Featured Does the Epistle to the Ephesians Prove the Reformed Are illogical & Unreason

The answer is yes

I believe exactly what Paul wrote in Ephesians chapter 1

 

JD. I think he was addressing two distinct entities, the saints who were at Ephesus, and everyone else who might read the letter later, like us today.

If you read Romans 11:15 on through the end of the chapter you get a discussion of Israel being cast aside for the benefit of the gentiles and Paul's desire still, that some of his own kinsmen would be saved. There is talk of spiritual "blindness" being applied, which supports Reformed theology, and at the same time the promise that anyone who does respond, even Jews during the time of this blindness, will also be saved. And Reformed theologians like Owen were always careful to teach that aspect also.

Maybe I'm missing something but I don't think there is any difference between Reformed and say IFB theology on the basics of salvation. Ephesians has some verses that the Reformed like to camp on, like Ephesians 2:8-9, about the origins of saving faith and so on but I don't know if that is really all that important.

 

How about a clear statement as to what the "Reformed" believe that is demonstrated illogical and unreasoned.

Ephesians 3:6 "... , that the Gentiles are fellow heirs and fellow members of the body, and fellow partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel,

God temporarily hardened the hearts of disbelieving Jews to facilitate the spread of the gospel to the Gentiles. (Romans 11)

Romans 11:15,For if their rejection proves to be the reconciliation of the world, what will their acceptance be but life from the dead?

These verses indicate non-believing Jews were hardened, but later could be "moved to jealousy" and believe the gospel.

Is the idea that Reformed believe in "Total Spiritual Inability" and therefore public ministry does not actual impact and alter the lives of those who accept the Good News. For example, there would be no need to "harden" the hearts of the unbelieving Jews as they would have no ability to accept the gospel because they have not spiritual ability?

 

I get it from the plain literal reading of the text itself. Those letters were circulated around for the benefit of everyone who read them.

It's true that some branches of Calvinism teach that. I don't agree with that teaching so I would have to let one of those folks explain that. But I do think you are wrong to imagine a contradiction there because all the passage is doing is describing the the way that what they believe is happening.

They do, and I do not believe that regeneration precedes faith. I do believe that there is some type of enlightening or quickening or awakening, describe it as you wish, that precedes faith and that is a work of the Holy Spirit. I believe it is more than just a moral persuasion too. Maybe I'm wrong but keep in mind that the Arminians believe that, as do Wesleyans, and most general Baptists.

 

You probably are right in the sense that once you get into the inner workings of how God goes about saving people we are probably getting into areas that we shouldn't be fooling with.

Personally, I find an absolute impasse with Calvinism because there is a point you reach where there must be some kind of responsible choice involved in an individual's salvation, at least in my mind. And this is even more important. Even if you accept the fact that since we all start out as guilty, vile sinners who really do deserve hell, and God would be totally just in consigning all to hell, and therefore a decision to send most of the world to hell cannot be questioned - even if all that is true, do you really find in scripture, where the nature of God is revealed to us, that he really wants to do that? While you find both things taught, I would be really afraid to mischaracterize God himself and make a mistake here.

But having said that, you guys always take things to the most extreme interpretation when judging Reformed theology. Yet, you can do that with any theology. Free will theology taken to it's extreme leaves God with no way to really accomplish the things that he clearly said he would accomplish. Instead he is constantly bound and waiting on our next, random move, that he then has to react to. Even the idea of praying for someone's salvation is silly because by definition you are asking God to manipulate their free will, which you claim is sovereign.

 

The natural man understands not the things of God

 

Sorry but I did not see where you addressed my question in my post.

Is the idea that Reformed believe in "Total Spiritual Inability" and therefore public ministry does not actually impact and alter the lives of those who accept the Good News. For example, there would be no need to "harden" the hearts of the unbelieving Jews as they would have no ability to accept the gospel because they have not spiritual ability?​

 

I don't see any real difference. Pharoah was probably there by heredity. And if so he was created for that position. Would he have been guilty of such obstinate sin had he just been born a servant? Who knows.

Exodus 4:21 explicitly has God hardening Pharoah's heart which to me makes it hard to get around the aspect of Pharoah's will being in God's hands. I'm not saying he wasn't naturally a cantankerous pain already but the verse is there. I don't think God made Pharoah do anything more evil than he already was inclined to do but you still have that verse.

I agree with that 100%. But you have to keep in mind that in the above case with Pharoah, all kinds of circumstances were manipulated to change Pharoah but to no avail. Eventually when he did finally let them go his heart wasn't changed and he went after the Israelites. I don't disagree with you here but I am still not sure whether circumstances and things like that are all that God uses. I think there is evidence that direct enlightening is also in play. Many non Calvinists believe this too and my only complaint is to those who have such a high view our our free will that they are afraid of any hint that God might act directly upon it. When, for me, I think our free will is our problem in the first place. That it is possible to resist God's grace to the point where he judicially withdraws I fully believe. Calvinists preach that but deny it in the confessions for the most part.

 

"A man cannot sin unless he acts in sovereignty because that is the definition of sin"

LOL, what an absurd unbiblical bit of nonsense!!!

A man cannot sin unless God allows humanity to sin. That is a valid statement.

Is the idea that Reformed believe in "Total Spiritual Inability" and therefore public ministry does not actually impact and alter the lives of those who accept the Good News. For example, there would be no need to "harden" the hearts of the unbelieving Jews as they would have no ability to accept the gospel because they have not spiritual ability?​

 

I'm not "Reformed", but I do agree with them on how God saves a person...
So, I'll answer it if that's permitted.

The question asked is, " For if the casting away of Israel is the reconciling of the world ( see 2 Corinthians 5:19 for more ), what shall the receiving of them be?"
JD, the answer is given in the text:

" Life from the dead".

 

By God's grace I understood the whole of the epistle, without ever having had to read the Book of Acts.
In fact, I remember being given the passage below ( among 2 others ) to look up for myself some 20 years ago now, and didn't need any context to understand what it said, even at that early date in my growth as a believer:

" Blessed [be] the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly [places] in Christ:
according as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:
having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,
to the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved.
in whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace;" ( Ephesians 1:3-7 ).

But having read the book of Acts also many years ago now ( and still do in my regular studies ), I recognize that there are vital things that God wanted me to know both from it and the epistles.
So I do agree with you that much of God's word does not function alone, nor does it make any sense without the context...

But to say that arriving at an understanding of the epistle to the Ephesians is impossible, without knowing the contents of the book of Acts?
I cannot agree.

 

Having grown up in IB and IFB circles ( since I heard the word of God during the preaching if His word at 12 years old in 1978 ), and having attended those churches for some 28 years of my now 46 years as a believer, I can say that there's quite a bit that's different between the two, Dave...
Especially with regard to how they view the salvation of sinners.

Here's some of what I know:

Reformed ( and some others ) view salvation as entirely a work of God, start to finish.
God, with no input whatsoever from men, saves whom He wishes, and God keeps those He saves for an everlasting relationship with Him and His Son.

IB's / IFB's ( with very few exceptions ) view salvation as a cooperative effort between God and men.
God essentially extends an invitation, and waits for men to take Him up on His offer of grace.

He saves and keeps those who accept His offer.


Reformed ( and some Baptists as well as some others ) believe that Christ died only for His elect ( alive, dead, or not yet born ), those that were chosen in Christ from the foundation of the world.

IB's / IFB's believe that Christ died for every man, woman and child that ever lived and ever will live.


In effect, the "Reformed" ( and those who are close to their beliefs ) agree with the "Calvinist" side of the chart in the link below, while most IB's and almost all IFB's agree with all but the last point on the "Arminian" side of it.

Calvinism & Arminianism: comparison table

 

I think that you posted a fair and accurate description of the differences, especially when focusing on the underlying theology. I was thinking more just at the level of the individual non theology minded person's experience who gets saved. What I was thinking was that at that level, if it is true that you are saved completely as a work of God your first perception will be of believing and repenting of your sins, even though it is a result of you already being regenerated. If you are an IFB and hear preaching and come under conviction and realize your lostness, and need of Christ and in your mind at least decide to come to Christ, thinking that you made the decision and now have been born again - the perception in the mind of the person and what they did is the same.

What got me thinking about this was that I read a lot of sermons and pamphlets from Puritans, most of whom were staunch Calvinists and I keep finding sermons where they basically say "Christ has died, the invitation has gone out, everything is ready, and the only thing lacking is your consent". It sounds to me like my IFB days also. But it's just an observation, not intended as a point of argument. I am seeing a lot of mixing and hybridization of these doctrines in churches in recent years.