Ephesians 2

[Van]

SNIP

I hope that the above is of some value.
If not, please quote the passage above and break it down as I have done to show how you disagree with me.[/QUOTE]

Once again, your post is of no value as I avoids addressing the issue. The election of Ephesians 1:4 is corporate and cannot be individual, 1 Peter 2:9-10.

 

[Van]

The one I learned by strictly reading God's word is developed in Jeremiah 1:5, as well as Psalms 139 and other places.

It's a relationship, and a loving one.

All scripture refutes your view including Jeremiah 1:5 and Psalms 139.

 

[agedman]

Yet another false claim, because God makes plans. God said "Now I know." When you make a plan, you "formulate" a plan. On and on folks, on and on they spew nonsense nonstop.

Van,
I am merely pointing out in YOUR post the inconsistency in which you present.

That you disagree and avoid does not present that there is not inconsistency in that which you present.

The all knowing God you present doesn't know all because He in His limited estate must find out information ("now I know" is what you quoted) and then "formulate" some plan in which perhaps leaves room for modification if necessary as if God can "repent" of what He planned. (note does not the Scriptures state that God repented?)

Therefore, your presentation of an all knowing God is not a God that knows everything from the beginning to the end.

Why not have a presentation of a truly knowing God. He has no need to plan (as one may develop a scheme) but shares as He determines with humankind. To humankind it would seem as if God planned, but from God's perspective as all knowing, there was no developing a plan, rather the communication to humankind what was already determined.

 

[agedman]

Ephesians 2: 1And you were dead in the trespasses and sins 2in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience—3among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind.​

One of the more remarkable aspects of this text is the revealing of what the folks already know about themselves.

An honest person doesn't have to be told they are a sinner, they will acknowledge they are a sinner, that nothing of lasting value is ever within their nature to achieve.

Paul presents that people are dead. Dead as used in the Scripture means physical death. It is also metaphorically used as Spiritually dead for unbelievers are cast into the Lake of Fire which is called the "Second Death."

John states that the non-believer is "condemned already." That is they are as "dead men walking."

But another remarkable presentation of this passage, also readily agreed upon by even the unbeliever, is that the unbelievers "follow" what is popular, profitable, socially acceptable, customary that is called "the world." Not only follow it, but thrive and are driven by it.

Lastly, within that agreement that the person knows they are a sinner, that they agree in following the world, there is little to offer in defense concerning who is the authority in their life.

The passions, the desires, and the society in which one lives does not present one as being more than "BY NATURE children of wrath." That such a condition is not some decent into decay, but is the condition of all "the rest" of mankind - DEAD.

So, in what manner can one who, without the quickening of the Spirit in which God makes a change in that person, proclaim from their own estate of bondage to sin, sinfulness, and the devil that which is "credited as righteousness."

The answer of course: They cannot.

It is impossible.

So the next words the Apostle writes are extremely important!

4But God, being rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, 5even when we were dead in our transgressions, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), 6and raised us up with Him, and seated us with Him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, 7so that in the ages to come He might show the surpassing riches of His grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus.​

It is not a matter of human attainment, no part of human offering, no human hope, brings or even can bring the "dead in our transgressions" alive to be credited in Christ.

Paul is clear. He brokers no other presentation. The direct and specific work of God in individual lives the (us - the you, and me, and all that believe) is that specific work of God.

 

[Van]

Van,
I am merely pointing out in YOUR post the inconsistency in which you present.

That you disagree and avoid does not present that there is not inconsistency in that which you present.

The all knowing God you present doesn't know all because He in His limited estate must find out information ("now I know" is what you quoted) and then "formulate" some plan in which perhaps leaves room for modification if necessary as if God can "repent" of what He planned. (note does not the Scriptures state that God repented?)

Therefore, your presentation of an all knowing God is not a God that knows everything from the beginning to the end.

Why not have a presentation of a truly knowing God. He has no need to plan (as one may develop a scheme) but shares as He determines with humankind. To humankind it would seem as if God planned, but from God's perspective as all knowing, there was no developing a plan, rather the communication to humankind what was already determined.

LOL, my view is based on scripture. Since your doctrine does not mesh, you pretend scripture does not mean God makes plans or acquires information. Your problem is with scripture, not with me. And the false charge of "inconsistency" is baseless nonsense. The Bible, rightly understood is absolutely consistent. My view is always consistent because it is always based on scripture.

According to your understanding of God, Christ was not put to death by the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God. Nonsense.

 

[agedman]

LOL, my view is based on scripture. Since your doctrine does not mesh, you pretend scripture does not mean God makes plans or acquires information. Your problem is with scripture, not with me. And the false charge of "inconsistency" is baseless nonsense. The Bible, rightly understood is absolutely consistent. My view is always consistent because it is always based on scripture.

According to your understanding of God, Christ was not put to death by the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God. Nonsense.

Look at post #24 Van.

See if your view is based on Scripture or if it is merely that you claim your view is based on Scripture.

"You pretend scripture does not mean" what God states. "Your problem is with Scripture, not with me."

Your greatest consistency resides in being inconsistent.

 

[MB]

Again, you are painting with a wide brush.

Such limits are not placed by Calvin only.

Don't you mean not by Calvin at all but by Augustine. 400 years after the death and resurrection of Christ. Calvinism comes into existance which contradicts what the early church believed.

ALL scheme's, except for the "pelagian" scheme, present such limits established upon election, upon the death and resurrection, upon man's choices, humankind "freedom" of the will. This is why such non-biblical presentations as "preceding/prevenient grace" are conjured by humans. They desire God to be what God is not.

Actually men made choices long before Calvinism existed and is it self non-biblical.

God made His best offer to humankind. WE use that in terms of "desire all men to be saved." Yet, our human term "desire" is not applicable to God, for God has no such need, He is never presented in the Scriptures as needy.

Yet He is not willing that any perish.
2Pe_3:9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

But uses the human expression as a tool to communicate to the limited human understanding.

That you do not present such as a factor of ALL schemes, your focus upon one is distorted.

It's your understanding that is clouded by a non-biblical doctrine of men. I believe you are afraid to consider the truth of scripture. It seems you'd rather stay blind to the truth.
MB

 

[agedman]

Don't you mean not by Calvin at all but by Augustine. 400 years after the death and resurrection of Christ. Calvinism comes into existance which contradicts what the early church believed.

Present one scheme other than Pelagian (which is heresy) in which people are considered as completely capable without any assistance from God FIRST to make a decision in which God will credit them as righteous.

You desire to be so anti something that you actually do not know that ALL schemes show that God is the first actor in salvation, not humans. He first loved, He first gave, He first reconciled...

Actually men made choices long before Calvinism existed and is it self non-biblical.

I don't disagree.
The Lord Jesus said to those unbelievers around him, "Even you know how to give good gifts." BUT he did not say they know how to give perfect gifts. That is reserved for the God of all creation.

Yet He is not willing that any perish.
2Pe_3:9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

And I explained that the word "desire" is not as humans who crave. It cannot be used in that manner.

Rather, the word is used as God has placed His best offer and no other will be made.

It's your understanding that is clouded by a non-biblical doctrine of men. I believe you are afraid to consider the truth of scripture. It seems you'd rather stay blind to the truth.
MB

Young man, I was once were you are. Full of spit and vinegar, and even presented much as you do.

But then I sat with the Scriptures, and God took me to where I am.

Do not assign that which you know nothing about and have no concept.

 

[Dave G]

Once again, your post is of no value as I avoids addressing the issue. The election of Ephesians 1:4 is corporate and cannot be individual, 1 Peter 2:9-10.

I prefer to address the issue head-on,
as I did in my previous post and every other post I've ever made on this board about that passage since I first joined this forum:

The election of Ephesians 1:4-5 is individual, and always has been.
Ephesians 2 simply gives more detail as to how and why He elected the believer to salvation ( 2 Thessalonians 2:13-14 ).

Now,
You're not sidestepping my request, are you?
I hope not, Van, because I'm very curious as to how you see Ephesians 2:1-10 when you read it for yourself.

Ephesians 2:1-10 ( and the rest of the chapter ) dovetails intimately with Ephesians 1.
It tells the believer how and why God did what He did in Ephesians 1, and gives us those details in the text.
Therefore, rather than giving the readers here a short summary of what the passage does not mean, why don't you instead tell them what it does mean, verse by verse, at least to you?

Unless of course you are unable, and then I completely understand, sir.

All scripture refutes your view including Jeremiah 1:5 and Psalms 139.

Then why not avail yourself of the opportunity to prove it, by simply telling the reader where you see my errors, in greater detail?
Instead of vehemently disagreeing with me,
Show them why I'm wrong... instead of simply declaring it and then expecting them to believe you.

Van,
I don't think you are understanding where I'm going with this...
But to clarify, what I'd like for you to do is to be as transparent as I am, on the pages of this forum, with your views of Scripture...
So that the reader can carefully compare how you see the words on the page, with how I do.

Then we can both let them decide who is correct in their teachings and beliefs.

This is now the third time I've posed this type of request to you, and it seems that you are doing everything you can to avoid it or anything like it.
Are you willing to do this or not?
Show the readers here who actually study their Bibles in-depth, how you see the Scriptures laid out, line by line, so that they can compare how you see it, and how I see it.

Thanks in advance for your reply.

 

[Dave G]

Don't you mean not by Calvin at all but by Augustine. 400 years after the death and resurrection of Christ. Calvinism comes into existance which contradicts what the early church believed.

Augustine had nothing to do with it.

The early church in the first century believed Paul, Peter, John and ultimately, the Lord Jesus.
Please see:

John 6:29,
John 6:37-44,
John 6:64-65,
John 8:43-47,
John 10:26-29,
John 17:2-3
Romans 1:6,
Romans 8:28-39,
Romans 9
Romans 10:16-21
Romans 11:1-8
2 Thessalonians 2:13-14,
1 Peter 1:1-5,
2 Peter 2:12-15,
2 Peter 3:8-9,
2 John 1:1-3,
2 John 1:13,
Jude 1:4-19,
Revelation 17:14.

Actually men made choices long before Calvinism existed and is it self non-biblical.

People who are dead is trespasses and sins ( Ephesians 2:1, Ephesians 2:5, Ephesians 4:18-19 ) do not choose to seek ( Romans 3:10-12 ) Someone that they hate, MB.

That mankind lives, breathes and makes independent, non-robotic choices and wills to do things is not the issue.
The issue ( and question ) is, how can men who hate God ( Romans 1:30 ) suddenly change their minds and begin to seek Him with all their heart?

Yet He is not willing that any perish.
2Pe_3:9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

Yet, the "us-ward" in verse 9 is the "beloved" from verse 8.
Peter is speaking to and about God's children, not about all men.

He is not willing that any of them perish, but that they all come to repentance.
Please see John 3:16, John 3:36, John 5:24, John 6:39, John 10:28-29, Romans 8:31-39.

 

[MB]

Present one scheme other than Pelagian (which is heresy) in which people are considered as completely capable without any assistance from God FIRST to make a decision in which God will credit them as righteous.

I never said that. You did. I do not deny being drawn or convinced of the gospel or being convicted. What I deny is as you claim being regenerated before faith. There is not one verse in scripture that even suggest such nonsense. Saved so you can believe.

You desire to be so anti something that you actually do not know that ALL schemes show that God is the first actor in salvation, not humans. He first loved, He first gave, He first reconciled...

Not all schemes. Why shouldn't I be anti Calvinist You never read scripture with the understanding that it is God's word and it interprets it self. It needs none of your input interpretations.

I don't disagree.

You don't disagree because I missed typed what I wanted to say.

The Lord Jesus said to those unbelievers around him, "Even you know how to give good gifts." BUT he did not say they know how to give perfect gifts. That is reserved for the God of all creation.

Actually what He said here is an example. Parents do not generally give stones for there children to eat.do they.

And I explained that the word "desire" is not as humans who crave. It cannot be used in that manner.

Rather, the word is used as God has placed His best offer and no other will be made.

Your right it is His best "offer" and Not a forced regeneration so that we can believe and we choose weather we want to accept it after we have been convinced of the gospel and convicted of our sins.

Young man, I was once were you are. Full of spit and vinegar, and even presented much as you do.

But then I sat with the Scriptures, and God took me to where I am.

Do not assign that which you know nothing about and have no concept.

Of course you're so wise. Christ Said;
Mat_11:25 At that time Jesus answered and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes.
I wonder where that leaves you wise man
MB

 

[Dave G]

Of course you're so wise. Christ Said;
Mat_11:25 At that time Jesus answered and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes.
I wonder where that leaves you wise man

All of Christ's sheep are wise, MB.
It's yet another of the many gifts granted by God.

Solomon asked the Lord for wisdom ...
He gave it to him ( 1 Kings 3:5-13 ).
Just as He does for all of His children ( James 1:5 ).

Please read the Proverbs and the book of Ecclesiastes.

 

[agedman]

I never said that. You did. I do not deny being drawn or convinced of the gospel or being convicted. What I deny is as you claim being regenerated before faith. There is not one verse in scripture that even suggest such nonsense. Saved so you can believe.

That you do not know of a single verse means that you obviously haven't been reading multiple threads which present such Scriptures.

Not all schemes. Why shouldn't I be anti Calvinist You never read scripture with the understanding that it is God's word and it interprets it self. It needs none of your input interpretations.

Never ask for you to be calvinist. What I desire is that you take the Scriptures at face value. When the Scriptures show the validity of an area in an soteriology scheme, then agree with Scriptures then agree in that area. When the Scriptures show the validity of an area of an eschatology scheme, then agree in that area.

But do not dismiss something just because you disagree from where it came. I have contended for the faith in many areas, I had to be very widely read from many folks in whom I would not esteem. Yet, the information allowed me to address issues without or with little personal bias.

Actually what He said here is an example. Parents do not generally give stones for there children to eat.do they.

So, parents know what to feed their children. That is good. But is it perfect?

The Scriptures state, "Every good thing given and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shifting shadow."

So, no human can give or acquire of their own will that which is perfect.

Your right it is His best "offer" and Not a forced regeneration so that we can believe and we choose weather we want to accept it after we have been convinced of the gospel and convicted of our sins.

That some may teach that does not mean that the Scriptures conform to such a presentation.

Of course you're so wise. Christ Said;
Mat_11:25 At that time Jesus answered and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes.
I wonder where that leaves you wise man
MB

I am old. I am near giving an account to God for all I have been given, taught, lived, and served.

He has given me insight. I share with you in hope that you will gain at least an bit of insight, if not that, at least a bit of understanding so your responses reflect that which is right.

These things are not a matter of calvinistic thinking, it is a matter of what the Scriptures teach.

I have attempted to lead you away from a certain teaching that is heretical. I am thankful that you clearly state that God must be involved in the work of the Holy Spirit.

But, I also see a need to continue to grow in understanding. I am not presenting that you accept.

However, the Scriptures do present themes such as election, predestination, atonement, depravity, perseverance.

These are Bible words. They are not exclusive to a scheme that you desire to refute.

What do you know about these specific words?

How are they applied? For example in Ephesians 2.

Did you understand post number 24?

Can you refute what is stated in that post using other Scriptures?

 

[Van]

Look at post #24 Van.

See if your view is based on Scripture or if it is merely that you claim your view is based on Scripture.

"You pretend scripture does not mean" what God states. "Your problem is with Scripture, not with me."

Your greatest consistency resides in being inconsistent.

Yet another fabrication of deflection. No content, no effort to defend the bogus view. Just smear the opponent.

Once again, your post is of no value as I avoids addressing the issue. The election of Ephesians 1:4 is corporate and cannot be individual, 1 Peter 2:9-10.

 

[Van]

I prefer to address the issue head-on,

The election of Ephesians 1:4-5 is individual, and always has been.
Ephesians 2 simply gives more detail as to how and why He elected the believer to salvation ( 2 Thessalonians 2:13-14 ).
SNIP
Thanks in advance for your reply.

Did this post address why 1 Peter 2:9-10 precludes Ephesians 1:4 from being individual? Nope. Thus a sidestep once again.

We could not live as "not a people" if we had been individually chosen to be His people!

 

[MB]

That you do not know of a single verse means that you obviously haven't been reading multiple threads which present such Scriptures.

If there were such an item mentioned in scripture you would have presented it instead of this lame excuse of a reply that I haven't read every single post. Show it if there is scripture that says we are saved so that we can believe. The Calvinist claim here is absolute nonsense.
I wonder will your great genius fail you.?

Never ask for you to be calvinist. What I desire is that you take the Scriptures at face value. When the Scriptures show the validity of an area in an soteriology scheme, then agree with Scriptures then agree in that area. When the Scriptures show the validity of an area of an eschatology scheme, then agree in that area.

Actually it is you who does not accept scripture at face value. You interpret scripture to mean the opposite of what it clearly teaches.

But do not dismiss something just because you disagree from where it came. I have contended for the faith in many areas, I had to be very widely read from many folks in whom I would not esteem. Yet, the information allowed me to address issues without or with little personal bias.

You sir are biased there is no doubt. I've read many books too however books written by men are always biased. Everyone is biased to what they believe.

So, parents know what to feed their children. That is good. But is it perfect?

It's perfect if it's the gospel. Much more important than food. Personally I thank God for the truth my parents gave me beginning from child hood. Nothing is more satisfying. Than being brought up in the nourishment of God's word and having hidden in my heart.

.
The Scriptures state, "Every good thing given and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shifting shadow."

So, no human can give or acquire of their own will that which is perfect.

Not true. The Bible says;
Mat 7:7 Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you:
Mat 7:8 For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened.
This shows you the truth and you can't see it because you let your Calvinism blind you.

.

That some may teach that does not mean that the Scriptures conform to such a presentation.

One thing for sure it is confirmed, and you reject it, just as i do Calvinism.

.
I am old. I am near giving an account to God for all I have been given, taught, lived, and served.

He has given me insight. I share with you in hope that you will gain at least an bit of insight, if not that, at least a bit of understanding so your responses reflect that which is right.

Getting old doesn't make anyone right.

.
These things are not a matter of calvinistic thinking, it is a matter of what the Scriptures teach.


I have attempted to lead you away from a certain teaching that is heretical. I am thankful that you clearly state that God must be involved in the work of the Holy Spirit.

But, I also see a need to continue to grow in understanding. I am not presenting that you accept.

However, the Scriptures do present themes such as election, predestination, atonement, depravity, perseverance.

Yes but not in the terms you suggest.

.

These are Bible words. They are not exclusive to a scheme that you desire to refute.

What do you know about these specific words?

How are they applied? For example in Ephesians 2.

Did you understand post number 24?

Can you refute what is stated in that post using other Scriptures?

I do not refute Scripture but rather your interpretation of the scriptures. It is your Calvinism that I refute because I do not find it scriptural..
MB

 

[agedman]

Yet another fabrication of deflection. No content, no effort to defend the bogus view. Just smear the opponent.

Once again, your post is of no value as I avoids addressing the issue. The election of Ephesians 1:4 is corporate and cannot be individual, 1 Peter 2:9-10.

Notice how this deflection is not based upon facts. He makes the OP of the thread (Ephesians 2) something entirely different by distracting, and then claims I "am avoiding addressing the issue."

He refers to the FACTS of post #24 as "no content, no effort..."

Yet, he cannot take that post and defend his view using Ephesians 2. He must grab at something else and make some attempt.

So just to show how wrong in this matter he drifts, her is the statement as it reads as a passage. In it the reader may discern what is the truth.

1Peter 2:

1So put away all malice and all deceit and hypocrisy and envy and all slander. 2Like newborn infants, long for the pure spiritual milk, that by it you may grow up into salvation— 3if indeed you have tasted that the Lord is good.​

The "you" does not occur in the original language, but is the identification of one eating, such as "I eat, I taste." The significance is that the "you" does not pertain to a grouping - that would be "you all," but to the specific individuals of a grouping - all the individuals of "I" .

4As you come to him, a living stone rejected by men but in the sight of God chosen and precious, 5you yourselves like living stones are being built up as a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.​

Did you see the transition from individuals to the collective? The "you come to Him" as not a grouping but becomes a grouping by the statement "you yourselves" and then the plural "stones" in verse 5.


Peter continues in validating this "stone" by stating OT passages.

6For it stands in Scripture:

“Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone,
a cornerstone chosen and precious,
and whoever believes in him will not be put to shame.”

7So the honor is for you who believe, but for those who do not believe,

“The stone that the builders rejected
has become the cornerstone,”

8and

“A stone of stumbling,
and a rock of offense.”

They stumble because they disobey the word, as they were destined to do.
​

I bolded this section because it shows in one sentence the refutation of @Van's thinking. Folks were (as Jude also states) DESTINED to disobey. NOT predestined, but they are "condemned ALREADY" destined to the lake of fire (as John states).

Next is that which the poster would use to imappropriately boast.

9But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light. 10Once you were not a people, but now you are God’s people; once you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy.
​

Now, certainly, the original validates that Peter is speaking of the nation formed by believers. This is indicated by the English words "race, nation, a people." HOWEVER, such does not suddenly become "corporate election, and that is the basic disagreement.

The statement is NOT about grouping, nor how the grouping is formed, it is about the purpose of the grouping. That is what is to be taken from that passage. To attempt to present some formation of the grouping from that passage is error.

11Beloved, I urge you as sojourners and exiles to abstain from the passions of the flesh, which wage war against your soul. 12Keep your conduct among the Gentiles honorable, so that when they speak against you as evildoers, they may see your good deeds and glorify God on the day of visitation.​

Again, the "you" are all non-existent in the original. Rather the wording is such that it is making certain of individual accountability is both before the "gentiles" the heathens, and before God "on the day of visitation.

Does anyone not know we all stand, individually, to give an account? This passage indicates another place to give validity to individual election and individual accountability.

I call on Van to set aside his error.

As always, if those, far closer to scholarship in original languages then my forgetful work, do find that I have presented something that is not consistent with the original sources, please do not hesitate to correct me. I do not desire to post what is not faithful to the Scriptures and do remain submissive to better scholarship in the original than I can now offer.

 

[MB]

That you do not know of a single verse means that you obviously haven't been reading multiple threads which present such Scriptures.




Never ask for you to be calvinist. What I desire is that you take the Scriptures at face value. When the Scriptures show the validity of an area in an soteriology scheme, then agree with Scriptures then agree in that area. When the Scriptures show the validity of an area of an eschatology scheme, then agree in that area.

But do not dismiss something just because you disagree from where it came. I have contended for the faith in many areas, I had to be very widely read from many folks in whom I would not esteem. Yet, the information allowed me to address issues without or with little personal bias.


So, parents know what to feed their children. That is good. But is it perfect?

The Scriptures state, "Every good thing given and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shifting shadow."

So, no human can give or acquire of their own will that which is perfect.



That some may teach that does not mean that the Scriptures conform to such a presentation.




I am old. I am near giving an account to God for all I have been given, taught, lived, and served.

He has given me insight. I share with you in hope that you will gain at least an bit of insight, if not that, at least a bit of understanding so your responses reflect that which is right.

These things are not a matter of calvinistic thinking, it is a matter of what the Scriptures teach.

I have attempted to lead you away from a certain teaching that is heretical. I am thankful that you clearly state that God must be involved in the work of the Holy Spirit.

But, I also see a need to continue to grow in understanding. I am not presenting that you accept.

However, the Scriptures do present themes such as election, predestination, atonement, depravity, perseverance.

These are Bible words. They are not exclusive to a scheme that you desire to refute.

What do you know about these specific words?

How are they applied? For example in Ephesians 2.

Did you understand post number 24?

Can you refute what is stated in that post using other Scriptures?

Oh of course you are always right. Your a Calvinist and all Calvinist are perfect. What a load of dung Self righteousness isn't becoming of anyone . What ever you do don't trip over your pride it can be a stumbling block that even you can't see. You wasted all that space to say something and it ended up being nothing anyway. You keep working at your lordship Salvation.
MB

 

[Van]

[QUOTE="agedman, post: 2549193, member: 11131" He makes the OP of the thread (Ephesians 2) something entirely different by distracting, and then claims I "am avoiding addressing the issue." SNIPPed

He refers

Yet, he cannot

He must grab

he drifts,

the poster would use to inappropriately boast.

I call on Van to set aside his error.

.[/QUOTE]

Yet another post of utter nonsense. Did I say we are not ever individually elected? Nope, so deflection ad nauseum.

Ephesians 1:4 cannot refer to our individual election because we "lived not as a people." If we had been chosen individual before the foundation of the world, then we would have always been a chosen people.

Once again, your post is of no value as I avoids addressing the issue. The election of Ephesians 1:4 is corporate and cannot be individual, 1 Peter 2:9-10.

 

[agedman]

Yet another post of utter nonsense. Did I say we are not ever individually elected? Nope, so deflection ad nauseum.

Ephesians 1:4 cannot refer to our individual election because we "lived not as a people." If we had been chosen individual before the foundation of the world, then we would have always been a chosen people.

Once again, your post is of no value as I avoids addressing the issue. The election of Ephesians 1:4 is corporate and cannot be individual, 1 Peter 2:9-10.

Well, I tried.

Typically of Van, he again deflects.

Does anyone else notice he brings up Ephesians 1, but the thread is about Ephesians 2?

Did anyone notice he did not post the passage and point to specific areas presenting the truth?

He posts avoidances and actually expects readers to be impressed.

Btw, do not let him bring confusion about “lived not as a people.”

That has no importance to the topic, brings nothing of value to the table.

I’m a believer, have I always lived like a believer?

He is faithful even in my unfaithfulness.

He loved, before we loved Him.