Bible Study Predestination and Election in the Bible

[joseph lentz]

God does know, the beginning to the end, if He did not know, then He could not be God. Think about it. If God knew how things would end, but didn't know how an individual would respond before, then how can you rest assured He actually knows the end?

Isaiah 41:1-4
1 Listen to me in silence, O coastlands; let the peoples renew their strength; let them approach, then let them speak; let us together draw near for judgment.
2 Who stirred up one from the east whom victory meets at every step? He gives up nations before him, so that he tramples kings underfoot; he makes them like dust with his sword, like driven stubble with his bow.
3 He pursues them and passes on safely, by paths his feet have not trod.
4 Who has performed and done this, calling the generations from the beginning? I, the LORD, the first, and with the last; I am he.

There is still that term Free Will though.

 

[Butch5]

Butch5

When Paul speaks to the Thessalonians in the second letter, is he leaving himself out of the equation because he does not say "us" or "we"? Is he saying that they are the ones God choose as firstfruits, to be saved, and to obtain glory, leaving himself out because he does not use certain words?

2 Thessalonians 2:13-15
13 But we ought always to give thanks to God for you, brothers beloved by the Lord, because God chose you as the firstfruits to be saved, through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth.
14 To this he called you through our gospel, so that you may obtain the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.
15 So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter.

When Paul says "you" he is excluding himself from person or persons to which he is writing.

 

[Nathan]

There is still that term Free Will though.

Right, and I fully believe we have it. But that doesn't mean God can't know what we will choose to do with our free will.

The OT is full of examples of God knowing what people will choose before they choose it. Even the NT where Jesus knew Judas would choose what he did.

 

[Nathan]

When Paul says "you" he is excluding himself from person or persons to which he is writing.

True, so how does one context differ from the other? You were basing context off the use of words.

 

[joseph lentz]

Right, and I fully believe we have it. But that doesn't mean God can't know what we will choose to do with our free will.

The OT is full of examples of God knowing what people will choose before they choose it. Even the NT where Jesus knew Judas would choose what he did.

Perhaps it would be closer to say God chooses not to know then. If he knew a person was'nt going to make it,why keep him here? It was predestined that one would betray Christ,but his name was never mentioned in the prophecy. Up until the time Judas decided to be the one he could have went the other way.God can't be tempted with sin and will not force someone to sin.

 

[Butch5]

The use of first person plural pronouns, us, we, and our, can be either inclusive or exclusive. It is the context that determines which it is. For example, "We went to see a movie last night. You should have come John." Here John is excluded from the first person plural pronoun "we". Another example, "John, our taxi is here we need to go now." Here, John is included in the first person plural pronoun "we." So, when a writer or speaker uses the pronoun "we" he can be either including or excluding his audience. The inclusion or exclusion of the audience is determined by the context. In the first example It's clear that John didn't go to the movie with us because I said, "you should have come". The context clearly shows that John was not included in the first person plural pronoun "we". It is also seen that John was not included because I used a second person plural pronoun to refer to him, the pronoun "you". The second person plural pronoun "you" is never used of the writer or speaker of himself. Therefore, the use of "you" necessitates someone other than the writer or speaker. In the second example John is included in the first person plural pronoun "we". Take note that the second person plural pronoun "you" is nowhere to be found in the statement.

The argument is that because Paul is writing to Christians and uses first person plural pronouns, us, we, and our, Christians are included.
Let's look at some Biblical examples and see is Christian must be included because Paul used first person plural pronouns.

That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life;
2 (For the life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness, and shew unto you that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us;) (1 Jn. 1:1-2 KJV)

John wrote this long after Jesus ascended. It's likely he wrote it in Ephesus. Would anyone argue that John's readers 60 years later had all seen, heard, and toughed, Jesus? Obviously they hadn't. Many probably weren't even born when Jesus ascended. So, obviously the "we" excludes his readers. However, there is further evidence in the "context" that tells us that they were excluded.

3 That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with us: and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ. (1 Jn. 1:3 KJV)

He says, declare we unto you. Obviously if they had seen, heard, and touched Jesus as the "we" group did then there would be no reason for John to declare it to them, they'd already know it. Note also the second person plural pronoun, "you". The use of the second person plural pronoun indicates that the writer is differentiating himself from another.

Here's another.

16 For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty.
17 For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.
18 And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount. (2 Pet. 1:16-18 KJV)

Here again, the audience is excluded. We know from Peter's use of the word "you" that he differentiating himself from his audience. However, we absolute evidence that the audience is excluded from "we" because we are told who went up there with Jesus and it was only , Peter, James, and John. It wasn't Peter audience many years later that were there with Jesus.

Now, let's look at the reverse. When the writer is writing to Christians and uses the second person plural pronoun "you, " does that incldue all Christians?

And I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal, even as unto babes in Christ.
2 I have fed you with milk, and not with meat: for hitherto ye were not able to bear it, neither yet now are ye able.
3 For ye are yet carnal: for whereas there is among you envying, and strife, and divisions, are ye not carnal, and walk as men?1 (1 Cor. 3:1-3 KJV)

Here Paul is addressing the Corinthian church, Christians. He calls them carnal. Does this apply to all Christians simply because Paul is writing to Christians?

Hopefully this shows that it is important that we pay close attention to the context to see who is and isn't included when a speaker or writer uses first person plural pronouns.

 

[Butch5]

True, so how does one context differ from the other? You were basing context off the use of words.

In Ephesians 1:3-12 it's rather easy. Firstly all of the verbs except one in verses 3-12 are in the past tense. They are past completed actions. Another is that some of them can't be applied to Christians. For one thing Paul said the "we" group had received an inheritance. Christians have never received an inheritance form God. Paul goes on to say that Christians have received a down payment on a future inheritance.

 

[Butch5]

Reasons Ephesians 1:3-12 is not talking "about" Gentile Christians.

Paul wrote,

In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will: (Eph. 1:11 KJV)

Israel had received an inheritance from God, Gentiles had not.

And these are the countries which the children of Israel inherited in the land of Canaan, which Eleazar the priest, and Joshua the son of Nun, and the heads of the fathers of the tribes of the children of Israel, distributed for inheritance to them.
2 By lot was their inheritance, as the LORD commanded by the hand of Moses, for the nine tribes, and for the half tribe.
3 For Moses had given the inheritance of two tribes and an half tribe on the other side Jordan: but unto the Levites he gave none inheritance among them. (Jos. 14:1-3 KJV)

Israel had received an inheritance, not the Gentiles.

Paul wrote,

8 Wherein he hath abounded toward us in all wisdom and prudence;
9 Having made known unto us the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure which he hath purposed in himself: (Eph. 1:8-9 KJV)

Who did God make His mystery known to?

For this cause I Paul, the prisoner of Jesus Christ for you Gentiles,
2 If ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me to you-ward:
3 How that by revelation he made known unto me the mystery; (as I wrote afore in few words,1
4 Whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ)
5 Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit; (Eph. 3:1-5 KJV)

The apostles and the prophets were Jews. If Paul had been including the Gentiles in verses 8-9 of chapter 1 then there would be no need for his following statements.

15 Wherefore I also, after I heard of your faith in the Lord Jesus, and love unto all the saints,
16 Cease not to give thanks for you, making mention of you in my prayers;
17 That the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give unto you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of him:1
18 The eyes of your understanding being enlightened; that ye may know what is the hope of his calling, and what the riches of the glory of his inheritance in the saints, (Eph. 1:15-18 KJV)

Here Paul is praying that God would give them the revelation in the knowledge of Him and would enlighten the eyes of their understanding of his inheritance of the saints. Now, why would he be praying for these people to receive this if he had just finished telling them that God had abounded to them in all wisdom and prudence and made know to them the mystery of His will? He wouldn't. It makes no sense. If you just told someone that they had understanding of something you wouldn't then turn around and pray that they get understanding of what you just said they had understanding of. It doesn't make sense.

Note also Paul's use of first and second person pronouns, He uses the first person singular, "I" and second person plural, "You"

 

[Butch5]

You mean you're only here to change people's mind??
Not to discuss?

Not at all. However, in my experience that statement has meant that one doesn't want to hear what is being said.

 

[Chopper]

Of course, if their were some who came by grace and faith, and then some others who were somehow, "made" to believe, then then one who was made to believe, would not be saved by faith.



JLB

PLEASE!! Whether Elect or General Call Believers, both have to, at some point in their lives, must believe by faith in Christ Jesus for Salvation. Just like everyone else. The major difference being that the Elect cannot loose their Salvation, whereas the General Call Believers can be deceived and return to old ways.

 

[Nathan]

The use of first person plural pronouns, us, we, and our, can be either inclusive or exclusive. It is the context that determines which it is. For example, "We went to see a movie last night. You should have come John." Here John is excluded from the first person plural pronoun "we". Another example, "John, our taxi is here we need to go now." Here, John is included in the first person plural pronoun "we." So, when a writer or speaker uses the pronoun "we" he can be either including or excluding his audience. The inclusion or exclusion of the audience is determined by the context. In the first example It's clear that John didn't go to the movie with us because I said, "you should have come". The context clearly shows that John was not included in the first person plural pronoun "we". It is also seen that John was not included because I used a second person plural pronoun to refer to him, the pronoun "you". The second person plural pronoun "you" is never used of the writer or speaker of himself. Therefore, the use of "you" necessitates someone other than the writer or speaker. In the second example John is included in the first person plural pronoun "we". Take note that the second person plural pronoun "you" is nowhere to be found in the statement.

The argument is that because Paul is writing to Christians and uses first person plural pronouns, us, we, and our, Christians are included.
Let's look at some Biblical examples and see is Christian must be included because Paul used first person plural pronouns.

That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life;
2 (For the life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness, and shew unto you that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us;) (1 Jn. 1:1-2 KJV)

John wrote this long after Jesus ascended. It's likely he wrote it in Ephesus. Would anyone argue that John's readers 60 years later had all seen, heard, and toughed, Jesus? Obviously they hadn't. Many probably weren't even born when Jesus ascended. So, obviously the "we" excludes his readers. However, there is further evidence in the "context" that tells us that they were excluded.

3 That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with us: and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ. (1 Jn. 1:3 KJV)

He says, declare we unto you. Obviously if they had seen, heard, and touched Jesus as the "we" group did then there would be no reason for John to declare it to them, they'd already know it. Note also the second person plural pronoun, "you". The use of the second person plural pronoun indicates that the writer is differentiating himself from another.

Here's another.

16 For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty.
17 For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.
18 And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount. (2 Pet. 1:16-18 KJV)

Here again, the audience is excluded. We know from Peter's use of the word "you" that he differentiating himself from his audience. However, we absolute evidence that the audience is excluded from "we" because we are told who went up there with Jesus and it was only , Peter, James, and John. It wasn't Peter audience many years later that were there with Jesus.

Now, let's look at the reverse. When the writer is writing to Christians and uses the second person plural pronoun "you, " does that incldue all Christians?

And I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal, even as unto babes in Christ.
2 I have fed you with milk, and not with meat: for hitherto ye were not able to bear it, neither yet now are ye able.
3 For ye are yet carnal: for whereas there is among you envying, and strife, and divisions, are ye not carnal, and walk as men?1 (1 Cor. 3:1-3 KJV)

Here Paul is addressing the Corinthian church, Christians. He calls them carnal. Does this apply to all Christians simply because Paul is writing to Christians?

Hopefully this shows that it is important that we pay close attention to the context to see who is and isn't included when a speaker or writer uses first person plural pronouns.

Your example is precisely why we should understand he was including the Ephesians, all of them, in those remarks. Because he addressed them to begin with and did not differentiate between two groups. You can only say he did if you say the opening few sentences mean what they don't.

When he 'seems' to switch over in verse 13 it's only because he was being emphatic. Which is a genuine key element that can't be overlooked in his writings. He uses these statement in all of his letters. They are meant to draw a persons attention closer. To say "take special note of this reader", it was not to differentiate between two groups. We see this, as you say, in context.

 

[JLB]

PLEASE!! Whether Elect or General Call Believers, both have to, at some point in their lives, must believe by faith in Christ Jesus for Salvation. Just like everyone else. The major difference being that the Elect cannot loose their Salvation, whereas the General Call Believers can be deceived and return to old ways.

Ok, to better understand about the general call and those predestined, can you help us to understand which scriptures refer to each category of believer?

Does Romans 1:16, refer to the "General Call", of the Gospel, or the "Predestined Call" of the Gospel?

For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, for it is the power of God to salvation for everyone who believes, for the Jew first and also for the Greek. Romans 1:16



JLB

 

[Butch5]

Your example is precisely why we should understand he was including the Ephesians, all of them, in those remarks. Because he addressed them to begin with and did not differentiate between two groups. You can only say he did if you say the opening few sentences mean what they don't.

When he 'seems' to switch over in verse 13 it's only because he was being emphatic. Which is a genuine key element that can't be overlooked in his writings. He uses these statement in all of his letters. They are meant to draw a persons attention closer. To say "take special note of this reader", it was not to differentiate between two groups. We see this, as you say, in context.

This is arbitrary. Do you have any evidence that this is Paul:s intention?

What I gave were rules of language and grammar. I didn't make them up they are established rules that everyone who speaks the lanuage use in order to communicate. Every language has rules. If we don't follow the rules then we can't properly communicate in that language. Language is a code that consistd of letters and words. The rules are the method used to interpret that code.

We can't change the rules to fit our opinions. If we did no one would be able to communicate.

What I've presented is in accord with the rules of grammar and the English language. The claim that both the Jew and the GentIles are both groups simply defies the rules and thus is incorrect.

It's not a matter of interpretation, it's a matter of established rules.

 

[Nathan]

This is arbitrary. Do you have any evidence that this is Paul:s intention?

What I gave were rules of language and grammar. I didn't make them up they are established rules that everyone who speaks the lanuage use in order to communicate. Every language has rules. If we don't follow the rules then we can't properly communicate in that language. Language is a code that consistd of letters and words. The rules are the method used to interpret that code.

We can't change the rules to fit our opinions. If we did no one would be able to communicate.

What I've presented is in accord with the rules of grammar and the English language. The claim that both the Jew and the GentIles are both groups simply defies the rules and thus is incorrect.

It's not a matter of interpretation, it's a matter of established rules.

Yes, actually, I can provide evidence for Paul's emphatic statement.

In Acts 19 we see an encounter with Paul and some believers in Ephesus. In that account we find that they had been baptized into Johns baptism, but not the Spirit. At that time Paul laid hands on them and they received the Spirit. It was a big deal to them.

So later, when we see Paul writing them a letter, he makes this emphatic statement to them(verse 13) concerning the Spirit. That's why he uses that 'word' that seems to indicate he was switching over. But in reality, he was trying to be very direct that they need to truly understand they do have the Spirit.

They knew the rest of it, what his introduction was about, and that's why he wasn't speaking to them in the 'you' perspective, but rather the 'us' and 'we' perspective. But reaching that one point, about the Spirit, it's like he wants to grab their attention. It's a literary device to direct the readers attention. We see just after that statement he goes back to using 'we' and 'us'. In chapter 2 verse 5, was he indicating that the 'we' and 'us' group were one thing and the 'you' group was another?

The whole point is moot if one just understands he begins the letter addressing them in the first place. It clearly states;

"Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, To the saints who are in Ephesus, and are faithful in Christ Jesus:"

He clearly is addressing the saints in Ephesus who are faithful in Christ Jesus. One group of people. We see other writings when he clearly is addressing two different people, namely Philemon, and it's not the same kind of introduction. So why we would assume this introduction was meant for two different people should not be. None of the other letters to the churches as a whole ever had the indication that he was separating out two groups of people.

Here is an copy/paste from a interlinear Bible; http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/NTpdf/eph1.pdf

paulos paulos G3972 n_ Nom Sg m PAUL
apostolos apostolos G652 n_ Nom Sg m commissioner apostle
ihsou iEsou G2424 n_ Gen Sg m OF-JESUS
cristou christou G5547 n_ Gen Sg m ANOINTED Christ
dia dia G1223 Prep THRU through
qelhmatos thelEmatos G2307 n_ Gen Sg n WILL
qeou theou G2316 n_ Gen Sg m OF-God
tois tois G3588 t_ Dat Pl m to-THE
agiois hagiois G40 a_ Dat Pl m HOLY-ones saints
tois tois G3588 t_ Dat Pl m THE-ones the
ousin ousin G5607 vp Pres vxx Dat Pl m BEING ones-being
en en G1722 Prep IN
efesw ephesO G2181 n_ Dat Sg f EPHESUS
kai kai G2532 Conj AND
pistois pistois G4103 a_ Dat Pl m to-BELIEVing(p) to-believers
en en G1722 Prep IN
cristw christO G5547 n_ Dat Sg m ANOINTED Christ
ihsou iEsou G2424 n_ Dat Sg m JESUS

Notice no defining of a difference between "the" ones being in Ephesus and to believers. "The" would make a distinction if there were two different groups of people. Instead, we see the use of the word "and" which means - also, are, etc. That word "and" connects the word "Ephesus" with the word "believers" - it quite distinctly brings them together to indicate they are the same person. Believers in Christ is descriptive of the Saints being in Ephesus.

Example; "My dear wife, who has lovely brown hair, and who has blue eyes". Now, I am speaking of the same woman, not one who is my wife with brown hair, and another woman who has blue eyes.

Here are his introductions in Biblical order;

To all those in Rome who are loved by God and called to be saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

To the church of God that is in Corinth, to those sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints together with all those who in every place call upon the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, both their Lord and ours:

Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, and Timothy our brother, To the church of God that is at Corinth, with all the saints who are in the whole of Achaia:

Paul, an apostle-not from men nor through man, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised him from the dead-
and all the brothers who are with me, To the churches of Galatia:

Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, To the saints who are in Ephesus, and are faithful in Christ Jesus:

Paul and Timothy, servants of Christ Jesus, To all the saints in Christ Jesus who are at Philippi, with the overseers and deacons:

To the saints and faithful brothers in Christ at Colossae: Grace to you and peace from God our Father.

Paul, Silvanus, and Timothy, To the church of the Thessalonians in God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ: Grace to you and peace.

Paul, Silvanus, and Timothy, To the church of the Thessalonians in God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ:

To Timothy, my true child in the faith: Grace, mercy, and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Lord.

To Timothy, my beloved child: Grace, mercy, and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Lord.

Paul, a servant of God and an apostle of Jesus Christ, for the sake of the faith of God's elect and their knowledge of the truth, which accords with godliness,
in hope of eternal life, which God, who never lies, promised before the ages began
and at the proper time manifested in his word through the preaching with which I have been entrusted by the command of God our Savior;
To Titus, my true child in a common faith: Grace and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Savior.

Paul, a prisoner for Christ Jesus, and Timothy our brother, To Philemon our beloved fellow worker
and Apphia our sister and Archippus our fellow soldier, and the church in your house:

 

[JLB]

Romans 1:16 has nothing to do with predestination,only the Plan of Salvation was predestined

Yes sir, I agree.

I was wanting to hear what Mr. Chopper had to say concerning this subject.

No one is predestined, only those which are drawn by the Spirit and come with a broken spirit and contrite heart need apply.

Yes sir.


There are those who were predestined according to [election] purpose, not predestined according to salvation.


I tell the truth in Christ, I am not lying, my conscience also bearing me witness in the Holy Spirit, 2 that I have great sorrow and continual grief in my heart. 3 For I could wish that I myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my countrymen according to the flesh, 4 who are Israelites, to whom pertain the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the service of God, and the promises; 5 of whom are the fathers and from whom, according to the flesh, Christ came, who is over all, the eternally blessed God. Amen.

6 But it is not that the word of God has taken no effect. For they are not all Israel who are of Israel, 7 nor are they all children because they are the seed of Abraham; but, “In Isaac your seed shall be called.” 8 That is, those who are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God; but the children of the promise are counted as the seed. 9 For this is the word of promise: “At this time I will come and Sarah shall have a son.”

10 And not only this, but when Rebecca also had conceived by one man, even by our father Isaac 11 (for the children not yet being born, nor having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works but of Him who calls), 12 it was said to her, “The older shall serve the younger.” 13 As it is written, “Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated.”
Romans 9:1-13

Those who teach "predestination", use Esau as an example of God choosing someone, beforehand to be "predestined" to go to hell, because He hated Esau, while Jacob, because He loved Jacob, to be predestined to go to heaven.


When the context, or subject matter is about purpose [that the purpose of God according to election might stand], not being "elected" or predestined for salvation or not.


The purpose in this discourse is the lineage through whom the Messiah would come.

I could wish that I myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my countrymen according to the flesh, 4 who are Israelites, to whom pertain the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the service of God, and the promises; 5 of whom are the fathers and from whom, according to the flesh, Christ came...


JLB

 

[Butch5]

Yes, actually, I can provide evidence for Paul's emphatic statement.

In Acts 19 we see an encounter with Paul and some believers in Ephesus. In that account we find that they had been baptized into Johns baptism, but not the Spirit. At that time Paul laid hands on them and they received the Spirit. It was a big deal to them.

So later, when we see Paul writing them a letter, he makes this emphatic statement to them(verse 13) concerning the Spirit. That's why he uses that 'word' that seems to indicate he was switching over. But in reality, he was trying to be very direct that they need to truly understand they do have the Spirit.

They knew the rest of it, what his introduction was about, and that's why he wasn't speaking to them in the 'you' perspective, but rather the 'us' and 'we' perspective. But reaching that one point, about the Spirit, it's like he wants to grab their attention. It's a literary device to direct the readers attention. We see just after that statement he goes back to using 'we' and 'us'. In chapter 2 verse 5, was he indicating that the 'we' and 'us' group were one thing and the 'you' group was another?

The whole point is moot if one just understands he begins the letter addressing them in the first place. It clearly states;

"Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, To the saints who are in Ephesus, and are faithful in Christ Jesus:"

He clearly is addressing the saints in Ephesus who are faithful in Christ Jesus. One group of people. We see other writings when he clearly is addressing two different people, namely Philemon, and it's not the same kind of introduction. So why we would assume this introduction was meant for two different people should not be. None of the other letters to the churches as a whole ever had the indication that he was separating out two groups of people.

Here is an copy/paste from a interlinear Bible; http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/NTpdf/eph1.pdf

paulos paulos G3972 n_ Nom Sg m PAUL
apostolos apostolos G652 n_ Nom Sg m commissioner apostle
ihsou iEsou G2424 n_ Gen Sg m OF-JESUS
cristou christou G5547 n_ Gen Sg m ANOINTED Christ
dia dia G1223 Prep THRU through
qelhmatos thelEmatos G2307 n_ Gen Sg n WILL
qeou theou G2316 n_ Gen Sg m OF-God
tois tois G3588 t_ Dat Pl m to-THE
agiois hagiois G40 a_ Dat Pl m HOLY-ones saints
tois tois G3588 t_ Dat Pl m THE-ones the
ousin ousin G5607 vp Pres vxx Dat Pl m BEING ones-being
en en G1722 Prep IN
efesw ephesO G2181 n_ Dat Sg f EPHESUS
kai kai G2532 Conj AND
pistois pistois G4103 a_ Dat Pl m to-BELIEVing(p) to-believers
en en G1722 Prep IN
cristw christO G5547 n_ Dat Sg m ANOINTED Christ
ihsou iEsou G2424 n_ Dat Sg m JESUS

Notice no defining of a difference between "the" ones being in Ephesus and to believers. "The" would make a distinction if there were two different groups of people. Instead, we see the use of the word "and" which means - also, are, etc. That word "and" connects the word "Ephesus" with the word "believers" - it quite distinctly brings them together to indicate they are the same person. Believers in Christ is descriptive of the Saints being in Ephesus.

Example; "My dear wife, who has lovely brown hair, and who has blue eyes". Now, I am speaking of the same woman, not one who is my wife with brown hair, and another woman who has blue eyes.

Here are his introductions in Biblical order;

To all those in Rome who are loved by God and called to be saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

To the church of God that is in Corinth, to those sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints together with all those who in every place call upon the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, both their Lord and ours:

Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, and Timothy our brother, To the church of God that is at Corinth, with all the saints who are in the whole of Achaia:

Paul, an apostle-not from men nor through man, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised him from the dead-
and all the brothers who are with me, To the churches of Galatia:

Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, To the saints who are in Ephesus, and are faithful in Christ Jesus:

Paul and Timothy, servants of Christ Jesus, To all the saints in Christ Jesus who are at Philippi, with the overseers and deacons:

To the saints and faithful brothers in Christ at Colossae: Grace to you and peace from God our Father.

Paul, Silvanus, and Timothy, To the church of the Thessalonians in God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ: Grace to you and peace.

Paul, Silvanus, and Timothy, To the church of the Thessalonians in God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ:

To Timothy, my true child in the faith: Grace, mercy, and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Lord.

To Timothy, my beloved child: Grace, mercy, and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Lord.

Paul, a servant of God and an apostle of Jesus Christ, for the sake of the faith of God's elect and their knowledge of the truth, which accords with godliness,
in hope of eternal life, which God, who never lies, promised before the ages began
and at the proper time manifested in his word through the preaching with which I have been entrusted by the command of God our Savior;
To Titus, my true child in a common faith: Grace and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Savior.

Paul, a prisoner for Christ Jesus, and Timothy our brother, To Philemon our beloved fellow worker
and Apphia our sister and Archippus our fellow soldier, and the church in your house:

Your example of the use of "and" is incorrect for this example. The conjunction "and" connects two things. It can be used the way you used it. However, that is not the way Paul used it. He said, the saint in Ephesus and to the faithful in Jesus Christ. That is a distinction between two different groups. There is, the saints at Ephesus. There is also the faith in Jesus Christ. The translation that says "who are" is simply wrong. It's translator bias and in not found in the Greek text.

You statement about a literary term really has no basis. Where in the English language do you find this? What grammatical rule would address this?

You mentioned those disciples that Paul found as he was going to Ephesus. Who were they? They had been baptized into John's baptism. They also know about the Holy Spirit. What does that mean? John only baptized is Judea. What were Ephesians doing in Judea? Obviously they were Jews.

Also, as I pointed out in another post, Paul said that the "us" group had received an inheritance. That's past tense. They had received it before Paul wrote the letter. Only the Jews had already received an inheritance from God. Notice what Paul prays for the "you" group.

15 Wherefore I also, after I heard of your faith in the Lord Jesus, and love unto all the saints,
16 Cease not to give thanks for you, making mention of you in my prayers;
17 That the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give unto you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of him:1
18 The eyes of your understanding being enlightened; that ye may know what is the hope of his calling, and what the riches of the glory of his inheritance in the saints, (Eph. 1:15-18 KJV)

How had gotten an inheritance? It was Israel. This is further evidence that those identified in verse 1 as saints are Jews.

The point is, the only way to hold the idea that both groups are the same is to reject the rules of language. They are set. They are not up to me to interpret nor you. They are set and have been established for quite some time. We can either accept or reject them.

 

[joseph lentz]

PLEASE!! Whether Elect or General Call Believers, both have to, at some point in their lives, must believe by faith in Christ Jesus for Salvation. Just like everyone else. The major difference being that the Elect cannot loose their Salvation, whereas the General Call Believers can be deceived and return to old ways.

Yes sir, I agree.

I was wanting to hear what Mr. Chopper had to say concerning this subject.




Yes sir.


There are those who were predestined according to [election] purpose, not predestined according to salvation.


I tell the truth in Christ, I am not lying, my conscience also bearing me witness in the Holy Spirit, 2 that I have great sorrow and continual grief in my heart. 3 For I could wish that I myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my countrymen according to the flesh, 4 who are Israelites, to whom pertain the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the service of God, and the promises; 5 of whom are the fathers and from whom, according to the flesh, Christ came, who is over all, the eternally blessed God. Amen.

6 But it is not that the word of God has taken no effect. For they are not all Israel who are of Israel, 7 nor are they all children because they are the seed of Abraham; but, “In Isaac your seed shall be called.” 8 That is, those who are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God; but the children of the promise are counted as the seed. 9 For this is the word of promise: “At this time I will come and Sarah shall have a son.”

10 And not only this, but when Rebecca also had conceived by one man, even by our father Isaac 11 (for the children not yet being born, nor having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works but of Him who calls), 12 it was said to her, “The older shall serve the younger.” 13 As it is written, “Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated.”
Romans 9:1-13

Those who teach "predestination", use Esau as an example of God choosing someone, beforehand to be "predestined" to go to hell, because He hated Esau, while Jacob, because He loved Jacob, to be predestined to go to heaven.


When the context, or subject matter is about purpose [that the purpose of God according to election might stand], not being "elected" or predestined for salvation or not.


The purpose in this discourse is the lineage through whom the Messiah would come.

I could wish that I myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my countrymen according to the flesh, 4 who are Israelites, to whom pertain the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the service of God, and the promises; 5 of whom are the fathers and from whom, according to the flesh, Christ came...


JLB

I could wish that I myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my countrymen according to the flesh, 4 who are Israelites, to whom pertain the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the service of God, and the promises; 5 of whom are the fathers and from whom, according to the flesh, Christ came...
It came to/through/because of them. But they rejected it.

 

[Nathan]

Your example of the use of "and" is incorrect for this example. The conjunction "and" connects two things. It can be used the way you used it. However, that is not the way Paul used it. He said, the saint in Ephesus and to the faithful in Jesus Christ. That is a distinction between two different groups. There is, the saints at Ephesus. There is also the faith in Jesus Christ. The translation that says "who are" is simply wrong. It's translator bias and in not found in the Greek text.

You statement about a literary term really has no basis. Where in the English language do you find this? What grammatical rule would address this?

You mentioned those disciples that Paul found as he was going to Ephesus. Who were they? They had been baptized into John's baptism. They also know about the Holy Spirit. What does that mean? John only baptized is Judea. What were Ephesians doing in Judea? Obviously they were Jews.

Also, as I pointed out in another post, Paul said that the "us" group had received an inheritance. That's past tense. They had received it before Paul wrote the letter. Only the Jews had already received an inheritance from God. Notice what Paul prays for the "you" group.

15 Wherefore I also, after I heard of your faith in the Lord Jesus, and love unto all the saints,
16 Cease not to give thanks for you, making mention of you in my prayers;
17 That the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give unto you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of him:1
18 The eyes of your understanding being enlightened; that ye may know what is the hope of his calling, and what the riches of the glory of his inheritance in the saints, (Eph. 1:15-18 KJV)

How had gotten an inheritance? It was Israel. This is further evidence that those identified in verse 1 as saints are Jews.

The point is, the only way to hold the idea that both groups are the same is to reject the rules of language. They are set. They are not up to me to interpret nor you. They are set and have been established for quite some time. We can either accept or reject them.

It was written in Greek and translated into English.

Your applying English rules to Greek language. Once you reject English rules, and accept Greek ones, then you'll understand.

There were definitely Jews and Greeks in Ephesus. But the inheritance was to all who held the faith of Abraham, who was called before Israel as a nation was born. Therefore, the inheritance is the same to Greek and Jew.

The Jews have the advantage in knowing this faith before the Greeks did. All those who are in Christ are saints - not just Jewish believers. Paul understood that everything is past tense in relation to God. He really strove in all his letters to help the readers understand this. We often don't grasp this and use his phrases the wrong way.

I gather you might be misunderstanding the term Baptism. Those in Ephesus were not speaking of John physically baptizing them, but rather the spiritual baptism of repentance.

Anyways, if you wish we can keep discussing this, or we can move on to the other passages and thoughts of predestination and election.

 

[Butch5]

It was written in Greek and translated into English.

Your applying English rules to Greek language. Once you reject English rules, and accept Greek ones, then you'll understand.

I'm applying English rules because we're discussing English translations. If you're claiming the English translations are wrong that's another subject. That can be addressed separately.

There were definitely Jews and Greeks in Ephesus. But the inheritance was to all who held the faith of Abraham, who was called before Israel as a nation was born. Therefore, the inheritance is the same to Greek and Jew.

The inheritance is to both Jew and Gentile. However, as Paul said of the Gentiles, "After you heard the word of you salvation". Paul makes it abundantly clear in chapter two that the Gentiles were without God, without Christ, had no hope, and were outside of the covenants of Israel before Christ came. It was after Christ came that the Gentiles were made fellow heirs with the saints, the Jews. In Romans Paul goes into an explanation of how the Gentiles have been grafted into Israel.

The Jews have the advantage in knowing this faith before the Greeks did. All those who are in Christ are saints - not just Jewish believers. Paul understood that everything is past tense in relation to God. He really strove in all his letters to help the readers understand this. We often don't grasp this and use his phrases the wrong way.

The word hagios is holy ones. I can include Gentiles as well as Jews. However, in the context of Ephesians Paul distinquishes between those who were far off, the uncircumsion and those who were near, the circumcision. This is clearly talking about Jews and Gentiles. Paul even states that the Gentiles are the uncircumsion. He said, those who were far off,which are the Gentiles, have been brought near and are now fellow heir with the saints. This context shows that he is referring to the Jews when he says saints. So, while the word can be use of either or both Jew and Gentile, in this context Paul makes it clear that he is referring to Jews.

I gather you might be misunderstanding the term Baptism. Those in Ephesus were not speaking of John physically baptizing them, but rather the spiritual baptism of repentance.

John only had one baptism, that was in water. He said the one coming after him would baptize with the Spirit.

Anyways, if you wish we can keep discussing this, or we can move on to the other passages and thoughts of predestination and election.

I don't know how much more can be said on this passage. However, as I said, my position is that every passage about predestination and election pertain to Israel and those chosen. to fulfill the promises made to Abraham

 

[Nathan]

I'm applying English rules because we're discussing English translations. If you're claiming the English translations are wrong that's another subject. That can be addressed separately.



The inheritance is to both Jew and Gentile. However, as Paul said of the Gentiles, "After you heard the word of you salvation". Paul makes it abundantly clear in chapter two that the Gentiles were without God, without Christ, had no hope, and were outside of the covenants of Israel before Christ came. It was after Christ came that the Gentiles were made fellow heirs with the saints, the Jews. In Romans Paul goes into an explanation of how the Gentiles have been grafted into Israel.



The word hagios is holy ones. I can include Gentiles as well as Jews. However, in the context of Ephesians Paul distinquishes between those who were far off, the uncircumsion and those who were near, the circumcision. This is clearly talking about Jews and Gentiles. Paul even states that the Gentiles are the uncircumsion. He said, those who were far off,which are the Gentiles, have been brought near and are now fellow heir with the saints. This context shows that he is referring to the Jews when he says saints. So, while the word can be use of either or both Jew and Gentile, in this context Paul makes it clear that he is referring to Jews.



John only had one baptism, that was in water. He said the one coming after him would baptize with the Spirit.



I don't know how much more can be said on this passage. However, as I said, my position is that every passage about predestination and election pertain to Israel and those chosen. to fulfill the promises made to Abraham

No, I'm not saying English translations are wrong. I'm saying it was originally written in Greek before English and they have a certain way of writing. If you base understanding from the original way of writing, then you understand the original writers intentions. This can be clearly seen through the different ways the verse is translated. Not least of which, is translated in several different ways, in the English language, to show that Paul was referring to the ones in Ephesus as saints and faithful - one group.

The distinction Paul makes in Romans is wild versus natural. Not first versus 'afterthought'. See the difference? The Jews were naturally inclined to the faith of Abraham, the Gentiles were wild in their calling - meaning not naturally inclined to the faith.

John baptized physically with water what is known as the baptism of repentance.

Mark 1:4
John appeared, baptizing in the wilderness and proclaiming a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins.

This is all the disciples in Ephesus had heard about. That is why the baptism of the Spirit was so monumental to them - and why the Greek emphatic statement Paul made in verse 13 is so particular.

Everyone who comes to Christ is apart of Israel and are chosen. None who believe are either true Israel or chosen by God.

Romans 9:6-8
6 But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel,
7 and not all are children of Abraham because they are his offspring, but "Through Isaac shall your offspring be named."
8 This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring.