Pentecostal Theology | PentecostalTheology.com
Was the Church predestined for salvation or holiness according to Eph.1:4?
Betty Gilliam [07/05/2015 4:30 PM]
Through salvation we are enabled to live holy.
John Kissinger [07/05/2015 4:31 PM]
ha – way ahead of you on this one…
Betty Gilliam [07/05/2015 4:37 PM]
The tee shirts are great!
John Kissinger [07/05/2015 4:37 PM]
can be purchased freely from Rick Wadholm Jr by all willing
Rick Wadholm Jr [07/05/2015 4:39 PM]
Or all chosen.
John Kissinger [07/05/2015 4:40 PM]
How can a chosen decide to purchase without a will and then purchase without his/her own works?
Rick Wadholm Jr [07/05/2015 4:40 PM]
Credit cards. ?
John Kissinger [07/05/2015 4:41 PM]
that’s so legalistic 🙂 (and somewhat teleevangelistic)
John Kissinger [07/05/2015 4:45 PM]
if t-shirts were freely provided for all in the atonement, why dont all wear them? put your t-shirt on and cover up Alan N Carla Smith
Jun Monzon [07/06/2015 12:34 AM]
Already “in Him/Christ” when chosen for sanctification. Not chosen “for Him” (salvation).
Jon Sellers [07/06/2015 1:55 AM]
Ephesians is addressed to believers.
The “in him” of v. 4 points back to the “in Christ” of v. 3
3Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ, 4just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we would be holy and blameless before Him.
Where are we? Seated with Christ in heavenly places. ch. 2:6
Where are we to be holy and blameless? Before Him.
Where is God? In heavenly places.
So the choice that God purposed was for us to be holy and blameless before Him. We get that way because we are justified in Christ, imputed with His righteousness, made new creations in Christ., are washed in his blood and blessed with EVERY spiritual blessing in heavenly places in Christ.
Our position in heaven is in Christ. The Holy Spirit has baptized us into His body and so in the Spirit we are now in Christ who is seated at the right hand of the Father. We are holy and blameless before the Father by faith in all that Christ has done for us. This was his eternal decree. This is what he predestined for us who believe.
Can I get an amen, somebody?
John Kissinger [07/06/2015 5:18 AM]
Rick Wadholm Jr The Midrash reports that the clothes of Adam were made of a completely different material:
In R. Meir’s Torah it was found written, ‘Garments of light (ohr): this refers to Adam’s garments, which were like a torch [shedding radiance], broad at the bottom and narrow at the top.
This comment is curious. The Torah text reads ‘OR – skin or leather. This Midrash relates a tradition or commentary Rabbi Meir recorded in the margin9that rendered the word OHR – light. Why would God make for them clothing of light?
Rabbenu Bachayeh admits that the p’shat – the straightforward level of understanding the Torah – is that God made for wayward man “dignified clothing”. However according to Rabenu Bachayeh’s understanding of the Midrash, this was clothing of light, referring specifically to primordial light.
Barry G. Carpenter [07/06/2015 5:28 AM]
Looks like we don’t understand basic grammar: verb modifies a noun not a prepositional phrase. 🙁
John Kissinger [07/06/2015 8:09 AM]
It’s hard-that’s for sure! http://www.pentecostaltheology.com/teaching-a-calvinists-to-dance-in-the-spirit/
Jon Sellers [07/06/2015 4:27 PM]
Eph. 1:3 the verb “blessed” modifies the pronoun “us”.
Eph 1:4 the verb “chose” modifies the pronoun “us”.
4just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we would be holy and blameless before Him. NASB
Yes, God chose us, but the sentence doesn’t end there. The “in Him” modifies “us”. This describes who is chosen.
The phrase “that we would be holy and blameless before Him” shows us the purpose of the choosing.
The phrase “before the foundation of the world” shows when God purposed this choice. In other words the choice was that those who are to be found in Christ will be blameless and holy before Him for all eternity.
That was God’s decree and eternal purpose.
There is no particular, individualistic election in mind here.
John Ruffle [07/06/2015 4:47 PM]
Barry G. Carpenter [07/06/2015 4:52 PM]
Before there was an argument for “corporate election” – but seems now you have abandoned that and are taking another approach to the text by denying simple grammar. Ok fine- glad to see you have left “corporate election” so I ask here who is the “us” that were chosen? When were the “us” chosen? What, according to the text, were they chosen for (the complete context please)?
Jon Sellers [07/06/2015 4:54 PM]
The us is those who are in Christ – obviously that would be believers.
What was chosen or decided by God was that those in Christ would be holy and blameless before him.
So the text says that God chose that those in Christ would be holy and blameless before him. The larger context shows this is all about our position and blessing in the heavenly places v. 3 and again 2:6.
Again the reading is chose (us in Him)….
Jon Sellers [07/06/2015 5:08 PM]
Barry G. Carpenter, why do you ask question when all the answers are in my previous comment to you question. The context, the what, the who. I feel like I must repeat myself over and over.
And I have not abandoned corporate election. Those who are elected are those who are corporately found to be in Christ. And that is composed of individuals, but what was chosen is the nature and purpose of that corporate election, not a list of individual names.
John Kissinger [07/06/2015 8:08 PM]
Prior to their sin, Adam and Eve knew good from bad, right from wrong, but they had not internalized an evil inclination. So they could choose to do right and wrong, and were held responsible for their choices, but the urge to do evil did not come from within. This urge was represented by the serpent—the external tempter. Since the evil did not reside within them, they were “naturally” good, and their nakedness was innocent and in no way sinful. They saw no difference between a hand, whose purpose was to give charity and to do good deeds, a mouth with which one praises G?d and says kind words to others, and the parts of the body which are used to “be fruitful and multiply.” With every organ they could fulfill the will of G?d or vice versa, so no organ was shameful, nor did anything need to be covered.
When they ate of the Tree of Knowledge, the evil inclination became a part of them. No longer did they need an external tempter to incite them to sin—now, that tempter resided within their psyches. And specifically, sexual passion – a passion which is much stronger than the desire to give charity or praise G?d, a passion which is much more encompassing and has the potential to be seriously misused – became a part of them as well.
Charles Page [07/09/2015 2:36 PM]
why would scripture say “be” ye holy? if you are predestined for holiness.
George Parker [07/19/2015 4:26 PM]
Maybe I am wrong, I am looking for help to be the type of person that God wants me to be.
Charles Page [07/19/2015 5:59 PM]
salvation for heaven is an accomplished work and it is to be applied here on earth. not everyone saved for heaven will experience the accomplishment.
Charles Page [07/19/2015 6:03 PM]
predestined for heaven but not for holiness, holiness is conditional on willful obedience – heaven is unconditional.
John Earp [07/23/2015 2:18 PM]
Holiness. We have been predestined to be conformed to the image of the Son of God.
Charles Page [07/23/2015 2:23 PM]
that is acomplished in calling, justification and glorification but not sanctification. Practical sanctification is conditional on obedience.
Calling (regeneration) justification and glorification are unconditional.
John Earp [07/23/2015 2:43 PM]
Eph 1:4 KJV According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:
Charles Page [07/23/2015 2:59 PM]
that is accomplished in regeneration, justification and glorification. Rom 8:30 He that is born (regenerated) of God sinneth not.
John Earp [07/23/2015 3:11 PM]
The passages which speak of predestination always have the sanctification and glorification of the saints in Immediate view. None of the predestination verses refer to Heaven or Hell (as in Calvinistic predestinarianism) but instead speak of the wonderful holiness of character believers are being conformed into. He chose us that we should be holy and without blame before Him in love. Hallelujah!
Charles Page [07/23/2015 3:17 PM]
That is a modern, moderate Calvinist view that I personally reject.
John Earp [07/23/2015 3:18 PM]
Charles Page [07/23/2015 3:21 PM]
Your view in part. It entails the same as John MacArthur’s Lordship Salvation which is reactionary to “easy believism”
John Earp [07/23/2015 3:36 PM]
Now that is really funny. I am just about as far from a Calvinist as one can be and still be a Christian.
John Earp [07/23/2015 3:38 PM]
So is your objection to believers being predestined to be conformed into the image of His dear Son?
John Kissinger [07/23/2015 3:39 PM]
Charles Page afraid to bring it t the group anymore 🙂
Charles Page [07/23/2015 3:52 PM]
John, I am even further from Calvinism than you.
I am spot on about predestination to conformity to the image of His Son. This is achieved (applied by the Spirit) in regeneration and he that is born of God sinneth not. I Jn 5:18
John Earp [07/23/2015 4:00 PM]
I seriously doubt it, Charles. In fact, I believe it to be pretty much impossible to be further from Calvinism than I am and remain a Christian.
John Earp [07/23/2015 4:05 PM]
It would be inaccurate to call me an Arminian, as well. I don’t fit theologically into either Calvinism or Arminianism.
Charles Page [07/23/2015 4:06 PM]
same for me!
Charles Page [07/23/2015 4:07 PM]
I believe one can be born again and remain unChristian. That is the liberty with which we are born again!
Charles Page [07/23/2015 4:08 PM]
absolutely, one can be born again and neither Arminian nor Calvinist.
Charles Page [07/23/2015 4:10 PM]
Arminianism and Calvinism turns truth to ashes; joy to sorrow
Charles Page [07/23/2015 4:11 PM]
John, are you Pelagian?
John Earp [07/23/2015 4:14 PM]
John Earp [07/23/2015 4:18 PM]
Soteriologically amd anthropologically, I hold to a view consistent with the church fathers prior to Augustine, and similar to that still held by the Eastern Orthodox branches of Christianity.
Charles Page [07/24/2015 12:37 PM]
John Earp, how is that not Pelagian?
Pentecostal Theology [07/24/2015 12:38 PM]
Prince Charles is now Eastern Orthodox like his father
Charles Page [07/24/2015 12:41 PM]
Come, let us reason together!Sola fideism is like a deformed one-fingered hand monstrosity!
Charles Page [07/24/2015 12:41 PM]
Come, let us reason together!Sola fideism is like a deformed one-fingered hand monstrosity!
John Earp [07/24/2015 1:16 PM]
‘Pelagian’ and ‘Pelagianism’ are terms I do not find to agree with the early church fathers’ views. Perhaps ‘semi-Pelagian’ would be a closer approximation of terms, though even then I am not personally in agreement with the idea that anyone can come to Jesus except the Father draw him (I.e., the grace of God which in kindness leads us to repentance and faith). The early church fathers were indeed closer to Pelagius than Augustine, but it is not accurate to describe their views as ‘Pelagian.’
Pentecostal Theology [07/24/2015 1:17 PM]
You can take any of about 90% of early church fathers and using their writings try to prove they were ‘semi-Pelagian’ . This is not even a theological issue except for hyper-calvinists
Charles Page [07/24/2015 1:22 PM]
The Roman Catholics opted for semi-Pelagianism against the arguments of Pelagius and Augustine. The RC was semi-Augustine/semi-Pelagian. They held to a congruous merit as a drawing from God against the total free will of man. (Pelagius)
This same view was held by Luther and the reformers. It continues on in Evangelicals today.
John Earp [07/24/2015 1:23 PM]
It is just as anachronistic to call the early church fathers ‘Arminian’ as it to call them ‘Pelagian’. They certainly all affirmed free will (the power to do otherwise than one does, aka personal moral responsibility), and vehemently opposed the Fatalistic and Dualistic philosophies of their day, which bear striking similarities to Augustinianism.
John Earp [07/24/2015 1:24 PM]
But to label them by terms that would not develop until later is really not right.
Charles Page [07/24/2015 1:25 PM]
it is also anachronistic to call early church (first century) fathers Augustinian. They were truly Bible Centered.
John Earp [07/24/2015 1:26 PM]
The very idea of merit, in the sense of somehow earning grace, is perhaps the most absurd idea of all time.
Charles Page [07/24/2015 1:26 PM]
They were Pauline/Biblical
Charles Page [07/24/2015 1:28 PM]
they called it merit not I. True it is absurd. However merited or unmerited it is still semi-Pelagian and I reject it personally.
John Earp [07/24/2015 1:31 PM]
I was only stating the obvious. We can do good, but if we do, we have only done our duty, according to Jesus (Luke 17:10).
John Earp [07/24/2015 1:34 PM]
…and, whatever good we may do is only possible by means of the grace of God working in us, “to will and to do according to His good pleasure”, as Paul says in Phillipians 2:12-13.
Charles Page [07/24/2015 1:41 PM]
I call the “grace of God working in us” regeneration and that work brings with it free will to chose to serve God.
Charles Page [07/24/2015 1:45 PM]
I disagree with the Calvinist (modern, moderated) who say that that grace naturally and automatically produces good works. If it doesn’t produce good works then the faith is dead – you were never saved in the first place.
I say that faith, even real faith, may be barren and fruitless.
John Earp [07/24/2015 1:48 PM]
The grace of God also leads us to conviction of sin, repentance, faith, and thus begets new life in us.
Charles Page [07/24/2015 1:54 PM]
Regeneration is the begetting of new life and conviction, repentance and water baptism are activities of the new life lived in Christian fellowship.
John Earp [07/24/2015 1:58 PM]
I know that is what Calvin and Augustine claimed. The early church fathers completely disagree though.