The Epistle of Paul to the Philippians is written in the second person plural, except for the following verse.
Philippians 4:3 (NASB)
3 Indeed, true companion, I ask you also to help these women who have shared my struggle in the cause of the gospel, together with Clement also and the rest of my fellow workers, whose names are in the book of life.
This verse appears to be parenthetical, because here we find the Greek word, σύ, which is the second person singular; that is, in the following verse he reverts to the second person plural of address for the remainder of the epistle.
To whom then was Paul referring as the “True Companion” in this verse, if we understand that the epistle was supposed to be addressed to “all the saints in Christ Jesus who are in Philippi” in general (Phil 1:1)?
Was this perhaps some literary device to address each individual in the Philippian Church to take responsibility in helping Euodia and Syntyche to live in harmony?
In other words, was Paul aware of the “Bystander Effect“ (or Genovese Syndrome) in the First Century? The thesis avers that larger numbers of people decrease the likelihood that any one person in particular will step forward to help those in distress; responsibility to help thus remains diffused among the large number of people. That is, the individual must be addressed in order to prompt the response to assist those needing help.
In this context was the “True Companion” therefore each and every believer in Philippi (thus Paul’s attempt to mitigate the “Bystander Effect”), or was perhaps the “True Companion” actually some particular individual person in Philippi? Thoughts?
Jon Ray
God’s choice not to act graciously toward others when God could, denies the goodness of God or at least impugns the reputation of God as a God of love and grace and goodness Charles Page
Charles Page
God has never chosen not to act graciously! Still there are people who will insist he does choose ‘not to act graciously’
He acts graciously toward those who blatantly resist Him. His grace is irresistible.
Jon Ray
Exactly! Thus free will which Calvinism denies is God acting graciously toward human kind. Grace is Resistible and many have fallen from grace – hence we have sanctification Charles seems to agree with that too http://www.pentecostaltheology.com/why-am-i-not-a-calvinist-reason-6/
Charles Page
God acts graciously toward his election (not universalism) Grace is irresistible by the elect. many of God’s elect are never sanctified and some of the sanctified will loose their sanctification (all God’s elect are justified, regenerated and glorified)
Jon Ray
Ancient MSS declare that the popularized difficult reading/singing of first line in the second verse “’Twas grace that taught my heart to fear” was originally recorded as: “Twice taught this grace my heart to fear.” It is quite apparent from this ancient sola-red-back-hymnala that the idea of once-saved-always-saved was foreign to the author. Quite the contrary, he introduces the idea of two-grace-touched, clearly a poetical reference to first and second works of grace. Rick Wadholm Jr
Josh Golden
The issue is God could destroy every human being on this planet and still be good he did that once ya know oh except for 8 people. People just don’t like being clay.
Jon Ray
Do you feel that all but 8 were created for destruction?
Josh Golden
Would they have been destroyed otherwise, how sovereign is God?
Jon Ray
So do you feel that all but 8 were created for destruction?
Charles Page
there is your Calvinism!!!
Josh Golden
They were destroyed so obviously that was the plan.
Jon Ray
And this is where Pentecostal soteriology departs from baptistic Calvinsm
Josh Golden
So it wasnt the plan? God killed all those people by accident?
Varnel Watson
He killed them because they chose to sin. Not because they were preordained to be killed. There!
Josh Golden
So when he talks about his decree that he declared things from the beginning did he not declare the judgment of those wicked people or did his entire decree, fall apart when Adam fell and everything after that is him fumbling about trying to pick up the pieces.
Charles Page
That’s it – a God who “fumbling about trying to pick up the pieces”
Charles Page
most theology is that the Church will put it all back together for God and then he’ll return to rule.
Josh Golden
So God needs us to fix the world for him, I dont see that in scripture would love to see where they get that.
Charles Page
when we finish preaching the gospel then He’ll return. I heard that all my life and it will be preached for maybe 10 more years then theology will change for the good.
Josh Golden
I mean no disrespect but are you saying Christ will return in 10 years?
Charles Page
Josh Golden That is when the church runs out of finances and will necessitate a theology shift.
Josh Golden
Ya i’m not really sure what you’re getting at lol
Charles Page
Just running my mouth.
I believe there is coming a major theological shift
Josh Golden
I would say so too but i’m not sure if we agree on the shift lol
Jon Ray
Josh Golden it seem your questions drive the discussion to (a relative) open theism Ricky Grimsley
Josh Golden
Open theism is a more consistent view but its completely unbiblical. All the arguments against calvinism are never scriptural it seems they come from emotional or philosophical perspectives.
Jon Ray
“All the arguments against calvinism are never scriptural it seems” – It just seems that way http://cupandcross.com/recommending-dr-george-voorhis-new-book/
Ricky Grimsley
Open-theism is only unbiblical if you try to change the plain reading of the texts. Either the bible is true or it isnt. The bible says God learns, god changes his mind, and he has emotions. Calvinism isnt biblical and Arminianism isn’t consistent.
Jon Ray
It could be an interesting discussion if we begin departing from elementary TULIP and discuss the praxis of Calvinistic theology both in his days and today. There is a reason Arminius and Wesley came about as corner stones in Holiness theology. There was a reason why Wesleyan holiness renewal is the foundation of Pentecostal thought. And that reason simply is that Calvinism extreemed into the domain of unbiblical. However, if we are to indeed begin an in depth theological discussion on Calvin we should perhaps start with Augustine and his own catholic estrangement from theology proper CrossTheology For starters how could Calivin / Augustine type of eschatology be in any way Pentecostal? http://www.pentecostaltheology.com/can-one-be-a-pentecostal-calvinist/
CrossTheology
Josh Golden Open Theism can be backed up by Scripture. The other views have to twist Scripture. crosstheology.wordpress.com/an-apology
Jon Ray
The OP “Why am I NOT a Calvinist? REASON #8
God’s choice not to act graciously toward others when God could, denies the goodness of God or at least impugns the reputation of God as a God of love and grace and goodness.” has little if any at all to do with open theism
Jon Ray
I find Chadwick to be a poor rendering of Augustine’s Confession
Charles Page
You believe in original sin?
CrossTheology
Yes there are more modern and better versions but it’s what the author of that article used and it’s good enough to make his point. 🙂
Jon Ray
“The goal of purification is to become like God in order to see God.” I think here you mean deification from Eastern Orthodoxy theosis but for that a much broader observation is needed than just Western theological application. What’s this source you cite “John Piper, the Profane”?
CrossTheology
It’s an excerpt I took from a website article