Ephesians and Pre-Destination

[Drew]

I intend to mount an argument that, contrary to a popularly held view, the "predestination" texts in Ephesians 1 do not apply to Christians generally, but rather only to a specific set of New Testament prophets and saints as identified per Eph 3:5:

“which in other generations was not made known to the sons of men, as it has now been revealed to His holy apostles and prophets in the Spiritâ€Â

This argument is largely inspired by material I have found at the following web address (I do not know the person's name).

http://www.angelfire.com/ab8/hobbes

In order to make this digestible and to not discourage the reader, I intend to present this argument in a series of posts. The post that you are reading is considered to be post 0.

To the extent that material in Ephesians justifies the claim that those who are thus mysteriously pre-destined (as per the famous predestination statement in 1:4-5) are in fact a special subset of people, the general applicability of the predestination text in chapter 1 is undercut.

So that is what I am trying to show – that Paul never intended the reader to think of a universal “us†as being pre-destined. Instead, a very specific set of persons have been pre-destined. I suspect that there are some, such as my good friend unred who may take issue with the notion that any are pre-destined. So be it....

 

[Drew]

POST 1 (in a series)

In this present post, I intend to demonstrate the mere plausibility of the following claim: Paul’s identification, in parts of chapters 2 and 3, of a well defined set of “prophets and apostles†serves to specifically determine who exactly is being pre-destined as per the material in Ephesians 1.

Please note that in verses 3-12 of chapter 1 Paul continuously refers to an “us†that has been the recipient of numerous blessings, including, I fully admit, a seemingly clear statement that this “us†has indeed been pre-destined to membership in the covenant family.

But, and this is key, a person that is coming to the text unbiased by previous commitments must concede that “us†need not necessarily refer to all people generally – it may refer to a very specific subset of Paul’ contemporaries. In this regard, I will assert that in 21st century evangelicalism we tend to implicitly assume that all Scriptural teaching is being delivered to all human beings “across the gulf of the centuries†as if writers such as Paul were not also sending specific messages to specific people in their own time and culture. Remembering that Ephesians was written to a real set of people 2000 years ago helps us realize that Paul might indeed not be making statement of universal applicability when he talks about an “us†being pre-destined.

Here is Ephesians 2:19-20

Consequently, you are no longer foreigners and aliens, but fellow citizens with God's people and members of God's household, 20built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone.

This text shows that Paul certainly does see the set of “apostles and prophets†as a distinct group of persons and at least proves that we cannot simply assume that in the first 3 chapters of the book, Paul is simply making declarations about what is true for all people. We are being made aware that Paul sees the apostles as a distinct group.

And in Ephesians 3:4-5, Paul writes:

By referring to this, when you read you can understand my insight into the mystery of Christ, which in other generations was not made known to the sons of men, as it has now been revealed to His holy apostles and prophets in the Spirit

Again, we have Paul identifying a well-demarcated subset of all human persons. Of course, this and the 2:19-20 proves nothing for the present over and above showing that Paul has in mind this very specific set of persons as a distinct group. In later posts, the case will be made that the pre-destination spoken of in 1:4-5 and 11 is indeed specific to this small group.

To summarize what I claim this first post has done: It has been shown to be at least plausible that the “us†who are predestined (as per chapter 1) are in fct the set of “prophets and apostles†later clearly identified as a distinct group (in chapters 2 and 3).

 

[unred typo]

quote by Drew on Fri Oct 26, 2007:

So that is what I am trying to show – that Paul never intended the reader to think of a universal “us†as being pre-destined. Instead, a very specific set of persons have been pre-destined. I suspect that there are some, such as my good friend unred who may take issue with the notion that any are pre-destined. So be it.…

I’m waiting to see how the predestination of these individuals was made and when before I open my mouth in agreement or disagreement. Already, I do agree that there is no particular set of universal “us†that the Calvinist belongs to, pre-selected from the foundation of the world.

quote by Drew:
To summarize what I claim this first post has done: It has been shown to be at least plausible that the “us†who are predestined (as per chapter 1) are in fact the set of “prophets and apostles†later clearly identified as a distinct group (in chapters 2 and 3).

Yes, I can see that as a viable possibility. The prophets and apostles were predestined to witness the gospel to the gentiles and this plan to include the gentiles in salvation by the blood of Christ was determined before the foundation of the world. The fact that prophets and apostles would be used was foreordained in the beginning of creation. Who the prophets would be, I believe, would be determined when the time came to pick them from the persons alive and willing (or even unwilling, if God so chose) at the time, just prior to ‘the time of the gentiles.’

 

[Drew]

Who the prophets would be, I believe, would be determined when the time came to pick them from the persons alive and willing (or even unwilling, if God so chose) at the time, just prior to ‘the time of the gentiles.’

I think that I see what you are getting at. Let me see if I can express what I think you are saying in my own words:

No human being is ever pre-destined to salvation - God does not decide at the beginning of time that "Fred" (or anyone else) will be irresistably and inexorably drawn into the kingdom.

Nevertheless, God does pre-destine in the sense that He has tasks He needs humans to do and He knows that "Fred" will, of Fred's own free will accept the gift of salvation. So God "elects" Fred to do this task from the pool of persons He know will freely accept salvation and be "in the right place at the right time". On this view, Fred is pre-destined to do some task, but not pre-destined to be saved.

Is that it, more or less?

So when we have a statement like: "In love He predestined us to be adopted as his sons through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will", you seem to be drawing a conceptual distinction between "being saved" and "being adopted" - God has indeed pre-destined that all who "get saved" are to be adopted as sons, but He does not "fore-ordain" that any specific person will get saved.

I am sure that some will object that you are drawing a non-existant boundary between salvation and adoption, but I am not so sure. I think that John 6:37-44, another favourite of Calvinists, can be made to work from an "non-predestination to salvation" perspective specifically if one conceives of people being given to the Son by the Father, in a state of already having freely believed in the Son. In fact, I think that the John 6 material tugs one in the direction of indeed drawing such a distinction.

So I guess I am sympathetic to what I think you are saying. And, to the extent that such an argument works, perhaps what I intend to say in this thread may not even be necessary as a part of an overall scriptural argument against the predestination of individuals to salvation. Nevertheless, I intend to finish the argument just to see what happens....

 

[stranger]

by Drew on Fri Oct 26, 2007 1:11 pm

I intend to mount an argument that, contrary to a popularly held view, the "predestination" texts in Ephesians 1 do not apply to Christians generally, but rather only to a specific set of New Testament prophets and saints as identified per Eph 3:5:

“which in other generations was not made known to the sons of men, as it has now been revealed to His holy apostles and prophets in the Spiritâ€Â

Hi Drew,

The premise that God reveals what He plans to do to His servants the prophets is well know and established from: Amos 3:7 'Surely the Lord GOD does nothing Unless He reveals His secret counsel To His servants the prophets'.

Also we know that some He gave to be apostles, and some as prophets . . . Ephesians 4:11.

In thinking about this I would say that some prophets are simply introduced to us in scripture with little or no elaboration as to their prior life, appointment to be prophets or otherwise. So there is a silence in what is revealed that needs to be recognised. You can probably identify what sort of bridges men have constructed to span such silent gaps in revelation.

 

[unred typo]

quote by Drew on Sat Oct 27, 2007:
unred typo wrote:“Who the prophets would be, I believe, would be determined when the time came to pick them from the persons alive and willing (or even unwilling, if God so chose) at the time, just prior to ‘the time of the gentiles.’â€Â

I think that I see what you are getting at. Let me see if I can express what I think you are saying in my own words:

No human being is ever pre-destined to salvation - God does not decide at the beginning of time that "Fred" (or anyone else) will be irresistably and inexorably drawn into the kingdom.

That’s good so far.

quote by Drew:
Nevertheless, God does pre-destine in the sense that He has tasks He needs humans to do and He knows that "Fred" will, of Fred's own free will accept the gift of salvation. So God "elects" Fred to do this task from the pool of persons He know will freely accept salvation and be "in the right place at the right time". On this view, Fred is pre-destined to do some task, but not pre-destined to be saved.

Is that it, more or less?

Almost, more or less. It has some flaws that I just have to fix if it is going to be what I believe. :wink: God doesn’t need to know Fred will ‘accept the gift of salvation.’ To do God’s task, whatever it may be, doesn’t always require that Fred be ‘saved’ in order to perform that function. And, as you have pointed out before, being ‘elected’ is not always a good thing for those elected. Jesus was elected to die from the beginning of creation. It also doesn’t usually require that the job be filled before the foundation of the world. God can predestine you today to do a job for him tomorrow. He also can use you to do a task for him, whether you are saved, a nominal believer, or even a total atheist. He even uses Satan to test us and to torment us as punishment or a lesson to learn the hard way.

Finally, who does God save? God predestined that the people who believe an follow Christ will be saved by their faith in what he taught, if they really believe what he said to do and do it. He doesn’t know who they will be, whether it will be Fred, Sam or Tom, since this determination was made before any man was created. He foreordained that ‘those, whosoever have faith in Christ,’ (specifically all those who believe in “love one another,†“forgive and you will be forgiven†etc.) will be saved if they continue in those beliefs. We choose to believe in Christ and follow him of our own free will decision. God merely proclaims that whosoever chooses to do that, will be saved.

quote by Drew:
So when we have a statement like: "In love He predestined us to be adopted as his sons through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will", you seem to be drawing a conceptual distinction between "being saved" and "being adopted" - God has indeed pre-destined that all who "get saved" are to be adopted as sons, but He does not "fore-ordain" that any specific person will get saved.

This sounds like you do understand what I’m saying, if I understand you correctly. LOL. But I don’t make a distinction so much between the ‘saved’ and the ‘adopted’ but only that the promises are to those who obey and continue in that obedience. Who are they? I guess we find out when the phat lady sings. You would know if you are, because the Spirit bears witness with our spirit that we are the children of God. (Romans 8:15-17)

I do believe being born again is not so different from being born the first time. The physical is a representation of the spiritual. The seed is planted and grows and develops into the child before it is born. Our spiritual birth is a union of our will with the will of God, and the new creation in Christ begins when we yield ourselves to him and receive his word into our heart. This is also represented as a planted seed that either grows to maturity or dies. I believe this maturity from fetus to manhood is the picture we find in scripture. We make a distinction between the born and the unborn person but it is the same creation that started with the growth of the physical seed in the womb or the spiritual seed (word) in the heart.

quote by Drew:
I am sure that some will object that you are drawing a non-existant boundary between salvation and adoption, but I am not so sure. I think that John 6:37-44, another favourite of Calvinists, can be made to work from an "non-predestination to salvation" perspective specifically if one conceives of people being given to the Son by the Father, in a state of already having freely believed in the Son. In fact, I think that the John 6 material tugs one in the direction of indeed drawing such a distinction.

More to the point I was trying to emphasize, John 6:40 says it all: “And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one who sees the Son, and believes on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.†This says it quite plainly, if you don‘t have preconceived, unbiblical ideas about what it means to believe. It is God’s plan that those who believe and obey the son will be saved. This is the thing that was decided from the beginning of creation, because God knew the consequences of allowing his created autonomous beings the free will to sin against him. There is no need for God to create every atom and every event of the future in his mind from the beginning in order to make a plan of salvation for those who meet the requirements. This plan includes the adoption of the born again children and the provisions needed to deal with the sin they commit.

quote by Drew:
So I guess I am sympathetic to what I think you are saying. And, to the extent that such an argument works, perhaps what I intend to say in this thread may not even be necessary as a part of an overall scriptural argument against the predestination of individuals to salvation. Nevertheless, I intend to finish the argument just to see what happens.…

There are as many ways to say the same thing as there are parts of the human body I would guess. The picture that was the whole truth has been chopped up into a puzzle of doctrines. Some pieces have been lost or thrown away. Lies and errors have been mixed in to fill gaps. We are stuck trying to put the pieces back together. Some of the pieces that we have been taught are never going to fit into the picture. That’s the mess we have when we work with the doctrines of man mixed with the truth. It’s great fun. Any false pieces you can expose will help others to get the big picture.

The one thing we can agree on is that God is love and Jesus taught us to love one another. The doctrines of predestination that exclude some from the love of God are the most insidious and alienate the most merciful and humble who feel the most unworthy and who are the most in need of that love which God freely offers to all.

 

[unred typo]

quote by stranger on Sat Oct 27, 2007:


The premise that God reveals what He plans to do to His servants the prophets is well know and established from: Amos 3:7 'Surely the Lord GOD does nothing Unless He reveals His secret counsel To His servants the prophets'.

Also we know that some He gave to be apostles, and some as prophets . . . Ephesians 4:11.

In thinking about this I would say that some prophets are simply introduced to us in scripture with little or no elaboration as to their prior life, appointment to be prophets or otherwise. So there is a silence in what is revealed that needs to be recognised. You can probably identify what sort of bridges men have constructed to span such silent gaps in revelation.

I got off on a tangent. This is more to the topic Drew is alluding to. There are those who are chosen to be prophets. The plan to choose men to bring his messages to the world was formed in the beginning of creation, but the actual choice of who will be a prophet is determined in the time that they will be speaking or shortly before. Some were chosen as an answer to prayer by their parents (the prophet Samuel), some were chosen before their birth like John the Baptist and Sampson, some were chosen after they became adults, ( Amos was a herdsman before God gave him a message to bring to Judah and Israel) and some were not even willing prophets (Jonah).

I look forward to Drew’s explanation of his concept applied to Ephesians. If I'm not mistaken, it is compatible with my own beliefs. Even if it's not, we will all benefit from his study.

 

[stranger]

quote by stranger on Sat Oct 27, 2007:


The premise that God reveals what He plans to do to His servants the prophets is well know and established from: Amos 3:7 'Surely the Lord GOD does nothing Unless He reveals His secret counsel To His servants the prophets'.

Also we know that some He gave to be apostles, and some as prophets . . . Ephesians 4:11.

In thinking about this I would say that some prophets are simply introduced to us in scripture with little or no elaboration as to their prior life, appointment to be prophets or otherwise. So there is a silence in what is revealed that needs to be recognised. You can probably identify what sort of bridges men have constructed to span such silent gaps in revelation.

I got off on a tangent. This is more to the topic Drew is alluding to. There are those who are chosen to be prophets. The plan to choose men to bring his messages to the world was formed in the beginning of creation, but the actual choice of who will be a prophet is determined in the time that they will be speaking or shortly before. Some were chosen as an answer to prayer by their parents (the prophet Samuel), some were chosen before their birth like John the Baptist and Sampson, some were chosen after they became adults, ( Amos was a herdsman before God gave him a message to bring to Judah and Israel) and some were not even willing prophets (Jonah).

I look forward to Drew’s explanation of his concept applied to Ephesians. If I'm not mistaken, it is compatible with my own beliefs. Even if it's not, we will all benefit from his study.

Hi unred,

The point I had in mind was that 'apostles' were given by God for the building up of the church. The apostles were not given for Israel.

As for prophets - the example of Jeremiah 1: 5 "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you,
before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations." we have discussed this previously (?) and it still doesn't fit into your framework - but don't take my word for it - third party opinions might prove more useful. To add to your list there is some unknowns about the prophet mentioned in 1 Kings 13:18 . . . an old prophet and a prophet who did not follow the exact instructions of God and was subsequently killed by a lion. In previous discussions about prophets I have said that some wrote down there messages, but others did not - their words and details are not recorded in scripture. eg the prophets who were hidden/saved from Jezebel's rage.

 

[unred typo]

quote by stranger on Sun Oct 28, 2007
As for prophets - the example of Jeremiah 1: 5 "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you,
before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations." we have discussed this previously (?) and it still doesn't fit into your framework - but don't take my word for it - third party opinions might prove more useful. To add to your list there is some unknowns about the prophet mentioned in 1 Kings 13:18 . . . an old prophet and a prophet who did not follow the exact instructions of God and was subsequently killed by a lion. In previous discussions about prophets I have said that some wrote down there messages, but others did not - their words and details are not recorded in scripture. eg the prophets who were hidden/saved from Jezebel's rage.

Why doesn’t it fit into my framework? I believe that “some were chosen as an answer to prayer by their parents (the prophet Samuel), some were chosen before their birth like John the Baptist and Sampson, some were chosen after they became adults, ( Amos was a herdsman before God gave him a message to bring to Judah and Israel) and some were not even willing prophets (Jonah).â€Â

Read this portion about Sampson:
Judges 13:2 And there was a certain man of Zorah, of the family of the Danites, whose name was Manoah; and his wife was barren, and bare not.
3And the angel of the LORD appeared unto the woman, and said unto her, Behold now, you are barren, and bear not: but you shall conceive, and bear a son.
4Now therefore beware, I pray thee, and drink not wine nor strong drink, and eat not any unclean thing:
5For, lo, you shall conceive, and bear a son; and no razor shall come on his head: for the child shall be a Nazarite unto God from the womb: and he shall begin to deliver Israel out of the hand of the Philistines.

This is not so unlike Jeremiah’s being chosen. God chose him before he was conceived. I guess I am going to have to go into the whole birds and the bees here. There is an egg before it is fertilized. God had up to a month to know the ‘Jeremiah egg’ before it was fertilized. God knew all about the Mitochondrial DNA chromosomes it contained. He also knew all the millions of sperm available to make up the Y-Chromosome DNA. In short, God knew Jeremiah from the codes that were available and he hand picked the exact combination that he wanted for his physical and physiological makeup. He formed Jeremiah in the womb to be the tenderhearted weeping prophet he would need to deliver the harsh messages he had planned to send to Israel and Judah. When he was old enough, God put the words in his mouth and sent him out to tell the Israelites that judgment was coming. This fits perfectly in my ‘framework.’ Why don't you see it?

 

[stranger]

unred typo wrote:

Why doesn’t it fit into my framework? I believe that “some were chosen as an answer to prayer by their parents (the prophet Samuel), some were chosen before their birth like John the Baptist and Sampson, some were chosen after they became adults, ( Amos was a herdsman before God gave him a message to bring to Judah and Israel) and some were not even willing prophets (Jonah).â€Â

Read this portion about Sampson:
Judges 13:2 And there was a certain man of Zorah, of the family of the Danites, whose name was Manoah; and his wife was barren, and bare not.
3And the angel of the LORD appeared unto the woman, and said unto her, Behold now, you are barren, and bear not: but you shall conceive, and bear a son.
4Now therefore beware, I pray thee, and drink not wine nor strong drink, and eat not any unclean thing:
5For, lo, you shall conceive, and bear a son; and no razor shall come on his head: for the child shall be a Nazarite unto God from the womb: and he shall begin to deliver Israel out of the hand of the Philistines.

This is not so unlike Jeremiah’s being chosen. God chose him before he was conceived. I guess I am going to have to go into the whole birds and the bees here. There is an egg before it is fertilized. God had up to a month to know the ‘Jeremiah egg’ before it was fertilized. God knew all about the Mitochondrial DNA chromosomes it contained. He also knew all the millions of sperm available to make up the Y-Chromosome DNA. In short, God knew Jeremiah from the codes that were available and he hand picked the exact combination that he wanted for his physical and physiological makeup. He formed Jeremiah in the womb to be the tenderhearted weeping prophet he would need to deliver the harsh messages he had planned to send to Israel and Judah. When he was old enough, God put the words in his mouth and sent him out to tell the Israelites that judgment was coming. This fits perfectly in my ‘framework.’ Why don't you see it?

I 'see' your explanation and from previous conversations with you I could well envisage it. I don't think that the text of Jeremiah 1:5 warrants such 'elaboration'. The timeframe I find in the text is expressed by the word 'before' - and nothing more.

For this reason I say that Jeremiah 1:5 doesn't fit into your framework because you have introduced a time limit of 'one month' during which time God is allocated to know Jeremiah. The text simply says: Jeremiah 1:5
"Before I formed you in the womb I knew you,
And before you were born I consecrated you;
I have appointed you a prophet to the nations."

What you are saying is 'God had up to a month to know the ‘Jeremiah egg’ before it was fertilized.' The time 'up to a month' is your timeframe whereas God simply says: before I formed you in the womb I knew you'.

I am saying that your introduced timeframe of one month is nowhere to be found in the text. Let's agree at least on this - that God uses the word 'before . . .twice' and leave it at that. Your other comments are fine by me.

 

[unred typo]

quote by Stranger:
I 'see' your explanation and from previous conversations with you I could well envisage it. I don't think that the text of Jeremiah 1:5 warrants such 'elaboration'. The timeframe I find in the text is expressed by the word 'before' - and nothing more.

For this reason I say that Jeremiah 1:5 doesn't fit into your framework because you have introduced a time limit of 'one month' during which time God is allocated to know Jeremiah. The text simply says: Jeremiah 1:5
"Before I formed you in the womb I knew you,
And before you were born I consecrated you;
I have appointed you a prophet to the nations."

What you are saying is 'God had up to a month to know the ‘Jeremiah egg’ before it was fertilized.' The time 'up to a month' is your timeframe whereas God simply says: before I formed you in the womb I knew you'.

I am saying that your introduced timeframe of one month is nowhere to be found in the text. Let's agree at least on this - that God uses the word 'before . . .twice' and leave it at that. Your other comments are fine by me.

You’re exactly right. The text simply says, ‘before’ and the reader has to envision how long ‘before’ that could be. The common translation is to slip ‘before the foundation of the world’ in it’s place, as if it makes sense to say that before the earth, moon, and Adam were even created, God knew Jeremiah. I’m sorry but that just doesn’t logically follow. How does God know Jeremiah before he has created Jeremiah?

In my mind, it seems eminently better to assume that God knew Jeremiah’s substance starting from the moment that single human cell was first formed in his mother’s ovary. Though hid from view from the rest of the world, God sees right into the depths of her body and chooses even the most suitable DNA for the prophet he is going to call to deliver his heart-rendering messages.

This shows the care and consideration that goes into God’s choices to convey his word. But isn’t that just like our incredible creator? Just look at the world of nature around us. The closer you get, even with a microscope, the more order and symmetry and attention to intricate detail you will find. This verse is saying, in effect, I didn’t just grab the first guy off the street and send him in to give these horrific warnings. Something about Jeremiah’s unique genetic make up caught God’s eye and he personally was elected for the job.

 

[guibox]

That God pre-ordaines us for special assignments is not the same as God pre-ordaining us for salvation.

 

[mondar]

That God pre-ordaines us for special assignments is not the same as God pre-ordaining us for salvation.

2Th 2:13 But we are bound to give thanks to God always for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, for that God chose you from the beginning unto salvation in sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth:

 

[unred typo]

Since you must have missed this perfectly good explanation, I am going to run it by you again. If you can’t answer it, I’m going to assume it is right and you can’t refute it:

quote by mondar:
37. All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will certainly not cast out.

2-- Of the ones given by the Father, All will come to Christ (37).

Yes. Those that were sincerely living for God and had faith in the promise of the Messiah were given to Christ and even some who had truly repented of their sin were included, such as Zacchaeus. Jesus said those who do truth come to him in John 3:20-21. For every one that does evil hates the light, neither comes to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.
21But he that does truth comes to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.
Out of those, he chose 12 disciples. This verse had a limited meaning applicable to the people spoken to in the time and place it was given. Not everything that came out of the Lord’s mouth was spoken for the purpose of becoming doctrine for the future world. Put it back in the setting it belongs.

quote by mondar
38. "For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me.

3-- Of those given by the Father, none will be lost by Christ (38).

This verse speaks of the fact that Jesus didn’t come to make a name for himself, but to die for the sin of the world.

quote by mondar 39"This is the will of Him who sent Me, that of all that He has given Me I lose nothing, but raise it up on the last day.

4-- Of the ones that believe, they receive eternal life.

Right. We see he has kept all those that were given him unto the end. To really appreciate the people he was talking about there, look at John 17:11-13.

11And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through your own name those whom you have given me, that they may be one, as we are.
12While I was with them in the world, I kept them in your name: those that you gave me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled.
13And now come I to you; and these things I speak in the world, that they might have my joy fulfilled in themselves.

He kept those that were given him, except the son of perdition, who was not given to be kept. There is no justification in expanding this concept to include all the saved throughout history. The ‘all’ in this verse is the group of followers who were his little support group while he lived on earth preaching and healing.

quote by mondar 40"For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him will have eternal life, and I Myself will raise him up on the last day."
Verse 40 is a contrast to verse 36. It is an explanation of why some believe, and some do not.
Drew, even verses 39 and 40 were linked in the way you say, there is no logical reason to assume that this ABC construction demonstrates "free will." You want to insert "free will" into the text so that you can somehow deny that verse 44 says that "no man can come to me."

You see, this is so local to Jesus’ day, you have missed it entirely. Have you or any of your friends or acquaintances ever seen the Son? I don’t think so. This refers to no one other than the actual people who walked beside him on the roads of Israel and followed him faithfully and accepted his teaching as the word of God himself. Instead of taking the words as any reader with a second grade education would read them, you have mistakenly assumed that it is some sort of proof for your warped doctrines of election, predestination and sovereignty.

quote by mondar:
Verse 44 speaks clearly to the complete inability of man. Without the work of God in verse 44, no man would be able to come to Christ at all. The verse is indisputably clear.

Verse 44 tells us of the complete inability of the majority of the Jews in Jesus’ day to recognize the Messiah so that he could become the savior of the world and not just an earthly king performing miraculous feats for the benefit of his people. What is really clear is that you are blinded by your own bias.

 

[stranger]

Jeremiah 1:5
"Before I formed you in the womb I knew you,
And before you were born I consecrated you;
I have appointed you a prophet to the nations."

unred typo wrote:

You’re exactly right. The text simply says, ‘before’ and the reader has to envision how long ‘before’ that could be. The common translation is to slip ‘before the foundation of the world’ in it’s place, as if it makes sense to say that before the earth, moon, and Adam were even created, God knew Jeremiah. I’m sorry but that just doesn’t logically follow. How does God know Jeremiah before he has created Jeremiah?

I agree that the text Jeremiah 1:5 does not say 'before the foundation of the world' but do you also concede that the text does NOT say: ' during the time I was forming you in the womb, I knew you' ? Have I 'translated' your intended meaning correctly? The other point is this: The desire to know 'how' is not revealed in the text we are considering.

In my mind, it seems eminently better to assume that God knew Jeremiah’s substance starting from the moment that single human cell was first formed in his mother’s ovary. Though hid from view from the rest of the world, God sees right into the depths of her body and chooses even the most suitable DNA for the prophet he is going to call to deliver his heart-rendering messages.

You have a human mind - but God's mind is Divine. What you offer here is little better than what scientists strive to do to uncover what genes are responsible for what traits.

This shows the care and consideration that goes into God’s choices to convey his word. But isn’t that just like our incredible creator? Just look at the world of nature around us. The closer you get, even with a microscope, the more order and symmetry and attention to intricate detail you will find. This verse is saying, in effect, I didn’t just grab the first guy off the street and send him in to give these horrific warnings. Something about Jeremiah’s unique genetic make up caught God’s eye and he personally was elected for the job.

[/quote]

Yes, mankind has a problem with scale: the micro and the macro- though he (man) developes instruments that greatly enhances his perception . . . his vision grows dim, the telescope/microscope he builds will never be permitted to see into the kingdom of heaven.

 

[unred typo]

quote by stranger:

I agree that the text Jeremiah 1:5 does not say 'before the foundation of the world' but do you also concede that the text does NOT say: ' during the time I was forming you in the womb, I knew you' ? Have I 'translated' your intended meaning correctly? The other point is this: The desire to know 'how' is not revealed in the text we are considering.

You’re splitting hairs with what I believe but taking giant leaps thousands of years into the past with what you believe. My intended meaning is that before God formed Jeremiah’s body in the womb, God knew all his attributes coded in the sperm of his father and the ovum of his mother. It’s not so far out of whack. Read what David says:

Psalm 139:16 Your eyes did see my substance, yet being imperfect; and in your book all my members were written, which in continuance were fashioned, when as yet there was none of them.

quote by stranger:
You have a human mind - but God's mind is Divine. What you offer here is little better than what scientists strive to do to uncover what genes are responsible for what traits.

Before God formed Jeremiah’s body in the womb, he knew the substance that would be Jeremiah and all the character traits and physical attributes that would be Jeremiah’s.
We don’t have to know about DNA or chromosomes to come to that conclusion, but it helps. Before the genetic research, people still understood that the makeup of an animal’s offspring could be improved by breeding the parent with a specimen with the desired traits. Don’t you think God is at least as smart as a good dog breeder or even the best genetic researcher?

 

[stranger]

resubmitted one post later

 

[stranger]

stranger:

I agree that the text Jeremiah 1:5 does not say 'before the foundation of the world' but do you also concede that the text does NOT say: ' during the time I was forming you in the womb, I knew you' ? Have I 'translated' your intended meaning correctly? The other point is this: The desire to know 'how' is not revealed in the text we are considering.

unred:

You’re splitting hairs with what I believe but taking giant leaps thousands of years into the past with what you believe.

No, since I accept that before refers to before and not during or before the foundation of the world.

unred:

My intended meaning is that before God formed Jeremiah’s body in the womb, God knew all his attributes coded in the sperm of his father and the ovum of his mother. It’s not so far out of whack. Read what David says: Psalm 139:16 Your eyes did see my substance, yet being imperfect; and in your book all my members were written, which in continuance were fashioned, when as yet there was none of them.

In other words God only knew Jeremiah during his primal existence as ovum and sperm but not before these constituent 'parts' existed in Jeremiah's parents or ancestors.

quote by stranger:
You have a human mind - but God's mind is Divine. What you offer here is little better than what scientists strive to do to uncover what genes are responsible for what traits.

Before God formed Jeremiah’s body in the womb, he knew the substance that would be Jeremiah and all the character traits and physical attributes that would be Jeremiah’s.
We don’t have to know about DNA or chromosomes to come to that conclusion, but it helps. Before the genetic research, people still understood that the makeup of an animal’s offspring could be improved by breeding the parent with a specimen with the desired traits. Don’t you think God is at least as smart as a good dog breeder or even the best genetic researcher?

One man's help is another man's hinderance. A man made 'god' could be as smart as a genetic scientist and good dog breeder.

 

[stranger]

Re: Ephesians and Pre-Destination
by stranger on Wed Oct 31, 2007 2:52 am

Unred,
Let us summarise our interpretations of Jeremiah 1:5 since our discussion already has familar overtones.

Jeremiah 1:5 NASB
"Before I formed you in the womb I knew you,
And before you were born I consecrated you;
I have appointed you a prophet to the nations."

stranger summary statement:

Before in the above text refers to an unspecified period before Jeremiah was formed in the womb. Any and all activity of the earliest stage of Jeremiah's life in the womb, as conceived or prior to conception CAN be understand to be part of Jeremiah's formation (in the womb). Therefore, 'before' posits God knowing Jeremiah earlier in time than what happened in the womb ie before Jeremiah's existence in any shape or form.

Unred's summary statement

add your comment please

 

[unred typo]

There are more ‘befores’ that we can possibly list here. There are a zillion, in fact. There are only two that are pertinent to this discussion basically though. There is the ‘before’ that is impossible to know and the ‘before’ that is possible. I know you believe nothing is impossible with God. Even the idea that ‘with God all things are possible’ doesn’t mean nonsensical things like creating a rock that is too heavy for him to pick up or a darkness too dark for him to see into. If that were true, he could have made our salvation a better way than he did, because that would have been possible for him too. Knowing Jeremiah before God created the world or Adam or anything, is clearly impossible. Using this verse to illogically reinforce another theological error is obviously possible unfortunately.

The ‘before’ in Jeremiah simply refers to before he was formed in the “belly:â€Â

Jeremiah 1:5 UUKJV*
4Then the word of the LORD came unto me, saying,
5Before I formed you in the belly I knew you; and before you came forth out of the womb I sanctified you, and I ordained you a prophet unto the nations.
(*Unred’s Unauthorized King James Version)

I submit that before the physical body of Jeremiah was formed in his mother’s “belly,†as the KJV puts it, the DNA substance in his mother and father that came together to become Jeremiah was available to be seen only by God and God knew Jeremiah before those elements of his being began to be shaped in his mother‘s womb. Just as a potter knows a piece of clay before he fashions a vase or a wash pot out of it, God knew Jeremiah. You use bisque to make a delicate piece of china and red clay is more suitable for a clay pot. God chose Jeremiah by his attributes and he saw those unique aspects come together when Jeremiah was “just a twinkle in his father’s eye†if you know what that means. :wink: The twinkle comes before *s*e*x* btw.

I changed my mind. You’re not splitting hairs, you’re splitting cells.

quote by stranger:
Unred,
Let us summarise our interpretations of Jeremiah 1:5 since our discussion already has familar overtones.

Jeremiah 1:5 NASB
"Before I formed you in the womb I knew you,
And before you were born I consecrated you;
I have appointed you a prophet to the nations."

stranger summary statement:

Before in the above text refers to an unspecified period before Jeremiah was formed in the womb. Any and all activity of the earliest stage of Jeremiah's life in the womb, as conceived or prior to conception CAN be understand to be part of Jeremiah's formation (in the womb). Therefore, 'before' posits God knowing Jeremiah earlier in time than what happened in the womb ie before Jeremiah's existence in any shape or form.

Unred's summary statement

add your comment please

Before the physical body of Jeremiah was formed in his mother’s “belly,*†the DNA substance in his mother and father that came together in their reproductive union was available to be seen only by God’s eyes and God knew Jeremiah before these elements of his soul and spirit began to develop in his mother‘s womb.**

*womb, in some versions

**This summary subject to revision and re revision, if I recall our last discussion.

p.s. I’m almost out of stars. I still have a few gold ones left, for those who don’t beat this thread into the ground. :wink: