Hey Chris, thanks for this thoughtful response. It would seem you are approaching Ephesians 1:4 differently than a lot of the Calvinist theologians that I played in my videos, but I do think that the core of the arguments I've presented still apply mostly to what you are saying. I'll try to explain why I think that is, but just to clarify, are you basically saying that the "in him" can be understood as simply meaning "because of him".... or "by his merits not ours" and that this does not refer to "union" with Christ? At the 9:30 mark you say... *"the choice doesn't come because of themselves, the choice comes because John and Bob are in Christ. They are chosen in Christ."* Can you clarify what you mean by "because they are in Christ?" Do you mean something like... "they are chosen because of Christ's merit?" -- If that's what you mean, then again I think that much of the issues I present in my videos would apply to this idea as well. To say that the elect are chosen *"because of Christ"* or *"on the basis of Christ's merits and not their own..."* -- strongly suggests or explicitly states that Christ's merits are applied to "the elect" independent from union with Christ/being under Christ's headship. Did the elect have/were they identified by Christ's merits from before birth? How was the merit of Christ applied to the elect before they had faith in Christ? To say that "in him" means that the elect are chosen because of who Christ is and not because of who they are I think has Christ mediating the elect to the Father while they are unbelieving and entirely disconnected from Christ's headship. How can this be? How could God view the elect through the merits of Christ in such a way that God could view them as *"belonging to himself"* but yet at the same time not be reconciled with them? If God is choosing them *"on the basis of Christ's merits"* then this implies that God is viewing them as being under Christ's headship/redemptive representation doesn't it? But they aren't yet under his headship until faith wouldn't you say? In other words... you seem to be saying that in God's choosing of the elect, he is relating to them on the basis of Christ's merits and not the merits of the elect, inasmuch as he is doing his choosing of them. He couldn't choose them on the basis of anything in themselves, as you say... and so he must choose them on the basis of who Christ is for them. In other words, you have God at the very least being "partially reconciled" or "partially mediated" with the elect while they are yet separate from Christ and unbelieving. You have God viewing the elect and relating to them through the mediating work of Christ while the elect are alienated from Christ. Why are you ok with applying this spiritual blessing of being "chosen" to the elect while calling it heresy to say that the spiritual blessing of "justification" cannot possibly be applied to the elect who are not yet believing in Christ? Both of these ideas conveys that salvific benefits are being received by people who are not in union with Christ. Isn't being "chosen" equally a redemptive benefit as "justification?" In fact, as MacArthur even says, election is the FIRST and PRIMARY spiritual blessing which is the basis upon which justification can even come in the first place. So why are you comfortable with God applying the PRIMARY and FOUNDATIONAL redemptive blessing of election to those who are alienated from Christ and still in full-blown rebellion to him? If God can choose the elect BECAUSE OF CHRIST, then this strongly implies mediation is in effect for the elect from the moment they are born into this world and long before. I think ultimately the differences between myself and Calvinism here comes down to differing understandings of Christology. Are the benefits of redemption -- any of them -- actually applied to us separate from a living union with Christ? Calvinism says yes, and I just don't think this is possible. I do not think, that while we are defined as SEPARATE FROM CHRIST (Ephesians 2) and as those who DO NOT BELONG TO CHRIST (Romans 8:9) that God can choose us "because of Christ's merits" -- anymore than the benefit of forgiveness, redemption, reconciliation can be applied to us "because of Christ's merits" while we are still separated from Christ. In terms of my doctrine of God, I'm mostly ok with classical theism, although I do have a lot of questions and yes, there is a lot of mystery here. I probably could have done a better job at clarifying what I did and did not mean when I objected to Calvinist's appeal to mystery. My point wasn't to say that there is NO mystery in Ephesians 1. That would be a bit ignorant and silly of me if I suggested that. My objection was against the sort of appeal to mystery that the Calvinist theologians I played in my videos were making... an appeal that basically results in the elect ALWAYS having been in Christ in the mind of God in such a way that the spiritual blessing of "election" is ACTUALLY applied to them before they are ACTUALLY in union with Christ. If I have misunderstood what you were saying here let me know and if I didn't respond to a point you made that you want me to respond to let me know that as well.
Thanks for the response. It’s a lot to reply to, so let me start here. I don’t see the election of individuals as a spiritual blessing. It’s a choice of God, and blessings are received upon union with Christ. The choice is “in Christ”, which means that the choosing of the Father is through the Son, whereas any merit of the choice falls on Christ and not the creature.
@@chrisharris9710 So would you word it as "God chose us through the merits of Christ before the foundation of the world..."? Or would you say it differently? Also, can you explain why you don't see election as a "spiritual blessing?" I'm asking because even from your own understanding here, being "chosen" is something that can only be applied by Christ's merits. Why would this not be considered a spiritual blessing? I'm also asking because this seems to be contrary to how most other Calvinists understand it. The reformed theologians that I've come across connect the spiritual blessings of verse 3 directly to the "even as he chose us..." in verse 4, and see this as Paul beginning his expounding on the specifics of these "spiritual blessings."
Hey brother, as a fellow non-Calvinist myself, allow me to say in love that if I were a Calvinist, I too would reject the argument that "us" and "we" depict the entire body of Christ, predestinated to be "In Christ" once we freely believe. This ubiquitous take by those who reject Calvinism seems to be quite the knee-jerk reaction to the term "predestinated". Since we reject Calvinism and therefore cannot view the term as pertaining to the method by which we're saved, we then must view it as the positional destination of the saved once we're saved by volitional faith as the criteria. It's akin to saying once I freely believe in Christ, I'm then predestinated to be in Christ. It's rather redundant, to say the least. Why not just acknowledge the "predestination" as salvific and simply relegate it to those to whom Paul relegates it to? Here's what I mean: after the greeting in the first two verses, 3-12 speaks specifically about those who "first trusted in Christ" as defined by verse 12. "Us" and "we" used repeatedly until vs 12 cannot be you and me because of "you" in vs 13. Therefore, "us" and "we" are the apostles who were predestinated from BEFORE the foundation "unto a purpose", unlike you and me who who believe and are sealed AFTER we "hear their words". There is a clear before and after and a clear dichotomy of the two groups. Jesus' Gethsemane prayer follows suit. The prayer, from vs's 6-19 is solely for the apostles, the ones God "gave" to Jesus, referring back to John 6, out of a blinded nation. Of those "given" ones, Jesus had "lost none" save Judas. The Jesus opens up the prayer in vs 20 to "all those who will believe through their words", the apostles. Since Paul makes a habit of, in many or even most of his letters to differentiate the apostles, himself included, from the rest of the Church, it makes sense that "us" and "we" is not you and me once "you" is used in the same thought. If you adhere to simple grammar, you can then go straight to Romans 8 and see the very same predestination unto a "purpose" for those who were at that time considered to be counted as sheep for the slaughter for the sake of the rest of the church who were being built up and blessed at that time. Ask yourself....who do these pronouns refer to? "As it is written: "For YOUR sake WE are killed all day long; WE are accounted as sheep for the slaughter." Rom 8:36 It was the apostles who were suffering and enduring persecution for the sake of the Church they had preached to. In Eph 1, "Us" and "we" are repetitive for ten verses straight which can seem to be referring to the entirety of the Church.... until "you" is finally introduced. But see below how it reads when Paul toggles back and forth between contrasting pronouns... "YOU are already full! YOU are already rich! YOU have reigned as kings without US--and indeed I could wish YOU did reign, that WE also might reign with YOU! WE are fools for Christ's sake, but YOU are wise in Christ! WE are weak, but YOU are strong! YOU are distinguished, but WE are dishonored! To the present hour WE both hunger and thirst, and WE are poorly clothed, and beaten, and homeless. And WE labor, working with our own hands. Being reviled, WE bless; being persecuted, WE endure; being defamed, WE entreat. WE have been made as the filth of the world, the offscouring of all things until now" 1Co 4:8, 10-13 Vs 9 ......For I think that God has displayed US, the APOSTLES, last, as men CONDEMNED TO DEATH; for WE have been made a spectacle to the world, both to angels and to men. Again, it was the apostles who were predestinated from before the foundation unto a very specific "purpose" as the foundation of the Church. We obtain every spiritual blessing in the heavens as they had obtained but we were not predestinated for anything. We simply are "included" when we believe. I believe that this is the proper way to read these passages and proper interpretations always make the best arguments toward improper interpretations.
@@GreatLightStudios If I could make a comment. I see when John Piper inserted the words "to be" in Christ , was a problem with you in your video because the text does not say that. But, I also ascribe to covenant theology as does Chris Harris and believe that God made these promises within the Godhead prior to the foundation of the world. Therefore the words " to be" do not apply since when God made this covenant there was no time or a temporal reality. God then created and is fulfilling this covenant "in time" That means as temporal beings we can understand it in the journey of our lives and insert " to be" since it was a future event for us at some point in our lives. The spiritual blessings God is giving to those who have put their faith " in Christ" are given at the time. When presented with the Gospel and when the Holy Spirit has caused a person to see and decide to follow Christ.
The spiritual blessings apply to those who are in Christ through faith. Just because God chose people in Christ in his mind before creation does not mean that it is a reality in creation at the same time. It is obvious that an author of a book or movie can choose the kind of characters he wants before a movie or novel is written.
I needed this video . I made a video with Jordan but I need to be better at some clear answers on certain topics. We are going make another ( if he still wants to)
[2] It has always been doctrine, taught and believed by the leading scholars of Reformed Theology *THAT* the sovereign Calvinist potter God’s “foreknowledge” *IS NOT* based upon him looking down through the corridors of time *RATHER* the sovereign Calvinist potter God’s “foreknowledge” is based solely upon the *FACT* that he has sovereignly planned, organized, authored, ordained, decreed, predestined and actualized *”everything that happens, and nothing happens that the sovereign Calvinist potter God hasn’t CAUSED to happen.”*
Correct. It’s the manner in which he chose. We know that because of the Greek adverb at the beginning of the sentence. And when I told Jordan this, he said, I’m the only one that ever interprets it like that. But here you found it in Calvins own commentary . Thanks
4 even as HE chose US in him before the foundation of the world..... Contrasted with: 13 IN HIM you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him.... So in Ephesians, we have US/WE versus YOU (the ephesians) who were not included until they believed.
Yes, we can know what “in Christ” means. If we know anything about Judaism we would know that one of their overarching teachings is that they were chosen by Hod through the forefathers, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Here, Paul is talking about how Gentiles are chosen since they certainly aren’t in the forefathers lineage, instead they’re chosen in Christ. Jews originally chosen through forefathers, Gentiles chosen in Christ, everyone is chosen. See Ephesians 1:11, & 2 & 3 for more clarity on this.
I think I can wipe this whole debate away for both sides of this discussion. Ephesians 1:3-12 is clearly speaking about Jews (we who first trusted/hoped in Christ [if this had been written in Hebrew he most likely would have used Mashiah]). Paul is definitely _not_ speaking about the Ephesians because he clearly includes them starting in verse 13 where he switches from "us" and "we" to "you", and proceeds to explain to the Ephesians how they are also included in Christ. The same holds true for Romans, which was written for the benefit Jews (those who were previously under the law). So, I think we can put aside the choosing and the predestining as it doesn't speak to Gentiles at all.
@@chrisharris9710 he was until verse 12. Like he said in 1 Corinthians chapter 9, a good preacher puts himself in with his audience. In Ephesians 1 he is writing to the mostly Gentile church at Ephesus so he is writing as “we-Gentiles.” That’s one of the reasons why he sign-posts the “we” change in verse 12 because he’s extricating himself back out of the Gentile group that he started out with. And the surrounding context makes this clear. We already know (or should know) that the idea of Gentiles being cast out by God as humans had already been a theological firestorm for centuries, and as Paul moves in in chapters 2 & 3 to correct this teaching so thoroughly, it makes clear that in the opening of Ephesians 1 he is thinking about the Gentile perspective. He could have said you, you, you, but that doesn’t come across very nicely from the pulpit.
@@TheRomans9Guy that’s forcing something into the text. Christians (the faithful in Christ) are who is the “us”, specifically Paul and those in Ephesus that believe.
@@chrisharris9710 That's the plain reading. "We" is Paul and the Ephesians. The Ephesians are Gentile and Ephesians 1 doesn't make sense unless Paul is including himself as a Gentile, until he changes the "we" in verse 12. Look at chapters 2 & 3. Do you see how strenuous a case Paul is making about the Gentiles now being included in with the Jews? He calls it the great mystery that has now been revealed. He's doing this because, as he just pointed out in chapter 1, the Gentiles have now been included into God's kingdom and have received all of the same blessings the Jews received through the forefathers, they have received them though through Christ. As he says in 1:11 we (Gentiles) have also (along with the Jews) been chosen.
8:50 I would like to understand why people think this is true, or how they come to this belief. It seems completely ad-hoc to me. This also seems to necessitate a supra-lapsarian position.
It was kind of odd the whole video you tried to convince us it’s God’s choice but then in your gospel call at the end you tell us it’s the most important choice we will ever make. 🧐
What about ephesians 1:13, of the Calvinist interpretation of romans 8 29 30 is correct then ephesians 1:13 is a contradiction. I studied the Q'uran, and the book of Mormon, I reject them because of contradictions, I don't think God contradicts himself. I wonder what you would say to a person who believes deeply that they follow Christ, but would abandon all hope if Calvinism was proven to be consistent with the Bible.
You should explain how it is a contradiction. If you claim to deeply follow Christ and would abandon all hope if Calvinism is true then you are just following yourself and not God.
PASTOR, invite any of these Self Determinists who profess themselves to be YT Master Builders to a live, open questioning diologue where they can present their doctrine and testimony as it alighns with their doctrine. Just make the offer and see how many of these self professing YT Theological scholars accept your invite. Here's how many accept my offer over the last couple years......ZERO.😢
Also, Jordon hides comments on his channel if it has scripture on it that goes against his Self Determinist doctrine. He is not as honest as you may think.
Manny , that is not true, Jordan's already addressed that with you. You should probably apologize and delete this accusation. Anyway, as a determinist/Calvinist, I fail to see how you could complain even if it were true. It would only be by God's decree if he deleted anything you said. But then, that's true of everything a Calvinist opposes... it's all God's decree "whatsoever comes to pass" takes in a lot of territory. Jordan ; @GreatLightStudios replied to your accusation on his channel already today; "Manny, I do not shadow ban/delete comments. I certainly have never done so with yours or any other Calvinist on this channel. Not a single time. If you are having issues with your comments being removed then it's UA-cam doing it not me. It has automated systems for removing comments it thinks are spam. I can't control that."
@@R.L.KRANESCHRADTT I see. You are moderating both Soteriology 101 and Jordons channel. Answer me. ARE YOU GETTING $ TO MODERATE Jordons channel?? The Lord knows if you're telling the truth.
@@ManassehJones Sorry, I do have other responsibilities besides responding to your 'well meant' insults. Manny, Manny, Manny you are certainly a piece of work. 🤣 By your own theology, if I lied it could only be by God's eternal decree from before Adam was created. I couldn't help it. And it could not be my fault, even our thoughts are not our own, you said that yourself. I have no reason to disbelieve neither Leighton or Jordan, both have affirmed they do not 'shadow ban' posts that disagree with them. But your posts are consistently obnoxious with me and others who you believe God has decreed to disagree with what he has decreed for you to believe. 🥴 I think I'm getting a word from God to ignore you.... I suppose time will tell 🤔
I saw that you told Jordan of GLS that you do not believe the election of individuals a spiritual blessing. Being “elect” is a spiritual blessing that only occurs by being in the Elect One, being connected to the Vine. Why would this not be a spiritual blessing and how could you be elect without being in the Elect One?
@@chrisharris9710Pastor. Loves2HugItOut has verbally denied the fruit of the new birth and denies the effectual power of Gods grace and calling. She is Leightonite like Kranescradtt and is over here to try and get the elect to deny the Lord that bought us and to make the elect their disciples, just like Leighton does.
@@chrisharris9710They're only here to deny the Sovereighnty of God, the Meticulous Divine Determinism of the LORD, and to have form of godliness whilst denying the power thereof. If they deny Gods effectual grace in the fruit of the new birth, I recommend you not interact with them in any way whatsoever except dealing with them in their own personal testimony. They always speak in second or third party perspectives. Until you establish they're partakers of the firstfruits they have nothing to add to anyone.😢
Jordon appreciates your humble correction of his hermeneutics. The reason he appreciates it is because you presuppose he has the "ability" to see the kingdom of God, which is Truth in the Word of God, simply by you telling him the Truth as you see it. I don't presuppose Jordon, or any Self Determinist who publically denies the effectual power of Gods grace, has any "ability" whatsoever to see Truth, because they DON'T have the ability until or if God, by His will and grace alone, births him from above. Self Determinists will NEVER have an open questioning diologe in which they present their gospel and doctrine and how it alighns with their personal testimony. And when I say they'll NEVER come to an open diologue, I do mean NEVER. They can't. Jordon literally hasn't interpreted a single text according to the mind of the Spirit, which the sons of God have and know Truth. All his interpretations are of a carnal mind.
Hey Chris, thanks for this thoughtful response. It would seem you are approaching Ephesians 1:4 differently than a lot of the Calvinist theologians that I played in my videos, but I do think that the core of the arguments I've presented still apply mostly to what you are saying. I'll try to explain why I think that is, but just to clarify, are you basically saying that the "in him" can be understood as simply meaning "because of him".... or "by his merits not ours" and that this does not refer to "union" with Christ? At the 9:30 mark you say...
*"the choice doesn't come because of themselves, the choice comes because John and Bob are in Christ. They are chosen in Christ."* Can you clarify what you mean by "because they are in Christ?"
Do you mean something like... "they are chosen because of Christ's merit?" -- If that's what you mean, then again I think that much of the issues I present in my videos would apply to this idea as well.
To say that the elect are chosen *"because of Christ"* or *"on the basis of Christ's merits and not their own..."* -- strongly suggests or explicitly states that Christ's merits are applied to "the elect" independent from union with Christ/being under Christ's headship. Did the elect have/were they identified by Christ's merits from before birth? How was the merit of Christ applied to the elect before they had faith in Christ? To say that "in him" means that the elect are chosen because of who Christ is and not because of who they are I think has Christ mediating the elect to the Father while they are unbelieving and entirely disconnected from Christ's headship. How can this be?
How could God view the elect through the merits of Christ in such a way that God could view them as *"belonging to himself"* but yet at the same time not be reconciled with them? If God is choosing them *"on the basis of Christ's merits"* then this implies that God is viewing them as being under Christ's headship/redemptive representation doesn't it? But they aren't yet under his headship until faith wouldn't you say?
In other words... you seem to be saying that in God's choosing of the elect, he is relating to them on the basis of Christ's merits and not the merits of the elect, inasmuch as he is doing his choosing of them. He couldn't choose them on the basis of anything in themselves, as you say... and so he must choose them on the basis of who Christ is for them. In other words, you have God at the very least being "partially reconciled" or "partially mediated" with the elect while they are yet separate from Christ and unbelieving. You have God viewing the elect and relating to them through the mediating work of Christ while the elect are alienated from Christ. Why are you ok with applying this spiritual blessing of being "chosen" to the elect while calling it heresy to say that the spiritual blessing of "justification" cannot possibly be applied to the elect who are not yet believing in Christ? Both of these ideas conveys that salvific benefits are being received by people who are not in union with Christ.
Isn't being "chosen" equally a redemptive benefit as "justification?" In fact, as MacArthur even says, election is the FIRST and PRIMARY spiritual blessing which is the basis upon which justification can even come in the first place. So why are you comfortable with God applying the PRIMARY and FOUNDATIONAL redemptive blessing of election to those who are alienated from Christ and still in full-blown rebellion to him? If God can choose the elect BECAUSE OF CHRIST, then this strongly implies mediation is in effect for the elect from the moment they are born into this world and long before.
I think ultimately the differences between myself and Calvinism here comes down to differing understandings of Christology. Are the benefits of redemption -- any of them -- actually applied to us separate from a living union with Christ? Calvinism says yes, and I just don't think this is possible.
I do not think, that while we are defined as SEPARATE FROM CHRIST (Ephesians 2) and as those who DO NOT BELONG TO CHRIST (Romans 8:9) that God can choose us "because of Christ's merits" -- anymore than the benefit of forgiveness, redemption, reconciliation can be applied to us "because of Christ's merits" while we are still separated from Christ.
In terms of my doctrine of God, I'm mostly ok with classical theism, although I do have a lot of questions and yes, there is a lot of mystery here. I probably could have done a better job at clarifying what I did and did not mean when I objected to Calvinist's appeal to mystery. My point wasn't to say that there is NO mystery in Ephesians 1. That would be a bit ignorant and silly of me if I suggested that. My objection was against the sort of appeal to mystery that the Calvinist theologians I played in my videos were making... an appeal that basically results in the elect ALWAYS having been in Christ in the mind of God in such a way that the spiritual blessing of "election" is ACTUALLY applied to them before they are ACTUALLY in union with Christ.
If I have misunderstood what you were saying here let me know and if I didn't respond to a point you made that you want me to respond to let me know that as well.
Thanks for the response. It’s a lot to reply to, so let me start here. I don’t see the election of individuals as a spiritual blessing. It’s a choice of God, and blessings are received upon union with Christ. The choice is “in Christ”, which means that the choosing of the Father is through the Son, whereas any merit of the choice falls on Christ and not the creature.
@@chrisharris9710 So would you word it as "God chose us through the merits of Christ before the foundation of the world..."? Or would you say it differently?
Also, can you explain why you don't see election as a "spiritual blessing?" I'm asking because even from your own understanding here, being "chosen" is something that can only be applied by Christ's merits. Why would this not be considered a spiritual blessing? I'm also asking because this seems to be contrary to how most other Calvinists understand it. The reformed theologians that I've come across connect the spiritual blessings of verse 3 directly to the "even as he chose us..." in verse 4, and see this as Paul beginning his expounding on the specifics of these "spiritual blessings."
Hey brother, as a fellow non-Calvinist myself, allow me to say in love that if I were a Calvinist, I too would reject the argument that "us" and "we" depict the entire body of Christ, predestinated to be "In Christ" once we freely believe. This ubiquitous take by those who reject Calvinism seems to be quite the knee-jerk reaction to the term "predestinated". Since we reject Calvinism and therefore cannot view the term as pertaining to the method by which we're saved, we then must view it as the positional destination of the saved once we're saved by volitional faith as the criteria. It's akin to saying once I freely believe in Christ, I'm then predestinated to be in Christ. It's rather redundant, to say the least.
Why not just acknowledge the "predestination" as salvific and simply relegate it to those to whom Paul relegates it to? Here's what I mean: after the greeting in the first two verses, 3-12 speaks specifically about those who "first trusted in Christ" as defined by verse 12. "Us" and "we" used repeatedly until vs 12 cannot be you and me because of "you" in vs 13. Therefore, "us" and "we" are the apostles who were predestinated from BEFORE the foundation "unto a purpose", unlike you and me who who believe and are sealed AFTER we "hear their words". There is a clear before and after and a clear dichotomy of the two groups.
Jesus' Gethsemane prayer follows suit. The prayer, from vs's 6-19 is solely for the apostles, the ones God "gave" to Jesus, referring back to John 6, out of a blinded nation. Of those "given" ones, Jesus had "lost none" save Judas. The Jesus opens up the prayer in vs 20 to "all those who will believe through their words", the apostles.
Since Paul makes a habit of, in many or even most of his letters to differentiate the apostles, himself included, from the rest of the Church, it makes sense that "us" and "we" is not you and me once "you" is used in the same thought. If you adhere to simple grammar, you can then go straight to Romans 8 and see the very same predestination unto a "purpose" for those who were at that time considered to be counted as sheep for the slaughter for the sake of the rest of the church who were being built up and blessed at that time.
Ask yourself....who do these pronouns refer to?
"As it is written: "For YOUR sake WE are killed all day long; WE are accounted as sheep for the slaughter." Rom 8:36
It was the apostles who were suffering and enduring persecution for the sake of the Church they had preached to.
In Eph 1, "Us" and "we" are repetitive for ten verses straight which can seem to be referring to the entirety of the Church.... until "you" is finally introduced. But see below how it reads when Paul toggles back and forth between contrasting pronouns...
"YOU are already full! YOU are already rich! YOU have reigned as kings without US--and indeed I could wish YOU did reign, that WE also might reign with YOU! WE are fools for Christ's sake, but YOU are wise in Christ! WE are weak, but YOU are strong! YOU are distinguished, but WE are dishonored! To the present hour WE both hunger and thirst, and WE are poorly clothed, and beaten, and homeless. And WE labor, working with our own hands. Being reviled, WE bless; being persecuted, WE endure; being defamed, WE entreat. WE have been made as the filth of the world, the offscouring of all things until now" 1Co 4:8, 10-13
Vs 9 ......For I think that God has displayed US, the APOSTLES, last, as men CONDEMNED TO DEATH; for WE have been made a spectacle to the world, both to angels and to men.
Again, it was the apostles who were predestinated from before the foundation unto a very specific "purpose" as the foundation of the Church. We obtain every spiritual blessing in the heavens as they had obtained but we were not predestinated for anything. We simply are "included" when we believe. I believe that this is the proper way to read these passages and proper interpretations always make the best arguments toward improper interpretations.
@@GreatLightStudios If I could make a comment.
I see when John Piper inserted the words "to be" in Christ , was a problem with you in your video because the text does not say that. But, I also ascribe to covenant theology as does Chris Harris and believe that God made these promises within the Godhead prior to the foundation of the world. Therefore the words " to be" do not apply since when God made this covenant there was no time or a temporal reality. God then created and is fulfilling this covenant "in time" That means as temporal beings we can understand it in the journey of our lives and insert " to be" since it was a future event for us at some point in our lives. The spiritual blessings God is giving to those who have put their faith " in Christ" are given at the time. When presented with the Gospel and when the Holy Spirit has caused a person to see and decide to follow Christ.
The spiritual blessings apply to those who are in Christ through faith. Just because God chose people in Christ in his mind before creation does not mean that it is a reality in creation at the same time. It is obvious that an author of a book or movie can choose the kind of characters he wants before a movie or novel is written.
I needed this video . I made a video with Jordan but I need to be better at some clear answers on certain topics. We are going make another ( if he still wants to)
[2] It has always been doctrine, taught and believed by the leading scholars of Reformed Theology *THAT* the sovereign Calvinist potter God’s “foreknowledge” *IS NOT* based upon him looking down through the corridors of time *RATHER* the sovereign Calvinist potter God’s “foreknowledge” is based solely upon the *FACT* that he has sovereignly planned, organized, authored, ordained, decreed, predestined and actualized *”everything that happens, and nothing happens that the sovereign Calvinist potter God hasn’t CAUSED to happen.”*
Amen
Hello. The "us", according to you, is Paul and the saints in Ephesus. If that's the case, who is "you" in vs 13?
Gentiles.
Correct. It’s the manner in which he chose. We know that because of the Greek adverb at the beginning of the sentence.
And when I told Jordan this, he said, I’m the only one that ever interprets it like that. But here you found it in Calvins own commentary .
Thanks
What do you believe about the doctrine of God. Is this question begging? What do you think Jordan?
[1] in Ephesians 1:4 the “Us” = Those who are going to believe because they have responded positively to the “Calling Ministry of the Holy Spirit”.
My guy! Always watching, thanks a bunch!
4 even as HE chose US in him before the foundation of the world.....
Contrasted with:
13 IN HIM you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him....
So in Ephesians, we have US/WE versus YOU (the ephesians) who were not included until they believed.
@@brucegolston6507 Exactly spot on. What you have just displayed is what I call pure, unadulterated reading comprehension and oh my how rare it is.
No, exhaustive foreknowledge is not Biblical.
Yes, we can know what “in Christ” means. If we know anything about Judaism we would know that one of their overarching teachings is that they were chosen by Hod through the forefathers, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Here, Paul is talking about how Gentiles are chosen since they certainly aren’t in the forefathers lineage, instead they’re chosen in Christ. Jews originally chosen through forefathers, Gentiles chosen in Christ, everyone is chosen. See Ephesians 1:11, & 2 & 3 for more clarity on this.
I think I can wipe this whole debate away for both sides of this discussion. Ephesians 1:3-12 is clearly speaking about Jews (we who first trusted/hoped in Christ [if this had been written in Hebrew he most likely would have used Mashiah]). Paul is definitely _not_ speaking about the Ephesians because he clearly includes them starting in verse 13 where he switches from "us" and "we" to "you", and proceeds to explain to the Ephesians how they are also included in Christ. The same holds true for Romans, which was written for the benefit Jews (those who were previously under the law). So, I think we can put aside the choosing and the predestining as it doesn't speak to Gentiles at all.
The “us” refers to us Gentiles.
Paul was a Gentile?
@@chrisharris9710 he was until verse 12. Like he said in 1 Corinthians chapter 9, a good preacher puts himself in with his audience. In Ephesians 1 he is writing to the mostly Gentile church at Ephesus so he is writing as “we-Gentiles.” That’s one of the reasons why he sign-posts the “we” change in verse 12 because he’s extricating himself back out of the Gentile group that he started out with. And the surrounding context makes this clear. We already know (or should know) that the idea of Gentiles being cast out by God as humans had already been a theological firestorm for centuries, and as Paul moves in in chapters 2 & 3 to correct this teaching so thoroughly, it makes clear that in the opening of Ephesians 1 he is thinking about the Gentile perspective. He could have said you, you, you, but that doesn’t come across very nicely from the pulpit.
@@TheRomans9Guy that’s forcing something into the text. Christians (the faithful in Christ) are who is the “us”, specifically Paul and those in Ephesus that believe.
@@chrisharris9710 That's the plain reading. "We" is Paul and the Ephesians. The Ephesians are Gentile and Ephesians 1 doesn't make sense unless Paul is including himself as a Gentile, until he changes the "we" in verse 12.
Look at chapters 2 & 3. Do you see how strenuous a case Paul is making about the Gentiles now being included in with the Jews? He calls it the great mystery that has now been revealed. He's doing this because, as he just pointed out in chapter 1, the Gentiles have now been included into God's kingdom and have received all of the same blessings the Jews received through the forefathers, they have received them though through Christ. As he says in 1:11 we (Gentiles) have also (along with the Jews) been chosen.
8:50 I would like to understand why people think this is true, or how they come to this belief. It seems completely ad-hoc to me.
This also seems to necessitate a supra-lapsarian position.
It was kind of odd the whole video you tried to convince us it’s God’s choice but then in your gospel call at the end you tell us it’s the most important choice we will ever make. 🧐
Why would that be?
@@davevandervelde4799 ?
What about ephesians 1:13, of the Calvinist interpretation of romans 8 29 30 is correct then ephesians 1:13 is a contradiction.
I studied the Q'uran, and the book of Mormon, I reject them because of contradictions, I don't think God contradicts himself.
I wonder what you would say to a person who believes deeply that they follow Christ, but would abandon all hope if Calvinism was proven to be consistent with the Bible.
You should explain how it is a contradiction.
If you claim to deeply follow Christ and would abandon all hope if Calvinism is true then you are just following yourself and not God.
PASTOR, invite any of these Self Determinists who profess themselves to be YT Master Builders to a live, open questioning diologue where they can present their doctrine and testimony as it alighns with their doctrine. Just make the offer and see how many of these self professing YT Theological scholars accept your invite. Here's how many accept my offer over the last couple years......ZERO.😢
Also, Jordon hides comments on his channel if it has scripture on it that goes against his Self Determinist doctrine. He is not as honest as you may think.
Manny , that is not true, Jordan's already addressed that with you. You should probably apologize and delete this accusation. Anyway, as a determinist/Calvinist, I fail to see how you could complain even if it were true. It would only be by God's decree if he deleted anything you said. But then, that's true of everything a Calvinist opposes... it's all God's decree "whatsoever comes to pass" takes in a lot of territory.
Jordan ; @GreatLightStudios replied to your accusation on his channel already today;
"Manny, I do not shadow ban/delete comments. I certainly have never done so with yours or any other Calvinist on this channel. Not a single time. If you are having issues with your comments being removed then it's UA-cam doing it not me. It has automated systems for removing comments it thinks are spam. I can't control that."
@@R.L.KRANESCHRADTT You said "that is not true." How would you know if it's true or not? Answer me. How would you know if it is true or not.
@@R.L.KRANESCHRADTT I see. You are moderating both Soteriology 101 and Jordons channel. Answer me. ARE YOU GETTING $ TO MODERATE Jordons channel?? The Lord knows if you're telling the truth.
@@R.L.KRANESCHRADTTYour silence is answering that question.
@@ManassehJones Sorry, I do have other responsibilities besides responding to your 'well meant' insults. Manny, Manny, Manny you are certainly a piece of work. 🤣 By your own theology, if I lied it could only be by God's eternal decree from before Adam was created. I couldn't help it. And it could not be my fault, even our thoughts are not our own, you said that yourself.
I have no reason to disbelieve neither Leighton or Jordan, both have affirmed they do not 'shadow ban' posts that disagree with them. But your posts are consistently obnoxious with me and others who you believe God has decreed to disagree with what he has decreed for you to believe. 🥴
I think I'm getting a word from God to ignore you.... I suppose time will tell 🤔
I saw that you told Jordan of GLS that you do not believe the election of individuals a spiritual blessing. Being “elect” is a spiritual blessing that only occurs by being in the Elect One, being connected to the Vine. Why would this not be a spiritual blessing and how could you be elect without being in the Elect One?
It is a blessing, and spiritual as it is a blessing from God, however, it is not a spiritual blessing that comes from our being united to Christ.
@@chrisharris9710Pastor. Loves2HugItOut has verbally denied the fruit of the new birth and denies the effectual power of Gods grace and calling. She is Leightonite like Kranescradtt and is over here to try and get the elect to deny the Lord that bought us and to make the elect their disciples, just like Leighton does.
@@chrisharris9710They're only here to deny the Sovereighnty of God, the Meticulous Divine Determinism of the LORD, and to have form of godliness whilst denying the power thereof.
If they deny Gods effectual grace in the fruit of the new birth, I recommend you not interact with them in any way whatsoever except dealing with them in their own personal testimony. They always speak in second or third party perspectives. Until you establish they're partakers of the firstfruits they have nothing to add to anyone.😢
@@ManassehJones Define the word "sovereign" that you keep using erroneously.
@@contemplate-Matt.G Meticulous Divine Determinis. Thus excludes nothing.
Jordon appreciates your humble correction of his hermeneutics.
The reason he appreciates it is because you presuppose he has the "ability" to see the kingdom of God, which is Truth in the Word of God, simply by you telling him the Truth as you see it.
I don't presuppose Jordon, or any Self Determinist who publically denies the effectual power of Gods grace, has any "ability" whatsoever to see Truth, because they DON'T have the ability until or if God, by His will and grace alone, births him from above.
Self Determinists will NEVER have an open questioning diologe in which they present their gospel and doctrine and how it alighns with their personal testimony. And when I say they'll NEVER come to an open diologue, I do mean NEVER. They can't.
Jordon literally hasn't interpreted a single text according to the mind of the Spirit, which the sons of God have and know Truth. All his interpretations are of a carnal mind.
Arrogance
@@brianmassman6016 Truth doesn't care about your sensitivities. Im ready to debate Truth from the Word of God with any of you Diests.
Calvanistic theology is heretical!