An articulate well balanced approach. What say you?

My brother....you cannot ass_ u_ me in this BB forum. The results are making an a__ out of U & me! :laugh::thumbs:

 

Think the theology of barth laid the groundwork for modern day Universlaism, in the sense that he through bring in God electing in jesus to "potentially" save all men, that his 'followers" to it to the logical extension and said all peoples would indeed be redeemed by the Cross of Christ, see Robb Bell!

 

Same Bible also teaches us that ALl are spiritually dead, and the 'whosoever wills" will be the ones that God has chosen/elected out to be enabled to come to the Messiah and get saved!

 

It is somewhat surprising to see so many posts talking past one another. He chose us, refers to born again believers, who had been elected in the past. He chose us in Him. This refers to God choosing the Word to be His lamb before the foundation of the world.

Where the posts miss is in not understanding Barth was saying God chose Christ to be His Lamb, His Redeemer, and therefore God's choice of Christ also chose whoever the Redeemer would redeem corporately. So this blessing, bestowed before the foundation of the world is received individually when God chooses us individually and places us "in Christ." Therefore God chose us in Him before the foundation of the world....

Is there support for Christ being chosen before the foundation of the world? Yes, 1 Peter 1:20 says Christ was foreknown and so God had established His predetermined redemption plan before the foundation of the world.

Is there support for God choosing those redeemed individually before the foundation of the world. No, God chooses us individually during our lifetime, after we have lived without mercy. 1Peter 2:9-10.

Other non-Calvinists say God chose us after foreseeing those who would come to faith, before the foundation of the world. This also misses the mark. Others say God only elected the church corporately and did not elect the members individually. This also misses the mark.

Paradoxes are created when scripture is not understood correctly. Thus when an interpretation creates a paradox, it should be examined to see if a less paradoxical view might be better. My view of our corporate election before the foundation of the world to explain Ephesians 1:4 and then our individual election after we have lived without mercy to explain 1 Peter 2:9-10, James 2:5, 2 Thessalonians 2:13 and 1 Corinthians 1:26-31 eliminates the apparent paradoxes in the two (Calvinism and Arminian) views.
Those that say we were chosen individually before creation has us somehow chosen before God created us. But then He chose to record our names in the book of life from the foundation of the world, rather then before.

The Calvinist view of individual election for salvation before creation simply does not fit with more than a dozen scriptures. James 2:5 says God chose people who were poor in the eyes of the world. Calvinists assert what this means is God chose people He foreknew would be poor in the eyes of the world. 2 Thessalonians 2:13 says God chose people through faith in the truth. Calvinists assert what this means is God chose individuals unconditionally and then gives them the gift of faith. 1 Peter 2:9-10 says God chose us after we had lived without mercy. Calvinists say what this means is God saved us after we had lived without mercy.

 

What we are saying from the Bible is that the Gospel indeed is the power of God to save all those who hear and receive jesus by faith, its just that ONLY those whom God has palced in the Body of Christ by election will be enabled to hear believe receive jesus...

being dead in sins and sinners by nature, takes act of God to allow us to be 'woken up" and actually be able to hear the good news and become saved!

 

http://www.reformed.org/documents/index.html?mainframe=/documents/Whitefield/WITF_058.html

This sermon will articulate far better than anyone the Orthodox belief of Grace, Original Sin etc.:thumbs:

 

Your observations of Ephesians 1:4 and 1 Peter 2:9-10 are hopelessly wrong.

This is not the case. Barth was wrong, just as you are in following his interpretation.

The Greek here is not referring to Jesus being chosen. Rather the Greek (and, I might add, the English translations too) refer to believers being chosen. When were they chosen? Before the foundation of the world. What is the mechanism of their choosing? They were chosen "in Christ."

Ephesians gives absolutely no indication of a temporal/anachronistic choosing.

But, you can't read 1 Peter 1:20 into Ephesians 1:4. This is a hermeneutical no-no.

Was Christ chosen by God, as 1 Peter 1:20 says? Absolutely. However, the choosing we read about in 1 Peter 1:20 does not and cannot negate the individual election of believers we see in Ephesians 1:4.

The problem here, as is so often your problem, is that you don't give any accounting of the language of the surrounding verses. You want to say that God chooses us individually in our lifetime (which goes completely against Ephesians 1:4) by saying quoting 1 Peter 2:9-10.

If you cut these two verse from their context, it is possible to read the verses as such. However, the context tells a tale quite different from the one you are telling.

If you look in verse 8, the last phrase is "They stumble because they disobey the word, as they were destined to do." Then comes the conjunction "but" in v. 9, signaling the Peter is talking to the obedient ones.

The interesting thing about v. 8 saying "...as they were destined to do" is that the verb for "destined" is τίθημι, meaning "to assign someone to a particular task, function, or role—‘to appoint, to designate, to assign, to give a task to." (Louw and Nida section 37.96).

What is more interesting is the form of τίθημι--it is Aorist Passive Indicative. This means, being passive, that the disobedient did not assign themselves. Rather, someone else had to assign them and the only one capable of such an assignment is God alone. Also, the Aorist means that the assignment was made at some undefined point in the past. Hence, the use of "chosen race," standing in close proximity to τίθημι, indicates that it is God that has chosen (corporately here) a people for Himself. He has assigned a people unto Himself and He has assigned a people away from Himself. And, because of the Aorist Passive form of τίθημι, it means it did not happen in the here-and-now.

So, when progressing to v. 9-10 of 1 Peter 2, it is clear that Peter is referencing God's sovereign choice in the lives of the believers (the obedient). Not to mention, Peter is quoting extensively from the Old Testament and is assigning covenant language to the obedient believers, identifying them with true Israel. In v. 10 there is no suggestion that the receiving God's choice in this lifetime. The participles "received mercy" are both Aorist Passive participles--which totally negates a present action. In other words, this becoming God's people and receiving mercy was all a part of God's plan in the ages past.

These verses mean almost nothing of what you say they mean.

The Archangel

 

After reading many of the various postings here on BB by the "non cals" say that it boils down to 3 reason why say Election is "not biblical" as the cals see it:

God is not fair IF he makes us guilty of the sins of Adam, makes us responsible for something we did not do, deny original sin/inherited sin

God cannot make a real offer to save all if only some actually can get saved

man was not made "dead" by the fall, still can freely decide for jesus or not

 

Hi Jesusfan, I understand what you are saying, but what you are saying is not in the bible.

Matthew 23:13 clearly shows unregenerate men entering heaven, because if they had been regenerated by Irresistible Grace, they would not have turned aside. So your assertion of total spiritual inability is unbiblical.

 

jesus NOT addressing that doctrine in that passage, he is actually adressing the self rightousness of the pharisees, as they were FALSE spiritual leaders, false shepards, contrasted with Him being true teacher and Shephard!

 

Hi Archangel, you can say you think I am hopeless wrong, I certainly think you are.

Only someone who does do understand Barth would assert my view is his view.

Next you appear to not understand I was saying believers were chosen. Is reading a difficulty? Ephesians 1:4 is referring to Christ being chosen as Redeemer and all those He would redeem being chosen corporately. Please address the position if you can grasp it.

Is it a hermenutical no no to support being chosen in Him as referring to the effect of Christ being chosen as Redeemer. What is a hermenutical no no is to create people to be chosen before they are created. Now that is a no no.

You see individual election of believers in Ephesians 1:4 because you are reading chosen in Him [individually] into the text. It is no there. But other verses say we are chosen individually during our lifetime. Therefore, the Ephesians 1:4 election of the church must be corporate. This explains why names are not written before the foundation. This explains how we can live without mercy before we are chosen. This explains how we could have faith in the truth before we are chosen. And on and on. Calvinism is simply a mistaken view.

1 Peter 2:8 is referring to those not chosen. Notice they were not chosen because they were disobedient. That is a conditional non-election. It all fits. It is a lock.

 

Hi Jesusfan, the verse (Matthew 23:13) is addressing how false teachers cause those entering heaven to be turned aside. QED

 

Thanks for another good solid post.It is edifying to see the word of God opened up rather than explained away.:thumbs::thumbsup::applause::applause:

 

Fiddlesticks.... you keep repeating error directly against the clear teaching of the word of God.....

 

reason why is because they are false teachers, blide guides leading the blide per jesus!

he is contrasting false teachers with legalism and law compared to Him as teacher sent from God with real message to save!

 

Ephesians 1:4 does not and cannot refer to Christ being chosen as redeemer.

The only verb from v. 3. to the end of v. 6 is the verb "He chose" in v. 4.

Whom did He choose?

Was it Christ? No. Why? Because the the phrase (and I'll use English since I know you know no Greek) "he chose us in Him before the foundation of the world" allows no possibility that Christ is the one chosen.

Why? Because "us" is in the accusative, signifying it is the direct object of the verb "He chose." "In Him" is in the dative, signifying it is the indirect object of the verb "He chose."

What you are trying to do here breaks the rules of both English and Greek grammar. You are trying to make an indirect object into a direct object and vice versa. This is, at the latest, middle school grammar.

Further, the "us" pronoun is not a "corporate" pronoun in this case. We expect Paul to be using the plural pronoun because he is addressing "the saints" (plural) in Ephesus.

Yes, it is a hermeneutical no-no. Because it breaks the grammar of the text.

Read the above section(s). The text is the text.

Wrong again. They were disobedient because they were not chosen (hence the aforementioned use of the passive form of τίθημι). The predestination, in v. 8, is to disobedience. The predestination to disobedience means they don't believe. It's all there in the text (especially in the Greek, which I know escapes you).

The Archangel

 

Found this by Ralph F Wilson whoever that is.

Recipients of the Letter

But there's a real question whether Paul's Letter to the Ephesians was really intended for the Church at Ephesus. Let me explain. In verse 1, the phrase "in Ephesus" is missing in several early, reliable Greek manuscripts.4 Probably the explanation is that the original letter was intended as a sort of circular letter for the Church at Ephesus as well as others in Asia Minor, to be read and then sent on. Since Ephesus was the best-known church in the area, the copy it made would be the source of most of the copies of the Letter made for others, probably inserting its own name in the first sentence. Indeed, the subjects in the Letter don't seem to be tied to the particular situation in Ephesus so much as in the churches in general. Nevertheless, we'll still refer to the Ephesian church as the primary recipient, even though there were probably other intended recipients, too

I found your question interesting is the reason I posted this and would also like Arch's thoughts.

 

As you can see, the Calvinists have no answer, so they post strawman arguments.

He chose us in Him refers to the corporate election of those Christ would redeem. Anyone who claims the underlying Greek grammar precludes this view is simply wrong.

1 Peter 2:8 says those that do not believe stumble because they are disobedient to the word. What was appointed. That they would stumble because they are disobedient. Hence unbelief is destined to result in eternal punishment.

Just read the verse folks.

Returning to verses 9-10 God chose us after we lived without mercy, putting our individual election during our lifetime. Same as James 2:5, 2 Thessalonians 2:13, and 1 Cor. 1:26-31.

 

At risk of answering your question with a question (and this isn't all I'll say on your question)...who else would it be?

Of Paul's letters, he shows no consistency on the recipients of the letter. This is to say some are addressed specifically to a church (like 1 Corinthians) and some are addressed to the saints in a particular city (like Ephesians). In essence, this really is a non-issue.

There is some debate on whether the Ephesian letter was intended for the church at Ephesus. Most of the manuscript evidence suggests that it was. However, we have to remember that Paul was very close to the people of the Ephesian church (see Acts) and the tone of Ephesus is not particularly warm as one might expect. So, it is likely that there were several house-churches that would have read the letter and Paul likely intended the letter in a much more general tone--rather than a personal tone.

As for the text itself...Paul addresses this letter to "the saints in Ephesus." I think it of importance that Paul addresses individuals (saints) rather than a corporate church. Why might this be important? Because we see Paul addressing plural individuals and not a monolithic corporate body. Had he addressed a church, then some arguments about election being corporate only might have much more traction. As it is, his addressing of plural individuals, and his continuation of that language throughout, at least, the first part of chapter 1, suggests that he is, indeed, addressing individuals.

On thing many people loose sight of (on both sides of the Arminian/Calvinist continuum) is that election is both individual and corporate. The church, after all, is made up of individuals and individuals make up the church. So, it would be proper to say that God elects and saves the Church and God elects and saves the individuals of the Church. It is not either/or; it is both/and.

The language suggests the emphasis here is on the individual(s). Paul says "blessed us...chose us...we should be holy and blameless..." Paul is using self-inclusive language which suggests that he is referencing the individuals who make up the Universal Church. This particular franchise (so to speak) of the Universal Church is made up of the believers in Ephesus.

So, in the context, the individuals were elected, just as Paul was elected (again, the self-inclusive language). Paul doesn't switch to the "you" language until v. 15 of chapter 1.

So, really, one has to ask and answer the question "Who else would Paul be addressing?" Certainly it's saints; certainly it's saints in Ephesus.

Like everything else Paul wrote that is in the Bible, one realizes that there is an ongoing application to us, as believers, too. So, in some way, Paul is addressing us too.

I hope that doesn't muddy the waters further. Please feel free to ask for further clarification as that may help me answer in more detail.

The Archangel