Eph. 1:4

[Guest]

The following is by Jac3510, an internet friend

For me, the most important passage on election is Eph. 1:4, which says, “as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him.” This passage, along with Romans 11:5 and Romans 16:3, are the only passages that tell us HOW God elects. Every other passage that mentions election simply says that God does it, or it talks about the Elect. But this passage says that we are chosen “in Christ.”

Now, it is obvious that all those Elect refers only to the saved (2 Thess. 2:13). Therefore, all those who are “in Him” are “the Elect.” However, if this is true, we cannot say that a person was ever “elected to be in Christ,” because this would be the same as saying, that a person was “elected to be elect.” In fact, I challenge anyone to show me a single place in Scripture where we are said to be elected to be in Christ. Again, we find we are elected in Christ.

What does that mean, “elected in Christ”? “In Christ” refers to location or position. If I said, “I was chosen in the house,” or “He was chosen in the field,” we would not think that I was chosen to be in the house or chosen to be in the field. The implication is that, while in the house, I was chosen, or while in the field, he was chosen. Thus, we see that God looks at those “in Christ” and He chooses them. Which ones does He choose? ALL of them!

If I may explain by way of analogy, imagine you want to get a game of some sort together. You tell everyone, “anyone who wants to play, come to the field.” A group of people show up, and you then begin to choose who will be on your team. You choose everyone. This well pictures God’s decree of election. God invites all “to the field” (Matt. 22:14 [again, notice many is from polus], Luke 24:46-47, John 1:7, John 1:12), but only those who believe actually “come to the field” (that is, are reborn into Christ).

You see, the central assumption here is that to be “in Christ”, one must be chosen to be in Christ. And yet, such is never taught in Scripture. What we are taught is that to be “in Christ”, one must be born again, as per John 3 (c.f. 2 Cor. 5:17, Rom. 6:3, Eph. 2:10). This is, in the end, what it means to be “born again.” The first man is born “in Adam,” but the second man is born “in Christ.”

I say this doctrine is unconditional election because our election is conditioned on absolutely nothing! God chooses everyone in Christ. This is significantly different from the Arminian understanding that implies that, if you have faith, then God chooses you to be in Christ. It makes Rom. 8:29-30 refer to faith that God foreknew rather than people. But, again, we see that those who believe in Christ are born again in Christ, and that God looks at all those in Christ and chooses them for salvation.

The Calvinist, of course, disagrees. As I said in my previous discussion of the matter, he confuses predestination with election, making them precisely the same thing. Predestination, is distinct from election. God predestines the elect for certain things, namely, to adoption, to an inheritance, and to glorification. For the Calvinist, there can be no such distinction, and thus, the doctrine is both wrong and heretical.

[Guest]

I agree with your assessments here. I know that Calvinists believe what they believe because the Bible (if you surface read it and don't dig very deep) can appear to say that God has chosen individuals to salvation and by neglecting to choose most - he destines them to eternity in hell. This is an idea that I heard for the first time 4 or 5 years ago fresh into Christianity by Dr. David Jeremiah. I had been listening to him for about a year and I thought he seemed to know what he was talking about when it came to the Bible and on many Biblical subjects he did. But going through Romans 9 on his pogram he had me convinced that this is what the Bible said. It threw me for a loop. I had a whole different view of God and no longer such a pleasant view. I thought that this made God into someone considerably less loving and compassionate than the way I had believed Him to be all my life. Fortunately through study and prayer I got my thinking back doctrinally in line but still had some difficulties with it. I now believe as you do that we are chosen when we are "in Christ" - not unconditionally chose TO BE "In Christ". If so then God can't make up His mind on who He will elect and in John 15 places them "In Christ" and then they are "taken away" and it has nothing to do with whether or not we choose to remain "in" Him.

[Guest]

I suspect the main point here is that Paul was telling the Ephesians not to worry about those people in the Jewish synagogue, or other Christian Judaizers, who said that the Gentile Ephesians weren't truly God's people (see Eph 2:11-22). Their reasoning was that the Jews were the "chosen people", and so the Gentiles didn't qualify unless they were circumcised. But Paul is saying that the Ephesians are "the chosen people" based on belonging to Christ. That was the issue the Ephesians were thinking about; they were not concerned about the theory of predestination and foreknowledge as developed by Augustine 350 years later.

I would agree with many in this forum that the concept of "chosen" in Ephesians is more of a corporate than an individual thing. I don't believe Paul intended any complex theology here. The believers in Christ are now the "chosen people" (see also 1 Pet 2:9), and this is according to God eternal purpose which he "accomplished in Christ Jesus" (Eph 3:11). That's essentially all that predestination is; no big mind-twisting concept that we have to struggle with to make compatible with human choice.

[Guest]

I was wondering for those who believe in Predestination, did God also predestin Satan to rebel against him and did he predestination which angels would stay with him and which would go with Satan? Just wondering.

[Guest]

Calvin believed that the answer was Yes (in Institutes section 3.23.4).

[Guest]

As mentioned earlier in this thread, non-calvinists interpret Ephesians 1 as applicable to the corporate body of Christ. Calvinists understand the text as applicable to each individual who is a member of the body of Christ. There are two reasons that appear to indicate the individual interpretation is correct. I would like to ask for feedback on the validity of these points.

1) Ephesians 1, and Phillipians 1 have very similar introductions, consider the following:

Eph 1:1 "To the saints who are at Ephesus ..."
Phil 1:1 "To all the saints in Christ Jesus who are in Philippi,..."

Eph 1:2: "Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ."
Phil 1:2:"Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ."

The Phillipian text uses the words "you all" at various points (i.e. Phil 1:4,7,8). The words 'you all' indicate that Paul is not speaking corporately, but rather to each individual member of the church. Further, when Paul does wish to speak about the Church corporately, he employs the word 'church', for example in Eph 1:22,3:10,3:21 ; Phil 3:6. But, in the first part of Ephesians 1 he does not use the word church.

Since the 'you all' phrase indicates application to the individual, the introduction to Ephesians is more or less the same as that of Phillipians, then the conclusion is that the first part of Ephesians should be understood to be relevant to the individual over the corporate.

2) Both Eph. 1:1 and Phil. 1:1 start with 'to [all] the saints'. If the letter is "to [every] saint", then the passage is relevant to the individual.


Thanks,
Peter

[Guest]

thrombomodulin,
I copied and pasted your post to my friend, Jac. This is his response:

I actually wouldn't disagree a whole lot with what this guy is saying . . .

As mentioned earlier in this thread, non-calvinists interpret Ephesians 1 as applicable to the corporate body of Christ.

This is going to be the big thing I disagree with. What we have here is a textbook example of someone knowing just enough theology to get them in trouble, and not enough to get them out! How is he using the word "Calvinist"? In the strict 5-point sense, in the broadest paedo-baptizing sense, or simply in the "belief in eternal security" sense? I am a Calvinst in the last of these ideas. Obviously, I'm not in the other two. What your friend has done here is to divide the whole of Christendom into two groups: Calvinists and Arminians. Now, I am NOT an Arminian. You can't lose your salvation. So, the fault here is in assigning to the position I'm advocating an ideology it doesn't at all promote: by saying I'm a "non-Calvinist" I must support the Arminian concepts of election based on foreseen faith, corporate election, the possibility of the loss of faith and thus the loss of salvation, the idea that man is not depraved but only sick, etc. All of these are ideas I absolutely reject.

So, if we can get past purjorative labels and look at the actual argument . . .

Calvinists understand the text as applicable to each individual who is a member of the body of Christ. There are two reasons that appear to indicate the individual interpretation is correct. I would like to ask for feedback on the validity of these points.

1) Ephesians 1, and Phillipians 1 have very similar introductions, consider the following:

Eph 1:1 "To the saints who are at Ephesus ..."
Phil 1:1 "To all the saints in Christ Jesus who are in Philippi,..."

Eph 1:2: "Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ."
Phil 1:2:"Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ."

The Phillipian text uses the words "you all" at various points (i.e. Phil 1:4,7,. The words 'you all' indicate that Paul is not speaking corporately, but rather to each individual member of the church. Further, when Paul does wish to speak about the Church corporately, he employs the word 'church', for example in Eph 1:22,3:10,3:21 ; Phil 3:6. But, in the first part of Ephesians 1 he does not use the word church.

Since the 'you all' phrase indicates application to the individual, the introduction to Ephesians is more or less the same as that of Phillipians, then the conclusion is that the first part of Ephesians should be understood to be relevant to the individual over the corporate.

2) Both Eph. 1:1 and Phil. 1:1 start with 'to [all] the saints'. If the letter is "to [every] saint", then the passage is relevant to the individual.

This is correct. The election in Eph. 1 is individual, just as it is throughout the NT when refering to salvation. In fact, if he had read my comments more closely rather than just labeling me a "non-Calvinist" and then making assumptions, he would have seen that I advocate individual election. So, his point does nothing to my position except offer support!

The faulty assumption in HIS thinking is that the individuals elected "in Christ" are elected "to be" in Christ. The text simply does not say that. There is a perfectly good verb Paul could have used right there had he intended that meaning - eimi ("to be"). The fact is that he never uses it tha way. EVER. Going back to my original argument, we see that this "in Christ" is a reference to location. There are, in fact, only two ways this can be taken from a Greek perspective. First, this could be what is called an instrumental dative. If this is the case, Paul is saying we are elected "by means of Christ." I'd have a good time trying to see someone put that idea in simple terms and relate it to the rest of Scripture. Instrumental datives, that I've seen, aren't that abstract. The other way to take this is the way, and all the major translations, do: a locative dative, meaning a dative with reference to location - "in Christ." God "chooses" us "in Christ." If we want to make the locative usage explicit, we could say, God chooses us who are in Christ. That's a bit NIVish, as Paul doesn't use a relative pronoun here, but it isn't necessary given what Paul does have.

So - long story short: Yes, Eph 1 is talking about the election of individuals. Paul says that everyone in Christ is elected. He does NOT say that everyone who is in Christ was elected to be in Christ. God sees two groups of people - those in Adam, and those in Christ. He then chose those people in Christ, and given that election, He did certain things, i.e. predestination to glorification.

[Guest]

Thanks for your reply. There seems to be some misunderstandings here that need to be cleared up.

What we have here is a textbook example of ... How is he using the word "Calvinist"? ... What your friend has done here is to divide the whole of Christendom into two groups: Calvinists and Arminians.

The scope of this particular question was specifically, and only, in regard to one of the five points of Calvinism which is commonly called the "Unconditional Election". My understanding is that Calvinism is a system of theology which (more or less) consists of five points commonly associated with the acronym TULIP. I have here used the terms Calvinist or Non-Calvinist merely to denote the two options of accepting or rejecting any given tenet in the five-point Calvinist system. That is, my question was not meant insinuate that there are only two valid positions - namely accepting all the points, or none of the points! I would agree with you that there are many options - a lower bound to which is 32 options considering that there is not less than two positions on each of the five points.

This is correct. The election in Eph. 1 is individual, just as it is throughout the NT when referring to salvation. In fact, if he had read my comments more closely rather than just labeling me a "non-Calvinist" and then making assumptions, he would have seen that I advocate individual election. So, his point does nothing to my position except offer support!

I have not labeled you either Calvinist or non-Calvinist. In fact, I was not really even responding to your post in particular. I post on this thread only because it is already the discussion of the topic and the verse that I am interested in.

The options for understanding Eph 1:4 that I am aware of are summarized as follows. There are probably other possibilities.
Option #1 - "He chose [each individual person unconditionally to be] in Him before the foundation of the world."
Option #2 - "He chose [each individual person according to foreknowledge of the individuals faith to be] in Him before the foundation of the world."
Option #3 - "He chose [all those who are] in Him before the foundation of the world."

When I had first your read post, it was my understanding that you were taking the same position as Mr. Gregg, which is position #3. I further understood that you associate the "Arminian understanding" with Option #2, and the "Calvinist" understanding with Option #1. Is this correct?

I would be inclined to label Options #1 and #2 as "individual election" and Options #3 as "corporate election". I say this because in option #3 it seems that God is choosing the criteria by which a person is or is not elect, rather than the person himself. The criteria, of course, is being in Christ.

However, I do not understand why you insist on calling your position with "individual election". Evidently I must not be understanding something here, or accurately understanding your position. Could you please explain this?

The faulty assumption in HIS thinking is that the individuals elected "in Christ" are elected "to be" in Christ.

Please don't jump to conclusions, actually, the above is not true. I did not reveal my position in my first post, but my position actually is (and was) what I labeled option #3 in the above list.

There is a perfectly good verb Paul ...

Thanks for the Greek explanation. At first glance it sounds like a good argument.

So - long story short: Yes, Eph 1 is talking about the election of individuals.

I follow (or rather think I follow) and agree with you all the way up to this point. The one thing I don't understand is how you get to God electing individuals from God electing a group of individuals. I would call this corporate election, but maybe this is a semantic problem.

Hope to hear back from you soon, Thanks for replying.

Pete