Loss of salvation???

[studier]

The issue isn't permanence, it's identity. ""Sanctified in Christ Jesus"" places the Corinthians inside Paul' entire ""in Christ" framework, which is always positional, always identity based & never a description of fluctuating moral behavior. Paul's ""in Christ"" statements function the same way across his letters, no condemnation in Christ (Rom 8:1), new creation in Christ (2 Cor 5:17), chosen in Christ (Eph 1:4), redeemed in Christ (Eph 1:7). If you deny positional sanctification, you have to deny the positional nature of every one of those identity markers. The perfect passive participle in 1 Cor 1:2 simply tells us what kind of sanctification Paul is describing: a completed, God‑performed act that places them in a new identity category. I'm not arguing permanence, I'm arguing categories. You're the one importing OSAS because your works dependent framework can't tolerate a fixed, God given identity category. But rejecting the category doesn't make Paul stop using it.

You're layering theology over grammar. No matter how many 'positional' or 'categorical' labels you apply, the Perfect Tense describes a current state at the time of writing - it does not grammatically guarantee a permanent one.

 

[Toknow]

I get your reaction to Calvinism. I don't quite get your reaction to The Reformers. (Not all were Calvinists) But when I spoke of a third way, I was disappointed in your response to a third way by labeling it before knowing what it is. So let's drop that subject and discuss more scripture.

You like to talk about the scriptures, and so do I. So let's talk about Romans 8.

Now you want to talk about the golden chain of redemption?

Let's try this:

When YOU explain THE THIRD WAY....

I will continue my convesation with you.

Paul’s claim that God “causes all things to work together for good” is not a general promise that everything will turn out pleasantly, but a theological declaration about God’s active, sovereign involvement in the lives of His people. “All things” includes the full range of human experience — suffering, weakness, confusion, persecution, even the groaning of creation itself in the preceding verses. Paul’s point is that nothing in a believer’s life operates outside the sphere of God’s redemptive intention. God is not merely observing events; He is orchestrating them. The good He brings about is not circumstantial comfort but conformity to Christ, the restoration of the image of the Son in those He is saving. In other words, God bends every thread of a believer’s story toward the same goal: their ultimate transformation and glory.

This promise, however, is not universal. Paul limits it to “those who love God” and, more specifically, to “those who are called according to His purpose.” The word called here is not a general invitation but God’s effective summons — the same calling Paul describes in Romans 8:30, where those whom God calls He also justifies. Paul is not describing people who happened to respond to God; he is describing people whom God has already drawn into His saving purpose. The call is the moment God’s purpose breaks into a person’s life, awakening faith and reorienting their destiny. This is why the promise holds: the God who called them is the same God who is actively shaping every circumstance for their good.

Paul then grounds this entire argument in the unbreakable sequence of God’s saving actions: foreknown, predestined, called, justified, glorified. By placing all these verbs in the aorist tense, Paul presents them as a single, unified act of God’s purpose — a purpose that cannot be thwarted or reversed. The God who foreknew His people is the same God who predestined them to be conformed to Christ, who called them into faith, who justified them, and who will certainly glorify them. Romans 8:28 is therefore not a sentimental reassurance but a theological conclusion: because God’s saving purpose is comprehensive and sovereign, every event in the believer’s life is pressed into service toward that final good.

 

[Roger316]

Now you want to talk about the golden chain of redemption?

Let's try this:

When YOU explain THE THIRD WAY....

I will continue my convesation with you.

Your resistance is noted.

 

[FlyingDove]

You're layering theology over grammar. No matter how many 'positional' or 'categorical' labels you apply, the Perfect Tense describes a current state at the time of writing - it does not grammatically guarantee a permanent one.

Paul uses IN CHRIST to describe eternal life (Rom 6:23), no condemnation (Rom 8:1), new creation (2 Cor 5:17), redemption (Eph 1:7), justification (Gal 2:17), & every spiritual blessing (Eph 1:3).

None of those are descriptions of fluctuating moral behavior. They're identity realities grounded in union with Christ.

Agree? or Disagree?

 

[Toknow]

You summed it up pretty well. The theory of Divine Determinism assumes several Biblical truths: i.e. God creates everything, John 1:3 He creates both darkness and Light, well-being and calamity. Isaiah 34:7 Paul argues that God is like a potter who creates people according to his purpose for them: some for judgment and others for mercy.

Dr. Crabtree proposes a new way to look at the question of God's sovereignty. It centers on God's nature as the transcendent creator. His explanation is structured as an analogy between a novel's author and a character in that novel. He doesn't argue from analogy and he isn't saying that we are all fictional characters. But God is transcendent over his creatures just as a novel's author is transcendent over the characters in his novel.

His analogy works because it shifts the entire discussion away from the old philosophical boxes—compatibilism vs. libertarianism—and moves it into a more biblical, metaphysical framework. Instead of arguing about how human choices and divine sovereignty fit together, he is asking a deeper question:

What kind of world are we in, given the kind of God who created it?

In his metaphor:

• God is like an author—transcendent over the story, not a character within it.
• We are like characters—real agents who make meaningful decisions within the story world.
• The entire story arc is authored, yet the characters’ actions are genuinely theirs.
• God’s sovereignty is not coercive, but creative and comprehensive—He determines the story, not by overriding the characters, but by writing a world in which their choices arise from who they are.

This preserves:

• God’s transcendence
• God’s sovereignty
• Human meaningful agency
• The moral weight of human decisions
• The biblical Creator/creature distinction

And it avoids the traps of both major philosophical systems. He is not saying choices are undetermined (libertarianism), and he is not saying they’re determined merely by internal desires (compatibilism). He is saying something different:

God determines the story; humans determine their actions within the story.

That’s why his “third box” works—it reframes the entire conversation rather than trying to squeeze Scripture into categories invented centuries after the apostles.

Oh for goodness sake.....

It's the football story I told you a week ago.
Whatsamada not scholarly enough for ya??

 

[Toknow]

Your resistance is noted.

LOL
I just read your 3rd way....


I explained it too you days ago.
This is funny stuff Roger.

BTW,,,,your 3rd way falls into libertarian free will.

God USES our free will to achieve HIS end game.

As to monergism/synergism.....
It's synergism.

Now you can get back to your conversation with @studier and I'll bow out.

 

[studier]

Paul uses IN CHRIST to describe eternal life (Rom 6:23), no condemnation (Rom 8:1), new creation (2 Cor 5:17), redemption (Eph 1:7), justification (Gal 2:17), & every spiritual blessing (Eph 1:3).

None of those are descriptions of fluctuating moral behavior. They're identity realities grounded in union with Christ.

Agree? or Disagree?

Who's focusing on fluctuating moral behavior unless you consider walking away from Christ as moral behavior?

 

[studier]

Now you can get back to your conversation with @studier and I'll bow out.

I'm just trying to look at actual grammar in actual Scripture. There was another thread here somewhere that had about a million posts or something going around in circles about a flower. I got dizzy and left.

 

[Toknow]

Have you read any arguments against his theory? Have you read them with an open mind?

Do you agree with him that Calvinism is 'limited determinism'?

Have you read agrees and disagrees with TULIP?

@Roger316 explanation of this theory does not solve anything.

God, in that paradigm, still gives to man free will - libertarian.

It has always been understood that God will use man's free will to obtain His goal.

This "new" theory, which is not new, just explains how God uses our actions however He wishes to.

You meant it for evil...
but God meant it for good.

 

[Toknow]

The issue isn't permanence, it's identity. ""Sanctified in Christ Jesus"" places the Corinthians inside Paul' entire ""in Christ" framework, which is always positional, always identity based & never a description of fluctuating moral behavior. Paul's ""in Christ"" statements function the same way across his letters, no condemnation in Christ (Rom 8:1), new creation in Christ (2 Cor 5:17), chosen in Christ (Eph 1:4), redeemed in Christ (Eph 1:7). If you deny positional sanctification, you have to deny the positional nature of every one of those identity markers. The perfect passive participle in 1 Cor 1:2 simply tells us what kind of sanctification Paul is describing: a completed, God‑performed act that places them in a new identity category. I'm not arguing permanence, I'm arguing categories. You're the one importing OSAS because your works dependent framework can't tolerate a fixed, God given identity category. But rejecting the category doesn't make Paul stop using it.

Are you going to reply to my post to you no. 9054?

I HAVE noticed that some on here tend not to reply to posts....
I don't know why.

It would be the courteous thing to do since you're still discussing being IN CHRIST....
which is at the crux of the matter.

Thanks.

 

[Toknow]

That depends on what "reward" you're referring to. The hypocrites are promised to have their reward for their virtue signaling, they don't seem to have to wait for heaven.

Therefore, when you do a charitable deed, do not sound a trumpet before you as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may have glory from men. Assuredly, I say to you, they have their reward. (Matt. 6:2)

And when you pray, you shall not be like the hypocrites. For they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the corners of the streets, that they may be seen by men. Assuredly, I say to you, they have their reward. (Matt. 6:5)

Moreover, when you fast, do not be like the hypocrites, with a sad countenance. For they disfigure their faces that they may appear to men to be fasting. Assuredly, I say to you, they have their reward. (Matt. 6:16)

Typical.

Verse ping pong.

What is your reply to MY verses?

Do you have one?

Are you unable to explain the verses I posted to YOU?

I thought we were discussing BELIEVERS
NOT hypocrites.

 

[Toknow]

Any btw, I interpret the NT primarily through the OT, especially on prophecies.

Getting a reward in heaven is not a prophecy.

It's found in the NT and should be explained within the NT.

Were rewards being handed out in the OT??

 

[Toknow]

Not in Paul's view. He argues that we are chosen before we are born. In his letter to the Ephesians, he asserts that we are chosen before the foundation of the world. Ephesians 1:4

Let's take a look at Ephesians 1:4


4 just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we would be holy and blameless before Him. In love


The word CHOSEN is in the NT.
The word PREDESTINATION is in the NT.

It does not mean that an individual is chosen by God for salvation.
It does not mean that God predestinated one to salvation or damnation.

Predestination is always in reference to:
PURPOSE
METHOD

Why
How

Eph 1:4 speaks to METHOD.

Please notice WHAT God chose.......
God chose to save mankind IN HIM.

This was the plan for salvation...
NOT
WHO would be or would not be saved.

METHOD.

God chose us IN CHRIST to be holy and blameless because only in Christ can we be holy and blameless.

You seem to have a problem with that. Can you elaborate further? Why is it bothersome to you that God does what he pleases?

This is why Roger.

Because God is:

LOVE
MERCIFUL
JUST

Calvinism makes God to be:
UNLOVING
UNMERCIFUL
UNUST


Back quite some posts ago (while you were denying being a calvinist) I asked you what justice is.
You did not reply because if you understand what justice is,,,you'd have to abandon calvinism immediately.

So calvinists work their theology around the justice question because it is impossible to face it.


I'll bet you know what divine simplicity is.

Please explain how God could be separated from love
if GOD IS love.

So...
what is justice?
how can God not love His creatures...can He be separated from love?

This seems like a problem for my view. If God chooses whom to save; and he desires that all men be saved, then why doesn't he save all men? That's a good question.

Yes sir. It most certainly is.

You're really intelligent and well-read.

Come up with the answer.

Here’s a refined paragraph that captures your point with clarity and a gentle pastoral tone, while keeping Paul’s flow of thought intact:

Before getting into that question, it’s worth pausing to notice Paul’s primary concern in this passage. His focus isn’t abstract theology but the prayers of his readers—specifically, whether they are willing to pray for “kings and all who are in high positions.” Behind that command lies a deeper issue: what kind of mindset would lead a believer to withhold prayer for their leaders in the first place? Paul is addressing the posture of the heart, the subtle resistance or narrowness that might make someone reluctant to intercede for those in authority. Understanding that concern helps us read the rest of the paragraph in the right light.

In this context, “all men” doesn’t mean “each and every individual without exception.”

We know that excuse Roger.
Won't work.

God desires ALL MEN to be saved. God loves the WHOLE WORKD. (that's a misunderstanding too, isn't it?)
ALL means ALL.

NOT all TYPES.

Try again.

So IF God desires ALL MEN to be saved...
WHY aren't they?

THAT answer to will lead you out of calvinism.
Better not to ponder it too much?


And, BTW,,,you've been reading too much systematic theology.

You should stick to the New Testament.
Jesus and Paul and the other writers knew more about Christianity than those guys you read.


1 of 2

 

[Toknow]

2 of 2

Paul is using the phrase in a representative sense—all kinds of people, not just one group. His concern is that believers might narrow their prayers to people they like, people in their circle, or people who share their convictions. By saying “all men,” Paul pushes them to pray broadly: for rulers, for outsiders, for difficult people, for every category of humanity. The emphasis is on the scope of God’s saving desire and the scope of the church’s intercession, not on a mathematical total of every individual person.

Already replied to.

You can say it any way you want to.

Either the writers of the NT knew what they meant to say...
or they're lacking and maybe the entire NT has all kinds of incorrect information in it.

Yes.

Yes....I suppose this is logical to you?
We must be born again...
before
we can be born again.

God must make us BELIEVE
before we can be saved.

I posted a verse or two that clearly state that we must BELIEVE TO BE SAVED.

WHY do you NEVER address my verses?

I already did that.

No sir.
You have not posted any verses that state that God chose WHO will be saved.

I'll wait.

Not according to Jesus. His comment is found in the context of his observation that the Pharisees and others were refusing to believe in Jesus even in the light of his many miracles. What accounts for this kind of inexplicable stubborn behavior? God draws some people, while he doesn't draw others. And those whom God draws to Jesus, he will not lose.

Logically, if God draws everyone, then Jesus saves everyone, which isn't true.

Then please explain the following:

John 12:32
32 "And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to Myself."
Do you think jesus didn't know what He was saying?
Jesus will draw all men to Himself.
In the mind of a calvinist, this would mean that every man will be saved.
But he is not.
The same question as presented by 1 Timothy 2:4
WHY are not all men saved ?
And if they are not....drawn, we see, does NOT mean DRAGGED.

Yes, Prevenient grace draws all, but it stops short of saving all.

Agreed.
it draws....
it does not drag.

Calvinism teaches persons get DRAGGED into salvation....

I've already shown that the Holy Spirit can be resisted.

Can you provide verses that support Irrisistible grace?

I agree. But Paul also argues that some of them suppressed what they knew to be true without reason. This represents a hardened heart, resistant to the truth.

The point was that God has always revealed Himself to mankind.

Again...why would Paul be teaching that God GAVE THEM OVER
IF
it's GOD that gave them over??

Calvinism is so illogical.
So many mysteries.

And to think that God is a God of reason,
an attribute He passed on to man.

I know. You are convinced that Paul is speaking about nations.

Why would Paul argue for corporate salvation in chapter 9 after he spent 8 chapters to deny it?

I stated....a week ago....that Romans chapters 9, 10 and 11 should be separate from the book of Romans.
Paul just goes into an entirely different direction. I don't know why...it would take someone much more intelligent than I am.

Again, Paul draws a solid connection between all the verbs to say that ALL those whom he foreknew will be Glorified.

Actually, Romans 8 states that they WERE glorified.
Past tense.
it might be addressing the saints of the OT....
but there's doubt.

Being “born again” must precede belief because the obstacles to genuine faith are far too deep for human effort to overcome. Scripture describes the natural person as spiritually blind, resistant to God, hardened in heart, and unable to grasp the things of the Spirit. Those aren’t small hurdles; they’re impossibilities apart from divine intervention. For someone to truly believe the gospel, God must first perform a miracle—opening blind eyes, softening a resistant heart, and awakening a love for the truth. In that sense, regeneration isn’t the reward for faith but the cause of it. Only when God gives new life can a person see Christ for who He is and respond in genuine trust.

So much wasted time by telling me you're not calvinist in theology when I noticed it immediatly.

And now you want to rehash the above?

Roger...1 Cor 2:14 is talking about non-believers.

Then I can post MANY verses that show that man is ABLE to seek God.

Maybe you could try to discuss ONE TOPIC at a time?

Jesus makes this order clear in John 3, where He tells Nicodemus that no one can see or enter the kingdom of God unless they are born again.

Jesus didn't say how.
And
He said we must be born again to see the Kingdom

NOT

See the kingdom so we could be born again.

First we are BORN AGAIN
and then
WE SEE THE KINGDOM

Sight comes after new birth, not before.

this is true.

but you're mixing two different events.

Paul says the same thing in 1 Corinthians 2, describing the natural person as unable to understand the things of the Spirit because they are “spiritually discerned.” Without the Spirit’s prior work,

NO. 1 Cor 2 states what it states.
That the natural man cannot understand the things of God.

It states NOTHING ELSE.

No mention of the spirit's prior work here.

the gospel remains foolishness. And in Ephesians 2, Paul goes even further: we were “dead in trespasses and sins,” and only when God “made us alive together with Christ” did faith become possible. Across all three passages, the pattern is consistent—God must first give life, light, and spiritual capacity before anyone can truly believe. Regeneration is the miracle that removes the barriers to faith and makes belief not only possible but inevitable.

Post Ephesians 2.

 

[Toknow]

Your resistance is noted.

As it yours.

 

[Genez]

So all atheists will have a miserable death.
This is rather kind of you.

God leaves atheists alone.
He only disciplines and deals with his own children.

If you endure chastening, God deals with you as with sons; for what son is there whom a father ​

does not chasten? But if you are without chastening, of which all have become partakers, then ​

you are bastards and not sons. Hebrews 12:7-8​

.

 

[Toknow]

God leaves atheists alone.
He only disciplines and deals with his own children.

If you endure chastening, God deals with you as with sons; for what son is there whom a father ​

does not chasten? But if you are without chastening, of which all have become partakers, then ​

you are bastards and not sons. Hebrews 12:7-8​

.

So now you're discussing chastening.

Can't stick to a topic, can you.

 

[markss]

The perfect tense describes a current state based on a past act, but it does not grammatically guarantee that the state can never change. You are trying to force a description of the present to function as a guarantee of the future, which the Greek simply doesn't do.

I've understood the perfect tense to show a past act with enduring effect. Paul used it when he wrote, have I not seen the risen Christ? This was to say that he was one who had seen the risen Christ. He would never return to one who had not seen the risen Christ.

A bell is cast and not yet rung. Then it is rung, perfect tense, it will never again be an unrung bell.

I've been thinking through a number of places this tense is used, I've not been able to remember any that show a temporary result of the action. Can you remind me of any?

At any rate, I know the context on a great many of these passages reinforce this usage, like with Paul having seen the risen Christ. The context really only allows this one understanding.

I don't think that denying the use of the tense is a valid argument.

You are arguing that the perfect tense may or may not show permanent result, is that correct? Which is the primary use? I'd argue it's just like Paul used, "seen the risen Christ". I'd look for context that clearly shows something different, something passing.

You said, "the perfect tense describes a current state based on a past act", that's not correct. The perfect tense is the syntax of a verb, the past act itself, and what kind of an action it is. Do you see the difference? In the one case, you are saying the perfect tense verb is not actually describing the action itself, rather, it's result. In the other case, I'm saying the perfect tense verb describes the nature of the action itself.

Much love!

 

[Roger316]

2 of 2


Already replied to.

You can say it any way you want to.

Either the writers of the NT knew what they meant to say...
or they're lacking and maybe the entire NT has all kinds of incorrect information in it.

The New Testament does not contain incorrect information. However, the New Testament was NEVER intended to be used the way you use it, which is prone to incorrect interpretations. It seems your approach to the Bible is to begin with what you already know to be true and then find verses that seem to say what you want to hear. Instead, we should approach the scriptures as those who want to be taught by them.

Yes....I suppose this is logical to you?
We must be born again...
before
we can be born again.

I didn't say that. Why are you putting words in my mouth?

God must make us BELIEVE
before we can be saved.

God doesn't make us do anything. You clearly didn't understand what I posted to you. Go back and read it again. If not, at least admit your strategy. You are following a script or a playbook. You have preprogrammed responses to statements that sound "Reformed." If he says "this". I say that. You aren't really trying to follow the argument, are you?

I posted a verse or two that clearly state that we must BELIEVE TO BE SAVED.

No, you posted verses, which associate belief with Salvation. There is a distinction. You hear causation where none was intended.

WHY do you NEVER address my verses?

I addressed them.

No sir.
You have not posted any verses that state that God chose WHO will be saved.

I did.

John 12:32
32 "And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to Myself."
Do you think jesus didn't know what He was saying?
Jesus will draw all men to Himself.

Did he draw each and every man to himself? No. So interpretation isn't true on the face it. And since you quoted out of context, you don't really know what Jesus meant.

The context of John 12 shows that the crowd gathering around Jesus was no longer made up only of local Jews—Greeks were now seeking Him as well. Against that backdrop, Jesus’ statement about drawing “all men” to Himself is best understood as inclusive of all kinds of people, not every individual without exception. His point is that the saving power of the cross will extend beyond Israel and reach the nations, just as John consistently emphasizes throughout his Gospel. In other words, people of every group—Jew and Greek, near and far—will be drawn to Him, not merely the immediate crowd standing before Him.

Calvinism teaches persons get DRAGGED into salvation....

As I said, I am not a Calvinist.

I've already shown that the Holy Spirit can be resisted.

The Holy Spirit can be grieved, but where does it say it can be resisted?

Can you provide verses that support Irrisistible grace?

I don't believe in irresistible grace.

The point was that God has always revealed Himself to mankind.
Again...why would Paul be teaching that God GAVE THEM OVER
IF
it's GOD that gave them over??

I don't see the problem.

Calvinism is so illogical.
So many mysteries.

I am not a Calvinist.

I stated....a week ago....that Romans chapters 9, 10 and 11 should be separate from the book of Romans.
Paul just goes into an entirely different direction. I don't know why...it would take someone much more intelligent than I am.

Were you speaking to me? I don't think so. I agree that Romans 9, 10, and 11 form a complete unit. In those chapters, Paul is defending his gospel against those who accuse him of false teaching. His gospel seems to suggest that God's promises to Israel have failed and that God is starting again with the Gentiles. Paul denies this and sets out to prove it.

Actually, Romans 8 states that they WERE glorified.
Past tense.

Glorified is in the Aorist tense, grouped with a list of other verbs, each in the aorist tense. This construction alerts the reader that all of the verbs form a complete unit and cannot be separated.

So much wasted time by telling me you're not calvinist in theology when I noticed it immediatly.

You assume I am a Calvinist and place all that on me. I never said I was a Calvinist. I said I believe another way but you have made it clear that you don't want to know what that is. Sorry, you can't have it both ways.

Roger...1 Cor 2:14 is talking about non-believers.

Paul is explaining that there is a fundamental difference between those who grasp spiritual truths and those who cannot. The distinction is not intelligence or education but the presence and work of the Holy Spirit. The person without the Spirit finds the things of God unintelligible, while the person enlightened by the Spirit is able to perceive and embrace them.

Then I can post MANY verses that show that man is ABLE to seek God.

Jesus didn't say how.

Yes, he did. Of course he did. He was talking about those born of the Spirit. What else do you need to know?

And
He said we must be born again to see the Kingdom

That's what I said. It sounds like you don't know what being born again is?

First we are BORN AGAIN
and then
WE SEE THE KINGDOM

Right. I never said otherwise.

That the natural man cannot understand the things of God.

If the “natural man” is unable to grasp the things of God, then he is also unable to grasp the gospel itself, since the gospel is the central message of God’s revelation. And if he cannot truly understand the gospel, he cannot, on his own, make a meaningful or saving decision to believe it. Paul’s point is that apart from the illuminating work of the Holy Spirit, the message of Christ remains foolishness, not something a person can freely and spiritually embrace.

Do you see what is happening here? Once we focus on the scriptures, you begin to make my points for me.

Post Ephesians 2.

What do you want to know about it? BTW, I don't agree with the Reformed interpretation of "dead" in Ephesians 2:1. They hold that "dead" here refers to the privation of our will and mind, resulting in our inability to believe in Jesus Christ. I hold that "dead" in this context refers to our status as those worthy of punishment and condemnation at the final judgment.

 

[Roger316]

Let's take a look at Ephesians 1:4


4 just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we would be holy and blameless before Him. In love


The word CHOSEN is in the NT.
The word PREDESTINATION is in the NT.

It does not mean that an individual is chosen by God for salvation.
It does not mean that God predestinated one to salvation or damnation.

You have quoted the verse out of context, which is perhaps the reason you don't seem to understand it. Let's quote the surrounding verses.

Ephesians 1:4-6
just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we would be holy and blameless before Him. In love 5 He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the kind intention of His will, 6 to the praise of the glory of His grace, which He freely bestowed on us in the Beloved.

Paul believes in salvation by inheritance, which is why he continually refers to "the adoption as sons." We talked about this before.

Romans 8:15
Romans 8:23
Romans 9:4
Galatians 4:5
Ephesians 1:5

If we are sons of Abraham, Paul argues, then we shall inherit what the Father has left us, i.e., salvation.

Please notice WHAT God chose.......
God chose to save mankind IN HIM.

I considered that interpretation until I noticed Paul double use of the term "US" as in "he predestined us (1) to be us (2) in him . . ."

This was the plan for salvation...

Technically, Paul isn't giving us the plan of salvation in Ephesians chapter one; Rather, he is listing all of the Spiritual Blessings that God gave his son and those "in him."

Back quite some posts ago (while you were denying being a calvinist) I asked you what justice is.
You did not reply because if you understand what justice is,,,you'd have to abandon calvinism immediately.

So calvinists work their theology around the justice question because it is impossible to face it.


I'll bet you know what divine simplicity is.

Please explain how God could be separated from love
if GOD IS love.

So...
what is justice?
how can God not love His creatures...can He be separated from love?

What was your point back then? I don't remember.

We know that excuse Roger.
Won't work.

God desires ALL MEN to be saved. God loves the WHOLE WORKD. (that's a misunderstanding too, isn't it?)
ALL means ALL.

Think about it logically. Paul lists a group of leaders; he didn't list a group of workers, or children or wives or any other kind of person. You would think that if Paul meant ALL MEN as you suggest, he would have given a random cross-section of the human population.

So IF God desires ALL MEN to be saved...
WHY aren't they?

He doesn't.