Slogan/motto:
He is no fool who gives up that which he can not keep for that which he can not lose.
Reputation:
November 28th, 2006, 05:59 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Delmar
Free will is only free if you could have done otherwise!
You do have the choice to do whatever you want, but God knows what you will choose, and He has ordered things to ultimately bring about His will. Simple as. Libertine free-will is once again the problem here. You hold Scripture captive to your a priori insistence on libertine free will, you need to let go of that and hold yourself captive to the teachings of Scripture.
Psalm 96:2 Sing to the LORD, bless His name;
Proclaim good tidings of His salvation from day to day.
Psalm 148:13 Let them praise the name of the LORD,
For His name alone is exalted;
His glory is above earth and heaven.
“For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast.
R.C. Sproul says on page 119 in his book “chosen by God”, that the faith by which we are saved is a gift from God.
Exegesis
So what was Paul referring to when He said “it is the gift of God?” what was the “it” he was talking about? What is the gift of God?
To the woman of Samaria our Master said," If you knew the gift of God, and who it is who says to you, Give me a drink; you would have asked him, and he would have given you living water" (John 4:10). Some say "The gift is the living water." Others think it is the gift of the Holy Spirit. In John 7:37 Jesus stood and cried out to all on at the last day of the feast saying “If anyone thirsts, let him come to Me and drink.” In John 4:14 He said “but whoever drinks of the water that I shall give him will never thirst. But the water that I shall give him will become in him a fountain of water springing up into everlasting life.”
Now it’s obvious that all who haven’t drank of the water that Jesus gives are thirsty. So Jesus offers this living water to all who are lost, and thirsty. How true is that old hymn that goes “Jesus loves the little children, all the children of the world. Red and yellow black and white, they are precious in His sight, Jesus loves the little children of the world” and He loves them enough to save every one of them as well.
Romans 6:23 “For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.” Here we see that the gift of God is eternal life. So, we can conclude that the living water, the Holy Spirit, and eternal life all comes and is part of what comes with for those that come to Christ on this side of the Resurrection. Finally, we can conclude that the gift of God Paul wrote in Ephesians 2:8 is salvation. The gift of salvation, by grace is the gift.
Even John Calvin said in Calvin’s commentaries volume 11 pg 145 of this text that “he (Paul) does not mean that faith is the gift of God, but that salvation is given to us by God, or, that we obtain it by the gift of God. A.T. Robertson noted: “grace is God’s part, faith is ours” In addition, it is very clear from the Greek that Paul was not referring to faith as a gift from. For the “that” is neuter in form and cannot refer to “faith” (pistis), which is feminine. Salvation by grace is the ends and faith is the means to apprehend the ends. As a result of what we have discovered other Scriptures saying concerning this specific passage, it is safe to say that Paul was say that “it is by grace you have been saved, through faith-and this [salvation is] not from/of yourselves, [this salvation] is the gift if God. Jonah 2:9 says “salvation is of the Lord.
John 10:26 “But you do not believe, because you are not of My sheep.”
When examining this verse, it must be noted that their unbelief did not derive from some eternal, irrevocable decree of God. This is evident (if one takes of their reformed glasses) from the fact that to the same men Jesus appealed, “believe the (My) works, that you mayk know and believe that the Father is in Me, and I in Him."
To take this further concerning this verse, David Kirkwood "says, that many make the error of trying to derive an order in the process of salvation from a verse that is metaphorical and merely meant to be descriptive. I mean, if a shepherd says about certain sheep that are grazing among his own flock, “These ones are not white, because they are not of my sheep,” does that prove that the wool of his sheep was black before he obtained them, and then became white after they became his sheep? Is the shepherd declaring that the sole reason that his sheep have white wool is because they are his sheep? No, the only real conclusion one can draw from such a statement is that the shepherd only has sheep with white wool in his flock. Likewise, Jesus was simply describing His true sheep among the bigger “flock.” His sheep believe. Those who are not of His flock don’t believe. He was not establishing an order in the process of salvation.
I wonder why people don’t quote the two verses that follow John 10:26 in order to be certain his interpretation fits the context. There we continue reading, “My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me; and I give eternal life to them, and they shall never perish; and no one shall snatch them out of My hand” (John 10:27-28).
Here Jesus continues to describe His relationship with His sheep. He mentions things that they do and things that He does for them. Not only do they believe in Him, but they also hear his voice (because they are near and attentive), and they follow Him (because they have obediently submitted to Him). True Christians believe in, listen to, and obey Jesus. Jesus, like any good shepherd, knows which sheep are His. He gives them eternal life, promises that they won’t perish, and also guarantees that they won’t be stolen. Clearly we see this is a two-sided relationship, both sides having responsibility.
How would we fare if we used this same means of interpreting John 10:26 to interpret Jesus' words regarding a just-converted prostitute, recorded in Luke 7:47?:
“For this reason I say to you, her sins, which are many, have been forgiven, for [because] she loved much; but he who is forgiven little, loves little."
Was Jesus teaching that the reason this prositute's many sins were forgiven was because she first, prior to being forgiven, "loved much"? Or was Jesus simply describing people who have been forgiven much, identifying them as being people who love God much? The answer is obvious. Thus we should be extremely careful in deriving an order of the process of salvation from John 10:26, grasping for a cause and effect relationship in a statement that was only meant to describe true believers. With this being said, the interpretation that reformed teachers give has nothing to due with the context, or Jesus’ intent to His hearers. The only way to come up with such a view is to isolate this text from the context and quote it by itself."
Slogan/motto:
In a world with so many ready to hear, why waste words on the willfully deaf?
Reputation:
November 28th, 2006, 09:30 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Knight
Both.
Well, I think at this point Machaira has done a pretty decent job of explaining Calvinism, so I'll respond with my personal opinion.
Which is: I don't know.
I've been studying this on and off for a while, and at this point I don't really have a strong dogmatic opinion. I say that not to imply that the question is unimportant, but rather because at this point I remain unconvinced by what I've read whether about Calvinism, Arminianism, or the various of versions of Open Theism.
I think one of the biggest problems I have is that when I read someone from one point of view arguing against the other, they tend to always argue against a weird, caricatured version that no one (or almost no one) actually believes in, and when engaged in discussion they seem to talk past each other almost as if each were speaking a different language.
"When the lights go out all over the world, when history seems headed only into a dead end and total disaster, God brings forth light. He changes the direction of history and regenerates men and redirects events and institutions to fulfill His purposes."
Well, I think at this point Machaira has done a pretty decent job of explaining Calvinism, so I'll respond with my personal opinion.
Which is: I don't know.
I've been studying this on and off for a while, and at this point I don't really have a strong dogmatic opinion. I say that not to imply that the question is unimportant, but rather because at this point I remain unconvinced by what I've read whether about Calvinism, Arminianism, or the various of versions of Open Theism.
I think one of the biggest problems I have is that when I read someone from one point of view arguing against the other, they tend to always argue against a weird, caricatured version that no one (or almost no one) actually believes in, and when engaged in discussion they seem to talk past each other almost as if each were speaking a different language.
If you want to read a brilliant defense of the Open View take some time and read Battle Royale X.
As it has already been said, this is a blatant strawman argument. As for your points 1 & 2, the Scriptures make it abundantly clear that the regenerate bear the fruit of faith unto salvation and the unregenerate bear the fruit of sin unto death. Your examples are backward and bear no resemblance to Bbilical teaching or Calvinism for that matter.
If God Ordained and Predestined our actions as Calvinist heritically claim then we would not be responsible for our actions. The only way we can be held accountable for our actions is if we chose to commit them which sir means free will. I must make the choice of faith in Jesus. I can just the same Choose not to believe in Jesus that sir is free will. I can choose to follow the Bible... or I can choose to follow the Koran.. that is free will... according to Calvinism.. it is just stupid. Preordaining or predestining.. would hold us all blameless.. you can pontificate all you want and try to rationalize your beliefs but and true study of holy scripture will show, that yes God does intervene on occasion but generally speaking mankind follows it own free will.. that is the fleshyness of man....
Some few thoughts are in order. First, a better understanding of Acts 2:23; 4:27-28 comes from Steve Gregg:
Acts 2:23 (ESV)
this Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men.
Acts 4:27-28 (ESV)
for truly in this city there were gathered together against your holy
servant Jesus, whom you anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along
with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, [28] to do whatever your hand
and your plan had predestined to take place.
These two passages can be treated as one, since they both affirm the same thing about the same event, namely, that the crimes committed against Jesus at His crucifixion conformed to God’s predetermined purposes. What we are not told is that God put it into the hearts of Christ’s enemies to do what they did. They had their own malicious reasons to want Jesus dead, and we are specifically told that the devil had some influence in the matter (Luke 22:3, 53).
That God did not choose to protect Jesus from these sinners means that the carrying out of their evil purposes was a certainty, and was part of God’s purpose. However, this was an event of unusual significance. Even if we were told that God had directly inspired these men to sin against Christ, we could not be sure that God does this same thing in less-important situations with every sinner’s choices.
If Mr. Gregg is saying that Calvinists teach that God always “directly inspires” people to fulfill His will and purpose, then he is in error. Joseph and the King of Assyria, among others, are examples to the contrary.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RayOfLight
Concerning Proverbs 16:1: The plans of the mind belong to man, but the answer of the tongue is from the LORD..9: A man's mind plans his way, but the LORD directs his steps...and 33 The lot is cast into the lap, but the decision is wholly from the LORD ...Steve also thinks "these verses indicate God's "ultimate control" over the events that He allows to occur. That is, even if man is the one who plans to do a certain thing, God has the final say as to whether that event will occur. Depending on how the man's own plans may fit in with God's master plan, He either permits or does not permit the plan to meet with success. God has any number of ways to foil any plan of man, if He wishes to do so. He foiled the plans of 40 men to assissinate Paul, and prevented many early attempts on Christ's life, when it was not His will for those plots to succeed. On the other hand, He permitted the final plot of Judas and the Sanhedrin to go through, since it conformed to His plans for Christ's crucifixion to occur at that time. The plots of the latter players were not spawned or ordained by God any more than were the plots of the former, failed efforts. "The plans of the mind belong to man...a man's mind plans his way." But ultimate sovereignty belongs to God, and it is ultimately He who controls the outcome.
This is contrary to the Calvinist's view of meticulous providence. Their view has God even ordaining what the man will think and choose. Thus, with meticulous providence, "The plans of the mind belong to the Lord" as well as the outcome. This is denied in these verses, and in the rest of scripture as well. Only on special occasions of divine judgment is God known to interfere with the free processes of choice in an individual (e.g., in hardening Pharaoh's heart). This was not done to Pharaoh early in his life, but well after he had chosen a course for himself of deliberate evil, and God's special intervention, preventing him from being able to repent, was an aspect of God's judgment upon him for these former free choices. Even the fact that God had to intervene, hardening his heart, in order to prevent Pharaoh from repenting, suggests that the innate power to choose to repent resided in Pharaoh previous to this intervention, and Pharaoh would have been free to repent at any point had not God stepped in with these unusual measures.
The conclusion drawn in the first part of the second paragraph is also a misrepresentation of Calvinism. I’ve posted on this particular point many times already. I will however refer you to my previous comment in this post.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RayOfLight
As for the lot cast into the lap, I don't think this is intended as an affirmation of meticulous providence so much as a guarantee that when the casting of lots as a means of divine guidance was appropriate (e.g., in apportioning land to the various tribes of Israel), that God would see to it that the lots would fall so as to assure the outcome He desired. The apostles counted on this principle, for example, in seeking God's mind about a replacement for Judas (Acts 1). This needn't mean that God dictates every toss of the dice in a casino (though, even if He did, it would not necessarily follow that God similarly dictated who would believe and who would not). God has the right and the power to control every event in which He chooses to intervene, but there is no affirmation here that He chooses to micro-manage every human decision."
Respectfully, I would have to say that the conclusion drawn here is baseless as the Proverbs 16 texts in question are left in a very broad and general sense without anything to limit or qualify their scope. It’s going way beyond what is explicitly stated to surmise that those texts only apply to special cases.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RayOfLight
Second, If it is true, that God, from all eternity, did indeed, by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass, then the sovereignty and freedom of God is actually removed! Dennis Bratcher says "In this case, God is bound to His own predetermined will and does not have the freedom to act in relation to human circumstances. If God is locked in to His own predetermined will, and that will is irrevocable, then God is not free." He argues that "this is an aspect that most predestinationists have not really addressed. In this sense, God was actually only sovereign at the moment he issued the decrees and decided on a predetermined plan, because now he is bound by that decision no matter what other circumstances might exist. Of course, if the system is logically coherent, it could easily be countered that God does not need any further freedom since he already knew all of the outcomes anyway because of his decrees. But that is precisely the point. This reduces the sovereignty to a single instant rather than being a characteristic of God."
This is pure philosophical speculation and amounts to nothing more than a mind game.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RayOfLight
Concerning God's "decrees", Steve Gregg also says "I find no scriptural warrant to postulate the existence of any such "decrees" as those of which Calvinism speaks. A "decree" is technically a command or a mandate. There are many commands (or decrees) of God in scripture (e.g., the ten commandments can rightly be numbered among the decrees of God), but you will search the scriptures in vain for any mandate (or decree) that any man should sin.
First of all, Mr. Gregg’s “technical” definition of the word ‘decree’ lends no proof to his denial. What Mr. Gregg needs to do is find out what the word ‘decree’ entails within Reformed systematics. Secondly, the idea that God decrees sin is a hyper-calvinist doctrine that finds no agreement in any of the major Reformed/Calvinistic confessions of faith.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RayOfLight
In fact, in the matter of Christians sinning, we are clearly told that God always provides a way of escape (1 Cor.10:13), if we would choose it, so as never to make our sinning inevitable or necessary. If we sin (which we sometimes do), we are doing something that could have been avoided. Why would God go to the trouble of providing a means of escape, in a case where He had sovereignly decreed that we must succumb to the temptation?"
That’s right. Sin is not inevitable for the regenerate, (see Romans 6, 7 & 8).
Jud 1:3 Beloved, although I was very eager to write to you about our common salvation, I found it necessary to write appealing to you to contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints.
Second, If it is true, that God, from all eternity, did indeed, by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass, then the sovereignty and freedom of God is actually removed! Dennis Bratcher says "In this case, God is bound to His own predetermined will and does not have the freedom to act in relation to human circumstances. If God is locked in to His own predetermined will, and that will is irrevocable, then God is not free." He argues that "this is an aspect that most predestinationists have not really addressed. In this sense, God was actually only sovereign at the moment he issued the decrees and decided on a predetermined plan, because now he is bound by that decision no matter what other circumstances might exist. Of course, if the system is logically coherent, it could easily be countered that God does not need any further freedom since he already knew all of the outcomes anyway because of his decrees. But that is precisely the point. This reduces the sovereignty to a single instant rather than being a characteristic of God."
Quote:
This is pure philosophical speculation and amounts to nothing more than a mind game.
I'd say that God's eternal decrees are pure speculation if not philosophical ones at that.
I'd say that God's eternal decrees are pure speculation if not philosophical ones at that.
I'd say that you would have to ignore a lot Scripture to come to that conclusion. I'll give you one of the best and most explicit examples. No doubt you'll attempt to twist this into a pretzel. This should be interesting to say the least.
Eph 1:11 In him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will . . .
Jud 1:3 Beloved, although I was very eager to write to you about our common salvation, I found it necessary to write appealing to you to contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints.
I'd say that you would have to ignore a lot Scripture to come to that conclusion. I'll give you one of the best and most explicit examples. No doubt you'll attempt to twist this into a pretzel. This should be interesting to say the least.
Oh yeah? Which Scriptures? I'd say ift is true that whatsoever comes to pass is God's Sovereign Will, as stated in the WCF, then there are many Scriptures that are counterintuitive. For example, "My Spirit shall not always strive with man" declared God in the days of Noah (Gen 6:3). Concerning this passage, Robert Shank says "If the men of Noah's generation were foreordained to damnation, as Calvinism teaches, in what sense did the Spirit strive with them, since they were fulfilling their foreordained role in refusing the testimony of Noah? If no man, either elect or reprobate, can resist the will of God, against whom or what is the Spirit striving when He "strives with man"? If there is in man no faculty of decision which God takes into account, any striving of the Spirit that fails to bring man to submission proves God incapable of performance. Any "striving" not intended to bring man to submission would be a farce and prove God hopelessly insincere. If decision rests with God alone, any striving at all is totally phony and superfuous." I could gather more instances and examples if necessary.
And now for Eph. 1:11.
Several things are worth noting: First, the main thrust of this verse (and the following) is to affirm that "we who first hoped in Christ" have been destined and appointed to live for the praise of his glory." This says nothing (directly) about how we came to hope in Christ; it affirms only that it is we who hope in Christ who have been destined to live for his glory. Second, this verse not only affirms that God accomplishes all things according to the counsel of his will, this verse gives us an instance of God accomplishing things in accordance with his will, namely, his predestination that those who hope in Christ shall live for his glory. Third, I have been using the RSV which says God accomplishes all things according to the counsel of his will." The Greek word translated, "accomplished," is energeo, which probably should be translated "works" or "operates." God's accomplishing all things in accordance with his will does sound deterministic, but God's working all things (or working in all things) in accordance with his will does not.
Whether God's operating all things in accordance with his will entails divine determinism of all event depends upon whether it is God's will that his creatures have indeterministic freedom. If he wills that they do, then when he operates all things in accordance with his will, he will do so in such a way as to respect the freedom of his creatures. The following objection can be raised. How does God's predestination of those who hope in Christ to live for his glory respect their freedom? The answer is that on the Open Theism view those who hope in Christ have freely responded to God's prevenient grace and have formed the resolution to live for Christ's glory. In determining that they shall do so, God confirms their free choice; he helps them do what they (by aid of his grace) have freely chosen to do.
Larry Lacy
Rhodes College
I concur with what Larry Lacy has said on this passage and would recommend that those interested in this text see The New Chosen People: A Corporate View of Election, by William Klein (Zondervan, 1990). Klein studies every biblical text on election, concluding that it is "in Christ" that God has taken a people unto himself. According to corporate election what God elects is a course of action and certain conditions by which people will be counted as "in Christ." It is the group--the body of Christ--which is foreordained from the foundation of the world rather than God selecting specific individuals for salvation . Corporate election is more in line with the Hebraic understanding of corporate solidarity: we are one in Christ. The reader may also wish to check out Grant Osborne's "Exegetical Notes on Calvinist Texts, " in Grace Unlimited, edited by Clark Pinnock.
I would like to make some comments on election and God's freedom. God created in freedom. God elected to work with Abraham in freedom. In freedom God elected Isaac over Ishmael, Jacob over Esau and the Israelites over the other nations. In these cases divine election comes first but election must be understood as resulting from the divine love for the sake of relationship. Consequently, a conditional element enters the scene: will the people accept the divine election and be faithful to it? Election is for the sake of service in order to accomplish the divine plan for all creation. God has elected a people in Jesus who are to be the bearers of a new era: Jews and Gentiles in one body, a redeemed people who will love God, one another and work to accomplish the divine enterprise for all creation.
Some may criticize open theism for seeing a conditional element in election. But actually, this is nothing new since the early church fathers, the Eastern Orthodox church, Wesleyans, and Arminians have all affirmed conditional election. For these believers, God knew through foreknowledge which individuals would exercise saving faith and thus God elected them based upon his knowledge of their free choice.
John Sanders
Huntington College
Eph. 1:11. God does "work out" everything according to his purpose, but this doesn't mean that everything happens according to his purpose. Whatever happens -- and much of it in this warzone is contrary to his will -- God will "work it out" according to his plan.
Greg Boyd
Bethel College
I don't think these are attempts to twist this verse into a pretzel, or anything from that matter. In fact, lets look at this Scripture again. In him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will . . . (Eph 1:11).
Me myself, I think that a few questions need to be considered to grasp Paul's intent.
are in order.
1) What is the purpose of Him?
2) What is the Counsel of Him?
3) What is His will mentioned mentioned here?
As for question number 1, Lets look at Ephesians 3 for an answer.
Eph. 3:1 For this reason I, Paul, a prisoner for Christ Jesus on behalf of you Gentiles-- 2 assuming that you have heard of the stewardship of God's grace that was given to me for you, 3 how the mystery was made known to me by revelation, as I have written briefly. 4 When you read this, you can perceive my insight into the mystery of Christ, 5 which was not made known to the sons of men in other generations as it has now been revealed to his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit. 6 This mystery is that the Gentiles are fellow heirs, members of the same body, and partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel. 7 Of this gospel I was made a minister according to the gift of God's grace, which was given me by the working of his power. 8 To me, though I am the very least of all the saints, this grace was given, to preach to the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ, 9 and to bring to light for everyone what is the plan of the mystery hidden for ages in God who created all things, 10 so that through the church the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known to the rulers and authorities in the heavenly places. 11 This was according to the eternal purpose that he has realized in Christ Jesus our Lord, 12 in whom we have boldness and access with confidence through our faith in him.
The purpose of Him, is His eternal purpose, and this has been realized in Christ. So His eternal purpose is not realized in Adam, nor for anyone in Adam. Only In Christ is this realized. This sets the course for the next two questions. (which I have yet to discover an answer that bears witness to and with my spirit) But I do sense that this is a different direction than the Calvinist chooses to take.
No doubt you'll attempt to twist this into a pretzel. This should be interesting to say the least.
Eph 1:11 In him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will . . .
Quote:
Originally Posted by RayOfLight
Oh yeah? Which Scriptures? I'd say ift is true that whatsoever comes to pass is God's Sovereign Will, as stated in the WCF, then there are many Scriptures that are counterintuitive. For example, "My Spirit shall not always strive with man" declared God in the days of Noah (Gen 6:3). Concerning this passage, Robert Shank says "If the men of Noah's generation were foreordained to damnation, as Calvinism teaches, in what sense did the Spirit strive with them, since they were fulfilling their foreordained role in refusing the testimony of Noah? If no man, either elect or reprobate, can resist the will of God, against whom or what is the Spirit striving when He "strives with man"? If there is in man no faculty of decision which God takes into account, any striving of the Spirit that fails to bring man to submission proves God incapable of performance. Any "striving" not intended to bring man to submission would be a farce and prove God hopelessly insincere. If decision rests with God alone, any striving at all is totally phony and superfuous." I could gather more instances and examples if necessary.
And now for Eph. 1:11.
Several things are worth noting: First, the main thrust of this verse (and the following) is to affirm that "we who first hoped in Christ" have been destined and appointed to live for the praise of his glory." This says nothing (directly) about how we came to hope in Christ; it affirms only that it is we who hope in Christ who have been destined to live for his glory. Second, this verse not only affirms that God accomplishes all things according to the counsel of his will, this verse gives us an instance of God accomplishing things in accordance with his will, namely, his predestination that those who hope in Christ shall live for his glory. Third, I have been using the RSV which says God accomplishes all things according to the counsel of his will." The Greek word translated, "accomplished," is energeo, which probably should be translated "works" or "operates." God's accomplishing all things in accordance with his will does sound deterministic, but God's working all things (or working in all things) in accordance with his will does not.
Whether God's operating all things in accordance with his will entails divine determinism of all event depends upon whether it is God's will that his creatures have indeterministic freedom. If he wills that they do, then when he operates all things in accordance with his will, he will do so in such a way as to respect the freedom of his creatures. The following objection can be raised. How does God's predestination of those who hope in Christ to live for his glory respect their freedom? The answer is that on the Open Theism view those who hope in Christ have freely responded to God's prevenient grace and have formed the resolution to live for Christ's glory. In determining that they shall do so, God confirms their free choice; he helps them do what they (by aid of his grace) have freely chosen to do.
Larry Lacy
Rhodes College
I concur with what Larry Lacy has said on this passage and would recommend that those interested in this text see The New Chosen People: A Corporate View of Election, by William Klein (Zondervan, 1990). Klein studies every biblical text on election, concluding that it is "in Christ" that God has taken a people unto himself. According to corporate election what God elects is a course of action and certain conditions by which people will be counted as "in Christ." It is the group--the body of Christ--which is foreordained from the foundation of the world rather than God selecting specific individuals for salvation . Corporate election is more in line with the Hebraic understanding of corporate solidarity: we are one in Christ. The reader may also wish to check out Grant Osborne's "Exegetical Notes on Calvinist Texts, " in Grace Unlimited, edited by Clark Pinnock.
I would like to make some comments on election and God's freedom. God created in freedom. God elected to work with Abraham in freedom. In freedom God elected Isaac over Ishmael, Jacob over Esau and the Israelites over the other nations. In these cases divine election comes first but election must be understood as resulting from the divine love for the sake of relationship. Consequently, a conditional element enters the scene: will the people accept the divine election and be faithful to it? Election is for the sake of service in order to accomplish the divine plan for all creation. God has elected a people in Jesus who are to be the bearers of a new era: Jews and Gentiles in one body, a redeemed people who will love God, one another and work to accomplish the divine enterprise for all creation.
Some may criticize open theism for seeing a conditional element in election. But actually, this is nothing new since the early church fathers, the Eastern Orthodox church, Wesleyans, and Arminians have all affirmed conditional election. For these believers, God knew through foreknowledge which individuals would exercise saving faith and thus God elected them based upon his knowledge of their free choice.
John Sanders
Huntington College
Eph. 1:11. God does "work out" everything according to his purpose, but this doesn't mean that everything happens according to his purpose. Whatever happens -- and much of it in this warzone is contrary to his will -- God will "work it out" according to his plan.
Greg Boyd
Bethel College
I don't think these are attempts to twist this verse into a pretzel, or anything from that matter. In fact, lets look at this Scripture again. In him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will . . . (Eph 1:11).
Me myself, I think that a few questions need to be considered to grasp Paul's intent.
are in order.
1) What is the purpose of Him?
2) What is the Counsel of Him?
3) What is His will mentioned mentioned here?
As for question number 1, Lets look at Ephesians 3 for an answer.
Eph. 3:1 For this reason I, Paul, a prisoner for Christ Jesus on behalf of you Gentiles-- 2 assuming that you have heard of the stewardship of God's grace that was given to me for you, 3 how the mystery was made known to me by revelation, as I have written briefly. 4 When you read this, you can perceive my insight into the mystery of Christ, 5 which was not made known to the sons of men in other generations as it has now been revealed to his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit. 6 This mystery is that the Gentiles are fellow heirs, members of the same body, and partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel. 7 Of this gospel I was made a minister according to the gift of God's grace, which was given me by the working of his power. 8 To me, though I am the very least of all the saints, this grace was given, to preach to the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ, 9 and to bring to light for everyone what is the plan of the mystery hidden for ages in God who created all things, 10 so that through the church the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known to the rulers and authorities in the heavenly places. 11 This was according to the eternal purpose that he has realized in Christ Jesus our Lord, 12 in whom we have boldness and access with confidence through our faith in him.
The purpose of Him, is His eternal purpose, and this has been realized in Christ. So His eternal purpose is not realized in Adam, nor for anyone in Adam. Only In Christ is this realized. This sets the course for the next two questions. (which I have yet to discover an answer that bears witness to and with my spirit) But I do sense that this is a different direction than the Calvinist chooses to take.
Well . . . you certainly didn't disappoint me. Unfortunately, your elaborate excuse does nothing to change the fact that God, "works all things according to the counsel of his will . . ." Eph. 1:11.
Jud 1:3 Beloved, although I was very eager to write to you about our common salvation, I found it necessary to write appealing to you to contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints.
Well . . . you certainly didn't disappoint me. Unfortunately, your elaborate excuse does nothing to change the fact that God, "works all things according to the counsel of his will . . ." Eph. 1:11.
Well...you disappointed me, in your sorry excuse for a response that consists of a mere two sentences. Very Telling, as if it's true because you insist it is, type reasoning. Please do try to juggle my "Today 06:45 PM" post which appears to show a different view of God's providence, and poses problems with the all things ordained view, and suggests a possibly that Eph. 1:11 need not be taken that way.
Linear Mode
