EPH1:1-14....what is says/ what it does not say!

We believe because God chose us to be saved in Christ, not die to us believing and then God choosing us in Christ...

 

So, we have always been believers? Not quite following, my brother.

Ephesians 1:13--...When you believed...you were...

Help me understand, my friend.

 

We believed in Jesus due to the Father believing in us first!

 

That's an interesting thought here.

 

I certainly do not dispute the frame of time doctrine you have conveyed clearly. However, what I dispute is what is stated to be cause versus what is stated to be consequence in this passage of which Dr. Flowers completely ignores and corrupts by his video.

I believe Paul is describing cause versus consequence relationships. The cause precedes OUR TIME and thus OUR ACTIONS which are consequences of God's actions prior to our time. For example, we are chosen in him "before the foundation of the world" thus before our existence or anything we have done, do, or will do.

The stated purpose for this BEFORE OUR TIME placement in Christ is that "we might be holy" which again refers to purpose yet unfulfilled prior to our existence which will be carried out in time.

Dr. Flowers reverses this cause consequence order and his theory would demand it to read "because we are (present time) holy in him by faith". But that is not Paul's doctrine here. He places the cause "before" our existence which has for its purpose to be carried out some time future from the foundation of the earth our confirmation in holiness.

So, the issue is not a time perspective, but a cause and consequence perspective in relationship to our existence.

 

Dr. Flowers says this is about "when" and "How" we become in Christ. Most certainly he is right thus far. He skips all the way down to verses 12-14 to provide his answer. But does Paul start at verses 12-14 in providing his answer? No! He starts at verse 4 in providing an explanation when and how a person becomes "in him." In other words, Paul starts with God's action and God's purpose and God's implementations (predestination, etc.) "before" our existence to explain how we are "in him." Why? Because Paul believes our actions are the consequences of God's purpose carried by God's design rather than our responses and actions being the cause for becoming in Christ.

Hence, purpose precedes and explains predestination which explains our coming to faith in keeping with the very order of thoughts given in the text by Paul. Dr. Flower's explanation would require reversing not only the order in which we find Ephesians 1:4-14, but most importantly would require reversing the stated cause and effect. For example, the stated cause for being "chosen in him before" is "that we might be" rather than we were "chosen in him before " because of "what we are" as Dr. Flowers thinking demands. He reverses the cause and effects.

 

When and how do we become "in Christ"? Dr. Flowers answers that it is at the point of faith and that is why he hops all the way down to verses 12-14. He says that verses 4-11 merely explain the security of those who become "in Christ" by faith. But is that what the text teaches or even says? No!

Paul has us "in him" long "before" we ever excise faith not according to our actions but according to God's actions - Eph. 1:4. So, even you and Dr. Flowers must admit that in some sense we were placed "in him" by Divine choice "before the world began" meaning before our existence. Paul's continuing explanation is that he is referring to God's eternal will of purpose which he works out after "the foundation of the world" during our existence. However, we are already "in him" by divine purpose prior to faith.

So, how does one come to exercise such faith to become in him? I believe Paul provides that explanation in a very logical and orderly way in the verses 4b-11 as again the actions by God rather than the actions by you or me. The doctrine of foreseen faith is the doctrine of a rubber stamp that merely says God knows in advance what we will do and therefore picks us because we first picked him. However, that explanation does not explain how faith is not inherent in the nature of man (Jn. 6:44a "no man can come to me") except by divine intervention ("except the Father draw him" making God "the author and finisher of our faith" (Heb. 12:2) rather than something God merely foresaw as a bystander. Again, the foreseen faith theory is first a denial of divine cause with human effect, and then a reversal of cause and effect.

So, how do we become "in him" We are first "chosen in him" which is the stated cause "that we MIGHT BE holy and without blame". What does it mean to be "holy and without blame"? It means that divine purpose is the cause for "setting us apart unto him so that we are like him in moral character." What is the initial action by us that sets us apart unto him - repentance and faith. So, Paul is saying we are "chosen in him before the world began in order that we might repent and beleive in him and become like him." The cause for this is found in God before the world began, the consequence is repentance and faith and a following life that reflects God's character. Then, Paul procedes how God's purpose is obtained after the foundation of the world in our time and space (vv. 5-11) so that the conclusion is repentance in faith (vv. 12-14).

However, in time and space we are first "created in Christ Jesus" which is the creation of faith in Christ - Eph. 2:1-10 as "faith" is inclusive of this work of God or being "saved by grace through faith" which is "not of ourselves, it is a gift of God" because "we are his workmanship CREATED IN CHRIST JESUS." To claim that "faith" is not part of this work of God, not part of "by grace are ye saved" repudiates Paul's claim that "faith is OF GRACE" (Rom.4:16) and God is the "author and finisher of our faith" (Heb. 12:2) and it is a gift (Philip. 1:29).

In short, we are first "in him" by elective purpose (Eph. 1:4) ultimately manifested by faith in the gospel followed by good works (which is the stated purpose of election -1:4b) but that faith is the consequence of the internal creative work of God (Eph. 2:8-10).

Thus, we are in him:

1. By divine election - ETERNAL PURPOSE - covenant union
2. By divine creation - REGENERATION - spiritual union
3. By divine faith - JUSTIFICATION - legal union

 

Lets examine Dr. Flowers airplaine analogy. He admits the point of departure and destination are fixed. However, he claims that the persons boarding that plane are not fixed.

QUESTION: Does boarding require the previous purchase of tickets?

QUESTION: Does the airline restrict the number of tickets issued in keeping with the number of seats available in the plane? Or are both the tickets and seats restricted or fixed as much as the point of departure and arrival?

In theological terms does every human being have ability to come to Christ? Jesus says they don't - "no man can come to me" - Jn. 6:44a. Hence, no man is willing to buy the ticket as no man has ability to buy the ticket. HOW are tickets bought then? OR how do people become willing to come to Christ then? Answer "except the Father draw him".

QUESTION: Is the drawing work of God limited and fixed as much as the departure place and destination place of the plane, as much as the seats in the plane and tickets for the plane?

ANSWER: Yes! According to the scriptural explanation provided by Jesus "ALL" who are thus drawn/taught (Jn. 6:45a) are limited to "all thy children" (Isa. 54:13) within the new covenant of God (Jer. 31:33-34/Heb. 8:10-13) as these are the prohets he cites to explain what he means by "draw". This "all" are effectually brought to faith "from the least dof them unto the greatest of them" (Jer. 31:34) because of the effectual INTERNAL teaching by God in all of them (Jer. 31:33). Furthmore, Jesus provides examples of those never given unto the Son by the Father (Jn. 6:36) and never drawn by the Father (Jn. 6:64-65).

 

Let's examine the Baseball analogy by Dr. Flowers. He says one coach compels certain players to be on his team while the other coach simply offers whoseover will to be on his team.

This is a highly flawed analogy for many reasons. First, there is no explanation of what is mean by "compel". I imagine Dr. Flowers means "force" against their will. Of course, that is not what his opponets believe nor I believe the Bible teaches by "compel." We believe that "compel" or "draw" refers to wholly an INTERNAL work of God that produces a willing heart and only those are the only sinners who become willing as Jesus plainly says "no man can come to me" as all men are equally unwilling.

So, the truth is that there are no players who are willing to join either team. The only coach that ends up with players willing to play for him is the coach that compelled them to join.

 

No imagining necessary. Dr. Flowers clearly says, "one coach pre-selects or compels players to be on his team."

Dr. Flowers says the other coach invites player to volunteer to be on his team.

So, one coach, coach Calvin, pre-selects players and the other coach invites players to join the team.

You have misrepresented his analogy.



Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

 

You misunderstood me. Notice I took his analogy and applied it along scriptural lines first, then I applied it in keeping with scripture. The consequence would be there would be no one willing to join his team because in scripture "whosoever will" does not exist apart from the "exception" clause in Jn. 6:44 which verse 45 and scriptures cited in the verse define drawing as "effectual" in producing willingness.

 

Understand you clearly and you have misrepresented his analogy.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

 

No, I have not. I have just shown the logical error of it when the analogy is put to scripture. His analogy is based on FREE WILL when scripture teaches FREE AGENCY and his analogy is based upon DRAW defined as mere enablement for FREE WILL rather than effectual coming. I have simply put on the display the weakness of his analogy. In other words, his analogy does not hold up to scripture and that is his aim.

 

Don't you believe that his purpose of the analogy is to present and defend his view of scripture? Yes! If you look at the context of what I said, I address his misunderstanding of scripture which shows his design for the analogy of the second coach is flawed. I simply pointed out that flaw.

I assumed the reader listen to his analogy and his application.

 

One reason I stopped participating in this forum is because debaters want to quibble over lesser issues as a tactic to avoid dealing with the brunt of evidence found in post. That is precisely what you are doing with my post. In my post, I went to the heart of the error of his analogy, and that is, it does not conform to the Scriptural understanding that he embraces.

 

Yep, you misrepresented his analogy. He said the second coach "invited" players. That can be considered analogous to the Holy Spirit "drawing" people.

So did I.



Sent from my Pixel 2 XL