Eph 1:4 exegeted

[FreeGrace2]

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?

No, it suggests nothing of the sort. It says what it says. Your "rendition" isn't part of my exegesis. God chose believers to be holy and blameless. That's what it says.

If my exegesis doesn't please some, please exegete the text yourself.

 

[stenerson]

No, it suggests nothing of the sort. It says what it says. Your "rendition" isn't part of my exegesis. God chose believers to be holy and blameless. That's what it says.

If my exegesis doesn't please some, please exegete the text yourself.

Hmmm? This is confusing. You said:

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 that sounds to me like you're "exegesis" of the text suggest that God's "choosing 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?

 

[FreeGrace2]

Hmmm? This is confusing. You said:


So that sounds to me like you're "exegesis" of the text suggest that God's "choosing 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?

I have requested your "exegesis", but won't. Why?

Second, my exegesis is nowhere near a "simple announcement" of anything.

It is a clear declaration of WHO God elects and WHY He elects them. Nothing about "what He wants".

Third, seems you're suggesting that God's election is something that "for the most part will be thwarted by man". Please explain this but of confusion. How can God's election be thwarted by man? I cannot see how.

The OP was clear. I presented my exegesis of Eph 1:4. Those who disagree with it only need to provide their exegesis of the text for comparison.

 

[stenerson]

I have requested your "exegesis", but won't. Why?

The OP was clear. I presented my exegesis of Eph 1:4. Those who disagree with it only need to provide their exegesis of the text for comparison.

Seems we're speaking different languages and getting no where. I'll let someone else have at it.

 

[Hammster]

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.


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.

Your comment, which I quoted, was unambiguous. And you've not retracted it.

 

[FreeGrace2]

I said this:
I have requested your "exegesis", but won't. Why?

The OP was clear. I presented my exegesis of Eph 1:4. Those who disagree with it only need to provide their exegesis of the text for comparison.

Seems we're speaking different languages and getting no where. I'll let someone else have at it.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Your comment, which I quoted, was unambiguous. And you've not retracted it.

All of my comments are unambiguous, and thanks for noticing.

Why should I retract it? Your comments are frequently ambiguous.

 

[stenerson]

I said this:
I have requested your "exegesis", but won't. Why?

The OP was clear. I presented my exegesis of Eph 1:4. Those who disagree with it only need to provide their exegesis of the text for comparison.

The text is in clear and unambiguous language. There's no need for me to play seminary professor or to "exegete" .. Just read it and believe it.

 

[Hammster]

All of my comments are unambiguous, and thanks for noticing.

Why should I retract it? Your comments are frequently ambiguous.

You shouldn't retract it, if it's what you believe. Just don't accuse me of not understanding your clear statement.

 

[Danoh]

POsitionally, yes, of course. They are "in Christ" and have His imputed righteousness. But Eph 1:4 isn't about being chosen to be in Christ, as so many Calvinists seem to believe, from what they all say.

1:4 is about believers being chosen to be holy and blameless. This speaks to experential sanctification, not positional truth.

Consider this:

Colossians 1:22
yet He has now reconciled you in His fleshly body through death, in order to present you before Him holy and blameless and beyond reproach—
Colossians 1:23
if indeed you continue in the faith firmly established and steadfast, and not moved away from the hope of the gospel that you have heard, which was proclaimed in all creation under heaven, and of which I, Paul, was made a minister.

Note the bolded part. The verses are saying that God has reconciled believers (you) in order to (for the purpose of) present you (believers) before Him holy and blameless IF YOU CONTINUE IN THE FAITH. That's real clear. There is a condition noted here, and the wording here is very similar to Eph 1:4 about being holy and blameless before Him.

iow, the ONLY way for believers to be presented before Him holy and blameless is IF they continue in the faith.


Yes, from Rom 8. But we're dealing with Eph 1:4, and Rom 8 is a different context altogether, making different points than Eph 1:4.


True, but irrelevant to the OP.

In 2 posts, there has been no refutation of what I have exegeted as noted by the parentheses. May I conclude that my exegesis is acceptable to you?

Not sure if we're in agreement or disagreement, but the election he is referring to is the same as that of Romans 8's "to be conformed to thr image of His Son" via Col. 2:6's "As ye have therefore received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk ye in him."

Eph. 2:16's "For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them."

In other words, He ordained that those who choose to trust His Son - as ye have therefor received him - by faith - He would conform to the image of His Son as they - by faith - walk in Him.

 

[Danoh]

The issue is that of Rom. 12: 1,2 - that of conforming your outer man expression of your inward man reality created in you in Him where He placed you the moment you trusted Him.

 

[FreeGrace2]

The text is in clear and unambiguous language. There's no need for me to play seminary professor or to "exegete" .. Just read it and believe it.

I did read it. How else could I have exegeted it apart from reading it??

I know exactly what it says. God chose us to be holy and blameless.

But RT thinks Paul MEANT that God chose certain people for salvation, when he didn't say that.

Why is it such a effort to identify who the "us" are in Eph 1:4? I believe he was referring to believers. iow, God chose believers.

Those who disagree should be able to identify who the "us" are, if not believers.

But, if one claims the "us" are the "elect", there is a problem. That makes Paul saying that "God elected the elect", which doesn't make sense. It clearly implies that God chose those where already in the category of being elect.

That clearly infers 2 elections then.

So, who are the "us", if not believers?

To be strictly literal, maybe Paul only included himself and his immediate audience in that statement. If not, then WHO was he referring to?

 

[FreeGrace2]

You shouldn't retract it, if it's what you believe. Just don't accuse me of not understanding your clear statement.

It is hard to know what you've understood given your frequent ambiguous one liners.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Not sure if we're in agreement or disagreement, but the election he is referring to is the same as that of Romans 8's "to be conformed to thr image of His Son" via Col. 2:6's "As ye have therefore received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk ye in him."

Eph. 2:16's "For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them."

It would be helpful for our reformed brethren to notice the subjunctive mood "should walk in them".

In other words, He ordained that those who choose to trust His Son - as ye have therefor received him - by faith - He would conform to the image of His Son as they - by faith - walk in Him.

Amen!

 

[Hammster]

My unambiguous post. It hasn't been refuted. The OP hasn't said that this isn't what he believes. All he's given is personal jabs at me.

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.

 

[Foghorn]

My unambiguous post. It hasn't been refuted. The OP hasn't said that this isn't what he believes. All he's given is personal jabs at me.







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.

+2 I agree.

Soldier on bro!

 

[FreeGrace2]

My unambiguous post. It hasn't been refuted.

This is ambiguous. Which post # is being referred to here??

The OP hasn't said that this isn't what he believes. All he's given is personal jabs at me.

Another ambiguous claim. The OP says exactly what I believe, as I exegeted the text of Eph 1:4, and you haven't.

And please back up that false and ambiguous charge of yours about taking "personal jabs at you". Post #s will suffice.

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.

Still there is no evidence or support for this ambiguous claim. Is there any?

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.

How about just exegeting the verse, as I've done, if there is disagreement with it. Shouldn't be difficult.

 

[Hammster]

This is ambiguous. Which post # is being referred to here??


Another ambiguous claim. The OP says exactly what I believe, as I exegeted the text of Eph 1:4, and you haven't.

And please back up that false and ambiguous charge of yours about taking "personal jabs at you". Post #s will suffice.


Still there is no evidence or support for this ambiguous claim. Is there any?


How about just exegeting the verse, as I've done, if there is disagreement with it. Shouldn't be difficult.

You should stop running away from your comments that man is responsible for his own holiness and blamelessness. Just embrace the Pelagian nature of your theology.

 

[stenerson]

I know exactly what it says. God chose us to be holy and blameless.

But RT thinks Paul MEANT that God chose certain people for salvation, when he didn't say that.

It says He chose "us", not He chose everyone. Of course that's talking about certain people vs every human being that has ever lived.

Why is it such a effort to identify who the "us" are in Eph 1:4? I believe he was referring to believers. iow, God chose believers.

I went into detail who the "us" was. Why are you claiming I'm not identifying the "us"? It took no effort.

Those who disagree should be able to identify who the "us" are, if not believers.

I never said the "us" that God chose and predestined to adoption as sons according the the purpose of His own will would not be believers. I'm not sure where you got that from.

But, if one claims the "us" are the "elect", there is a problem. That makes Paul saying that "God elected the elect", which doesn't make sense. It clearly implies that God chose those where already in the category of being elect.

That's very muddy thinking. Of course the "us" that are chosen are the elect. That's what chosen means. God has chosen "us" or God has "elected" us.

That clearly infers 2 elections then.

So, who are the "us", if not believers?

Again, you misunderstood me if you think those that God has chosen before the foundation of the world would not be believers. If I was unclear I apologize, but yes those elected, chosen, lavished with grace, to whom the mystery of God's will is revealed, etc will be believers.

To be strictly literal, maybe Paul only included himself and his immediate audience in that statement. If not, then WHO was he referring to?

Well of course, we always look at context first. Paul was writing a letter to a Church. Immediate context "us" was Paul and those He wrote to. We know that scripture is for our benefit also and we can apply the truths to our lives. If we believe, then we know we have been chosen to be conformed to the ...etc.

 

[FreeGrace2]

You should stop running away from your comments that man is responsible for his own holiness and blamelessness. Just embrace the Pelagian nature of your theology.

Please show me where I evef said that is responsible for his own holiness and blamelessness. There is no excuse for misreading my posts and then posting such misunderstanding.

I'm fully aware of 2 Pet 1:3-10. God has given believers (us) everything we need for life and godliness. I've never said nor suggested that we produce our own holiness. That is absurd on its face and I'm sure that you know better than to think that from my posts. So, what is the agenda here?

I invite your exegesis of Eph 1:4.

The repeated misrepresentations of my view isn't helpful for your side. But it does demonstrate the possibility of some kind of agenda going on.