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

[Frogman]

Yelsew,

First of all from some of your other posts you don't even believe scripture if it contradicts what you already think to be right.

Next, you have only succeeded in proving that you believe God knows all His works ( those of His Son Jesus), and that of the Jewish nation in rejecting His Son, but He (God) is powerless in knowing whether any of the Gentile nations will choose to 'turn' to him or not. This is not consistent.

God knows the ending from the beginning. He knows all His elect in all of time.

Bro. Dallas

 

[Brutus]

Yelsew;sounds to me as if you're embracing open theism?

 

[sturgman]

So Bro Bill, if I get you right, then you are saying that your viewpoint, and the viewpoints of calvinist, are equally proveable and not proveable. Pending on what assumptions you bring to the text. Am I right?

It is kind of a pre-millinialist, post-millinialist arguement. Both sides could be proven in scripture, pending on your view of God. And we will see when it happens. Is that what you are saying?

 

[William C]

Originally posted by sturgman:
So Bro Bill, if I get you right, then you are saying that your viewpoint, and the viewpoints of calvinist, are equally proveable and not proveable. Pending on what assumptions you bring to the text. Am I right?

It is kind of a pre-millinialist, post-millinialist arguement. Both sides could be proven in scripture, pending on your view of God. And we will see when it happens. Is that what you are saying?

I guess you could say that. But, obviously it's a little more than that. I believe texts like Eph. 1 support my view more clearly than Calvinisms view, for the reasons I've presented already. (Which, I'll point out, have yet to be refuted on this board)

I know many Calvinist who may not have ever been persuaded to adopt Calvinism had they seen this interpretation laid out for them as a viable alternative when they were first presented with these doctrines.

I've personally have sat down with numerous young men (and a couple of women) in my church who were introduced to this Calvinist resurgance that we have seen in the last decade through men like Sproul, MacArthur, Packer and Piper. I've read all of these men's books and many other more historical works grappling with these issue myself, but not one of them, that I'm aware of, has handled this rendering of the text.

I ran across a few, like the ones Pastor Larry mentioned, that speak toward the "we/us" versus "you" pronouns, but they do not, to my rememberance (correct me if I'm wrong Pastor) handle the points that I mention concerning chapter 3 in regard to chapter 1, which as you can see is essential to understand the author's intent in this passage. (If one of you could point me to someone who does specifically handle my arguments in Eph. 1, I would be most appreciative.)

Anyway, every single person that I have sat down with and showed this interpretaton walks away relieved that they don't have to submit to the "Calvinistic" system. Believers, in my experience, don't like Calvinism when they are first confronted with it. Some of you can attest to that---if your honest. I've read numerous Calvinists who speak about how they came to these so called "truths" begrudgingly but were persuaded by the "clear" teachings of scripture.

Now, as you well know, Calvinist use that to support themselves by arguing that the bible is full of paradoxes, and the gospel is "foolishness" to those who are perishing (1 Cor.1), etc. So, we should expect our belief of the gospel to be paradoxal and "foolish", the Calvinist contends.

I disagree. Yes, it is "foolishness" that God die for mankind to those who don't believe it to be true, but no where does it say that believers will find the gospel "foolish" or confusing for that matter. Questions flood the believers mind when confronted with the possiblity of Calvinism, most of these questions are unanswerable ones, others lead to conclusions about God that I don't believe the scripture ever affords.

No where does the Bible tell us to accept the paradox that seemingly leaves God responsible for Sovereingly decreeing both good and evil. Yes, He uses both to accomplish his will for His glory, no doubt, but this is an act of His permissive will not his Sovereign decrees, which is a clear distinction in scripture.

And I don't mean "evil" as in merely suffering from the everyday enviromental hurts, ie weather, disease, "acts of God". I'm speaking of those things that violate the character of God, those things that Christ died for. God's hand's are completely clean of responsiblity for sin, yet the Calvinistic system when taken to its logical conclusion still leaves Him holding the bag, explaining it away by saying, It's a paradox. I don't think so.

So, Sturgman, I say all of that to say: Yes, it can be argued both ways (though I have yet to read an argument against my Eph 1 interpretation of the text). But, if you were deciding between premill or postmill and one of the two systems created a paradox causing years of devisivness among believers because it's logical conclusions suggest that God apparently pretends to say one thing but mean another and sends people to eternal torment without ever having a hope of salvation. And the other system, which was at least equally as supported by the text, didn't create these paradoxes, and gave explaination to these hard to interpret passages without causing apparent contradictions with the "geniune" call of the gospel to all mankind that's seen throughout the scripture.

Which of the two systems would you choose?

Honestly, if Eph. 1 and Romans 8-9 weren't in our Bible, would this board even exist? Maybe. But I really doubt it. And I've shot down Eph. 1 without refutation so far. I've only got one more to go.

With Respect,
Bro. Bill

 

[sturgman]

I think that your Eph 1 arguement is not getting refuted because it COULD be grammatically interpreted both ways. I still think you are wrong, but I said it before, if you are going to hold to an arminian doctrine and still hold to the scriptures, that is about the only way you couldmanage it. I do not see that you have given specific proof of particular election. If it doesn't tell us that, and then the only way you can get to that belief is to assume that it is true. It all comes down to our assumptions.

My belief in a calvinistic doctrine was not the result of Eph 1, but over many scriptures. And of course I didn't like it when I first heard it, but then again, when I thought that I was so good, how could I like the scriptures speaking of my depravity like that. It is like the rebellion of Korah. They didn't like the fact that Moses and Aaron were the only ones who could approach God, so they formed a little opposition. God of course had the earth swallow them up, and they were never heard from again. I think it is a very dangerous thing to not believe something just because we don't like were it takes us.

My point is that, you believe what you do of the scriptures because of the assumptions you bring to it about God. I still don't see how you can account for Romans 9, and Collosians, where he says in verve 12 of chapter 3, "So as those who have been chosen of God, holy and beloved...". These verses clearly state to me that they were chosen by God, and not only the apostles. Therefore when I approach Ephesians 1, I approach it with a calvinistic doctrinal approach. It is natural, and I believe right. If I know something to be true of the character of God, I trust it will be consistant through out the scriptures. Just because I do not like it does not make it wrong.

I will not refute Ephesians 1 with you, and it is not because I am writing you off. It is because it could be grammatically interpreted both way, pending on the assumptions you bring too it. You have even said it yourself, that some commentaries say that it modifys grace, ad some say it modifys faith, and some say both (salvation). So we have to look at other parts of scripture to see what is consistant with God, and then go back to Ephesians 1. Let scripture inerpret scripture.

I hope I am clear when writing this. I feel you last post was some what arrogant, when it comes to the fact that no one refuted Eph 1, but I think it a moot point, because, your view will not be changed not becuase it cannot grammatically be supported, but because of the assumptions you bring to the text. Likewise, my view will not be changed because of the same reasons.

You have given me a new arguement to think about, and for that I am pleased. I never want it said of me that I cannot go toe to toe about my theology. That is a sign of someone who isn't trying.

I believe it was Spurgeon that stated that there will be a sign in heaven that says "Come all who want to be saved" and when you get through to the other side it will say "all that the father has given me, the elect" I don't say this to get neutral, but just to say that I believe there will be arminians and calvinist that make it to heaven, and at that point all "assumptions" will be gone forever. In the mean time, neither does a gross mispractice of the gospel of Christ. I have never seen someone say, "Well I want to become a Christian, but God won't let me." Calvinism NEVER kept anyone from rejecting the gospel, and arminianism didn't either. I know, because I was an arminian for years. (till God showed me better

)

 

[William C]

Originally posted by sturgman:
I think that your Eph 1 arguement is not getting refuted because it COULD be grammatically interpreted both ways. I still think you are wrong, but I said it before, if you are going to hold to an arminian doctrine and still hold to the scriptures, that is about the only way you couldmanage it. I do not see that you have given specific proof of particular election. If it doesn't tell us that, and then the only way you can get to that belief is to assume that it is true. It all comes down to our assumptions....I will not refute Ephesians 1 with you, and it is not because I am writing you off. It is because it could be grammatically interpreted both way, pending on the assumptions you bring too it. You have even said it yourself, that some commentaries say that it modifys grace, ad some say it modifys faith, and some say both (salvation). So we have to look at other parts of scripture to see what is consistant with God, and then go back to Ephesians 1. Let scripture inerpret scripture.

Your right we do both bring assumptions to Eph.1, but consider what my interpretation above has proven:

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 saints" in verse 11. And then ultimatly ignore the fact that his pronouns changes from "we" to "you" in verse 13 and following. That is the ONLY possible way the Calvinistic assumption could be supported in this text (grammatically or not).

Sturgman, are you saying that your willing to apply that kind of hemeneutic to a text simply because it supports your ASSUMPTIONS?

You should know that I'm not going to let you off the hook that easy. This passage is not a merely grammatical difference as my post above in response to Pastor Larry clearly shows.

I must press you all to show me how this passage could possibly support the Calvinistic assumptions without the application of very poor hermeneutics?

My belief in a calvinistic doctrine was not the result of Eph 1, but over many scriptures.

Of course, I realize that and I wasn't try to say the whole debate rests on Eph. 1. But, as I think you will see, my assumptions are not only supported here, but throughout the scripture as well.

And of course I didn't like it when I first heard it, but then again, when I thought that I was so good, how could I like the scriptures speaking of my depravity like that.... I think it is a very dangerous thing to not believe something just because we don't like were it takes us.

My sinfulness in not lessoned by my assumptions as you seem to assert here. I'm still just as depraved as when I was a Calvinist, the difference is I don't take "total depravity" to mean "total inability for all expect the elect." As you can read in my post on the "Redemption" topic a man's conscience is defiled, not dead.

My point is that, you believe what you do of the scriptures because of the assumptions you bring to it about God. I still don't see how you can account for Romans 9, and Collosians, where he says in verve 12 of chapter 3, "So as those who have been chosen of God, holy and beloved...". These verses clearly state to me that they were chosen by God, and not only the apostles.

Your first line of this quote is exactly correct! We all believe what we believe based upon the assumptions we bring to the text. Which is why you see Romans 9 and Colossians 3 in the light that you do.

I'll handle Romans 9 at a later time, but as for Colossians 3:12 I would refer you to my answers to the two Thess. passages presented by Dallas and Mike, because a lot of the same information applies here.

Sturgman, you have to understand the issues Paul was dealing with in his time. God had 'CHOSEN' or 'ELECTED' to allow the Gentiles to enter convenant with Him. That is a huge deal everyone, especially Paul for he is the "Apostle to the Gentiles." Israel was always seen as the "chosen seed" or the "elect ones" but now both Jews and Gentiles are "chosen" to gain access into a Covenant with the God who loves the world, no longer just the Jews as they once believed. Keep that in mind as you read the scripture and I think verses like this will seem less about "personal election of individual souls from before the foundation of the world" to "the election" of God to include the Gentiles in his plan of redemption.

Remember Calvinism and Arminianism was never an issue Paul specifically addresses. He is addressing the the ingrafting or inclusion of the Gentiles, by God's Sovereign decree or choice. I hope that clarifies those passages in light of my assumptions.

Therefore when I approach Ephesians 1, I approach it with a calvinistic doctrinal approach. It is natural, and I believe right.

I challenge you to stop approaching scripture with the "calvinistic doctrinal approach" because it may be wrong and you won't be able to tell unless you are willing to look at the text from another perspective. Instead approach the scripture with objectiveness and without any "doctrinal approach," then and only then will you be able to apply good hermenuetics to the text.

If I know something to be true of the character of God, I trust it will be consistant through out the scriptures. Just because I do not like it does not make it wrong.

The fact that you, a believer, don't "like" what Calvinism says about God should make you at least question it's validity, don't you think. I don't see how you can believe that the Scripture presents the character of God as being one who decieves men by presenting a "geniune call" to all, while not actually giving all the ability to respond to that call. God's "character" is better than that.

I hope I am clear when writing this. I feel you last post was some what arrogant, when it comes to the fact that no one refuted Eph 1, but I think it a moot point, because, your view will not be changed not becuase it cannot grammatically be supported, but because of the assumptions you bring to the text. Likewise, my view will not be changed because of the same reasons.

I'm sorry if I came across arrogant, that is not my intent. Honestly, I'm trying to provoke response because unless one is pressed on these issues they will avoid them, at least that has been my experience.

Once again, Sturgman, let me remind you that the text as it stands now supports my assumption, even without the grammatical arguments of Eph. 2. The bulk of my support comes from Eph. 1 in light of Eph. 3, which has not been dealt with by anyone, yet. That's all I'm trying to say.

You have given me a new arguement to think about, and for that I am pleased. I never want it said of me that I cannot go toe to toe about my theology. That is a sign of someone who isn't trying.

And I respect you for that!

In the mean time, neither does a gross mispractice of the gospel of Christ. I have never seen someone say, "Well I want to become a Christian, but God won't let me." Calvinism NEVER kept anyone from rejecting the gospel, and arminianism didn't either. I know, because I was an arminian for years

At the risk of offending you, I humbly disagree. Look at our history. Calvinism (assuming it's wrong) has been the fault line through Christianity since Augustine stamped his approval on it. The devisivness, bitterness, anger, and overall confusion that I believe Calvinism has presented to Christendom has only weakened our work for the sake of the gospel. By causing in fighting within our own ranks the armies of darkness keep us at bay. That's the danger any false teaching affords. (Of course, I'm speaking with the assumption that I'm right and Calvinism is wrong, so this would be true in the reverse light as well, which is why all of us must be so careful to hold a pure and undefiled doctrine.)

With Respect,
Bro. Bill

 

[sturgman]

Heard, but respectfully disagree with much of your last post. I approach the text as a calvinist, because as an arminian I approached the text and was proven wrong. To say that scripture could not convict me again in the same light would be incorrect. The whole of scripture shows God to be sovereign, not to make heaven a Phi Beta Kappa of good decision makers. I cannot see this position as acurate. Not with the scriptures as a whole.

I don't believe you need to invoke a responce to cause someone to believe. That is sensationalism, and anything formed from strictly emotion is just that. Not only the opposite that if people are just offended at you then they may shut you out all together. I believe some have already done that in this board.

I don't come with a calvist doctrinal approach to scripture for the sake of wearing tinted glasses. I do so because of who God reveals himself to be in scripture. He shows himself to be sovereign, and shows this world as a God centered world and not man centered. If I write memiors of my life you can be assured of 2 things, 1) they would bore everyone, and 2) they would show my character. If my character was shown to be generous, and that my main character trait, you are going to approach the problem text of my journal in light of the aspect that my character of generousity.

As far as the Collosians verse, I cannot see enough support to get to your assumptions. And Romans 9, is still left unaccounted for, as well as numerous others. That is not to say that I am sure you can account for your view in these verses, but is to say that you approach them solely with your assumptions in mind.

I will continue to look at the whole of scripture with this matter in mind, but I believe you are so confident because of your assumptions and not because of the proof of scriptures.

So whether you let me off the hook or not, you have not convinced me that these viewpoints are the correct interpretation of these scriptures. Yes, you could interpret these verses you have offered, but to get to your assumptions you have to seperate text, grammatically explain them each in a different light, then paste them back together. So don't worry about you keeping me on the hook, I will do that and I am sure the spirit will continue to convict me with scripture.

Lastly, calvinism and arminianism does not prevent the gospel from doing it's work. The church argies about everything from carpet to doctrine, yet the work of the gospel continues. Is God not in control of the end? And if the end is decided, how can the means not be? Let me say once again, that God is in control, and if there is one atom outside that control, I will crawl into bed and pull the covers over m head. Man, nor anything else can keep God from the results He desires. Not believing that God is sovereign in everything, including the salvation of man, produces many more questions that believing in it causes. And I cannot find scriptural support for anything but that.

 

[William C]

Originally posted by sturgman:
Heard, but respectfully disagree with much of your last post. I approach the text as a calvinist, because as an arminian I approached the text and was proven wrong. To say that scripture could not convict me again in the same light would be incorrect. The whole of scripture shows God to be sovereign, not to make heaven a Phi Beta Kappa of good decision makers. I cannot see this position as acurate. Not with the scriptures as a whole.

God still recieves the glory, eventhough we make the decision. If you say, "NO, that can't be, you take away God's Glory by claiming something from yourself."

No, God get's the glory for my choice, but he still left the choice to me. And I can always claim its a paradox just as you do. Your paradox says God chooses but man is responsible, My paradox says man chooses but God gets all the glory if he says yes. What's the difference? Your paradox leaves absolutly no room for man's response; therefore, no logical reason for His being responsible, thus leaving God holding the bag. If your honest about it, my paradox makes God look a lot better than your paradox does. He is free from responsiblity for those who don't choose him and yet he recieves the Glory for those who do. That's a paradox worth accepting.

He shows himself to be sovereign, and shows this world as a God centered world and not man centered. If I write memiors of my life you can be assured of 2 things, 1) they would bore everyone, and 2) they would show my character. If my character was shown to be generous, and that my main character trait, you are going to approach the problem text of my journal in light of the aspect that my character of generousity.

Stugman, you making an assumption that God's character must be the character that the Calvinistic system presents: "Sovereign and Self Centered"

Do you think that is the character that God presents in the scripture? "Sovereign and Self-Centered"

Wow. I don't see that when I read the pages of scripture at all. Jesus said, "When you've seen me you've seen the Father." Yet, Jesus, who is God, was not Self-Centered, he was a humble servant who gave up his life for us. How does that display God's character of "Self-Centeredness?" I realize that " to the praise of God's Glory" is the ultimate end, but God's motive of Love cannot be downplayed in his act of redemption, otherwise it decreases the praise of his glory within the hearts of those who fail to see the "kind intentions of His Will." God is Love. I know to a Calvinist that often seems like emotional, feely stuff, but love is the theme of the gospel. "Of faith, hope and love the most important of these is love." "God demonstrates his love in this, that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us." But not only for us, but for the sins of the world.

And your view of Sovereingty is highly debatable. Would a Sovereign God, by your defination of Sovereign, give the world over to darkness to rule? Sovereign can mean that he chooses to be permissive and that nothing happens without his approval, much like we see in Job's life. But it does not have to mean that God "controls" or "causes" everything as you seem to assume.

As far as the Collosians verse, I cannot see enough support to get to your assumptions. And Romans 9, is still left unaccounted for, as well as numerous others. That is not to say that I am sure you can account for your view in these verses, but is to say that you approach them solely with your assumptions in mind.

We can discuss these verse more fully after we have dealt with Eph. 1. You haven't answered my question concerning Eph. 1:9 in light of Eph. 3:3-5, which clearly teaches that the referent in both of these passage must be the Apostles, because they are the only ones (beside the Prophets) that have received the revelation of d

 

[William C]

Originally posted by sturgman:
Heard, but respectfully disagree with much of your last post. I approach the text as a calvinist, because as an arminian I approached the text and was proven wrong. To say that scripture could not convict me again in the same light would be incorrect. The whole of scripture shows God to be sovereign, not to make heaven a Phi Beta Kappa of good decision makers. I cannot see this position as acurate. Not with the scriptures as a whole.

God still recieves the glory, eventhough we make the decision. If you say, "NO, that can't be, you take away God's Glory by claiming something from yourself."

No, God get's the glory for my choice, but he still left the choice to me. And I can always claim its a paradox just as you do. Your paradox says God chooses but man is responsible, My paradox says man chooses but God gets all the glory if he says yes. What's the difference? Your paradox leaves absolutly no room for man's response; therefore, no logical reason for His being responsible, thus leaving God holding the bag. If your honest about it, my paradox makes God look a lot better than your paradox does. He is free from responsiblity for those who don't choose him and yet he recieves the Glory for those who do. That's a paradox worth accepting.

He shows himself to be sovereign, and shows this world as a God centered world and not man centered. If I write memiors of my life you can be assured of 2 things, 1) they would bore everyone, and 2) they would show my character. If my character was shown to be generous, and that my main character trait, you are going to approach the problem text of my journal in light of the aspect that my character of generousity.

Stugman, you making an assumption that God's character must be the character that the Calvinistic system presents: "Sovereign and Self Centered"

Do you think that is the character that God presents in the scripture? "Sovereign and Self-Centered"

Wow. I don't see that when I read the pages of scripture at all. Jesus said, "When you've seen me you've seen the Father." Yet, Jesus, who is God, was not Self-Centered, he was a humble servant who gave up his life for us. How does that display God's character of "Self-Centeredness?" I realize that " to the praise of God's Glory" is the ultimate end, but God's motive of Love cannot be downplayed in his act of redemption, otherwise it decreases the praise of his glory within the hearts of those who fail to see the "kind intentions of His Will." God is Love. I know to a Calvinist that often seems like emotional, feely stuff, but love is the theme of the gospel. "Of faith, hope and love the most important of these is love." "God demonstrates his love in this, that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us." But not only for us, but for the sins of the world.

And your view of Sovereingty is highly debatable. Would a Sovereign God, by your defination of Sovereign, give the world over to darkness to rule? Sovereign can mean that he chooses to be permissive and that nothing happens without his approval, much like we see in Job's life. But it does not have to mean that God "controls" or "causes" everything as you seem to assume.

As far as the Collosians verse, I cannot see enough support to get to your assumptions. And Romans 9, is still left unaccounted for, as well as numerous others. That is not to say that I am sure you can account for your view in these verses, but is to say that you approach them solely with your assumptions in mind.

We can discuss these verse more fully after we have dealt with Eph. 1. You haven't answered my question concerning Eph. 1:9 in light of Eph. 3:3-5, which clearly teaches that the referent in both of these passage must be the Apostles, because they are the only ones (beside the Prophets) that have received the revelation of divine "mysteries". In light of this, do you believe that the referent changes from meaning "all saints" in verses 3-4, to "the apostles only" in verse 9, then back to "all saints" in verse 11? Are you saying that you accept that method of interpretation for the support of your assumption?

I will continue to look at the whole of scripture with this matter in mind, but I believe you are so confident because of your assumptions and not because of the proof of scriptures.

In light of the responses, or lack thereof, concerning my very consistant and clear arguments in Ephesians it seems to me that it is the Calvinist's "confidence" in their "assumptions" that are not being proved in the scripture. I'm not being arrogant, I'm just stating it the way I see it. Look back through this post. What do you see?

1. Npetreley says my arguments don't merit a response and ridicules me and my beliefs without ever addressing any of my points.
2. Dallas, poked fun at me then named another verse for me to exegete. I did and I still await his response.
3. Mike quoted verse 1 pointing out that the saint were the receipents of this letter, which wasn't in dispute. He came back also quoting another verse, once again avoiding any of the arguments in Ephesians.
4. Rev. G and TomMann poke there heads in to take a jab still avoiding the Ephesians passage, I responded to there posts and have yet to hear any response.
5. Pastor Larry chimed in saying, "Notice how, in a thread about assumptions. you make a major one with no proof to back it up. I totally disagree with this." I responded pointing out to him once again that I did have proof of my arguments. I have still yet to hear back from him concerning my support.
6. You have been the only one who has even seemed to read my arguments and you have even confirmed that you could at least see where I got my assumptions. And you even said that if there was any way to be an Arminian and still hold to scripture that this would be the only way, thus confirming that this debate is at least worth consideration. Even still, you and I have discussed the "you" pronoun in chapter 2, but you have not addressed my arguments concerning 1:9 in light of 3:3-5.

So you can see why I might think that it is your assumption is the one that is not supported here. No one seems to be able to support it.

[quoteSo whether you let me off the hook or not, you have not convinced me that these viewpoints are the correct interpretation of these scriptures. [/QUOTE]
Why not? Why have I not convinced you. You must have a reason or an argument to support your assumption if your going to continue to hold to it in this text. What is it?

Yes, you could interpret these verses you have offered, but to get to your assumptions you have to seperate text, grammatically explain them each in a different light, then paste them back together.

I've proven, without refute so far, that you are the one who has to do the grammatical explaination of the change between "us/we" to "you." And that you, not me, have to explain verses 3, 4 and 11 differently than you do verse 9. As the argument stands right now, you are the one who is forced to "cut and paste" in order to support your assumptions. Please explain how you don't see it that way.

With Respect,
Bro. Bill

 

[Frogman]

2. Dallas, poked fun at me then named another verse for me to exegete. I did and I still await his response.

Ephesians 1:

"Paul and apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, to the saints which are at Ephesus, and to the faithful in Christ Jesus."

O.k. you say here Paul is speaking only to those who are believers in the first century, and that only this number is in view in this passage, even to "...and to the faithful in Christ Jesus." is limited to the audience Paul whose attention Paul had at Ephesus.

vs. 2: Grace be to you, and peace, from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ.

This is only speaking to those found enumerated in vs. 1 they are the "you" and so the recepients of the 'Grace and peace from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ.'

vs. 3: Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ:"

Again, speaking to those of vs. 1; shown true by the pronoun, "us" tho plural it is particular to first century saints; proof of this is added later, what is important is that we understand what is lost here in vs. 3 to all future believers and this is necessary to understand because the assumptions we have and our system of hermineutics will bind us to the interpretation that only a select few are elected, while all others are bound to choose from a sinful will. Nevertheless, what we find denied to future believers is the 'spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ' why, because this scripture is bound to its audience, 'who first trusted in Christ.' (vs. 12).

Lets move on to vs. 4: 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."

This scripture accomplishes two things; 1) it adds strength to and verifies our assumption of the loss of spiritual blessings at vs 3 because it only mentions "us" who again are the original audience to which Paul is speaking, thus it can only refer to these (see again vs. 12).

But vs. 4 does not stop there; it also delivers something to those in the future who may imagine they are born of God; namely because the vs does not mention them either directly, or indirectly, the vs. declares that all others are not necessarily required to 'be holy and without blame before him in love' if we were to imagine it does not do this, we must admit we are not in the immediate audience of the Ephesian congregation, thus we are not part of the "us."

Moving along to vs. 5 We again find "us" (or Paul's immediate audience) being predestinated to the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will.'

Again, this only states the original audience was predestinated to anything.

vs. 6 also is straightforward declaring all this to be accomplished 'to the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved' again the audience is believers of the 1st century as evidenced by Paul's usage of "us" thereby limited the scope of the scripture to that immediate audience being the only ones predestinated to the glory of his grace or even of having been made accepted in the beloved, thus any others are not to expect to find themselves predestinated, neither for the glory of the grace of God, nor of being made accepted in the beloved. This simply cannot happen because future believers cannot claim to be in the original audience.

Now we come to vs. 7:

"In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace;"

Here, also we must concede the intended audience most assuredly is referred to by "we" and these being those as described by the Word of God as "...we have redemption through his blood the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace."

Thus we find the course of our assumptions as such. We particularize everything to such a degree that "we" being among the latter group not found in the original audience of scripture, find that redemption through his blood the forgiveness of sins, is limited also by the designated audience denoted as "we"

But this verse does declare that the election of those particularized in vs. 12 enjoy this position 'according to the riches of his grace.'

This scenario produces one of two things:

1) Redemption in his blood the forgiveness of sins is meant only for Paul's immediate audience and there must be another way (apart from the propitiation of Christ) for anyone else.

or,

2) First part of #1; with no hope for that redemption for any other.

Even the assumptions of Calvinism do not deny the efficacy of the redemption in his blood; nor the scope of that efficacy throughout all ages. For Calvinism proclaims simply that the 'whosoever will' can be any number of whom God has chosen to effectually call and quicken through His Grace with faith in His Christ.

For this reason I will remain with the plain truth of Scripture.

God Bless.
Bro. Dallas

 

[William C]

Originally posted by Frogman:

Ephesians 1:

"Paul and apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, to the saints which are at Ephesus, and to the faithful in Christ Jesus."

O.k. you say here Paul is speaking only to those who are believers in the first century, and that only this number is in view in this passage, even to "...and to the faithful in Christ Jesus." is limited to the audience Paul whose attention Paul had at Ephesus.

No, I never said that he was only speaking to those who are believer in the first century. The audience of this letter is not in dispute. Its is the referent, or who is he refering to, that is in question. You can address an audience while refering to yourself and your friends by using the pronouns "we" and "us" without also meaning to include the audience. This is especially clear when the pronouns change from "you" in verse 2 and then back again to "we/us" in 3-12 and then to "you" again in verse 13. You never dealt with that change of pronouns in verse 13 or the use of the work "kai" (and, also).

Dallas, I was going to go through and address your points but I noticed that all your points would be correct IF verses 13 and following weren't there. In other words, if all we had was Eph. 1:1-12 without anything else you would have a valid argument. But you completely ignored the foundation for my conclusions which is based upon the context of this passage, thus avoiding to engage my arguments.

1. You never address the changing of pronouns in verse 13
2. You never address Eph. 1:9 which teaches that "us/we" recieved the divine mystries from God. If "us/we" is all the saints as you assume then Paul apparently contradicts himself in Eph. 3:3-5 when he clearly teaches the the "mystries" that he already mentioned were revealed only the the apostles. Did he change is mind?
3. You never address the argument of Eph. 3:2 which points to a unique "despensing" of grace to Paul
4. You never address the argument of Eph. 3:7 which points once again to his UNIQUE effectual calling in regard to his apostleship.

In other words, you haven't debated any of my points, you just ignored them appling an interpretation that is independant of any context whatsoever.

With all due respect, Dallas, what I'm I to do with this?

Please address my points of contention.

With respect,
Bro. Bill

 

[Frogman]

Bro. Bill,
if you notice, following your assumption, I can't get beyond vs. 7; so vs. 13 cannot surely apply to any furtherance of your arguement, if my interest in the redemption in Christ is ended with vs. 7, I have no reason to search farther.

God Bless.
Bro. Dallas

 

[William C]

Originally posted by Frogman:
Bro. Bill,
if you notice, following your assumption, I can't get beyond vs. 7; so vs. 13 cannot surely apply to any furtherance of your arguement, if my interest in the redemption in Christ is ended with vs. 7, I have no reason to search farther.

Dallas, Dallas, Dallas.

I don't assume that some of these characteristic mentioned about the apostles in verses 3-12 absolutely can't apply to all believers. In verse 13 Paul says the "you" have "trusted" like us and "you" have believed and have received the guarentee of the Holy Spirit just like the apostles. There are some definite comparisons between the apostles and saints, I don't dispute that point.

Let me try it this way. This is what we are certain of from THIS 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?

Keep in mind that Paul was a "saint" too, but what made him unique as apostle was his "election/predestination/mystries revealed."

So, you still haven't addressed my arguments.

With Respect,
Bro. Bill

 

[sturgman]

Bro Bill, I still state that Eph 1 is a moot point. You never addressed this. It doesn't say that if Paul is spekaing only of the apostles that that makes them elect and not everyone else. If we say for arguements sake, that you are right, how does this prove your arguement that all saints are not elect? I don't see that it does. And you have not proven that.

This may be a problematic text, but you approach problematic text with non-problematic text. I heard a mentor say to me once, that you don't interpret a mountain by the mole hill, you always interpret the mole hill in relation to the mountain. You are (at this point) basing your whole arguement on the pronouns in one text, and it only (in your view, if it were correct) proves that he is speaking of the Apostolic authority of scripture. It does not prove that only the apostles were elect, and without that proof it is foolish to believe that we were saved differently than any other saint. It is like I said before, you cannot prove that we are not elect. We can prove that at least some saints are elect, and if there is never stated any difference in scripture, we must assume that we are saved the same way.

Lastly, the verse in Phillipians 3:9-11, you said that this refers to sanctification. That it was God who elected Paul, but here it would lead us to believe that what Paul started out not having to have faith for justification, now he must have faith for sanctification, and for glorification. And how much more, "we" who must also have faith for justification. How can we glory in the upcoming glorification? For what if I didn't mean it? Does God not judge the motive? How can we glory in heaven this side of heaven? See your viewpoint opens more questions then you think it answers.

You want us to focus on one text. As a minister of the gospel, I cannot focus on only one text. And in this case, if I did, it would not prove your point that only the apostles are elect. It just doesn't say that. If that is your arguement, then explain to us that only the apostles are elect and no other believer, using only that text.

With respect,
sturgman

 

[William C]

Originally posted by sturgman:
Bro Bill, I still state that Eph 1 is a moot point. You never addressed this. It doesn't say that if Paul is spekaing only of the apostles that that makes them elect and not everyone else. If we say for arguements sake, that you are right, how does this prove your arguement that all saints are not elect? I don't see that it does. And you have not proven that.

Remember Sturgman that I prefaced the beginning of my arguments by presenting each of our assumptions. We both agreed that neither of our assumptions can necessarily be proven, but they can most definitly be supported through scripture.

If, for arguments sake, I'm right about Ephesians 1, then I have provided support for my assumption, not proof. (That's not possible, as we have stated.) But I've taken away one passage that supports the Calvinistic assumption, which is that everyone who believes is predestined, and I have shown that it accutually supports my assumption, which is that only the apostles were predestined. I hope that shows the significance of this particular point.

This may be a problematic text, but you approach problematic text with non-problematic text. I heard a mentor say to me once, that you don't interpret a mountain by the mole hill, you always interpret the mole hill in relation to the mountain.

I understand your point. Trust me, I do. And I agree that scripture must interpret scripture. But again, when you bring your assumptions to any scripture, it seems right to you. Which is why each text must be viewed objectively.

I realize there are other Calvinistic support texts out there, I'm not blind to that. But, don't take the fact that I haven't dealt with everyone of them as a proof that I'm not using scripture to interpret scripture. It takes time, as you can see, to handle each of these texts in turn. So, bare with me as we wade through it all.

You are (at this point) basing your whole arguement on the pronouns in one text, and it only (in your view, if it were correct) proves that he is speaking of the Apostolic authority of scripture. It does not prove that only the apostles were elect, and without that proof it is foolish to believe that we were saved differently than any other saint. It is like I said before, you cannot prove that we are not elect. We can prove that at least some saints are elect, and if there is never stated any difference in scripture, we must assume that we are saved the same way.

Point heard. But there a many reason's why people wouldn't assume that we are saved through the same means as the apostles. 1. Their unique role in salvific history. 2. Their divine appointing as authorative apostles. 3. Their unique salvation experiences. (not just Paul, any of the apostles--a man walks up and says follow me so you drop your life and follow him, that's divine) 4. Their unique powers given by God. 5. Their divinly inspired words.

You spoke about "the means" by which salvation comes the other day. You have to admit the means by which the apostles were appointed are unique. In this regard the Calvinist must make an assumption upon another assumption. You all assume that all saints are "sovereignly elected" so you also must assume that God sovereingly controls the means by which everyone is saved, as you have stated. Well if you take away both of those assumptions and look at salvation actually being a choice that man makes, you can see why it was necessary for God to not only elect the apostles but also elect the means by which they were saved. He had to Sovereignly elect them to guarantee that His will was carried out, this doesn't apply to the rest of humanity in the same way that it would have applied to the prophets and the apostles.

In considering these things you've also got to keep in mind the problem that those two assumptions create for God. It creates the paradox of God presenting a "geniune call for all the world" but only really sovereignly decreeing the means for the elect, thus making God out to be a liar. That should be enough to make you examine your assumptions a little more closely. It also makes God ulimately responsible for sending people to hell who eternal torment without supply any means for their salvation, all the while saying that they do have a means. That's deceptive, and God wouldn't go against his character.

Do you see my point.

As to your point concerning Phil. I'm sorry but your going to have to explain your argument. I'm not sure I understand what you're saying.

I've stated that Paul does have faith, in that he must believe that what has been revealed to him is truly going to come to pass. But, He was not required, as we are, to believe in Christ by faith. Faith deals with the unseen. Paul saw Jesus, as did the other apostles. Like I've stated before, Thomas did not believe by faith but because of sight. There is a difference, no matter how much you want to downplay that difference you must reconize that it is different. The "means" of salvation are different for those who personally saw Christ. Faith is still in play because they had to believe that he was going to do what he promised, but faith in his being the Son of God was proven to them by divine revelation from Christ himself. I hope that makes since.

With Respect,
Bro. Bill

 

[TomMann]

Originally posted by Brother Bill:

4. Rev. G and TomMann poke there heads in to take a jab still avoiding the Ephesians passage, I responded to there posts and have yet to hear any response.


With Respect,
Bro. Bill

Bro. Bill,

Here be your responce. I'm an ole retired navyman who lived a life my mother wouldn't approve of. Which is just to say.... that since Jesus came to save sinners..... I qualify.

I believe in the simplicity of the Gospel. Don't think it takes a rocket scientist to understand. Don't need priests or a pope to give me the proper understanding. God designed it that way. And I, to borrow from the proverbs, believe that every word of God is pure. If God said, "I form the light, and create darkness", then He formed the light and He created darkness. If God said He hardened hearts, then He did and will. If He said He is the author and finisher of my faith..... amen, and so be it, I had no part in it. If God said that who he foreknew he predestinated, called.... etc... then that satisfies me. You can "proper hemeneutic" til the cows come home, and argue your we/us vs. you.... and still the Word of God stands pure and true and simple. Those ordained to eternal life believe. All that are given come, all that come are kept.... and no man comes unless given.... I don't find need for assumptions when I have the Word of God.

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by TomMann:
I believe in the simplicity of the Gospel. Don't think it takes a rocket scientist to understand. Don't need priests or a pope to give me the proper understanding. God designed it that way. And I, to borrow from the proverbs, believe that every word of God is pure. If God said, "I form the light, and create darkness", then He formed the light and He created darkness. If God said He hardened hearts, then He did and will. If He said He is the author and finisher of my faith..... amen, and so be it, I had no part in it. If God said that who he foreknew he predestinated, called.... etc... then that satisfies me. You can "proper hemeneutic" til the cows come home, and argue your we/us vs. you.... and still the Word of God stands pure and true and simple. Those ordained to eternal life believe. All that are given come, all that come are kept.... and no man comes unless given.... I don't find need for assumptions when I have the Word of God.

Extremely well said! Amen, and thank you.

 

[sturgman]

Brother Bill you stated-
But I've taken away one passage that supports the Calvinistic assumption, which is that everyone who believes is predestined, and I have shown that it accutually supports my assumption, which is that only the apostles were predestined.

Let us take this apart, for I think this is a liguistic slight of hand.

First, you stated-
But I've taken away one passage that supports the Calvinistic assumption, which is that everyone who believes is predestined,

Ok, some calvinist use this as a proof text to their view. And if you are correct, you may have taken it away. (although I am not convinced that you are right)

But then you stated-
...and I have shown that it accutually supports my assumption, which is that only the apostles were predestined.

You have not done this. Look at it. You say we bring assumptions, but the way you prove it is that you bring your assumptions into it. let us read the text for what it really says. It does not say that all believers are elect. You are right. It does say that the apostles were elect, you are right. But it does not say that the rest of the believers are not elect and have free will. You are adding that to the text all because of your assumptions. The best you can say, if you are right, is that neither of us can use this text. You can't tell us not to put our assumptions in it, then put yours into it. That is not right. So leave your assumptions out when you read the text.

That is my point. You say that you have proven yourself right, and the text does not CLEARLY support you assumptions. Now since it supports neither CLEARLY, then let us move onto other text.

Does that makes sense?

 

[William C]

Sturgman,
I was very careful to point out to you that these assumption cannot be proven. Yours nor mine. Go back and read it again.

I said it supports my view, not proves my view.

However, if you keep Eph. 3:1-7 in mind we do know that the mysteries were for the apostles only and he goes on to point out his "effectual calling" in verse 7 within that same context. Therefore, it is not unreasonable to ASSUME that if Paul would make the effort to point out these unique traits of his apostleship that "election and predestination" would be included within the uniqueness of the apostlolic calling. Otherwise, why would he even mention them in regard to his apostleship, if they are not unique to apostles?

It just doesn't seem to make sense to mention the uniquness of something in order to validate your authority if the thing you mention isn't unique at all.

For example, if everyone was born of a virgin would that be something that the gospel writers would even mention as to Christ's uniqueness. Do I make my point clear?

With Respect,
Bro. Bill

 

[sturgman]

You stated-
Therefore, it is not unreasonable to ASSUME that if Paul would make the effort to point out these unique traits of his apostleship that "election and predestination" would be included within the uniqueness of the apostlolic calling.

The fact of the matter is that you do not know that that is his purpose there. It could be, but then again, he might just be stressing another point. This text could equally support a calvinistic view. it support your view because of the assumptions you bring to it. I conceed that this verse could support either view.

You stated-
Otherwise, why would he even mention them in regard to his apostleship, if they are not unique to apostles?

You say that this uniqueness that Paul is speaking of is their election, although the text does not say that this was the distinction. It says they are elect, but does not say the believers at Ephesus were not. Maybe there was another distiction that has nothing to do with salvation, but revelation. The text does not support you here either.

You stated-
It just doesn't seem to make sense to mention the uniquness of something in order to validate your authority if the thing you mention isn't unique at all.

Again, you are assuming that their authority is tied exclusively to their election, and scripture does not say that. Get your hand out of that cookie jar. It ain't your cookie to take.