I'm Sorry, We all make assumptions--let's START OVER

Mike, this is a great question. If you could look back at my post on the first page of this thread posted February 09, 2003 07:44 PM. Look at my comments concerning 2 Thessalonians because they also would apply here.

By the way, in this passage he does not call them "the elect" as if the word eklogai was a noun, but it literally reads "brothers having been loved by God, the choice of you, because the gospel of us became not to you in word only, but also in power..." That's as literal as the Greek can be rendered here.

The Thessalonians were primarily Gentiles, so like the 2 Thess. 2:13 passage I've already discussed this passage could easily be understood as Paul's expression of joy for choosing to reveal his salvation to not only the Jew (Israel) but also the Gentiles.

Yes, this passage does seem to support your view in light of the Calvinism/Arminian debate we're in right now, but read it with Paul's perspective and I think you can see that my interpretation is also valid.

Thanks for the comment,
Bro. Bill

 

It brings up more questions, actually. Did Jonah have "free-will" or not? What about Paul? Do only some people (those not appointed as prophets / apostles, etc.) have "free-will"? Is this fair / just? </font>[/QUOTE]Yes, Jonah was as free as you or me, I assume. But, God intervened and chose to use him to preach to Ninevah, he didn't want too, so God used events in his life to change his will. Why? So that His Sovereign will would most certainly be accomplished.

Paul is very similar. His will was to kill Christians, God Sovereign will was for Him to become a Christian and a divinely inspired apostle. Why? So God's Sovereign will would be carried out, to the praise of His glory.

God intervened and violated the "will" of Jonah and Paul in order to accomplish his purpose. Calvinist shouldn't have any problem with that statement, right?

Does this necessitate that he does the same with the apostles and prophet's audiences? I don't think so. He wants to guarantee His Sovereign plan of delivering the message is accomplish, but I don't believe he wants to force people to beleive and obey that message, thus violating their will.

This view supports God's Sovereignty and Human Responsiblity without creating the unacceptable paradoxes that Calvinism creates.

As to you question of what is fair? You, as a Calvinist, should know where to find verses to answer that charge.

Good question, thanks for the post.
Bro. Bill

 

Tom,
I'm honestly not attempting to "disavow" the inclusion of these wonderfully powerful yet devisive words. Quite the contrayary, I'm trying to put them in their proper context thus giving them back the original power and uniqueness in which the original author intended, which, by the way, is not devisive at all to the early church.

These words still do have meaning to us today. These great truths tell us of the divine uniqueness of how the apostles were set apart as authorities for us to follow. In the light of liberalism which consistantly calls scripture, especially Paul's letters, into question as being merely writings of men's opinions. We must be able to point to Eph. chapter 1 and chapter 3 and show them that these unique men are sovereignly predestined, effectually called, and have been given the "mysteries" that no one else has ever received, thus setting them apart as ones who must be submitted to in regard to faith and practice.

I hope this makes sense. Please read all of my previous posts on this thread in order to get a real picture of my beliefs. Thanks for the post.

With Respect,
Bro. Bill

 

Strugman, first let me say thank you for responding to my arguments with obvious thoughtfulness and brotherly consideration. I do appreciate that. Now to your question:

Just because something applies to Paul and his audience alike doesn't necessiate that he included himself in with them when addressing them (that probably could be better worded, but it's late so bear with me).

A teacher speaking to her pupils, might say, "You must use correct grammar." Does she mean that only they must use correct grammar and she doesn't have to. Of course not, the teacher is merely giving instructions. So too, Paul, from verse 13 on down through chapter 2 is giving the saints instructions on how they were saved, using himself in parts as a comparitive reference. So, for him to say, "You were saved by Grace" does not imply that he wasn't saved by Grace as well.

But, I see your point. If we apply that same principle in chapter 2, why don't we apply it in chapter 1. Right?

Good question. Let's look at that. He begins verse 3 using the pronoun "us" and in verse 12 he used "we" in reference to the first who trusted in Christ, which would be the apostles, right? Could we speculate that just as Paul might include himself in the pronoun "you" in chapter 2, that he might be including the saints in the pronoun "us/we" in chapter 1? That is your question, I hope.

There in lies the problem with your assumption. Let me carefully explain why:

Paul and the saints were both saved by grace, we both agree with that fact. That he says "you" were saved by grace doesn't bring that fact into question because that had already been establish in Chapter 1. From verse 13 on he in talking to them about their salvation.

If Paul were saved in the same manner (predestined/elect before the foundation of the world/ revealed the mysteries) as were the saints, I don't see a valid reason why he would have even included verse 13-14 pointing out once again the trust and belief that they (the saints) had, having to repeat the phrase "to the praise of His glory" now in regard to the saints rather than to those who first believed in verse 12. If he was meaning to say that all of the saints have been predestined and elected before the foundation he would have merely included the saints in with "we/us" instead separating them saying, "Also you" in verse 13. I hope that is clearly stated, it is late.

Let me try it this way. This is what we are certain of from the text:

Apostle = saved by grace, believed, trusted, predestined, elected before foundation of the earth, revelation from Christ Himself (mysteries revealed), sealed with the Holy Spirit

Saint = saved by grace, believed, trusted, heard the messages from the apostles (which would require faith to have belief/trust), sealed with the Holy Spirit.

Key principle: Whatever applies to all the saints also applies to the apostles, but whatever applies to the apostles may or may not apply to all saints. Does that make since?

Therefore, Paul does not have the burden to link himself (us/we) in with the saints (you) for that would be assumed. He does, however, have the burden to link the saints (you) in with him (us/we) if they are all meant to be included. Which he does, we it applies. He does not in regard to predestination/election/direct revelation of mysteries link all "saints" (you) to himself (us/we) in this passage. Therefore, the Calvinistic assumption cannot be supported by this passage. Mine can.

But, one could argue that many salvations are recorded in scripture that don't involve "effectual calling" or "Sovereign election."

The bible is full of stories of men who believe after hearing the word from the apostles, of course we can only speculate as to whether the person was "predestined" or "sovereignly elected before the foundation of the world," which is why we must analyize texts like this so carefully. This is not a historical narrative, it is a doctrinal statement. Historical narratives are meant to tell the happenings from a historical, factual, record of the events, not to instruct in doctrine. So we have to be careful going there.

Of course, circumstances are always unique, that's obviouly not my point, but the imagery is appreciated all the same.

I mean unique as in its power and Sovereignty. Nothing could have prevented those men from being what God needed them to be and doing what God needed them to do to carry out God's Sovereign plan, nothing! That fact sets them apart as being infallible with their words and inerrant in their teaching. UNLIKE US!

The Liberals need to hear that! But unfortuntately everyone brings the assumption that we were saved just like them, so that truth can't be used to refute their lies. Poor hermeneutics leads to poor doctrine which becomes very difficult to defend.

And you won't, because it doesn't happen without the work of the Holy Spirit. Even Arminius was solid on this point. All good comes from the Father, I don't deny that. Nor, do I desire to deminish the work he has done in my life. I give him all the glory and the credit, but I'm still most assuredly responsible for my response. Which, once I have been presented with the gospel, is left for me to decide.

God allows me to decide, but He gets all the credit if I say "yes." If you want your doctrine to have any paradoxes let it be that one, rather than one that makes God out to be a deciever of men by offering up a fake call for all to repent and believe when all can't.

I agree. Calvinists have held to it for years. But you have to admit it undermines Apostolic Authority by making them more equal with us. It would be like a Calvinist teaching that all elect are virgin born or have been resurrected from the dead or can perform the same signs and wonders seen by the apostles. You can see my point. It takes what is "unique" and makes it "common."

All of this is difficult to write out into words, but I think if you think through it objectively and honestly with both perspectives in mind you can see what I mean. But, as one who has been where you are right now I can say this; if you read this passage and other passages with the idea in your mind that your going to "show me up" or "put me in my place", you cannot be objective.

I'm not trying to sound prideful or arrogant in this, honestly. I'm just saying that objectiveness can only be obtained when you take your own glasses off and look at the text through someone else's glasses. Pretend you had to debate this from my side, shoot don't pretend, find some Calvinist on another board and try to defend this view. Then and only then will you see it all objectively. I hope that makes sense.

Please don't see this as me speaking down to you, I don't mean for it to be that way. I could be wrong, I'm willing to look at the text again through Calvinistic glasses, I did it for years and sometimes I still do. I'm just tired of people closing their minds to other perspectives, that might just be right. They'll never know because there not even willing to look.

Thank you for you post. I enjoy debating like gentlemen. We get a lot more accomplished that way.


In Christ's Love,
Bro. Bill

 

Notice how, in a thread about assumptions. you make a major one with no proof to back it up. I totally disagree with this. Election is never used only of apostles in any context I can find. </font>[/QUOTE]First, let me thank you for your post.

I did present very clear proof to back up my claims. Let me go through this again: In verses 3-12 when Paul is using the "us/we" pronouns he mentions three distinct characteristics of those he was speaking about (the referent as you call it). It is the 'REFERENT" that we disagree about in verses 3-12, correct?

Here are the three distinct characteristc that describe the "us/we" referent in verse 3-12:
1) Chosen or elected before the foundation of the world (vs. 4, 11)
3) Made know to the mystery of His will (vs 9)
2) Predestined to be adopted as sons; according to his unchanging plan (vs. 5, 11)

None of these are linked to the "you" referent in verses 13 and following. In fact, in chapter 3 as I have pointed out Paul refers back to his comment concerning the "mysteries that are revealed" in verse 9 as being unique to the prophets and apostles. Not only that but he also links back to "election/predestination" with a statement about "the dispensation of grace" (vs 3:2) and his unique "effectual calling" in 3:7. Let's look at this passage closely Pastor:
Eph. 3:2-7
"Surely you have heard about the administration (dispensation, KJV) of God's grace that was given to me for you."

There is obviously something unique about the way in which Grace was "given" (literally "dispensed" or "stewarded") to Paul! Hmmm what ever could he mean? It continues:

"that is, the mystery made know to me by revelation as I have already written briefly (verses 1:9). In reading this, then, you will be able to understand my insight into the mystery of Christ, which was NOT made known to men in other generations as it has now been revealed by the Spirit to God's holy APOSTLES and prophets...[he describes the mystery in verse 6]

Verse 7:
"Whereof I was made a minister, according to the gift of the grace of God given unto me by the EFFECTUAL WORKING OF HIS POWER."

Verse 7 presents Paul as being uniquely and Effectual called. Unique to whom? The same REFERENT who have been given the mystery uniquely is the same REFERENT who has been uniquely called.

Was everyone given the mystery? No. Only the Apostles and the Prophets. FACT -- no one disputes this correct?

Was everyone "dispensated" or "given" grace in the same manner that Paul speaks of in Eph. 3:2? No. Other wise why would he draw attention to its uniqueness?

Was everyone "called" as Paul was? No. He sets his calling apart as being "effectual" and "by the working of His power." This is in the same context in which Paul is attempting to show Apostolic authority by refering to the "unique dispensation of grace" and the "unique revelation of mysteries." To assume his effectual call isn't also unique would be appling very poor hermenuetics to this passage.

Was everyone "elected/predestined" as were the apostles? You be the judge, the REFERENT in Eph. 1:9 must be only the apostles. That is a fact proven by Eph 3:3-5. Am I right?

To adopt the Calvinistic assumption you must believe that Paul's REFERENT (us/we) changes from meaning "all the saints" in verse 3 and 4 to meaning "only the aposles" in verse 9, back to meaning "all the saint" in verse 11.

Come on, Pastor Larry, I don't know many Calvinists who are willing to do that kind of "funky moe joe" on the scripture. Are you?

I am very fimilar with all of these commentators, but they are just that "common tators." Meaning they could be wrong. I would like to hear the "obvious objections" of the interpretation I have just provided you.

Thanks for the post, I have a great respect for you Pastor Larry. You have alway been above reproach in you postings (that I know of) and I do appeciate the example you set as our moderator.

God Bless,
Bro. Bill

 

Dallas, I do look forward to your comments on my interpretations of Eph. 1.

Now, to your arguement. No one here, that I'm aware of, believes that God hasn't always had infinite knowledge of His works, as this verse obviously teaches. So, I'm not sure what you're presuming my beliefs to be that would contradict this divine truth.

You go on to say that my view "removes the Sovereignty of God" at my will. No, you stated that incorrectly.

My view allows God to act Sovereingly or permissively, according to his will.

Your view forces God to act Sovereingly in everything thus placing all activities both divine and human; both sinful and holy in the lap of the one who MUST "sovereingly decree" all things.

God has always limited His Sovereign acts to particular times and places throughout human history while leaving the world under the rule of darkness the rest of the time.

Yes, I would agree that all happenings must be PERMITTED or ALLOWED by God, thus maintaining His Sovereignty as we see in the life of Job. But this in no way necessaties that God "divinely decrees" all things that happen on this earth.

I deny the assertion that God's infinite knowledge of all things necessitates his "causing" or being "responsible" for all things. If I'm not mistaken, I don't believe even Calvin makes that assertion. Maybe, I've misunderstood your point.

With Respect,
Bro. Bill

 

Well, I don't expect anyone to abandon their beliefs so flipantly to agree with my seemingly "new" interpretation. It's probably not as "unique" as you think it is. I've just refrained from quoting scholars and historical texts because they are falliable sources that can easily muddle the focus on the scripture, which is infalliable.

One who has a firm grasp of theological history (I'm not trying to imply you don't) would recognize my assumptions as being quite founded throughout Christian history.

I don't deny that Paul has a measure of faith. I may have in earlier post put too much emphasis on the fact that the apostles weren't "saved through faith" thus leading you and others to think that I don't believe they have any faith. So please let me clarify.

We are saved "through faith" in the gospel as it was presented to us by the written word of the apostles. The apostles were saved through the unique "predestinating/electing" and "effectual calling" of God. In which the "mysteries" of the gospel were revealed to them. The apostles must in a sense have "faith" that these things will happen as it was revealed to them. Why? Because they can't see it yet, but they must believe it to be true. That "faith" however rests upon an undeniably unique revelation from God himself.

As to the Apostle's salvation, it was through a much more "secure" means than the mere "faith" of man. Why? God's plan of redemption rested upon their lips and hands. He wasn't going to leave that to mere knowledge and assent of the truth, as is faith.

Both of these verses refer to a hope of "righteousness" which is to come. This is what I was refering to before. Paul was revealed the truth that one day he along with the other saints would be made completely righteous in the redemption of their bodies; which has not yet come to pass in Paul's life. Therefore, it is a hope that has not yet been realized as spoken of in (Rom 8:23-25). Therefore, Paul as "faith" that it will be as it was revealed to him uniquely by God.

I'd be careful using scriptures analogies of "the book of life" as support texts for Calvinism because Rev. 3:5 seems to imply that ones name could be erased from that book of life and Rev. 20:12 seems to indicate that one is placed in the book based upon their good deeds. I recognize the symbolism of these passages in Revelation can seem contradictory, so it's definitely not something you want to rest to much weight on. Plus the debate is, how does the name get in the book in the first place?

Are people's name added as they place their faith in God? Or as their deeds prove their faith to be true?
Is everyone's name written the the book before the world began as an act of His divine foreknowledge of the future or His unchanging Sovereign decrees? Whose names are written before the foundation of the world and whose are added or blotted out at later times?

None of these questions are clearly answered in the pages of scripture, so our search for truth must continue elsewhere.

Thanks for your post.

With Respect,
Bro. Bill

 

Well stated, Yelsew

I'm impressed by your application of hermeneutical principles:
1. Knowing the topic being discussed,
2. The historical context in which the verse was written,
3. The scriptural context of the verse itself in relation to the texts before and after.

Very few people from both sides do that well. Thanks.

Nevertheless, there is little doubt that God does have an infinite knowledge of all his own works and the works and deeds of all people, despite your correct application of this particular verse. The point, IMHO, is moot because it says nothing of God's Sovereign decrees in regard to our salvation.

With Respect,
Bro. Bill