Who is “He”, Who is “Us”, and Who is “Him”, in Ephesians 1:4?
- Thread starter MerSee
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
See WHAT you are undermining-
Let's see-what does the Scripture say-
Perhaps one of the most confusing ideas to intrude into the world of “Christendom” over the past twenty years or so is an ideology commonly known as Open Theism. It also is designated as Free Will Theism, and Neotheism. Advocates of this theory claim that its goal is to rescue a distorted view of God that has resulted from a flawed interpretation of Scripture, combined with certain ideas long ago borrowed from Greek philosophers.
In addition, it almost certainly is a radical reaction to a theory of rigid determinism, namely the idea that before the foundation of the world, God “unchangeably ordain[ed] whatever comes to pass” (Westminster ConfessionIII), so that true free will does not exist.
It is difficult to get a firm grasp on this novel dogma for two reasons. First, there are different varieties (levels) of Open Theism, and a generalization is scarcely possible. One size does not fit all. Second, the vocabulary sometimes employed in reflecting the ideology is so intentionally technical (hence obscure) that only those initiated in the “code” jargon can grasp fully the ideas being advanced. A couple of examples should suffice.
One source has segmented the Open Theists (i.e., their ideas regarding the foreknowledge of God) into the following categories: Voluntary Nescience, Involuntary Nescience, Non-Bivalentist Omniscience, and Bivalentist Omniscience.
Try to fathom this statement from John Sanders, one of the leading advocates of the New Theism: “God is everlasting through time rather than timelessly eternal” (http://www.opentheism.info/). If this statement does not conflict with the biblical doctrine of the eternality of God (cf. Psalm 90:2), I would not know what to make of it. In the same article Sanders says, “[T]he future is not entirely knowable, even for God” (emphasis added).
One of the key issues in the Open Theism controversy has to do with whether God is omniscient, i.e., does he know all things—past, present, and future? Some allege that he knows nothing of the future. The future has not happened, thus is not “real.” Consequently, according to this view, not even God knows the future! Sanders asserts:
Though God’s knowledge is coextensive with reality in that God knows all that can be known, the future actions of free creatures are not yet reality, and so there is nothing to be known (1998, 198-199).
Elsewhere in the same volume the author concedes that this view “does leave open the possibility that God might be mistaken about some points, as the biblical record acknowledges” (132; emphasis added).
Others allege that God’s knowledge of the future is select. Boyd says that God “foreknows that certain things are going to take place” (2000, 30), but other things he does not know. Let us briefly respond to the idea that God does not know the future—to whatever degree that limitation supposedly is.
Omniscience
The Bible plainly teaches that God is omniscient, i.e., as the eternal “I AM” (Exodus 3:14) he knows all there is to know—past, present, and future. “His understanding is infinite” (Psalm 147:5b). The Hebrew term suggests that which cannot be defined by any number, i.e., limitless. It is the equivalent of our word “omniscient” (Rawlinson 1950, 399).
The Lord declares “the end from the beginning, and from ancient times things that are not yet done” (Isaiah 46:10). In this respect he stands in vivid contrast to the idols of the ancient world (Isaiah 41:21-24).
As Israel prepared to enter Canaan, Jehovah declared precisely what their plight would be (Deuteronomy 31:20-21). God foretold the providential use of Cyrus the Persian—two centuries before the ruler came to the throne (Isaiah 44:24-45:6).
With scores of precision prophecies, the coming Messiah was described by the prophets who were moved by the Spirit of the omniscient God (Luke 24:44; 2 Peter 1:20-21; 1 John 3:20).
The so-called Openness doctrine undermines the very integrity of the Bible as the inspired word of God!
Quite a salad.
J.
Let's see-what does the Scripture say-
Perhaps one of the most confusing ideas to intrude into the world of “Christendom” over the past twenty years or so is an ideology commonly known as Open Theism. It also is designated as Free Will Theism, and Neotheism. Advocates of this theory claim that its goal is to rescue a distorted view of God that has resulted from a flawed interpretation of Scripture, combined with certain ideas long ago borrowed from Greek philosophers.
In addition, it almost certainly is a radical reaction to a theory of rigid determinism, namely the idea that before the foundation of the world, God “unchangeably ordain[ed] whatever comes to pass” (Westminster ConfessionIII), so that true free will does not exist.
It is difficult to get a firm grasp on this novel dogma for two reasons. First, there are different varieties (levels) of Open Theism, and a generalization is scarcely possible. One size does not fit all. Second, the vocabulary sometimes employed in reflecting the ideology is so intentionally technical (hence obscure) that only those initiated in the “code” jargon can grasp fully the ideas being advanced. A couple of examples should suffice.
One source has segmented the Open Theists (i.e., their ideas regarding the foreknowledge of God) into the following categories: Voluntary Nescience, Involuntary Nescience, Non-Bivalentist Omniscience, and Bivalentist Omniscience.
Try to fathom this statement from John Sanders, one of the leading advocates of the New Theism: “God is everlasting through time rather than timelessly eternal” (http://www.opentheism.info/). If this statement does not conflict with the biblical doctrine of the eternality of God (cf. Psalm 90:2), I would not know what to make of it. In the same article Sanders says, “[T]he future is not entirely knowable, even for God” (emphasis added).
One of the key issues in the Open Theism controversy has to do with whether God is omniscient, i.e., does he know all things—past, present, and future? Some allege that he knows nothing of the future. The future has not happened, thus is not “real.” Consequently, according to this view, not even God knows the future! Sanders asserts:
Though God’s knowledge is coextensive with reality in that God knows all that can be known, the future actions of free creatures are not yet reality, and so there is nothing to be known (1998, 198-199).
Elsewhere in the same volume the author concedes that this view “does leave open the possibility that God might be mistaken about some points, as the biblical record acknowledges” (132; emphasis added).
Others allege that God’s knowledge of the future is select. Boyd says that God “foreknows that certain things are going to take place” (2000, 30), but other things he does not know. Let us briefly respond to the idea that God does not know the future—to whatever degree that limitation supposedly is.
Omniscience
The Bible plainly teaches that God is omniscient, i.e., as the eternal “I AM” (Exodus 3:14) he knows all there is to know—past, present, and future. “His understanding is infinite” (Psalm 147:5b). The Hebrew term suggests that which cannot be defined by any number, i.e., limitless. It is the equivalent of our word “omniscient” (Rawlinson 1950, 399).
The Lord declares “the end from the beginning, and from ancient times things that are not yet done” (Isaiah 46:10). In this respect he stands in vivid contrast to the idols of the ancient world (Isaiah 41:21-24).
As Israel prepared to enter Canaan, Jehovah declared precisely what their plight would be (Deuteronomy 31:20-21). God foretold the providential use of Cyrus the Persian—two centuries before the ruler came to the throne (Isaiah 44:24-45:6).
With scores of precision prophecies, the coming Messiah was described by the prophets who were moved by the Spirit of the omniscient God (Luke 24:44; 2 Peter 1:20-21; 1 John 3:20).
The so-called Openness doctrine undermines the very integrity of the Bible as the inspired word of God!
Quite a salad.
J.
-
1
- Show all
Open theism does bring into question the platonising of scripture by Augustine in accord with Origen's advice, and the collection of attributes that the platonists ascribed through their unchristian metaphysical reasoning to their "uncaused cause". Augustine overlaid these onto the Biblical text and then derived an unbiblical description of God from these.
Reading the text without importing those platonist assumption a priori, reveals a God and a future that are open to change, burt within the limits the actual attributes the Bible attributes to God.
You, in your highly metaphysical platonist approach to scripture, consider it a "diversion" to focus our attention on analysing cited proof-texts in their context. You consider it more important to get sorted the metaphysical presuppositions within which scripture may speak, before letting the the scripture have its say. You are arrogating to yourself the authority to "limit the Holy One of Israel;" Ps. 78:41 You are limiting what He may reveal about himself even before you analyse His words.
Reading the text without importing those platonist assumption a priori, reveals a God and a future that are open to change, burt within the limits the actual attributes the Bible attributes to God.
You, in your highly metaphysical platonist approach to scripture, consider it a "diversion" to focus our attention on analysing cited proof-texts in their context. You consider it more important to get sorted the metaphysical presuppositions within which scripture may speak, before letting the the scripture have its say. You are arrogating to yourself the authority to "limit the Holy One of Israel;" Ps. 78:41 You are limiting what He may reveal about himself even before you analyse His words.
Again, you divert from analysing proof-texts to merely decrying the fact that someone does not accept your a priori platonist assumptions about God's nature.
You seem to be intent on keeping the discussion in the realm of "So and so calls himself an open theist and said X, which contradicts the platonised Augustinian view I, Johann, hold as sacred. Therefore His interpretation of the text is unworthy of consideration. Imposing my a priori attributes to God before interpreting scripture is more important to me than reading and honestly confessing what the language of the text conveys on its own and then deciding what attributes the text is attributing to God.
You will learn nothing new about God that way. A well-trained disciple can bring out both old and new treasures. You are limiting yourself to only what is old.
The reason you can't understand various open theist ideas is that you are unwilling to set aside your STULIP spectacles to look freshly at the biblical record. Of course, any other ideas than STULIP will seem fuzzy with the wrong lenses on.
You seem to be intent on keeping the discussion in the realm of "So and so calls himself an open theist and said X, which contradicts the platonised Augustinian view I, Johann, hold as sacred. Therefore His interpretation of the text is unworthy of consideration. Imposing my a priori attributes to God before interpreting scripture is more important to me than reading and honestly confessing what the language of the text conveys on its own and then deciding what attributes the text is attributing to God.
You will learn nothing new about God that way. A well-trained disciple can bring out both old and new treasures. You are limiting yourself to only what is old.
The reason you can't understand various open theist ideas is that you are unwilling to set aside your STULIP spectacles to look freshly at the biblical record. Of course, any other ideas than STULIP will seem fuzzy with the wrong lenses on.
"just as He [God the Father] chose us ["the Church which is His body"--see Eph1:20-23 WHEN (as to its existence--from Pentecost to our Rapture, i.e. all those saved "in this present age [singular]," aka the presently-betrothed "bride" of Christ--2Cor11:2)] in Him [in Christ] before [pro] the foundation of the world for us to be holy and blameless before Him, in love"
[note: to clarify, I believe v.4 is referencing those (of this "One Body" specifically) who had "fore-hoped" in Christ, per v.12; whereas v.13 (see below) speaks of those who come to Christ after them / subsequently to those persons in particular who had "fore-hoped" in Christ (so... meaning, even to this day, and up until the time of our Rapture, v.13's "ye also" applies--ALL being members of "the Church WHICH IS HIS BODY" being spoken of in this wider context); OTOH, those who come to faith FOLLOWING that point in the chronology (i.e. AFTER "our Rapture") are never called "the Church WHICH IS HIS BODY" as WE are called (nor are OT saints referred to as such)... though they are indeed also "saints" / saved persons... (nor are they the betrothed "bride" nor "wife" of Christ--they are not whom He is MARRYing / purposing TO MARRY--example: "FRIEND of the Bridegroom," the "10 [or 5] VirginS [PL]," ... etc)]
Then v.13 transitions to "ye also" (... [Christ] "In Whom ye also trusted after that ye heard the word of truth the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise")--and these "ye also" are also members of the same "Church which is His body" being spoken of in this context.
I tried to explain this as clearly as I could at the moment... Please let me know if you need or desire any further clarification. I will try my best.
[I do see a distinction between the biblical phrases: "BEFORE [PRO] the foundation of the world"; and "FROM [APO] the foundation of the world"; This Eph1:4 verse expresses the former of these two.]
[note: to clarify, I believe v.4 is referencing those (of this "One Body" specifically) who had "fore-hoped" in Christ, per v.12; whereas v.13 (see below) speaks of those who come to Christ after them / subsequently to those persons in particular who had "fore-hoped" in Christ (so... meaning, even to this day, and up until the time of our Rapture, v.13's "ye also" applies--ALL being members of "the Church WHICH IS HIS BODY" being spoken of in this wider context); OTOH, those who come to faith FOLLOWING that point in the chronology (i.e. AFTER "our Rapture") are never called "the Church WHICH IS HIS BODY" as WE are called (nor are OT saints referred to as such)... though they are indeed also "saints" / saved persons... (nor are they the betrothed "bride" nor "wife" of Christ--they are not whom He is MARRYing / purposing TO MARRY--example: "FRIEND of the Bridegroom," the "10 [or 5] VirginS [PL]," ... etc)]
Then v.13 transitions to "ye also" (... [Christ] "In Whom ye also trusted after that ye heard the word of truth the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise")--and these "ye also" are also members of the same "Church which is His body" being spoken of in this context.
I tried to explain this as clearly as I could at the moment... Please let me know if you need or desire any further clarification. I will try my best.
[I do see a distinction between the biblical phrases: "BEFORE [PRO] the foundation of the world"; and "FROM [APO] the foundation of the world"; This Eph1:4 verse expresses the former of these two.]