Eph 1:4 exegeted

[FreeGrace2]

I believe Peter. He was addressing believers. I just reject your Pelagianism.

I don't have what you think I have. But go ahead and reject whatever you'd like to reject.

Apparently my answer wasn't clear. Peter tells us what God has given us, but we have to be diligent. You say you believe Peter but everything else you post suggests otherwise.

Peter never said that God causes our behavior, yet that's your view. So, it seems people can claim anything they want to claim.

 

[Hammster]

I don't have what you think I have. But go ahead and reject whatever you'd like to reject.

Apparently my answer wasn't clear. Peter tells us what God has given us, but we have to be diligent. You say you believe Peter but everything else you post suggests otherwise.

Peter never said that God causes our behavior, yet that's your view. So, it seems people can claim anything they want to claim.

Peter is addressing believers. He's not addressing all of humanity. The personal pronouns trip you synergists up quite often.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Peter is addressing believers. He's not addressing all of humanity. The personal pronouns trip you synergists up quite often.

Of course He was. I never said otherwise. What led to your terrible misconception that I thought otherwise??? Please explain.

 

[Hammster]

Of course He was. I never said otherwise. What led to your terrible misconception that I thought otherwise??? Please explain.

Because you hold a view that God has given everyone what they need already, and that the Spirit plays no part in conversion (apart from what He's already done). So why would I think any different about your treatment of Peter's writings?

 

[FreeGrace2]

Because you hold a view that God has given everyone what they need already, and that the Spirit plays no part in conversion (apart from what He's already done).

Please provide Scripture that the Holy Spirit is involved in one's action of believing. Without that, your claim or suggestion here is mere speculation, as usual. The Holy Spirit convicts the world of sin, righteousness and judgment. What man does with that is either to accept it or reject it (Acts 7:51).

After salvation, the Holy Spirit is absolutely necessary for spiritual growth. How? Through the filling of the Holy Spirit (Eph 5:18) and walking by means of the Holy Spirit (Gal 5:16). And when the believer grieves the Spirit (Eph 4:30) or quenches the Spirit (1 Thess 5:19), they not only aren't growing in the faith, they are "fulfilling the desires of the flesh", which ain't a purty thing.

So why would I think any different about your treatment of Peter's writings?

I have no idea what this ambiguous statement is about. Please explain where my "treatment of Peter's writings" went wrong.

I highly doubt that you'll be able to, because of your frequent and terrible misperceptions of what I have posted.

 

[Hammster]

Please provide Scripture that the Holy Spirit is involved in one's action of believing. Without that, your claim or suggestion here is mere speculation, as usual. The Holy Spirit convicts the world of sin, righteousness and judgment. What man does with that is either to accept it or reject it (Acts 7:51).

After salvation, the Holy Spirit is absolutely necessary for spiritual growth. How? Through the filling of the Holy Spirit (Eph 5:18) and walking by means of the Holy Spirit (Gal 5:16). And when the believer grieves the Spirit (Eph 4:30) or quenches the Spirit (1 Thess 5:19), they not only aren't growing in the faith, they are "fulfilling the desires of the flesh", which ain't a purty thing.


I have no idea what this ambiguous statement is about. Please explain where my "treatment of Peter's writings" went wrong.

I highly doubt that you'll be able to, because of your frequent and terrible misperceptions of what I have posted.

It seems you have forgotten this (or want us to forget it):

"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."

So who is the cause for us to be holy and blameless? Ourselves, or is our holiness and blamelessness imputed?

 

[Foghorn]

Peter is addressing believers. He's not addressing all of humanity. The personal pronouns trip you synergists up quite often.

Your absolutely correct.

Scripture teaches throughout a personal election (if I may call it that), the teaching is plain to see, it cannot be shown as not truth it can only be denied.

For one example, John 17:9 I ask on their behalf; I do not ask on behalf of the world, but of those whom You have given Me; for they are Yours;

Why in the world would Jesus die for the whole world but not pray for the whole world?
It is simply because Christ did not pay the penalty for sin for the entire world, just for those given Him by the Father.

And of course as verse 20 teaches, “I do not ask on behalf of these alone, but for those also who believe in Me through their word;

There are those who will be born that are His also, and these He also prays for.

So some may say, these are no one in particular, it is those who decide on their own after hearing the gospel, to believe. Not so according to scripture:
who has saved us and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to His own purpose and grace which was granted us in Christ Jesus from all eternity, 2 Timothy 1:9.

It is sad that many believe the opposite of what the word teaches, and they bring it to such a teaching as decisional regeneration, as if man has the power in himself to make himself (or allow) to be born again whenever he so chooses. The problem is their denial of God's explicit word,
For to you it has been granted for Christ’s sake, not only to believe in Him, but also to suffer for His sake, Phil 1:29.

 

[FreeGrace2]

It seems you have forgotten this (or want us to forget it):

That would be wrong, once again. I've never hid from anything anyone posts here. So don't think otherwise.

"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."

So who is the cause for us to be holy and blameless? Ourselves, or is our holiness and blamelessness imputed?

There are 2 types or kinds of sanctification. One is positional and the other is experiential. The positional one is imputed, the experiential is experienced only WHEN the believer is filled (Eph 5:18) and walking by means of the Holy Spirit (Gal 5:16).

If one can prove that the election of Eph 1:4 does cause holiness and blamelessness, where is it?

 

[Hammster]

That would be wrong, once again. I've never hid from anything anyone posts here. So don't think otherwise.


There are 2 types or kinds of sanctification. One is positional and the other is experiential. The positional one is imputed, the experiential is experienced only WHEN the believer is filled (Eph 5:18) and walking by means of the Holy Spirit (Gal 5:16).

If one can prove that the election of Eph 1:4 does cause holiness and blamelessness, where is it?

And another flip flop. I'll leave you to it.

 

[FreeGrace2]

And another flip flop. I'll leave you to it.

Please prove your vacuous charge. Charges are cheap. Sometimes just cheap shots.

Apart from evidence or proof, they are meaningless.

Show how I've done what you've claimed.

Maybe you're not aware of the fact of both positional and experiential sanctification. If one's pastor only preaches the gospel, which is FOR salvation, that would explain one's lack of awareness of them.

I challenged you to prove that Eph 1:4 says that election is the cause of holiness and blamelessness.

 

[extraordinary]

For to you it has been granted for Christ’s sake, not only to believe in Him,
but also to suffer for His sake, Phil 1:29.

Congratulations! ... Thou wilt be called upon to do just that quite shortly.
Do not run from the type of Christian persecution which leads to physical death
... because that will mean loss of eternal life!
And also, do not take the mark of the beast or you will lose eternal life!
You don't require references, right?
.

 

[Marvin Knox]

I will exegete Eph 1:4 from the NASB with parentheses for clarity:

just as He (God) chose (elected) us (believers per 1:19) in Him (speaks to postitional truth of being placed in union with Christ per 1:13) before the foundation of the world (when God's election occurred), that we would be (the purpose of God's election of believers) holy and blameless (how believers are supposed to live, what believers were elected to do as service for Him) before Him.

If my clarifying parentheses are inaccurate, I invite correction that is based on Scripture. Opinions don't matter here. If my exegesis can be refuted from Scripture, please do so.
Like everyone else, I do not want to be wrong.
Thanks.

Your exegesis sounds about as good as it needs to be. No big problem there. I see no reason to argue that.

But the main point you seem to be laboring is that the “choosing” was unto being holy and blameless. Maybe – OK – so what?

Even if that is what believers are being chosen to become - it doesn’t change the fact that we were predestined to adoption as per verses 5 and 6.

Adoption makes us believers and vice versa. Therefore we were predestined to become those who will eventually be holy and blameless. Duh!

It wouldn’t matter if you could prove that the first verse said that He “chose” believers to become 6 feet tall. In predestining us to become believers (adoption) He clearly would have predestined us to become 6 feet tall. Reading the entire passage makes that inescapable.

What's the big deal you've accomplished? You still have the doctrine of predestination staring you in the face and you can’t get around it by playing with words.

The whole point of your OP seems a bit vacuous to me.

 

[Danoh]

Per Galatians 4, adoption is about recognition of sonship status - no more children but adult sons in Him.

I look at the predestinated issue this way.

An airline purposes a trip, via airplane, say, from Chicago to Orlando. That airplane's trip is has been predestinated by that airline.

You win an all expenses paid trip on that airplane. Its bought and paid for. You can't believe it. But you decide, "what the heck, lemme look into this..." The day of that trip you show up at the airport, etc., and they redeem your purchased possession per their agreement.

In eternity the Godhead determined to bring glory to Itself through a new creature in the Son. This "plane" is traveling through this Age of Unmerited Grace, announcing its predestinated purpose. You believe it's gospel [good news]. The moment you do, God chooses you "in Him."

Neither Calvinist, nor Armenian - God chose to glorify the Son in a new creature, you choose to believe Him, despite your flesh. He chooses you back - in the Son.

All aboard! "The sooooooooooul train!!!"

 

[FreeGrace2]

Your exegesis sounds about as good as it needs to be. No big problem there. I see no reason to argue that.

But the main point you seem to be laboring is that the “choosing” was unto being holy and blameless. Maybe – OK – so what? a

The "so what?" is that Eph 1:4 isn't the proof text that God chooses who will believe, which is how most Calvinists use it.

Even if that is what believers are being chosen to become - it doesn’t change the fact that we were predestined to adoption as per verses 5 and 6.

Yes, and just who are the "we"? Same as the "us" in v.4; believers. Believers have been predestined to adoption.

Adoption makes us believers and vice versa.

There are no verses that teach this. Please refrain from opinions without Scriptural support. And Eph 1 doesn't give any support for that.

In predestining us to become believers (adoption) He clearly would have predestined us to become 6 feet tall. Reading the entire passage makes that inescapable.

What is truly inescapable is how poorly Calvinsts read and understand Eph 1.

To say "in predesting us to become believers" is totally off the mark. In the first place, the "us" in v.4 and all of the other 10 times Paul used "us" or "we", he was referring to believers already. So the truth is that God has predestined BELIEVERS, not unregenerates to become believers, as you've claimed.

What's the big deal you've accomplished? You still have the doctrine of predestination staring you in the face and you can’t get around it by playing with words.

The problem isn't with me, but your misunderstanding of the passage, as I've just shown in my comments here about your comments here.

The whole point of your OP seems a bit vacuous to me.

Well, the typical view by Calvinists of Eph 1 is more than a bit vacuous.

You've made clear statements that are FALSE. No one has been predestined to believe. Believers are predestined to be adopted as sons. That's the truth.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Per Galatians 4, adoption is about recognition of sonship status - no more children but adult sons in Him.

I look at the predestinated issue this way.

An airline purposes a trip, via airplane, say, from Chicago to Orlando. That airplane's trip is has been predestinated by that airline.

You win an all expenses paid trip on that airplane. Its bought and paid for. You can't believe it. But you decide, "what the heck, lemme look into this..." The day of that trip you show up at the airport, etc., and they redeem your purchased possession per their agreement.

In eternity the Godhead determined to bring glory to Itself through a new creature in the Son. This "plane" is traveling through this Age of Unmerited Grace, announcing its predestinated purpose. You believe it's gospel [good news]. The moment you do, God chooses you "in Him."

Neither Calvinist, nor Armenian - God chose to glorify the Son in a new creature, you choose to believe Him, despite your flesh. He chooses you back - in the Son.

All aboard! "The sooooooooooul train!!!"

 

[FreeGrace2]

I asked hammster this 2 days ago in post #110:

Please prove your vacuous charge. Charges are cheap. Sometimes just cheap shots.

Apart from evidence or proof, they are meaningless.

Show how I've done what you've claimed.

Maybe you're not aware of the fact of both positional and experiential sanctification. If one's pastor only preaches the gospel, which is FOR salvation, that would explain one's lack of awareness of them.

I challenged you to prove that Eph 1:4 says that election is the cause of holiness and blamelessness.

Please don't ignore this. Unless your claim can't be supported. Then I'd understand why it was ignored.

 

[Hammster]

Assume what you wish.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Assume what you wish.

What is there to assume? The opportunity to back up your vacuous charge has been ignored. But that's ok.

If your charge had merit, there would be evidence to support the charge.

I'm always willing to be corrected when in error, because, like yourself, I don't want to be wrong, esp when it comes to God's Word. It's just too important to get wrong.

That's why I always invite those posters who charge me with error, or being "vacuous" to provide evidence to support their charge.

So, the lack of evidence vindicates me from such charges.

And, because the issue of "assumption" has been brought up, the doctrine of limited atonement, which is admitted by Calvinists to be from inference, is an assumption, since Scripture has clearly stated who Christ died for.

So, you may assume what you wish.

 

[Hammster]

What is there to assume? The opportunity to back up your vacuous charge has been ignored. But that's ok.

If your charge had merit, there would be evidence to support the charge.

I'm always willing to be corrected when in error, because, like yourself, I don't want to be wrong, esp when it comes to God's Word. It's just too important to get wrong.

That's why I always invite those posters who charge me with error, or being "vacuous" to provide evidence to support their charge.

So, the lack of evidence vindicates me from such charges.

And, because the issue of "assumption" has been brought up, the doctrine of limited atonement, which is admitted by Calvinists to be from inference, is an assumption, since Scripture has clearly stated who Christ died for.

So, you may assume what you wish.

There's more than one reason not to respond. You chose poorly. But I'm sure I won't convince you of this.

Unsubscribing.

 

[extraordinary]

The whole point of your OP seems a bit vacuous to me.

If vacuous means the same as nausous, then I agree.
(Even though SpellChecker says I spelled it wrong.)
.