An exegetical response to Leighton Flowers; Ephesians 1 and Provisionalism -- James White.

His clay

Well-known member
I watched it. I also really appreciated it. I wish it would have covered a few things in more depth.

Wish-list
-The "in Christ" needs a bit more explanation. I too often see the technical usage fallacy employed by the "A" crowd on this point. Since God is the main actor in the passage, Christ seems to be the means or sphere through which the action is accomplished upon "us".

-I wish that he would have commented upon the overall temporal progression of the passage begun by the "just as/even as" of verse 4.
  1. before the foundation of the world
  2. time of redemption through His blood
  3. shift to the mind of God, prophetic working, and His purpose as ultimately He works all things according to the counsel of His will
-I wish that he would have focused upon the middle voice of "he chose" in verse 4.

-I also wish that he would have hit the purpose clause of verse 4 a bit harder: "to be holy and blameless before Him." The provisionist is forced to say that those who are holy and blameless in Him are thusly chosen to be holy and blameless, which is a rather glaring interpretative redundancy. In contrast, the passage does seem to be seeing the holy and blamelessness as future to the time of the choosing. Thusly, it seems obvious to see that the believer's union with Christ whereby he acquires holiness and blamelessness is not the foundation upon which God chooses but rather the goal and/or result of His choosing.

Granted, I only watched this once, so I very well may have missed a few things. These points are just bonus items that I wish he would have dealt with more thoroughly. I am in no way depreciating the excellent presentation of the passage.

Closing Thoughts and Impressions
I must close with the most obvious fact of the passage. God was the focus and the main doer of the action in the passage. Paul specifically focuses in upon God Himself. This is obvious through the repeated subject of the verbal action. I also appreciated White's repeated targeting of the mind of God, to the praise of His glorious grace, the kind intention of His will, etc. This was done in keeping both with the passage itself and as a response to the flowery non-sequitur.

Yes, it is called unconditional election. This means that man is not the reason. It is a non-sequitur to think that because man is eliminated as a reason that God must then choose arbitrarily, capriciously, or mysteriously. The reality is that only a man-centered reason is nullified, which still leaves a God-centered reason perfectly intact.
 
Last edited:
T

TomFL

Guest
I watched it. I also really appreciated it. I wish it would have covered a few things in more depth.

Wish-list
-The "in Christ" needs a bit more explanation. I too often see the technical usage fallacy employed by the "A" crowd on this point. Since God is the main actor in the passage, Christ seems to be the means or sphere through which the action is accomplished upon "us".

-I wish that he would have commented upon the overall temporal progression of the passage begun by the "just as/even as" of verse 4.
  1. before the foundation of the world
  2. time of redemption through His blood
  3. shift to the mind of God, prophetic working, and His purpose as ultimately He works all things according to the counsel of His will
-I wish that he would have focused upon the middle voice of "he chose" in verse 4.

-I also wish that he would have hit the purpose clause of verse 4 a bit harder: "to be holy and blameless before Him." The provisionist is forced to say that those who are holy and blameless in Him are thusly chosen to be holy and blameless, which is a rather glaring interpretative redundancy. In contrast, the passage does seem to be seeing the holy and blamelessness as future to the time of the choosing. Thusly, it seems obvious to see that the believer's union with Christ whereby he acquires holiness and blamelessness is not the foundation upon which God chooses but rather the goal and/or result of His choosing.

Granted, I only watched this once, so I very well may have missed a few things. These points are just bonus items that I wish he would have dealt with more thoroughly. I am in no way depreciating the excellent presentation of the passage.

Closing Thoughts and Impressions
I must close with the most obvious fact of the passage. God was the focus and the main doer of the action in the passage. Paul specifically focuses in upon God Himself. This is obvious through the repeated subject of the verbal action. I also appreciated White's repeated targeting of the mind of God, to the praise of His glorious grace, the kind intention of His will, etc. This was done in keeping both with the passage itself and as a response to the flowery non-sequitur.

Yes, it is called unconditional election. This means that man is not the reason. It is a non-sequitur to think that because man is eliminated as a reason that God must then choose arbitrarily, capriciously, or mysteriously. The reality is that only a man-centered reason is nullified, which still leaves a God-centered reason perfectly intact.
The term unconditional election actually never appears in scripture

God chose in Christ

In Christ being the condition of election
 
G

guest1

Guest
The term unconditional election actually never appears in scripture

God chose in Christ

In Christ being the condition of election
Neither does the term Trinity but it’s implied just the same as UE.

next
 
T

TomFL

Guest
Neither does the term Trinity but it’s implied just the same as UE.

next
Unconditional election however is not implied

it is read into the text

Election is in Christ

One is in Christ

Ephesians 1:13 (KJV)
13 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,

when they believe
 

His clay

Well-known member
The term unconditional election actually never appears in scripture

God chose in Christ

In Christ being the condition of election
Self refutation: your own standard negates your own words, since you don't appear in scripture either. But if you had a point with your comment about unconditional election, well . . . :rolleyes:

"condition" does not appear in the passage, oops. I guess that on your own standards, you aren't really making any points. :rolleyes:

What was the point of your post again?
 
T

TomFL

Guest
Self refutation: your own standard negates your own words, since you don't appear in scripture either. But if you had a point with your comment about unconditional election, well . . . :rolleyes:

"condition" does not appear in the passage, oops. I guess that on your own standards, you aren't really making any points. :rolleyes:

What was the point of your post again?


Your first problem is you can't refute me without refuting yourself

As unconditional election does not appear you are self refuted

Second problem In Christ however does appear

And condition

simply notes

a state of affairs that must exist or be brought about before something else is possible or permitted.

being in Christ is a state of affairs that must exist to be chosen for the blessings that are in Christ

so election is conditional by definition whether the word appears or not
 

His clay

Well-known member
Unconditional election however is not implied

it is read into the text

Election is in Christ

One is in Christ

Ephesians 1:13 (KJV)
13 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,

when they believe
We are told the following.

"Election is in Christ
One is in Christ"

I'll just simply quote myself at this point because the poster apparently missed it entirely. "I too often see the technical usage fallacy employed by the "A" crowd on this point." The technical usage fallacy refers to the assumption that a word or phrase must always be viewed in one way, as a technical term, rather than as a term or phrase that is subject to change due to context. D. A. Carson uses the term "sanctification" as an example of this type of fallacy, and he uses other examples. Hence my other contextual comments upon the passage limiting the context to a "means" or "sphere" use of the preposition+dative.

Plus the poster completely failed to interact with my post which addressed the anachronism and interpretive redundancy such a comment would endorse, given the contextual indicators of verse 4.
 

His clay

Well-known member
Your first problem is you can't refute me without refuting yourself

As unconditional election does not appear you are self refuted

Second problem In Christ however does appear

And condition

simply notes

a state of affairs that must exist or be brought about before something else is possible or permitted.

being in Christ is a state of affairs that must exist to be chosen for the blessings that are in Christ

so election is conditional by definition whether the word appears or not
I don't endorse your self-refuting standard, so your attempt at escaping your own fallacy of self-refutation by shoving it on another is null. It is your standard, and thusly you have to live with your own self-refutation since you don't appear in Scripture either. I'm sorry that you apparently missed the meaning of "self-refutation". Tom, try a lot harder, and accept when you have been refuted. This nonsense is beneath you.

However, we are in agreement that "in Christ" does appear in the passage. It's good to see that cleared up.
 
Last edited:

preacher4truth

Well-known member
We are told the following.

"Election is in Christ
One is in Christ"

I'll just simply quote myself at this point because the poster apparently missed it entirely. "I too often see the technical usage fallacy employed by the "A" crowd on this point." The technical usage fallacy refers to the assumption that a word or phrase must always be viewed in one way, as a technical term, rather than as a term or phrase that is subject to change due to context. D. A. Carson uses the term "sanctification" as an example of this type of fallacy, and he uses other examples. Hence my other contextual comments upon the passage limiting the context to a "means" or "sphere" use of the preposition+dative.

Plus the poster completely failed to interact with my post which addressed the anachronism and interpretive redundancy such a comment would endorse, given the contextual indicators of verse 4.
Good OP and subject. I listened to the podcast recently at work. How anyone can turn this text on its head and grant man the glory for being in Christ is beyond me.

You are correct that said poster didn't interact with your post, and it appears often times that others posts are disregarded and dismissed making profitable engagement a futile attempt.
 

His clay

Well-known member
Good OP and subject. I listened to the podcast recently at work. How anyone can turn this text on its head and grant man the glory for being in Christ is beyond me.

You are correct that said poster didn't interact with your post, and it appears often times that others posts are disregarded and dismissed making profitable engagement a futile attempt.
I completely agree. Thanks for the comment.
 
T

TomFL

Guest
We are told the following.

"Election is in Christ
One is in Christ"

I'll just simply quote myself at this point because the poster apparently missed it entirely. "I too often see the technical usage fallacy employed by the "A" crowd on this point." The technical usage fallacy refers to the assumption that a word or phrase must always be viewed in one way, as a technical term, rather than as a term or phrase that is subject to change due to context. D. A. Carson uses the term "sanctification" as an example of this type of fallacy, and he uses other examples. Hence my other contextual comments upon the passage limiting the context to a "means" or "sphere" use of the preposition+dative.

Plus the poster completely failed to interact with my post which addressed the anachronism and interpretive redundancy such a comment would endorse, given the contextual indicators of verse 4.
You have provided no evidence at all that the term in Christ differs in the two phrases

And offered up only an unsupported claim

You therefore have a claim without evidence

Further you did not address this at all

Second problem In Christ however does appear

as he chose us in Christ

And condition

simply notes

a state of affairs that must exist or be brought about before something else is possible or permitted.

being in Christ is a state of affairs that must exist to be chosen for the blessings that are in Christ

so election is conditional by definition whether the word appears or not

as for

-I also wish that he would have hit the purpose clause of verse 4 a bit harder: "to be holy and blameless before Him." The provisionist is forced to say that those who are holy and blameless in Him are thusly chosen to be holy and blameless, which is a rather glaring interpretative redundancy.

That is simply false

The provisionist simply states the faithful in Christ are chosen to be holy and and blameless before God in love
 
T

TomFL

Guest
I don't endorse your self-refuting standard, so your attempt at escaping your own fallacy of self-refutation by shoving it on another is null. It is your standard, and thusly you have to live with your own self-refutation since you don't appear in Scripture either. I'm sorry that you apparently missed the meaning of "self-refutation". Tom, try a lot harder, and accept when you have been refuted. This nonsense is beneath you.

However, we are in agreement that "in Christ" does appear in the passage. It's good to see that cleared up.
Sorry I had no fallacy

I did not base my argument on the absense of the phrase unconditional election but on the fact the election was in Christ

I simply noted the absence of the phrase throughout scripture

highlighting what appears to be an assumption

which is contrary to the text
 
Top