Eph 1:4 exegeted

[FreeGrace2]

Curious what your motive is here, I never said this verse teaches God electing certain persons, I just asked how you feel about that subject.

I'm fine with the subject of election. Which category did you have in mind? The Bible indicates 6 categories, all with different purposes.

 

[FreeGrace2]

I didn't ask you that. Now please try and stay focused?

I'm always very focused when posting.

Let me ask this another way because I am curious, not trying to change the meaning of the Eph verse.

Do you believe God, in eternity looked ahead into the future, seeing who would believe by their own choice (good works) and these He put into the named category - "believers"? As you are speaking of in Ephesians?

First, God never has to "look into the future". He's omniscient and has always known everything. If He has to "look ahead", then He's not omniscient.

Second, since you're balking at my choice of word to define "us", please use another word that suits your view better for "us".

Or, do you believe God, upon no human merit or condition, chose from eternity a particular people, therefore knowing them intimately, even by name and put these in the group named - "believers"? As you are speaking on in Ephesians?

I believe that God chose every single believer to be holy and blameless. That choice was unconditional. He didn't regard whether any of them were stinkers, or polly anna's. His choice for all believers wasn't made on the basis of any of their behaviors.

Im just curious here bro, I am not doing as you misjudged, changing the meaning of the verse.

Really? In post #24, was this from you:
And they are (become) believers because of God choosing them and faithfully regenerating them.

You're saying people become believers because God chose them. That most definitely does change the meaning of the verse. Completely.

That twists Paul's words totally out of what he actually wrote. Paul wrote that God chose believers. Who else would "us" refer to?

So, I haven't misjudged your words at all.

 

[FreeGrace2]

You claim the name of the group is "believers". I claim you see it as a nameless group (as you put it corporate) of faith exercising people.

I'm not sure what the difference is between "believers" and a "faith exercising group." What's the erroneous claim here?

Doesn't matter what I claim, or what you "claim" that I am claiming.

What do you claim as to the meaning of "us"?

By the way the phrase was "chose us". Not "chose those that would believe", or "chose those that would experientialy grow in holiness." Of course they are saved, Spirit filled believers growing experimentally in holiness. But that's not the point or flow of this exuberant, letter. He was speaking to individuals about them and himself and the grace that has been freely lavished on them and determined by God since before the foundation of the world. And yes, the timing is important, 1st of all because God took the time to tell us when, and because it jives with many scriptural references about God's eternal, everlasting love towards a select group.

I know the phrase is "chose us". I didn't claim otherwise. I did claim that it means that God chose believers.

If one doesn't like the word "believers" in place of "us", then what word would be suitable?

 

[stenerson]

There's no need to play word games. Paul wrote to the Ephesians saying "us" and "we." He's speaking to a group of individuals, not a hypothetical group or corporation of people meeting a condition, or criteria. I just leave it at this cause I feel it's foolish trying to state the obvious.

 

[FreeGrace2]

There's no need to play word games. Paul wrote to the Ephesians saying "us" and "we." He's speaking to a group of individuals, not a hypothetical group or corporation of people meeting a condition, or criteria. I just leave it at this cause I feel it's foolish trying to state the obvious.

So, what is the "obvious" here? Why not define the meaning of 'us'? This isn't a word game. It's an attempt to understand what Paul was saying.

He said US. Who are the us? Of course individuals. But we can do better than that.

If not a "group", then what? Who are US?

Go ahead an paraphrase. The entire Bible has been paraphrased, so it won't be the first time.

 

[stenerson]

Doesn't matter what I claim, or what you "claim" that I am claiming.

What do you claim as to the meaning of "us"?


I know the phrase is "chose us". I didn't claim otherwise. I did claim that it means that God chose believers.

If one doesn't like the word "believers" in place of "us", then what word would be suitable?

Who says we have to replace the word? Us is himself, (the writer), and the audience he was writing to. That's what us always means. If we have also been made alive and quickened by the word of God we an apply it to ourselves.
"Us" is those who have been chosen from the foundation of the world to be presented blameless and holy. "Us" is those that have been predestinated unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will.
"Us" is those who have obtained redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace.
"Us" are those to who God has abounded toward in all wisdom and prudence; Having made known unto "us" the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure which he hath purposed in himself.

 

[Hammster]

Seems your view is that this election causes the result of being holy and blameless? I don't think so. Given the many other verses where believers are commanded to be holy and blameless, God isn't the cause. If He were, there would be no reason for the command. It would just happen.

I think this sums up the man-centered, almost Pelagian view if free grace theology, assuming the OP accurately reflects it. Man is the cause of his own holiness and blamelessness. Justification and imputed righteousness is just tossed out the window.

Of course, the usual charge will surface that I just don't understand free grace theology, or I'm misrepresenting it, or some such nonsense. But this statement from the OP is unambiguous.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Who says we have to replace the word? Us is himself, (the writer), and the audience he was writing to. That's what us always means.

That mean just the Ephesian believers? Or did Paul have a greater audience in mind? Would Paul include everyone who reads his words???

If we have also been made alive and quickened by the word of God we an apply it to ourselves.

Well, this still begs the question: who has been made alive? The answer is believers.

"Us" is those who have been chosen from the foundation of the world to be presented blameless and holy. "Us" is those that have been predestinated unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will.
"Us" is those who have obtained redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace.
"Us" are those to who God has abounded toward in all wisdom and prudence; Having made known unto "us" the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure which he hath purposed in himself.

Or, "us" refers to believers ONLY.

From these comments here, why not just replace "us" with "the elect"? Seems that's your view, right?

So, let's see how that works out.

God elected the elect. Hm. Rings kinda hollow, imo. Doesn't really say anything. Kinda circular, too.

Why would God elect those who are already elect? Makes no sense. Sounds as if there are more than 1 election suggested.

Again, the "us" refers to believers, and always applies to all believers.

That's who God elects: believers. No one else, to be holy and blameless.

God doesn't decide who will believe, which is inherent in the RT doctrine of election. God elects those who have believed. Just as God saves those who have believed. 1 Cor 1:21

 

[stenerson]

I think this sums up the man-centered, almost Pelagian view if free grace theology, assuming the OP accurately reflects it. Man is the cause of his own holiness and blamelessness. Justification and imputed righteousness is just tossed out the window.

Of course, the usual charge will surface that I just don't understand free grace theology, or I'm misrepresenting it, or some such nonsense. But this statement from the OP is unambiguous.

I agree. He's claiming that the sinner is the cause of his own holiness and blamelessness. He's fighting against the very essence and theme of this passage. A passage in which Paul boasts about God's predestining love adopting, quickening, revealing of the mystery of His will, seating in Heavenly places, etc.
This is not a small difference in doctrine, it's a desecration of the passage.

 

[FreeGrace2]

I think this sums up the man-centered, almost Pelagian view if free grace theology, assuming the OP accurately reflects it. Man is the cause of his own holiness and blamelessness. Justification and imputed righteousness is just tossed out the window.

How this was arrived at is mystifying. There is nothing in the OP to lead anyone to such an absurd conclusion.

Maybe an explanation of WHY this is your understanding from the OP would be helpful.

Of course, the usual charge will surface that I just don't understand free grace theology, or I'm misrepresenting it, or some such nonsense. But this statement from the OP is unambiguous.

So please provide an explanation of WHY your understanding is that the OP is "man-centered". Or that man is the cause of his own holiness and blamelessness.

Until there is some explanation of your opinion expressed here, one could easily conclude that you haven't understood either free grace theology OR the OP. So, please clear up your confusion.

 

[FreeGrace2]

I agree. He's claiming that the sinner is the cause of his own holiness and blamelessness.

I offer trhe same challenge to you as I did to hammster. Explain how one could conclude your opinion here. There isn't anything in the OP to lead to that conclusion.

He's fighting against the very essence and theme of this passage. A passage in which Paul boasts about God's predestining love adopting, quickening, revealing of the mystery of His will, seating in Heavenly places, etc.
This is not a small difference in doctrine, it's a desecration of the passage.

If so, then it should be easy to exegete the text by inserting parentheses to define the meaning of the words in the verse.

Be my guest, please.

I've gotten a lot of disagreement from several, but no one has shown that my exegesis was wrong.

Please provide your own exegesis and let's see how it holds up to examination.

 

[stenerson]

I offer trhe same challenge to you as I did to hammster. Explain how one could conclude your opinion here. There isn't anything in the OP to lead to that conclusion.

If so, then it should be easy to exegete the text by inserting parentheses to define the meaning of the words in the verse.

I wasn't referring to the OP. I was referring to this
" Posted by FreeGrace2

Seems your view is that this election causes the result of being holy and blameless? I don't think so. Given the many other verses where believers are commanded to be holy and blameless, God isn't the cause. If He were, there would be no reason for the command. It would just happen."



​

 

[hedrick]

[temporarily canceled until I review who said what.]

 

[extraordinary]

Believers are holy and blameless before Him.
There's no charge that can stick against those that are in Christ Jesus.

You need to understand what it means to be "in Christ".

1 There is therefore now no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus, who
do not walk according to the flesh, but (walk) according to the Spirit.
2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has made me free from the law of sin and death.
3 For what the law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh, God did by sending His own Son
in the likeness of sinful flesh, on account of sin: He condemned sin in the flesh,
4 that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us who
do not walk according to the flesh but (walk) according to the Spirit.
5 For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh,
but those who live according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit.
6 For to be carnally minded is death, but to be spiritually minded is life and peace.

Some BACs choose to be carnally minded and to be slaves of sin (e.g. Romans 6).
I.E. they choose to habitually sin.

Do you consider them to be "in Christ"?
Do you consider them to be free from condemnation?
.

 

[stenerson]

You need to understand what it means to be "in Christ".

Do you consider them to be "in Christ"?
Do you consider them to be free from condemnation?
.

You've got plenty of your own threads going concerning perfectionism. I'd rather not sidetrack this thread with your pet doctrine.

 

[FreeGrace2]

I wasn't referring to the OP. I was referring to this
" Posted by FreeGrace2

Seems your view is that this election causes the result of being holy and blameless? I don't think so. Given the many other verses where believers are commanded to be holy and blameless, God isn't the cause. If He were, there would be no reason for the command. It would just happen."​

The verse does not say nor suggest that God's election is the cause of being holy and blameless.

When believers CHOOSE to be filled and walk by means of the Holy Spirit, and stop grieving or quenching the Holy Spirit, they ARE holy and blameless.

Can a believer be holy and blameless apart from the Holy Spirit? No. Does the Holy Spirit make anyone holy and blameless? No.

Experiential sanctification is a choice that believers must make. Hence, the commands.​

 

[stenerson]

The verse does not say nor suggest that God's election is the cause of being holy and blameless.

When believers CHOOSE to be filled and walk by means of the Holy Spirit, and stop grieving or quenching the Holy Spirit, they ARE holy and blameless.

Can a believer be holy and blameless apart from the Holy Spirit? No. Does the Holy Spirit make anyone holy and blameless? No.

Experiential sanctification is a choice that believers must make. Hence, the commands.

So your "exegesis" of the text suggest that God's "chosing us in him (Christ) before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love" is simply announcing what God wants, but that which will for the most part be thwarted by man?

 

[extraordinary]

You've got plenty of your own threads going concerning perfectionism.
I'd rather not sidetrack this thread with your pet doctrine.

Yes, we wouldn't want to accept who's in Christ and who's not.
That wouldn't be much fun, would it?

BTW, you too can be perfect ... if you repent as in 1 John 1:7-2:1.
Try it some time, you might like it.
.

 

[stenerson]

Yes, we wouldn't want to accept who's in Christ and who's not.
That wouldn't be much fun, would it?

BTW, you too can be perfect ... if you repent as in 1 John 1:7-2:1.
Try it some time, you might like it.
.

Sorry, bait's not working.

 

[Foghorn]

There's no need to play word games. Paul wrote to the Ephesians saying "us" and "we." He's speaking to a group of individuals, not a hypothetical group or corporation of people meeting a condition, or criteria. I just leave it at this cause I feel it's foolish trying to state the obvious.

+2