in the text and gives good reasons for claiming to see it. This seemed as obvious to me as the broad-day sun. It was everybody’s assumption in daily life when they spoke or wrote.
Perhaps even more important, it seemed courteous. None of us wants our notes and letters and contracts interpreted differently than we intend them. Therefore, common courtesy, or the Golden Rule, requires that we read others the way we would be read. It seemed to me that much philosophical talk about meaning was just plain hypocritical: At the university I undermine objective meaning, but at home (and at the bank) I insist on it. I wanted no part of that game. It looked like an utterly wasted life. If there is no valid interpretation based on real objective, unchanging, original meaning, then my whole being said, “Let us eat, drink, and be merry. But by no means let us treat scholarship as if it really matters.” [Don’t Waste Your Life, pg. 25 John Piper]

Blessings in Christ,

Haas

[Guest]

21centpilgrim,

I know.

bighaasdog,

There is no doubt that God was protecting him. I'm sure it was reassuring for Paul to hear that there were many others in Corinth who were believers (or would believe if you like). We do know that there were prominent people in Corinth who were believers: Crispus, the former ruler of the synogogue, and Erastus, the public treasurer in Corinth. (It's not clear at this point if Erastus was a believer or not when Paul had this vision.)

I agree that there are texts that speak of election, but the question has never been about "election" because both Calvinists and non-Calvinists have a form of election--unconditional and conditional, respectively. The question is: what kind of election is it? I'm not convinced that it matters that much.

I basically agree with Piper. That's why I think the natural reading of the Acts passage (as Luke intended his audience to undersand) is what I concluded previously. But like you, I will also prayerfully consider this passage along with a myriad of other passages.

Lewis

[Guest]

The very next passage tells us that there were many people there to be yet saved, for it tells us that Paul stayed there for over 18 months!
It follows the thought that many elect people would be there, and that is why immediately, the thought goes from many people to the length of time Paul was there, AND NOT ONLY THAT, but the very next verse after that does not have Paul being protected by all of these Christians!, for he immediately gets into trouble with the authorities and is brought up for judgement!!

Sheesh!
Try reading the passage in light of this one

Joh 10:16 And I have other sheep who are not of this fold. I must also lead those, and they shall hear My voice, and there shall be one flock, one Shepherd.

Mark

Was funny though that the Message was the one version (which is not a version at all) that agreed with the people being in existance already and were there to help Paul etc.

History paints a different picture btw regarding this city!

[Guest]

Try reading the passage in light of this one

Joh 10:16 And I have other sheep who are not of this fold. I must also lead those, and they shall hear My voice, and there shall be one flock, one Shepherd

Ah, the error of proof texting. The thrust of your point would be greatly minimized if these "other" sheep are the ones that Mark 9:38-41 mentions.


Mark 9:38. '”Teacher,” said John, “we saw a man driving out demons in your name and we told him to stop, because he was not one of us.” 39 “Do not stop him,” Jesus said. “No-one who does a MIRACLE in My Name can in the next moment say anything bad about Me, 40 for whoever is not against us is for us. 41 I tell you the truth, anyone who gives you a cup of water in My Name because you belong to Christ will certainly not lose his reward.”


Also, John 10:36 comes to mind, as Jesus said "you do not believe because you are not my sheep" John 10:26

Many make the error of trying to derive an order in the process of salvation from a verse that is metaphorical and merely meant to be descriptive. If a shepherd says about certain sheep that are grazing among his own flock, “These ones are not white, because they are not of my sheep,” does that prove that the wool of his sheep was black before he obtained them, and then became white after they became his sheep? Is the shepherd declaring that the sole reason that his sheep have white wool is because they are his sheep? No, the only real conclusion one can draw from such a statement is that the shepherd only has sheep with white wool in his flock. Likewise, Jesus was simply describing His true sheep among the bigger “flock.” His sheep believe. Those who are not of His flock don’t believe. He was not establishing an order in the process of salvation.

I wonder why people don’t quote the two verses that follow John 10:26 in order to be certain his interpretation fits the context. There we continue reading, “My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me; and I give eternal life to them, and they shall never perish; and no one shall snatch them out of My hand” (John 10:27-28).

Here Jesus continues to describe His relationship with His sheep. He mentions things that they do and things that He does for them. Not only do they believe in Him, but they also hear his voice (because they are near and attentive), and they follow Him (because they have obediently submitted to Him). True Christians believe in, listen to, and obey Jesus. Jesus, like any good shepherd, knows which sheep are His. He gives them eternal life, promises that they won’t perish, and also guarantees that they won’t be stolen. Clearly we see this is a two-sided relationship, both sides having responsibility.

How would we fare if we used this same means of interpreting John 10:26 to interpret Jesus' words regarding a just-converted prostitute, recorded in Luke 7:47?:

“For this reason I say to you, her sins, which are many, have been forgiven, for [because] she loved much; but he who is forgiven little, loves little."

Was Jesus teaching that the reason this prositute's many sins were forgiven was because she first, prior to being forgiven, "loved much"? Or was Jesus simply describing people who have been forgiven much, identifying them as being people who love God much? The answer is obvious. Thus we should be extremely careful in deriving an order of the process of salvation from John 10:26, grasping for a cause and effect relationship in a statement that was only meant to describe true believers.

source