Calvinism needs to add words to scripture

[Psalty]

Without holiness no man will see God. Holy and blameless is due to the righteousness imputed to us. And we will be presented holy and blameless at a future time to Christ, as part of the bride of Christ. In the meantime, as I said before, we are instructed to live a holy and blameless life, with God's help, which is, as you know, always the pattern of the Pauline epistles. Doctrine first, then practical living.

There is no dispute on needing holiness to see God, or that it is imputed. The question is: is this the point Paul is making here? According to Eph 5:27, the phrase in the context of Ephesians is about Glorification. Additionally, Colossians, which shares about 60-70% of Ephesians and was written at the same time uses the same phrase which also refers to glorification.

Additionally, although you disagree, Ephesians starts with the End Goal of God’s predestined plan in view: God’s goal is for us to be Glorified with Christ when we are presented to Him at the end of the age. This is the end purpose of His plan. You think that Paul is only pointing to Salvation, but Ephesians is the big Picture. Glorification is the end-game. Paul does talk about salvation and the how, but that is later down in chapter 1:13-14.

And just because Colossians and Ephesians have theology in the first half, it hardly means that he is only talking about Salvation… you must distinguish based on words and phrases used.

I am not aware of a controversy you are concerned with here assuming that you believe that our righteousness is imputed to us on condition of faith in Christ. And no Calvinist I know of is opposed to this either as long as by "condition" you mean that it must be present or else there is no salvation. I don't understand what is bothering you in the example you are using. If you are saying that a person is not "holy and blameless" in the sight of God when they are saved then we do have a serious difference, but it's not a Calvinistic one. And if you agree that a saved person is holy and blameless in God's sight then it makes no difference whether glorification or salvation is being spoken of.

You are missing the point. Colossians 1:22-23: you will be presented Holy and Blameless before Him… IF indeed you continue in the faith. Again, this is in reference to the moment of Glorification. Calvinists believe this is unconditional if elect, but Colossians point out that it is indeed conditional.

If you are concerned about the part added on in Colossians regarding continuing in the faith, let me assure you that Calvinism teaches the necessity of continuing in the faith. Once again, you are illustrating the beauty and necessity of having a good theology. What Calvinism does not allow is for you to take a verse like the one in Colossians and make that into a false doctrine where you are scared to death you won't be able to hold out or that your faith may falter. What Calvinists would say is that this warning to persevere is a means of warning and an exhortation to carefulness in our walk as no Calvinist believes that our election or being born again is a license to loose living. And no Calvinist believes that a truly born again individual can loose their salvation - because we are kept from apostacy, not kept in spite of it. See the value of good theology?

See above, you missed the point. Good theology will agree… calvinism cant have conditional Glorification.

Again, you have not established that Eph 1:4-5 is about Salvation and not Glorification. All you have done is infer from generic arguments that it is. What in the text tells you it is?

 

[Psalty]

I suppose you mean Col. 1:21-23. 'And you who were once alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works , yet now He has reconciled in the body of His flesh through death, to present you holy and blameless, and above reproach in His sight - if indeed you continue in the faith, grounded and steadfast, and not moved away from the hope of the gospel which you heard, which was preached to every creature under heaven, of which I, Paul, became a minister.'

Eph. 1:4-5. '... Just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before Him in love, having predestined us to adoption as sons by Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will.'

I'm not sure what makes you think that these are two parallel passages. The Ephesians text is about God's election and predestination before the foundation of the world - what He has decided that He will do. The Colossian text is about what He has done: He has reconciled Christians to Himself through the perfect life and atoning death of the Lord Jesus, who has paid in full for their transgressions, and His perfect righteousness is imputed to them.

I think you have this wrong. Colossians and Ephesians share about 70% of the same verses. They were written and carried at the same time. The phrase Holy and Blameless is only used in these 2 books.

Both phrases of Holy and Blameless in chapter 1’s of Col and Eph are about the end result of the blessing of being in Christ… Glorification… being with Him.

Ephesians IS about what God has chosen to do… to present us Holy and Blameless at Glorification. The difference is that you are unable to distinguish between:
1. God has a plan that In Christ we will experience Glorification, and
2. Getting into Christ is not what he address in 1:4-5.

This pre-supposes that we have truly trusted in Christ, otherwise we shall assuredly fall away from Him, because we are not united to Him by faith. But if we have trusted in Christ, then nothing in all creation will separate us from Him, because we were chosen for salvation before the foundation of the world.

 

[Silverhair]

I do agree that it is possible to put too much emphasis on "chosen before the foundation of the world". But it is there, and cannot be denied that it does say "chosen before the foundation of the world". You have theology in order to explain the very point you are making.

Yes "chosen before the foundation of the world" is in the text but we should not ignore the rest of the text as you seem to be doing. The bible is clear that we are chosen in Christ through faith which is something that happens in time not before time. God has chosen Christ as the only means by which we can be saved.

n my opinion you murder that passage with wrong exegesis because you take the how, when, and means and turn that into the reason for their salvation, which the passage says is God's choice. Saying that it is God's choice does not mean the "how" and "means" are not necessary, or that without them you will not be saved. But using that to blow off the fact that it is God that chooses you for salvation won't do in light of the stated scripture.

Care to explain how my exegesis murders the text?

Paul tells us when and how God chose the Thessalonians for salvation. 2Th_2:13-14
When, from the beginning
How, through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth
Means, to which He called you by our gospel

Do you not think that "belief in the truth" is necessary for ones salvation? God saves but He only saves those that believe or do you think He saved people prior to their believing?

 

[Ascetic X]

In my opinion you murder that passage with wrong exegesis…

Wow. First time I have ever seen such a harsh and violent accusation in a biblical interpretation debate.

Thankfully, scripture cannot be killed, for it is eternally alive and life-giving.

 

[Silverhair]

Chosen in Christ is not the same thing as being in Christ. Christians are chosen before the foundation of the world, but they are not saved until they trust in Christ.

You are saying that Christians were chosen before the foundation of the world but the logical outcome of that view is that those lost were also chosen before the foundation of the world.

A persons faith in or rejection of Christ Jesus has not impact on their final situation as according to you it was all set prior to creation.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

I think you have this wrong. Colossians and Ephesians share about 70% of the same verses. They were written and carried at the same time. The phrase Holy and Blameless is only used in these 2 books.

Both phrases of Holy and Blameless in chapter 1’s of Col and Eph are about the end result of the blessing of being in Christ… Glorification… being with Him.

Ephesians IS about what God has chosen to do… to present us Holy and Blameless at Glorification. The difference is that you are unable to distinguish between:
1. God has a plan that In Christ we will experience Glorification, and
2. Getting into Christ is not what he address in 1:4-5.

That there are many simularities in Ephesians and Colossians is not at issue; of course there are. But Eph. 1:4-5 is about God's activities before the foundation of the world. Col. 1:21ff is about His activities in time. He chose us to be holy and blameless, and we shall be holy and blameless, through faith in Christ. Faith is not a work we have to do to be right with God; it is the cable, if you will, which connects God's power to us.

 

[Psalty]

That there are many simularities in Ephesians and Colossians is not at issue; of course there are. But Eph. 1:4-5 is about God's activities before the foundation of the world. Col. 1:21ff is about His activities in time. He chose us to be holy and blameless, and we shall be holy and blameless, through faith in Christ. Faith is not a work we have to do to be right with God; it is the cable, if you will, which connects God's power to us.

Ephesians is out of time looking at God’s eternal plan of predestining the faithful In Christ to be Holy and Blameless at Glorification
Colossians is in time reminding the Colossians that IF they remain faithfully In Christ they will be presented Holy and Blameless at Glorification.

Both are looking forward to the same Event: Glorification

The phrase is the same, the perspective from which Paul is looking at Glorification is different.

You would have me believe that Paul just so happens to only use this phrase 3 times, in only 2 books which were written at the same time, to the same region, yet he means different things each time he uses it… yeah, that is not probable or consistent. It’s not the best way of interpreting scripture. Let the bible interpret the bible. All three uses of the phrase are the same.

If you can show me how he is differentiating, I’m willing to hear it.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Ephesians is out of time looking at God’s eternal plan of predestining the faithful In Christ to be Holy and Blameless at Glorification
Colossians is in time reminding the Colossians that IF they remain faithfully In Christ they will be presented Holy and Blameless at Glorification.

Both are looking forward to the same Event: Glorification

The phrase is the same, the perspective from which Paul is looking at Glorification is different.

You would have me believe that Paul just so happens to only use this phrase 3 times, in only 2 books which were written at the same time, to the same region, yet he means different things each time he uses it… yeah, that is not probable or consistent.

When have I suggested that? Holy and blameless means holy and blameless.

It’s not the best way of interpreting scripture. Let the bible interpret the bible. All three uses of the phrase are the same.

If you can show me how he is differentiating, I’m willing to hear it.

Can you show me where the words 'chose' and 'predestined,' not to mention the phrase 'before the foundation of the world,' appear in Colossians 1:21-23, and where 'now' and 'has reconciled,' 'heard' and 'was preached' appear in Eph. 1:4-5?

 

[Psalty]

When have I suggested that? Holy and blameless means holy and blameless.

You jumped in on Dave’s comment, and this was his premise. Don’t ask me to try and back-date your argument and now start re-working what was being discussed before you jumped in.

But I’ll ask you:
Do you think Holy and Blameless in Eph 1:4 is different than Holy and Blameless in Eph 5:27?
Do you think He is describing different things or the same thing?

Can you show me where the words 'chose' and 'predestined,' not to mention the phrase 'before the foundation of the world,' appear in Colossians 1:21-23, and where 'now' and 'has reconciled,' 'heard' and 'was preached' appear in Eph. 1:4-5?

I see you are deflecting and not answering the probability or letting phrases interpret phrases. So those go to me, and now I will answer your question.

I’ll do one more than what you asked and do all three passages: Eph 1:4-5, Col 1:21-23, and Eph 5:23-27.
Who = “you” plural is in both and refers to the church, and “church” in Eph 5
How = “Holy and Blameless” is in all three
Where = ”Before Him” is in both, and “present to Himself” in Eph 5
When =
1> In Colossians 1: looking forward to Glorification because it must be after “they continue in the faith”
2> In Ephesians 1: chosen “before foundation” to be (future looking, unspecificied if Salvation or Glorification.
3> In Ephesians 5: looks forward to glorification: He loved the church and cleansed her “so that He Might present (future tense) to Himself the church in all her glory”

Seems to me you are only capitalizing on the When/Timing, but it’s just an argument from Silence since Colossians does not specify or concern it self when the choice was made, and only that the object of the timing is after they continue in faith.

So all in all, all three passages include the same Who, the same How, the same Where, and 2 of 3 have the same When with the third being unspecified but not contradictory.

 

[DaveXR650]

Care to explain how my exegesis murders the text?

What I am trying to say is that if you read not just that verse but the whole first and second chapter of Ephesians at once, in a single reading, you find a theme of the sovereign work of God in our salvation. In no way do I mean to minimize the idea that your salvation is through faith. It's just that in this passage the main thrust is God working salvation by His sovereign action. When you study scripture you let the text speak.

A persons faith in or rejection of Christ Jesus has not impact on their final situation as according to you it was all set prior to creation.

If the main thrust of a particular text is about the sovereign working of God then let that be the theme without you having to make a logical conclusion. There are other texts that support what you are trying to say and when you come to those texts you should let them stand as stated also. For instance, John 3:18 says that those who are condemned are condemned because they have not believed. That would not be the place to insist that we think about predestination. Scripture teaches both. And so does Calvinism.

 

[DaveXR650]

Wow. First time I have ever seen such a harsh and violent accusation in a biblical interpretation debate.

My daughter is a musician. Haven't you ever heard someone say after making a lot of mistakes in playing a piece " Man, I didn't just mess up. I murdered it!" Anyway, they do.

 

[Ascetic X]

My daughter is a musician. Haven't you ever heard someone say after making a lot of mistakes in playing a piece " Man, I didn't just mess up. I murdered it!" Anyway, they do.

I find it disturbing to see someone use “murdered” applied to something done to a passage of scripture.

 

[DaveXR650]

See above, you missed the point. Good theology will agree… calvinism cant have conditional Glorification.

That is correct that Calvinism would teach that all saved people will eventually be glorified at a future point in time. So do non free-will Baptists, the difference being that many of the Baptists do believe that in order to come to Christ, you have enough natural ability, or need only Arminian style persuasion, yet once saved, you will definitely stay saved. Some non Calvinist Baptists believe in addition that once saved no matter what you would do or even if you chose to leave the faith, you would stay saved. This crops up among Calvinists from time to time but is considered a heresy because Calvinism teaches that God will keep saints from apostacy, by many means, including stern warnings. This is why you need to understand theology.

If you want my personal opinion, the free will Baptist idea of a real possibility of falling away is closer in practice to what Calvinists taught than the modern non Calvinist Baptist concept of "once saved, always saved". I have a lot of reasons for this view and most would be Puritan Calvinist quotes.

 

[DaveXR650]

I find it disturbing to see someone use “murdered” applied to something done to a passage of scripture.

What makes it even more confusing is that sometimes when people play something extremely well they will say "I totally killed it". And, at plays, I hear people wishing each other well before the performance by saying "break a leg". I used to ride motorcycles (a lot) and guys who built a really nice bike would say it's a "righteous ride". And if that wasn't confusing enough others would say of the same bike, that it was "bitchin". That's our English language. I've heard, in my long life, something really neat being described as "hot", or "cool", something extremely good being described as being "bad" or "bada__", and so on.

I would just conclude by saying that this thread has "run it's course". I hope that language is not too harsh.

 

[Silverhair]

What I am trying to say is that if you read not just that verse but the whole first and second chapter of Ephesians at once, in a single reading, you find a theme of the sovereign work of God in our salvation. In no way do I mean to minimize the idea that your salvation is through faith. It's just that in this passage the main thrust is God working salvation by His sovereign action. When you study scripture you let the text speak.

I agree that we need to look at context but I find that in many cases that does not happen.

God is sovereign but in His sovereignty He has said that we are saved by Him because we have believed in His son.

Without man's faith there is no requirement for God's sovereign action to save someone.

Faith is the critical element, no faith no salvation.

Eph_1:15 Therefore I also, after I heard of your faith in the Lord Jesus and your love for all the saints,
Eph_2:8 For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God,
Eph_3:12 in whom we have boldness and access with confidence through faith in Him.
Eph_3:17 that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith; that you, being rooted and grounded in love,

If the main thrust of a particular text is about the sovereign working of God then let that be the theme without you having to make a logical conclusion. There are other texts that support what you are trying to say and when you come to those texts you should let them stand as stated also. For instance, John 3:18 says that those who are condemned are condemned because they have not believed. That would not be the place to insist that we think about predestination. Scripture teaches both. And so does Calvinism.

I am not dismissing the sovereign power of God but without faith no one is saved.

God draws us to Him via various means but in the end if we do not believe then He in His sovereign power does not force us to believe we have to freely trust. That is the main thrust of scripture.

The offer is there for all but we must make the choice.

We do see predestination in scripture but predestination is not the predetermination of who will believe, but rather the predetermination of the believer's future inheritance.

 

[Psalty]

I agree that we need to look at context but I find that in many cases that does not happen.

God is sovereign but in His sovereignty He has said that we are saved by Him because we have believed in His son.

Without man's faith there is no requirement for God's sovereign action to save someone.

Faith is the critical element, no faith no salvation.

Eph_1:15 Therefore I also, after I heard of your faith in the Lord Jesus and your love for all the saints,
Eph_2:8 For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God,
Eph_3:12 in whom we have boldness and access with confidence through faith in Him.
Eph_3:17 that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith; that you, being rooted and grounded in love,



I am not dismissing the sovereign power of God but without faith no one is saved.

God draws us to Him via various means but in the end if we do not believe then He in His sovereign power does not force us to believe we have to freely trust. That is the main thrust of scripture.

The offer is there for all but we must make the choice.

We do see predestination in scripture but predestination is not the predetermination of who will believe, but rather the predetermination of the believer's future inheritance.

There are 2 Layers that the calvinist does not recognize or distinguish.
1. Getting INTO “Christ”: This group is never said to be predestined to be chosen to get into this group, it is always by the individual’s faith.
2. Those IN “Christ”: Those in this group are predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son and Glorified.

So if someone is “In Christ”, then they are predestined by God to be Glorified and in union with Him, but they must choose to ha e faith.

This is the only way to logically hold predestination and individual will without abandoning logic.

 

[DaveXR650]

There are 2 Layers that the calvinist does not recognize or distinguish.
1. Getting INTO “Christ”: This group is never said to be predestined to be chosen to get into this group, it is always by the individual’s faith.
2. Those IN “Christ”: Those in this group are predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son and Glorified.

So if someone is “In Christ”, then they are predestined by God to be Glorified and in union with Him, but they must choose to ha e faith.

I just don't think that the idea that God has made provision for our salvation and leaves it up to us to comply with the propositions of the gospel message is sufficient to describe Ephesians chapter 1 or parts of any of the Pauline letters. But you do have to decide that for yourself. Likewise, as you say above, the idea that you need to get yourself in and then once you have gotten yourself in to Christ you can now claim all the verses with the word "predestined" as applying to you because of what you did - just doesn't do justice to those sections of scripture.

In Philippians chapter 3 verse 12 you have the dual concept of Christ apprehending Paul and in the same verse Paul apprehending Christ, or "laying hold of". What I am saying is that it is a mistake, that you, and frankly, some Calvinists make the opposite way to make this into primarily a study of how predestination works. Martyn Lloyd-Jones warns Calvinists not to do this in a sermon I mentioned in an earlier post. Calvinism is not primarily a study of predestination so much as it is more a study of how God is working his will in saving a large group of fallen men, from start to finish. But I do think more is being discussed in say Ephesians 1 than God proposing a method by which one may obtain salvation. And what makes this doubly difficult is that Calvinism makes use of covenant theology, which I don't claim to be expert in, but which does present salvation as exactly that - a proposed set of promises with conditions that must be accepted. This is precisely why I personally have no problem with @Silverhair, having a view of salvation that is reduced to meeting the conditions proposed by the gospel because that is indeed correct, and essential. All I am saying is that if you read scripture, especially the chapters we have been discussing, you will find that while it is true indeed that we must have biblical faith it is also clear that looking from the outside, the big picture is that God is clearly working out a sovereign plan and a good way to describe it would be that when we do come by faith to Christ we are in a sense writing ourselves into the sovereign plan - and it is true at the same time that it is really him writing us into that plan.

 

[Psalty]

I just don't think that the idea that God has made provision for our salvation and leaves it up to us to comply with the propositions of the gospel message is sufficient to describe Ephesians chapter 1 or parts of any of the Pauline letters. But you do have to decide that for yourself. Likewise, as you say above, the idea that you need to get yourself in and then once you have gotten yourself in to Christ you can now claim all the verses with the word "predestined" as applying to you because of what you did - just doesn't do justice to those sections of scripture.

I didnt define what is necessary to get into Christ, just that people must exercise faith. Certainly there are many graces that God gives to overcome things.

As far as Chapter 1 of Ephesians, i think you downplay our views. God chose Christ from before the foundation of the word. Peter says that Gods plan of Jesus was the predestined PLAN in his Acts 3 sermon and the apostles reiterate in Acts 4 prayer. The glorious thing is that Christ Himself was the predestined plan. Calvinist theory on the other hand glorifies our being chosen… its a “yay me” “picked me” theology… only a rightly understood predestined plan that is all about Jesus and His magnification is worthy of glory. God picked Christ, and us In Him by extension.

In Philippians chapter 3 verse 12 you have the dual concept of Christ apprehending Paul and in the same verse Paul apprehending Christ, or "laying hold of". What I am saying is that it is a mistake, that you, and frankly, some Calvinists make the opposite way to make this into primarily a study of how predestination works. Martyn Lloyd-Jones warns Calvinists not to do this in a sermon I mentioned in an earlier post. Calvinism is not primarily a study of predestination so much as it is more a study of how God is working his will in saving a large group of fallen men, from start to finish. But I do think more is being discussed in say Ephesians 1 than God proposing a method by which one may obtain salvation.

I would never have known it from the calvinists on this board.

And what makes this doubly difficult is that Calvinism makes use of covenant theology, which I don't claim to be expert in, but which does present salvation as exactly that - a proposed set of promises with conditions that must be accepted. This is precisely why I personally have no problem with @Silverhair, having a view of salvation that is reduced to meeting the conditions proposed by the gospel because that is indeed correct, and essential. All I am saying is that if you read scripture, especially the chapters we have been discussing, you will find that while it is true indeed that we must have biblical faith it is also clear that looking from the outside, the big picture is that God is clearly working out a sovereign plan and a good way to describe it would be that when we do come by faith to Christ we are in a sense writing ourselves into the sovereign plan - and it is true at the same time that it is really him writing us into that plan.

I think we inherently just disagree… on the Bible, on what scripture says, on what is contradictory, on logical conclusions…. Just a lot as I see more and more posts from Calvinists. Totally different. Totally different view of Gods character, totally different ideas on what makes God good, what is loving, what is Gods intent, and if He meets His own definitions of love, justice, partiality and more.

Truly calvinists and non calvinists couldnt be farther apart on who God is and how He operates and loves and how He has chosen to exercise His will within His creation, and even how He has created humans.

 

[DaveXR650]

Calvinist theory on the other hand glorifies our being chosen… its a “yay me” “picked me” theology… only a rightly understood predestined plan that is all about Jesus and His magnification is worthy of glory. God picked Christ, and us In Him by extension.

"Yay me" and "Picked me" is rather cynical and I can see where it certainly can lead to someone having a high opinion of oneself, just like someone who emphasized their own faith as the deciding contribution to their salvation could do the same. But of course that would give further evidence of a complete and total depravity, wouldn't it. Of all the arguments against Calvinism, the basic one that says we have a natural ability to make the right decision and come to Christ by our own free will is probably at least arguable. But to say what you say here, and then try to claim that that method is the one that magnifies Christ and is all about Jesus, when in fact it is all about us and our decision is a real stretch of credibility.

I would never have known it from the calvinists on this board.

Well, maybe you need to read more, or listen to what Calvinists on this board post. There are in all fairness, plenty of Calvinists on this board who indeed believe it is all about determinism. Most are conspicuously absent from this thread. The emphasis on determinism seems to be a more recent thing and somewhat surprising to those of us who get into Calvinism by way of Puritan writings rather than internet arguments. There are also arguments for determinism and for compatibilism at a more advanced level that you can read if you are interested. I frankly, am not and find it very difficult reading. It's one thing to say that every molecule must be directly controlled by God or that if your son dies in some kind of accident you announce that "God killed my son". These are things prominent Calvinists have said in recent years and while it may be interesting as a philosophical debate I don't think it is essentially what Calvinism is about.

Rather, Calvinism is about the sense most people have of God coming after them or pursuing them or as Paul said "apprehending" them or actually beginning a good work in them as opposed to providing for the possibility of salvation if certain propositions are received and the rest being up to you. This even applies to those who openly claim not to be Calvinists. C.S. Lewis being one example as he describes himself being lead to faith in a way far beyond him just discovering that there was a set of principles which if believed, would result in salvation. You are set against the theology with a high level of animosity, as is @Ascetic X. Nothing I can say will change that. I don't think it is even important that I do so as I believe that saving faith all that is required on our part and understanding that one is elect and that it was God who came after you, not the other way around, although it would and should be a source of comfort and strength, I guess it is not essential.

 

[Psalty]

Rather, Calvinism is about the sense most people have of God coming after them or pursuing them or as Paul said "apprehending" them or actually beginning a good work

Its about quite a bit more than that, even for a compatibalist! I have listened to you and many others quite a bit and if this defined calvinism, everyone would be one.

No there are far more severe differences. That was clarified for me in this thread.