Ephesians 1: 1-12

[Bluelion]

I've clearly presented plenty of arguments from the scripture throughout the thread. You've not engaged with it. I have an example of this:



I have literally already responded to this, proved my position beyond any reasonable doubt using both the scriptures and Jewish writings from the Talmud, and have repeated my position multiple times! Then I have given a large number of scriptures demonstrating that conversion comes from the hand of God. No one cares to deal with it though.



Are you referring to original sin? 1Co_15:22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.

well sense i feel like a large part of this argument was me not telling you I believe in total depravity i'll go back and read all your post.

 

[Bluelion]

This is merely denial. It's a fact that the "all" or even phrases like "all the men of the world" are historically limited by the Jews and can have a wide variety of meanings, with "every single person" being the most rarest of the meanings! What you're really doing is just ignoring how scripture uses language, rather than letting scripture interpret scripture.



The "whosoever" doesn't help you however. It would have to mean that anyone, anywhere, and at any time, has the power to choose Christ. But this contradicts the following verse and all those like it:

1Co_12:3 Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost.

If a person cannot believe but by the holy ghost, there is no such thing as your free ability to choose. At best, you can argue that a person receives that ability only at the moment the Holy Spirit begins His work. But other verses presented in this thread make clear that not everyone receives the work of God to come to Christ.

The true significance of "whosoever" is that it destroys the bigotry of the Jews at that time that only the Jews had the blessings and promises of God. Instead, Christ declares that the Israel of God will encompass both Jews and Gentiles.

Bluelion writes:

You wrote this in reply to my pointing out that you hold there is a qualitative difference between the unbeliever and the believer. Clearly you do believe that the person who chooses Christ has a level of righteousness in them that allows them to have faith in Christ. If you declare that faith came of yourself, then you cannot confess with Paul that there is nothing that causes you to differ from another. You submitted where others do not. You can claim that the act of faith is not meritorious, but you do not escape your self-righteousness as long as you believe that you have innate goodness that others lack.

Princeton Guy writes:

The point is to refute the absolute literalism of some posters here. They would make the world mean everyone, always having the same meaning. Thus the "world" that God loves would be the same "world" that Christ doesn't pray for.

first that is not what God says, He said no one can declare Jesus is Lord, he never said a person could not believe. God is saying No one can declare Jesus is His lord except those who are saved He is speaking of the saved and not those coming to Christ. He is telling them of false teacher and how to tell, he is not speaking of some elite. If anything He proves anyone can come to God saying before that, "when you were pagans worshiping false gods". It does not prove your point. that they are saved before getting here pick above all others to be saved. If that was the case there would be no need for Christ to give the Great commission to preach through out all the world. God knows were this are and could send His children to them to preach no need for the rest of the world to Hear it sense as you say they can not be saved any way. They are given a chance to come to God it would not be a chance to come to God if they could not do it, so no need for the Great commission.

 

[Bluelion]

well sense i feel like a large part of this argument was me not telling you I believe in total depravity i'll go back and read all your post.

and what started this whole thing is right away you started saying I said things I did not.

 

[GrenBH]

first that is not what God says, He said no one can declare Jesus is Lord, he never said a person could not believe.

1Co_12:3 Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost.

Your statement is silly. Obviously the Apostle is speaking in the sense of inspiration. Someone under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit cannot confess Christ to be a false Messiah. Likewise, only by inspiration can an individual declare that Jesus is the Christ. This is also taught in this verse here:

Mat_16:17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

You cannot know who the Messiah truly is unless it is given to you through divine revelation. It is not a matter of "flesh and blood," but knowledge from on high.

God is saying No one can declare Jesus is His lord except those who are saved

If that was the case there would be no need for Christ to give the Great commission to preach through out all the world. God knows were this are and could send His children to them to preach no need for the rest of the world to Hear it

Which is almost exactly what happens when Paul is directed away from one city into others. But obviously God also uses means to reach His children, and though He could physically appear before any one of us, He blesses us by using us according to His good purpose. Our preaching, however, is not the cause of the bearing of fruit, but depends on God who grants the increase:

1Co_3:6 I have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase.
1Co_3:7 So then neither is he that planteth any thing, neither he that watereth; but God that giveth the increase.

 

[twin1954]

Read the verses again:

Joh 6:64 But there are some of you who do not believe." (For Jesus knew from the beginning who those were who did not believe, and who it was who would betray him.)
Joh 6:65 And he said, "This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father."

Christ recognizes the faithlessness of the Pharisees in verse 64, and then explains it by declaring "This is why I told you... no one can come to me unless it is granted by the Father." If what you said is correct, then Christ's statement makes no sense. "It was granted you to believe in me, but you do not believe, that is why I told you no one can come to me unless the Father grants it." It is a nonsensical explanation. Clearly, the text is explaining that it was not granted them to come to the Father, and that is the reason for their unbelief. Verse 37 on down also states that "all that the Father" grants to the Son come to the Son, and none of these are lost. Also, verse 45 declares that all those who have "heard and learned" of the Father inevitably come to the Son. If what you say is correct, then the Pharisees "heard and learned" of the Father, that is why they came to Christ, but they still refused to believe; but then the entire passage is explaining how the Pharisees didn't believe nor understand what Christ was saying when He declared it was necessary to eat His flesh. These people were physically in front of the Son, but they had not "heard and learned" of the Father. That is why they remained unbelievers.

Your argument, therefore, directly contradicts both the words and context of these passages.



Which fully supports the plain reading of John 6-- that all those whom the Father gives to the Son belong to God absolutely. They do not merely "come," and then depart from Christ. To "come" is clearly to kneel before Christ and accept Him as Messiah, "for they are [God's]." These people belong to God, are set aside and consecrated by Him, and Christ promises to raise all of them up and lose none of them (John 6:37-39).




What Paul is actually doing is explaining why not all the Jews were saved, despite in Romans chapter 8 declaring that "all those called are justified, and all those justified and glorified." The fact that Paul is speaking of membership in the body of Christ is clear by the fact that Paul immediately begins his discussion of the "Children of the Promise and the Children of the Flesh," then parallels this with the example of Jacob and Esau, and then concludes with a discussion of the Vessels of mercy (Christians who inherit heaven) and the vessels of wrath (people like Pharaoh who will suffer in perdition). Paul's argument, therefore, is that the reason why not all Israel is Israel is because only some of them were the elect vessels of mercy.

Here is a passage that he cannot deal with:
(Joh 10:24) Then came the Jews round about him, and said unto him, How long dost thou make us to doubt? If thou be the Christ, tell us plainly.

(Joh 10:25) Jesus answered them, I told you, and ye believed not: the works that I do in my Father's name, they bear witness of me.

(Joh 10:26) But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you.

(Joh 10:27) My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:

(Joh 10:28) And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.

 

[twin1954]

No, of course not!
No, of course not!

There is a very great and critically important difference between the doctrine of sovereign election as taught in the Bible and by Bible scholars, and the extremely wrong and harmful doctrine of election taught by Calvin.

Please read the Bible, and the works by Augustine, Aquinas, and Calvin.

I was convinced of the sovereign election of God in Christ by the Scriptures long before I read either Calvin or Augustine. I have read little of Aquinas though.

 

[PrincetonGuy]

Read the verses again:


Joh 6:64 But there are some of you who do not believe." (For Jesus knew from the beginning who those were who did not believe, and who it was who would betray him.)
Joh 6:65 And he said, "This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father."

Christ recognizes the faithlessness of the Pharisees in verse 64, and then explains it by declaring "This is why I told you... no one can come to me unless it is granted by the Father." If what you said is correct, then Christ's statement makes no sense. "It was granted you to believe in me, but you do not believe, that is why I told you no one can come to me unless the Father grants it." It is a nonsensical explanation.

Read the verses again:

Joh 6:64 But there are some of you who do not believe." (For Jesus knew from the beginning who those were who did not believe, and who it was who would betray him.)
Joh 6:65 And he said, "This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father."

Jesus did NOT say, “It was granted you to believe in me, but you do not believe, that is why I told you no one can come to me unless the Father grants it.”

Jesus said,

Joh 6:65 And he said, "This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father."

I do not believe that it is appropriate to base one’s theology on seriously incorrect quotations from the Bible. As for the rest of your post, is it not somewhat audacious to post interpretations of the Scripture that the very large majority of today’s New Testament scholars disagree with—especially when they base their own interpretations upon a very accurate knowledge of Greek grammar and lexicography? Why should we believe you, rather than them? Do you have a more accurate knowledge of Greek grammar and lexicography than they do?

 

[twin1954]

I do not believe that it is appropriate to base one’s theology on seriously incorrect quotations from the Bible. As for the rest of your post, is it not somewhat audacious to post interpretations of the Scripture that the very large majority of today’s New Testament scholars disagree with—especially when they base their own interpretations upon a very accurate knowledge of Greek grammar and lexicography? Why should we believe you, rather than them? Do you have a more accurate knowledge of Greek grammar and lexicography than they do?

If they are interpreting from a natural standpoint they are always wrong. The Bible was written in such a way that the natural man may be able to grasp the meanings of the words but still not understand the truth taught in them. The Pharisees had a natural understanding of the Old Testament Scriptures but missed Christ because that was all that they had. Nothing has changed today.

 

[GrenBH]

I do not believe that it is appropriate to base one’s theology on seriously incorrect quotations from the Bible.

I was paraphrasing your interpretation into the text, which is the reason why it makes no sense. You completely ignored what I said and chose to distort my post.

As for the rest of your post, is it not somewhat audacious to post interpretations of the Scripture that the very large majority of today’s New Testament scholars disagree with

In other words, you cannot refute me, so you will use a logical fallacy (appeal to authority) to escape dealing with the scripture. FWI, I have all the Reformed theologians with me, going back to the 16th century and beyond, and I like them better than yours!

Why should we believe you, rather than them?

A better question: just a few posts ago you didn't even know Augustine existed. You even arrogantly, as you accuse me, pronounced me a liar for pointing out that those "16th century" doctrines predate the 16th century! Why should we believe you know anything about biblical scholars when you obviously are ignorant of church history and theology?

 

[PrincetonGuy]

What do you mean by "righteous" and "unrighteous" people? If you mean people who are actually, in and of themselves righteous, your error is easily disprovable by pointing out that Paul clearly called himself a wicked man, even after conversion (Rom 7:24). Paul was righteous only according to faith, and that is true for all believers, no matter the age, because all fall short of the glory of God.

By “righteous” and “unrighteous” people I mean people who are or who are not practicing righteousness—as in John 3:7,

Little children, make sure no one deceives you; the one who practices righteousness is righteous, just as He is righteous;

Consider also,

Acts 10:34. And Peter opened his mouth and said: “Truly I perceive that God shows no partiality,
35. but in every nation any one who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him.”

Paul NEVER called himself a wicked man! Indeed, to do so would have been to blaspheme our Lord and savior Christ Jesus who redeemed him from bondage to sin and gave him a new life! Perhaps you are thinking of this passage,

Romans 7:14. We know that the law is spiritual; but I am carnal, sold under sin.
15. I do not understand my own actions. For I do not do what I want, but I do the very thing I hate.
16. Now if I do what I do not want, I agree that the law is good.
17. So then it is no longer I that do it, but sin which dwells within me.
18. For I know that nothing good dwells within me, that is, in my flesh. I can will what is right, but I cannot do it.
19. For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I do.
20. Now if I do what I do not want, it is no longer I that do it, but sin which dwells within me.
21. So I find it to be a law that when I want to do right, evil lies close at hand.
22. For I delight in the law of God, in my inmost self,
23. but I see in my members another law at war with the law of my mind and making me captive to the law of sin which dwells in my members.
24. Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death?
25. Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, I of myself serve the law of God with my mind, but with my flesh I serve the law of sin.

If Paul is, in this passage, writing of himself after he was redeemed from bondage to sin and given a new life in Christ, who sold this redeemed man under sin (v. 14)? Did you? Did Calvin? Did Satan? What an absurd thought!

The truth is that Paul is, in this passage, using the literary device known as “speech in character”—in this case, the character of an upright Jew who delights in the Law (as all upright Jews do) and who is striving unsuccessfully to do right by obeying the Law. Christians do NOT strive to obey the Law—because the just requirement of the law is fulfilled in us! (Rom 8:4).

Paul was righteous because he had been justified by faith; he was also righteous because, having been enabled to through his rebirth in Christ, he practiced righteousness. And that is true of all Christians.


The linguist and Bible scholar Adam Clarke wisely wrote in his commentary of the Bible,

It is difficult to conceive how the opinion could have crept into the Church, or prevailed there, that “the apostle speaks here of his regenerate state; and that what was, in such a state, true of himself, must be true of all others in the same state.” This opinion has, most pitifully and most shamefully, not only lowered the standard of Christianity, but destroyed its influence and disgraced its character. It requires but little knowledge of the spirit of the Gospel, and of the scope of this epistle, to see that the apostle is, here, either personating a Jew under the law and without the Gospel, or showing what his own state was when he was deeply convinced that by the deeds of the law no man could be justified, and had not as yet heard those blessed words: Brother Saul, the Lord Jesus, that appeared unto thee in the way, hath sent me that thou mightest receive thy sight, and be filled with the Holy Ghost, Act_9:17.​

(All quotations from Scripture are from the RSV, 1971)

 

[GrenBH]

If Paul is, in this passage, writing of himself after he was redeemed from bondage to sin and given a new life in Christ, who sold this redeemed man under sin (v. 14)? Did you? Did Calvin? Did Satan? What an absurd thought!

Rom 7:14 For we know that the law is spiritual, but I am of the flesh, sold under sin.


Paul is only speaking of himself in his natural state, the sin that dwells in his flesh and which we still possess until final deliverance:

Rom 7:24 O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?

He says this directly, "there is no good in me, that is, my flesh." In other words, clarifying that he is speaking of his flesh. Paul also calls certain Christians, using this same terminology, as being fleshy, carnal, because they are still in division (1 Co 3:1). Then, in these further verses in Romans 7, he declares that this sin in his flesh does battle with his inner mind, which loves goodness, and battles with his sinful nature. All this written in the present tense of himself, and cannot refer to anyone but a regenerated individual.

The truth is that Paul is, in this passage, using the literary device known as “speech in character”—in this case, the character of an upright Jew who delights in the Law (as all upright Jews do) and who is striving unsuccessfully to do right by obeying the Law.

This is easily refutable from the very last verse:

Rom 7:25 I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.

Clearly an unbelieving Jew cannot say this.

Christians do NOT strive to obey the Law—because the just requirement of the law is fulfilled in us! (Rom 8:4).

It no where talks about trying to fulfill the law. You inserted that into the text.

Paul was righteous because he had been justified by faith; he was also righteous because, having been enabled to through his rebirth in Christ, he practiced righteousness. And that is true of all Christians.

Moral perfection is impossible, and so all Christians struggle with sin and fall short. "If we say we have no sin, the truth does not abide in us."

 

[PrincetonGuy]

I was paraphrasing your interpretation into the text, which is the reason why it makes no sense.

No, you were NOT paraphrasing my interpretation. Just because a man is unable to understand a correct interpretation of the Scriptures, that does not mean that the interpretation makes no sense.

You completely ignored what I said and chose to distort my post.

Not true!

In other words, you cannot refute me, so you will use a logical fallacy (appeal to authority) to escape dealing with the scripture.

Not true! Appealing to the scholarship of men and women who know the truth is NOT a logical fallacy—it is doing the sensible thing.

A better question: just a few posts ago you didn't even know Augustine existed. You even arrogantly, as you accuse me, pronounced me a liar for pointing out that those "16th century" doctrines predate the 16th century! Why should we believe you know anything about biblical scholars when you obviously are ignorant of church history and theology?

What! Over a period of more than twenty years I have read and studied the works of Augustine in the original Latin—and in English translations. I NEVER pronounced you a liar—and I do NOT believe that you are a liar. Over a period of more than twenty-three years I have studied the history of the interpretation of the Old and New Testaments, and the development of Christian doctrine. However, you do not know me and you should not believe me, but allow my posts to challenge you to study more.

This thread is getting to be severely off topic, and I will not reply to any more off-topic posts.

 

[GrenBH]

No, you were NOT paraphrasing my interpretation. Just because a man is unable to understand a correct interpretation of the Scriptures, that does not mean that the interpretation makes no sense.

It would be wonderful if you actually addressed my post. It's clear you're not really even attempting to do that, but are just trying to get personal now.

What! Over a period of more than twenty years I have read and studied the works of Augustine in the original Latin—and in English translations.

This doesn't explain your easily refutable claims that Augustine did not teach sovereign grace, the inability of the will to choose Christ apart from grace, and all your other claims in this thread.

However, you do not know me and you should not believe me, but allow my posts to challenge you to study more.

Your posts literally consist of distorting my words, ignoring large swathes of what I write, making entirely irrelevant statements, and zero analysis of what scripture actually says!

 

[mikedsjr]

So if God hardens and softens man hearts, can man refuse the hardening and softening? If not, where is the free will of man in this?

 

[Bluelion]

To a degree, you always have a choice how you respond. If God was hardening there heart it was because they harden it against God first as Pharaoh did. God was working on his heart to soften it but instead he rebelled so God harden it further. Really I don't care to argue it any more have fun.

 

[mikedsjr]

Blue, no prob. I won't go step by step in Genesis and Exodus to explain my position on Pharoahs heart. It seems this has been a controversial thread.