Arminian Chronicles: Response to Marcus on Ephesians 1

Image via Wikipedia

Last week Dan, a blogger who writes insightful posts on theology, posted his exegesis on the beginning of the book of Ephesians. I did not fully agree with him so I wrote a response stepping through his post paragraph by paragraph. He was kind enough to read my response and offer further comments. He chose to discuss the key topic: election in Christ. He also responded to specific sentences I wrote which he italicized. His comments are in regular black font while my additional comments will be in red.
 
Marcus was kind enough to read and respond to my post on Ephesians 1. While his response covers a wide range of topics, D.V. I will restrict my response to the key topic: election in Christ.

Marcus: Did God predestine us or did he predestine the plan of salvation? God predestined us not a plan. Does a plan get adopted like children? Does a plan get seated in heaven?

This indirectly get’s at the key issue of understanding ‘in Christ’. The answer to your first question is both. God does choose us but He also chose and predestined to save through the Gospel. John 3:16, 1 Cor 1:21 especially in light of 1 Cor 2:7.

Let's take a closer look at the texts Dan cites:

"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. - John 3 16

"whoever" refers to a person who believes not the plan of how God offers salvation.

For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. - 1 Cor 1:21

Again, I see the verse saying that God saved those who believe - not a plan. And 1 Cor 2:7 is not talking about the plan being glorified but those whom God had chosen. Therefore, sorry, I don't see how the we can say that the plan is what was predestined and not the people who are elect. Nor do I think we can say the plan was the point being talked about although you could argue that God chose this plan before he created anything. In fact the Bible tells us exactly that.

So the next question is naturally, is the Gospel the foundation of our election or is our election the foundation of the Gospel. In other words, does God first say ‘I want to glorify these people’ and then say ‘to do so I will use Christ, the cross and their union to Christ through faith’ or on the other hand does he first say ‘Christ is the foundation of Gospel through the cross and these people are united to Christ through faith’ and then say ‘I will glorify them and adopt them into my family’?

Biblically speaking, we cannot say that the goal of salvation is to glorify us. This is a problem. Our glorification is a byproduct of God glorifying Himself. 

Me: The election is not of certain individuals whether or not they are united to Christ. It is all those and only those who are united to Christ. The election does not unite people to Christ. Rather it adopts them to God through their union to Christ. We are united to Christ by grace through faith.

Is there anyone who is united to Christ, yet is not elected to be adopted into the family of God? Vice versa?  This is why Dan's argument confuses me because there is no one who is elected who is not united to Christ by faith. Scripture says that it is because we are elected we believe. There is no one who believes who is not elected and everyone who is elected believes. 

Marcus: I agree election is not of certain individuals whether or not they are united to Christ. I have never heard or read James White, RC Sproul, John MacArthur, John Piper or any Calvinist say that it was.

Ah, but by implication, you say it when you say:

God has chosen to predestine some of us to unite with Christ and be reconciled to Himself.

I think that Dan and I are not meaning the same thing. What I think he means is that election is not depended on whether or not a person is united to Christ. This I agree with. It's not either/or. If a person is elect, he/she is united in Christ. The election comes first. It's all or nothing. You can't be elected and not be united with Christ.

If God first chooses us and then chooses to unite us to Christ, our election is not 'in Christ'. Again, if God chooses us before the foundation of the world and then in time uses Christ to fulfill that choice, we are not elected 'in Christ'. But if God views us as united to Christ through faith and then chooses to adopt and glorify us, then our election is in Christ.

Again, when God predestined the election, he has already chosen us to be adopted and glorified even if it had not been realized yet. IT seems that Dan is arguing that the election is non-temporal and before anything was created (very Biblically sound) but argues that the adoption and glorification doesn't happen until we accept Christ of our own will. And put that way I agree, partially. Because God exists outside of time, when he elected us our reunion with Christ was a done deal. Put a fork in me....I'm done.

Me: Also the election is in Christ, not unto union with Christ.

Again, how can you have one without the other?

Marcus: I don't believe the author has been able to prove that there is a difference between being elected in Christ and being elected into union with Christ.

The text says "in Christ", not "into union with Christ", nor are these two things gramatically equivalant. If I said I chose the chips in the cabinet for dinner, I am not saying I ate the chips in the cabinet.

Interesting analogy.  By God's nature when He makes a decision reality automatically manifests itself into whatever He decided when He decided that it would. Nothing can or will change it. That is why He is God. As for us when we choose anything for dinner, that does not mean that is what you will be having for dinner. Anything could happen to stop it. While  if you or I chose (exelexato - 1605 is the Strong #  - selected out of several possibilities) chip for dinner, we may not eat chips for dinner. That is very different. God exelexato those who are to be saved out of all who will ever live (without rejecting those who were not saved) and  did so perfectly. Our decision making is not so nearly precise or accurate. Please note that exelexato is used in Ephesians 1:4,5

For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight. In love he predestined us to be adopted as his sons through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will—

Thanks again for the response!

Thank you, also!

God be with you,
Dan

Dan, you wouldn't be considering such things, if God wasn't with you.

Arminian Chronicles: Response to Marcus on Ephesians 1

Atheism is Dead: The Mad Pagan Skeptic, part 2

Mariano has posted the second part of a wonderful series he is doing on his blog, Atheism Is Dead. Here is his intro for the post:

We now continue our tripartite consideration of the mad Pagan skeptic, having already considered Friedrich Nietzsche’s virtual prophecy about what would come about due to the death of God.
We will now consider a biblical statement about humanity’s natural knowledge of God and our purposeful negation of such knowledge.
And lastly, we will consider to what atheism has come as they seek to find meaning in a meaningless universe and seek to prop up their favored ideas upon contradictions of their own making.

This essay will be parsed as follows:
1) An Exposition of The Parable of the Mad Man
2) Neo Pagan Atheism
3) The Modern Skeptic

Mariano really does an awesome job stepping through Romans 1. I really recommend reading this, And part 1 of the series deserves your time also.

Atheism is Dead: The Mad Pagan Skeptic, part 2

Anthony Buzzard Debate on Unbelievable!

Dr. James White just posted on his blog an announcement that he will be debating Anthony Buzzard (pictured) on the radio during his trip to  London. Dr White wrote:

Well, the Lord answered prayer and opened the way for an Unbelievable Radio Program debate with Sir Anthony Buzzard, formerly of Atlanta Bible College, one of the leading Socinians of our day.

After hearing last Thursday's Dividing Line webcast I'm interested in hearing the debate because during that program Buzzard's Anti-Trinitarian arguments were refuted. Take a listen to get to understand why the Trinity is so important. 

Anthony Buzzard Debate on Unbelievable!

Apologetics 315: Apologist Interview: Frank Turek of CrossExamined.org

Brian has posted an insightful interview with Dr. Frank Turek! It's a great interview. We get to hear how Turek was brought to God through Jesus. We get to hear Turek comment on his two debates with Christopher Hitchens and Turek gives good advice on how to get into apologetics and how to get your church involved. He recommends books and resources.
The post even includes links to all of Turek's resources. This one is a "must-hear". The two things I got most out of it is that we don't need to fret and overwork ourselves refuting unbiblical worldviews...instead when someone makes a statement they need to back it up...just like we Christians must. We are accused of having blind-faith because that is all our accusers have in their philosophies and worldviews.

Apologetics 315: Apologist Interview: Frank Turek of CrossExamined.org