Predestination and Foreknowledge

[Mark Corbett]

After quoting Ephesians 1:3-5 and commenting on it (which I respond to in Comment #140), you write:

In chapter two we read:

I do hope to get to chapter 2 of Ephesians soon. It is here that most what probably feel you make the strongest points. I don't intend to skip those. But first, before moving on to Ephesians 2, there is another verse in Ephesians 1 which is relevant to our discussion.

Reformed theology posits that regeneration occurs after hearing the gospel, but before believing the gospel. Unless the Calvinist attempts to claim that a person can be regenerated without also being sealed by the Holy Spirit (a very problematic claim), Ephesians 1:13 creates a serious problem for Reformed theology:

ESV Ephesians 1:13 In him you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit,

In order to see the relationship between hearing, believing, and being sealed more clearly, we need to examine the Greek grammar.

Ephesians 1:13 contains one indicative verb, which may be translated “you were sealed”. Ephesians 1:13 contains two aorist participles, which may be translated very simply “hearing” and “believing”. These are adverbial participles which modify the main verb, “you were sealed”. For good reason, although a participle in Greek is just one word, it is often translated by more than one word in English. Here I mark in blue various ways the participle is translated:

CSB Ephesians 1:13 When you heard the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and when you believed in Him, you were also sealed with the promised Holy Spirit.


ESV Ephesians 1:13 In him you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit,


NAS Ephesians 1:13 In Him, you also, after listening to the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation-- having also believed, you were sealed in Him with the Holy Spirit of promise,

How can we decide the exact nuance of these two important participles?

Well, there are a number of well-established possibilities for the meaning of adverbial participles. A helpful chart can be found here. (This chart was made by Corey Keating, but is based very closely on “Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics” by Daniel B. Wallace.)

Here are the basic options:

Temporal
Means
Manner
Condition
Purpose
Result
Cause
Concession

How do we decide? There are two major factors. The tense of the participles, which in this case are both aorist, is one factor. The most important factor is the context.

Purpose and Result almost never occur as aorist participles, so those are very unlikely (don’t take my word for it, see the chart).

The context rules out Concession, neither Reformed or non-Reformed would think Paul meant “even though you heard and believed the gospel, you were sealed with the Holy Spirit anyways”.

This leaves the following:

Temporal: when used with the aorist, this means that the action of the participle happened BEFORE the action of the verb it modifies. The NAS chooses this meaning when it translates “after listening”. Notice that the participle “believing” is identical in form and is parallel to “listening”. If the meaning is “after believing” this appears to be fatal to the Reformed view.

Means: This meaning is unlikely, but it would not help the reformed view to say that “believing” is the means by which a person is sealed by the Holy Spirit, since for them being sealed by the Holy Spirit must logically precede “believing”

Manner: This refers to the emotion or attitude with which the main verb is carried out, and does not fit the context.

Condition: This is even worse for Calvinism. It would mean that “believing” is a condition which must be met in order to be sealed, whereas Reformed theology teaches that a person must be sealed in order to believe.

Finally, “cause” is also problematic for the reformed view, since it would mean that “believing” is the cause of “being sealed”, whereas Reformed theology teaches the opposite.

I personally think the “temporal” meaning is most likely, although practically speaking there is very little difference between the “temporal” meaning and the “condition” meaning for these participles. I’m not the first to come to this conclusion. Commenting on Ephesians 1:13, Clinton Arnold, in his commentary on Ephesians, writes:

Paul indicates that the readers have “heard” (ἀκούσαντες) and “believed” (πιστεύσαντες) the word of truth, using two aorist participles dependent on the main verb “you were sealed” (1:13). These are best interpreted as temporal participles. (pg. 91, Ephesians)​

and, still discussing this same verse:

As with all Paul’s letters, faith/belief is a significant theme in Ephesians. Here it is portrayed as the response to the gospel that leads to the sealing with the Spirit. (pg. 92, Ephesians)​

If I was Reformed, I suppose I might attempt to argue that a person is regenerated before belief, but sealed after belief. But this creates a new problem. It creates a situation where a person has been born again but is not sealed by the Holy Spirit. Does that make sense? Not to me.

 

[BobRyan]

He foreknew certain people "those whom" BECAUSE they had been called "according to his purpose."
.

That is not proper sentence structure - I have no idea what you are saying. (those whom because) does not work

 

[Squire Robertsson]

Six Hour Warning
This thread will be closed sometime after 12 AM Pacific.

 

[TCassidy]

That is not proper sentence structure

It most certainly is!

Romans 8:28 Οἴδαμεν δὲ ὅτι τοῖς ἀγαπῶσι τὸν Θεὸν πάντα συνεργεῖ εἰς ἀγαθόν, τοῖς κατὰ πρόθεσιν κλητοῖς οὖσιν·
29 ὅτι οὓς προέγνω, καὶ προώρισε συμμόρφους τῆς εἰκόνος τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ, εἰς τὸ εἶναι αὐτὸν πρωτότοκον ἐν πολλοῖς ἀδελφοῖς·

 

[Squire Robertsson]

It's been said over the years that good Greek doesn't always make for good English.

It most certainly is!

 

[rsr]

If I was Reformed, I suppose I might attempt to argue that a person is regenerated before belief, but sealed after belief. But this creates a new problem. It creates a situation where a person has been born again but is not sealed by the Holy Spirit. Does that make sense? Not to me.

The ordo salutis is a logical sequence, not a temporal one. Thus some steps occur at the exact same moment.

 

[Mark Corbett]

Ephesians 2:1-2 1 And you were dead in your trespasses and sins, 2 in which you formerly walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, of the spirit that is now working in the sons of disobedience.

You interpret the above verse as follows:

Paul presents a condition. Sinners are spiritually dead. The word for dead in Ephesians 2:1 is the Greek work nekros. It means dead as in a corpse. Spiritually speaking, sinners, while alive phyiscally, are dead spiritually. They are incapable of any positive response towards God. Paul augments the Ephesians passage by what he wrote in Romans 8:

I was honestly intending to give a more careful reply to this tomorrow, but it appears the thread will be closed by then (following the normal and reasonable policy of closing threads after a time). So here is my quick reply:

The word "dead" in Ephesians 2:1 is used metaphorically (non-literally). We both agree that that the unsaved are not "dead" in the literal sense.

The phrase "spiritually dead" or "spiritual death" does not occur in the Bible, although what people mean by these phrases is possibly a metaphorical meaning for death in some verses.

But there are other metaphorical meanings for death. Prolepsis is a term for a type of metaphorical meaning where something is referred to as a present reality even though it is still in the future. If a football team is ahead at half-time by 45 points, someone might say "They've won" even though they haven't literally won yet. This type of figure of speech is often used when the future event is considered certain to occur unless something unexpected changes.

With regard to prolepsis, the clearest example in the Bible is probably found in the life of a king named Abimelech. The ESV provides a literal translation:

ESV Genesis 20:3 But God came to Abimelech in a dream by night and said to him, "Behold, you are a dead man because of the woman whom you have taken, for she is a man's wife."

The NIV translation makes it clear that this is an example of prolepsis:

NIV Genesis 20:3 But God came to Abimelek in a dream one night and said to him, "You are as good as dead because of the woman you have taken; she is a married woman."

It is possible that the word "dead" is used on Ephesians 2:1 in a similar fashion:

ESV Ephesians 2:1 And you were dead in the trespasses and sins

This could mean that you are certain to experience death because of your trespasses and sins, unless something intervenes (which, thank God, happens when we hear the gospel and believe and God then forgives our sins!).

This possible interpretation is supported by the reference to God's wrath in Ephesians 2:3:

ESV Ephesians 2:3 among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind.

However, it is also possible that in Ephesians 2:1, "dead" is used metaphorically to mean "unresponsive to God", like a dead body is unresponsive to the world around it. The dead person in this sense does not give God glory when they see a sunrise, they do not seek God's guidance when they make decisions, and they are non-responsive in many ways. This could support your view, but it need not.

It is always difficult to know how far to press an metaphor. For instance, both pastors and our Lord are metaphorically referred to as "shepherds". But in the case of a pastor and the members of the congregation he serves, it would be inaccurate to think that the pastor is as much wiser than his congregation as a shepherd is compared to sheep. But with regard to Jesus, this would not be an exaggeration.

The question is, "Are the dead in Ephesians 1 completely unable to respond to the gospel without irresistible grace?"

Ephesians 2 does not answer that question.

The "dead" in Ephesians 2 are clearly not equally dead as a corpse with respect to the gospel, because a corpse cannot even physically hear the gospel. Also, the unsaved are sometimes able to intellectually understand the truth propositions in the gospel, even if they don't believe them, which is something that a corpse cannot do.

I honestly do not know if Paul primarily meant that people are "as good as dead/doomed to die" in their sins, or if he meant they are "unresponsive to God" in their sins, but even if it is the second, this does not have to mean that they are so completely unresponsive that they cannot believe. And I'm not saying that we don't need God's help to believe. We do! I'm saying that I don't believe that help comes in the form of irresistible grace given only to people who are unconditionally elect.

Grace and Peace, Mark

 

[Mark Corbett]

ESV Ephesians 2:4 But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, 5 even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ-- by grace you have been saved-- 6 and raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, 7 so that in the coming ages he might show the immeasurable riches of his grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. 8 For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, 9 not a result of works, so that no one may boast.

Commenting on this beautiful, powerful passage, Reformed writes:

The key words in the above passage are "But God". We do not read anything about "But man". God first makes the sinner alive through regeneration. He illumines the heart of the sinner to his sin, and the hope of the gospel. In Reformed theology, this is called the effectual call. Once God calls a sinner that sinner always responds by repentance and faith; each and every time and without fail. It is not about God condemning all by not giving them a chance. It is about God saving some even though none deserve it.

I agree that God takes the initiative in salvation. But this passage does also mention man's role with the words "through faith". The following phrase "And this is not your doing; it is the gift of God" cannot refer to "faith" because in Greek faith is a feminine noun and this is neuter. "This" most likely refers to the whole concept of being saved by grace through faith. It is a plan from God, not something that we made up.

There are verses which strongly imply that Reformed theology has it backwards. Believing/faith does not depend on being saved, rather being saved depends on believing/faith:

NIV Romans 10:9 If you declare with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.

ESV Acts 16:31 And they said, "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household."

ESV John 3:16 "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.

 

[Reformed]

Thanks for reminding us of this.

I'm aware that Calvinist theology says Foreknowledge = Predetermination (election, predestination).

I do not agree with that interpretation. Here are a couple of reasons:

Firs, notice the logical chain of events given in Romans 8:29-30:

ESV Romans 8:29 For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. 30 And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified.

The chain of events (gracious, glorious, wonderful events) includes:

foreknew → predestined → called → justified → glorified

No one argues that
predestined = called
or
called = justified
or
justified = glorified
These are related, but separate, gracious actions of God.

So why should we think that
foreknew = predestined

It does not fit the pattern.

A second reason I do not believe foreknew = predestined is because the words simply do not mean the same thing. To foreknow is to know something ahead of time. Even as humans we have (very limited, imperfect) foreknowledge of some events. God's foreknowledge is perfect, and I believe most likely it is also unlimited. But it is not the same as predestining. To predestine something is to ensure ahead of time that something will happen.

Now, certainly God foreknows everything that He predestines. But it does NOT logically follow that He predestines everything that He foreknows. That's just basic logic.

The object of Romans 8:28 is "those who love God" = the Elect. The Elect are "called according to His purpose". κλητός ("called" in the NASB) means to summons. It is not an invitation that can be declined. That the Elect are called "according to His purpose" indicates that they are called unto something. Since it is God that is doing the calling; His calling, or summons, will accomplish its intended purpose.

In verse 29 The Elect are described as foreknown. In light of Ephesians 1:4 they were foreknown before the foundation of the world. Having been foreknown from all eternity, the Elect are purposed (predestined) to become conformed to the image of His Son.

In verse 30 we see a string of actions that have both present and future implications. The Elect are called in time. Having been foreknown and predestined, God brings about their eventual salvation, in time. Once called the Elect are subsequently justified (made righteous), and while not yet in their glorified state, their future glorification is so certain that is referred to as having been accomplished.

Conclusion? Your exegesis of Romans 8:29-30 falls flat.

 

[Reformed]

You quote Ephesians 1:3-5

Ephesians 1:3-5 3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ, 4 just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we would be holy and blameless before Him. In love 5 He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the kind intention of His will,

You then comment as follows:



I agree with everything you write here! And I praise God for these wonderful truths, as I’m sure you do.

The issue is not whether or not God chose the elect before the universe was created. The issue in this thread is whether that election was conditional or unconditional.

I would also point out that there is a third view, as I’m sure you know but some reading this thread might not know, called Corporate Election. Belief in Corporate Election can be harmonious with Conditional Election, but is not harmonious with the Reformed theology view of Unconditional Election (Some Arminians who hold to Corporate Election deny any individual election, but this is not necessary, as the two concepts can be easily harmonized). Corporate Election basically says that God chose Christ to be the source of Salvation, and whoever is “in Christ” is included. Corporate Election further posits that people are able to choose to be “in Christ” when they hear and believe the Truth, the Gospel of their salvation.

A common illustration for Corporate Election is that it works like a Gospel Ship. The Ship is Jesus. The Ship is heading for glory. You get on the ship by faith in Jesus. Everyone on the “Jesus Ship” is thus predestined for glory, their destination is glory.

I personally believe that some passages, like Ephesians 1:3-5 are at least in part referring to Corporate Election, although I also believe that individual, conditional election is also most likely true.

The reason a passage like Ephesians 1:3-5 works so well with Corporate Election is that it mentions being “in Christ” or an equivalent phrase quite often:

ESV Ephesians 1:3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places, 4 even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love 5 he predestined us for adoption to himself as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will, (Eph. 1:3 ESV)

Similar “in Christ” phrases continue all through Ephesians 1 and in fact are found frequently through Paul’s writings. Ephesians 1:11 is especially relevant:

NIV Ephesians 1:11 In him we were also chosen, having been predestined according to the plan of him who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will,

I have some more to say about Ephesians 1 before we get to Ephesians 2, but I don’t want to put too much in one comment.

FYI. I actually mentioned corporate election in post #85. I believe both the divine foreknowledge view, and the corporate election view, impugn God's omniscience and are unveiled manifestations of semi-Pelagianism (conditional election). Under semi-Pelagianism, man becomes the fulcrum upon which salvation pivots.

 

[Reformed]

You interpret the above verse as follows:



I was honestly intending to give a more careful reply to this tomorrow, but it appears the thread will be closed by then (following the normal and reasonable policy of closing threads after a time). So here is my quick reply:

The word "dead" in Ephesians 2:1 is used metaphorically (non-literally). We both agree that that the unsaved are not "dead" in the literal sense.

The phrase "spiritually dead" or "spiritual death" does not occur in the Bible, although what people mean by these phrases is possibly a metaphorical meaning for death in some verses.

But there are other metaphorical meanings for death. Prolepsis is a term for a type of metaphorical meaning where something is referred to as a present reality even though it is still in the future. If a football team is ahead at half-time by 45 points, someone might say "They've won" even though they haven't literally won yet. This type of figure of speech is often used when the future event is considered certain to occur unless something unexpected changes.

With regard to prolepsis, the clearest example in the Bible is probably found in the life of a king named Abimelech. The ESV provides a literal translation:

ESV Genesis 20:3 But God came to Abimelech in a dream by night and said to him, "Behold, you are a dead man because of the woman whom you have taken, for she is a man's wife."

The NIV translation makes it clear that this is an example of prolepsis:

NIV Genesis 20:3 But God came to Abimelek in a dream one night and said to him, "You are as good as dead because of the woman you have taken; she is a married woman."

It is possible that the word "dead" is used on Ephesians 2:1 in a similar fashion:

ESV Ephesians 2:1 And you were dead in the trespasses and sins

This could mean that you are certain to experience death because of your trespasses and sins, unless something intervenes (which, thank God, happens when we hear the gospel and believe and God then forgives our sins!).

This possible interpretation is supported by the reference to God's wrath in Ephesians 2:3:

ESV Ephesians 2:3 among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind.

However, it is also possible that in Ephesians 2:1, "dead" is used metaphorically to mean "unresponsive to God", like a dead body is unresponsive to the world around it. The dead person in this sense does not give God glory when they see a sunrise, they do not seek God's guidance when they make decisions, and they are non-responsive in many ways. This could support your view, but it need not.

It is always difficult to know how far to press an metaphor. For instance, both pastors and our Lord are metaphorically referred to as "shepherds". But in the case of a pastor and the members of the congregation he serves, it would be inaccurate to think that the pastor is as much wiser than his congregation as a shepherd is compared to sheep. But with regard to Jesus, this would not be an exaggeration.

The question is, "Are the dead in Ephesians 1 completely unable to respond to the gospel without irresistible grace?"

Ephesians 2 does not answer that question.

The "dead" in Ephesians 2 are clearly not equally dead as a corpse with respect to the gospel, because a corpse cannot even physically hear the gospel. Also, the unsaved are sometimes able to intellectually understand the truth propositions in the gospel, even if they don't believe them, which is something that a corpse cannot do.

I honestly do not know if Paul primarily meant that people are "as good as dead/doomed to die" in their sins, or if he meant they are "unresponsive to God" in their sins, but even if it is the second, this does not have to mean that they are so completely unresponsive that they cannot believe. And I'm not saying that we don't need God's help to believe. We do! I'm saying that I don't believe that help comes in the form of irresistible grace given only to people who are unconditionally elect.

Grace and Peace, Mark

Mark, I am sorry but you are performing exegetical gymnastics. Paul did not just stumble upon the word nekros. He knew full well what it meant. Verse 4 indicates as much. While dead spiritually, God took unilateral action to raise the sinner up. The sinner could not take action because he lacked the ability because he was spiritually dead. As to the term spiritually dead not being in scripture, that should not be a problem. Theologians on both sides of the aisle regularly use terminology to describe theological truths. The term hypostatic union and Trinity are not in the Bible, yet no one on either side disputes them.

P.S. Edited to fix typos.

 

[Mark Corbett]

With respect, I believe you are placing a construct on God that is not scriptural. It appears that you somehow believe God is obligated to be fair and equitable. Nowhere in scripture do you find such warrant. God acts after the counsel of His own will (Eph. 1:11).

You are correct to say that God is not obligated to us in any way. But He is fair and equitable. That is part of what the Bible means when it says:

ESV Revelation 19:2a for his judgments are true and just;

Doesn't it make you uneasy that in defending Reformed theology your argument implies that in some ways God might not be fair and equitable? This is one reason I bother to write about this whole topic. I'm sure it is not the intention of Calvinists to make God look bad, but some of Calvinist theology (unintentionally) does just that.

God does not have to pass the "good and loving" test.

I'm not testing God, I'm testing some of Reformed theologies views of God and how He works. If there was a "good and loving test", God would certainly pass it. But I don't see how Reformed theology passes the test of being consistent with the Bible's clear, repeated, wonderful teaching that God is good and God is love.

By the time the sinner confesses and believes (Romans 10:9-10), justification by faith has already taken place.

In English we have two different words "believe" and "have faith". But in Greek, usually these are the same word. So the sentence above is very confusing. You seem to be saying that the sinner already believes before they believe. You quote Romans 10:9-10:

ESV Romans 10:9 because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved.

The above passage does not support your claim that a sinner already is justified by faith before they believe. I don't even see anything close to that.

 

[Reformed]

After quoting Ephesians 1:3-5 and commenting on it (which I respond to in Comment #140), you write:



I do hope to get to chapter 2 of Ephesians soon. It is here that most what probably feel you make the strongest points. I don't intend to skip those. But first, before moving on to Ephesians 2, there is another verse in Ephesians 1 which is relevant to our discussion.

Reformed theology posits that regeneration occurs after hearing the gospel, but before believing the gospel. Unless the Calvinist attempts to claim that a person can be regenerated without also being sealed by the Holy Spirit (a very problematic claim), Ephesians 1:13 creates a serious problem for Reformed theology:

ESV Ephesians 1:13 In him you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit,

In order to see the relationship between hearing, believing, and being sealed more clearly, we need to examine the Greek grammar.

Ephesians 1:13 contains one indicative verb, which may be translated “you were sealed”. Ephesians 1:13 contains two aorist participles, which may be translated very simply “hearing” and “believing”. These are adverbial participles which modify the main verb, “you were sealed”. For good reason, although a participle in Greek is just one word, it is often translated by more than one word in English. Here I mark in blue various ways the participle is translated:

CSB Ephesians 1:13 When you heard the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and when you believed in Him, you were also sealed with the promised Holy Spirit.


ESV Ephesians 1:13 In him you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit,


NAS Ephesians 1:13 In Him, you also, after listening to the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation-- having also believed, you were sealed in Him with the Holy Spirit of promise,

How can we decide the exact nuance of these two important participles?

Well, there are a number of well-established possibilities for the meaning of adverbial participles. A helpful chart can be found here. (This chart was made by Corey Keating, but is based very closely on “Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics” by Daniel B. Wallace.)

Here are the basic options:

Temporal
Means
Manner
Condition
Purpose
Result
Cause
Concession

How do we decide? There are two major factors. The tense of the participles, which in this case are both aorist, is one factor. The most important factor is the context.

Purpose and Result almost never occur as aorist participles, so those are very unlikely (don’t take my word for it, see the chart).

The context rules out Concession, neither Reformed or non-Reformed would think Paul meant “even though you heard and believed the gospel, you were sealed with the Holy Spirit anyways”.

This leaves the following:

Temporal: when used with the aorist, this means that the action of the participle happened BEFORE the action of the verb it modifies. The NAS chooses this meaning when it translates “after listening”. Notice that the participle “believing” is identical in form and is parallel to “listening”. If the meaning is “after believing” this appears to be fatal to the Reformed view.

Means: This meaning is unlikely, but it would not help the reformed view to say that “believing” is the means by which a person is sealed by the Holy Spirit, since for them being sealed by the Holy Spirit must logically precede “believing”

Manner: This refers to the emotion or attitude with which the main verb is carried out, and does not fit the context.

Condition: This is even worse for Calvinism. It would mean that “believing” is a condition which must be met in order to be sealed, whereas Reformed theology teaches that a person must be sealed in order to believe.

Finally, “cause” is also problematic for the reformed view, since it would mean that “believing” is the cause of “being sealed”, whereas Reformed theology teaches the opposite.

I personally think the “temporal” meaning is most likely, although practically speaking there is very little difference between the “temporal” meaning and the “condition” meaning for these participles. I’m not the first to come to this conclusion. Commenting on Ephesians 1:13, Clinton Arnold, in his commentary on Ephesians, writes:

Paul indicates that the readers have “heard” (ἀκούσαντες) and “believed” (πιστεύσαντες) the word of truth, using two aorist participles dependent on the main verb “you were sealed” (1:13). These are best interpreted as temporal participles. (pg. 91, Ephesians)​

and, still discussing this same verse:

As with all Paul’s letters, faith/belief is a significant theme in Ephesians. Here it is portrayed as the response to the gospel that leads to the sealing with the Spirit. (pg. 92, Ephesians)​

If I was Reformed, I suppose I might attempt to argue that a person is regenerated before belief, but sealed after belief. But this creates a new problem. It creates a situation where a person has been born again but is not sealed by the Holy Spirit. Does that make sense? Not to me.

Because the thread is going to be closed soon, I cannot do your post justice. I will have to hit the most important part.

The Reformed Ordo Salutis goes as such:

1. Election and Predestination
2. The Atonement*
3. The Gospel Call
4. The Inward call
5. Regeneration
6. Conversion
7. Justification
8. Sanctification
9. Glorification

* The Atonement is both a part of the Ordo Salutis as well as an act accomplished by Christ.

Regeneration precedes faith and repentance (conversion). A person is not born again until faith and repentance, so your last paragraph displays a misunderstanding of the Reformed soteriological position.

I want to dispel a misunderstanding about the Reformed Ordo Salutis. While it does contain component parts, these parts are not chronological in a time sense. There are some who believe that a person can be regenerate for an undetermined time prior to conversion. I reject that notion. Once the Gospel call is made, conversion and justification occur instantly. The inward call and regeneration are used to describe the process by which a sinner is converted.Sanctification is an ongoing process by which we become more like Christ until our future glorification.

Mark, I am going to end my participation in this thread in light of it being closed in a few hours. I have no need to have the last word. Thank you for your time and God bless you.

 

[Mark Corbett]

The object of Romans 8:28 is "those who love God" = the Elect. The Elect are "called according to His purpose". κλητός ("called" in the NASB) means to summons. It is not an invitation that can be declined.

And yet Jesus said,

ESV Matthew 22:14 For many are called, but few are chosen."

The word for "called" in Matthew 22:14 is the SAME word used for "called" in Romans 8:28. According to our Lord, based on Matthew 22:14, the invitation can be declined.

 

[Mark Corbett]

Mark, I am going to end my participation in this thread in light of it being closed in a few hours. I have no need to have the last word. Thank you for your time and God bless you.

I also thank you for your time! And thank you for offering to let me have the "last word" (though others may still post, I intend to sign off after this). Here it is:

We disagree on some points of theology. But we have so much that we agree on.

God created everything.
Tragically, people have fallen into sin and we thus deserve His judgment.
God has graciously taken the initiative to save us.
We are saved by grace through faith in Jesus Christ, who died for our sins.
Having been saved, we rejoice in God's promises, including eternal life with Him.
We also humbly realize that God has called us to share the Good News of salvation with others near and far. This is a task which I am happy to do together with Christians who disagree with me on a number of secondary issues, including the issues discussed in this thread.

Grace and Peace, Mark (with Hope and Joy!)

 

[TCassidy]

Christ Himself made it perfectly clear for all who believe to see and understand.

John 11:43 When he had said this, he cried with a loud voice, “Lazarus, come out!”
44 He who was dead came out, bound hand and foot with wrappings, and his face was wrapped around with a cloth. Jesus said to them, “Free him, and let him go.”

Lazarus was dead. His ears were dead and could not hear. His brain was dead and could not understand. His legs were dead and could not move.

Jesus made Lazarus alive again. (Regeneration, with no input from Lazarus, who was dead).

After being made alive, Lazarus heard, obeyed, and walked out of the tomb.

It couldn't be clearer. Lazarus did NOTHING before he was regenerated by Christ. All that happened was the RESULT of his being regenerated, given life to hear, obey, and follow.

 

[Squire Robertsson]

This thread is closed.

Six Hour Warning
This thread will be closed sometime after 12 AM Pacific.