Free Will

[Selah7]

And on what basis did God elect them?

Grace

 

[David1701]

Grace

Amen!

 

[brightfame52]

A child of wrath serving the god of this world is under Gods condemnation.

No sir, not the elect whom Christ died for. They arent under Gods wrath ever nor condemned by Him Rom 8:33

33 Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God's elect? It is God that justifieth.

34 Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died, yea rather, that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us.

 

[brightfame52]

I agree. Christ's propitiatory sacrifice achieved this.

exactly !

 

[civic]

No sir, not the elect whom Christ died for. They arent under Gods wrath ever nor condemned by Him Rom 8:33

33 Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God's elect? It is God that justifieth.

34 Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died, yea rather, that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us.

Sure they are as per Ephesians 2 which I quoted .

 

[Eleanor]

Sure they are as per Ephesians 2 which I quoted .

They are. . .until they aren't, when they come to saving faith.

God preserves them until he brings them there, his timing being for the sake of his own purposes.

 

[civic]

This is good from Expositors Greek N.T

Expositor's Greek Testament
Ephesians 2:3. ἐν οἷς καὶ ἡμεῖς πάντες ἀνεστράφημέν ποτε: among whom also we all had our life and walk aforetime. The AV gives “also we all”; Tynd., Cov., Gen., “we also had”; Bish., “we all had”; RV, “we also all”. The ἐν οἷς cannot mean “in which trespasses” (so Syr., Jer., Beng., etc.); for the ὑμῶν of Ephesians 2:1 is against that, and the form would have been ἐν αἷς as ruled by the nearest noun ἁμαρτίαις. It can only refer to the υἱοὶ τῆς ἀπειθείας. The καὶ ἡμεῖς πάντες is in contrast with the καὶ ὑμᾶς of Ephesians 2:1 and the περιεπατήσατε of Ephesians 2:2. Paul had begun by speaking of the moral condition of these Gentiles before their conversion. He now adds that these Gentiles were in no exceptional position in that respect, but that all, Jews as well as Greeks, Jewish-Christians like himself no less than Gentile Christians like his readers, had been among those who once lived in obstinate disobedience to God. Paul seldom misses the opportunity of declaring the universal sinfulness of men, the dire level of corruptness on which all, however they differed in race or privilege, stood. So here the ἡμεῖς πάντες is best taken in its utmost breadth—not merely “all the Jewish-Christians” (Mey.), but = the whole body of us Christians, Jewish and Gentile alike included. For the περιεπατήσατε of Ephesians 2:2 we have now ἀνεστράφημεν, “had our conversation” (AV), “conversed” (Rhem.), “lived” (RV). Like the Heb. חָלַךְ it denotes one’s walk, his active, open life, his way of conducting himself.—ἐν ταῖς ἐπιθυμίαις τῆς σαρκὸς ἡμῶν: in the lusts of our flesh. Definition of the domain or element in which their life once was spent. It kept within the confines of the appetites and impulses proper to fallen human nature or springing from it. The noun ἐπιθυμία has its usual sense of craving, the craving in particular of what is forbidden; σάρξ in like manner has its large, theological sense, human nature as such, in its physical, mental and moral entirety, considered as apart from God and under the dominion of sin.—ποιοῦντες τὰ θελήματα τῆς σαρκὸς καὶ τῶν διανοιῶν: doing the desires of the flesh and of the thoughts. The ποιοῦντες is sufficiently represented by the “doing” of Wycl., Cov., Rhem., RV. The AV and other Versions give “fulfilling”. The word θέλημα is of very rare occurrence, except in biblical and ecclesiastical Greek. It denotes properly the thing willed, but is used also of the Divine purpose (e.g., Ephesians 1:9), or command (e.g., Ephesians 5:17), etc. Here, as also in John 1:13, it denotes inclination or desire. The pl. διανοιῶν is best rendered “thoughts,” with Wycl., Cov., Rhem. and RV margin; RV text, following the AV and other Versions, gives “mind”. In the LXX the singular represents the OT לֵב, and denotes the mind in the large sense, inclusive of understanding, feeling and desiring. It is only the context that gives it the sense of wicked thoughts. Two sources of evil desire and impulse, therefore, are indicated here, viz., our fallen nature in general and the laboratory of perverted thoughts, impressions, imaginations, volitions, in particular.—καὶ ἦμεν τέκνα φύσει ὀργῆς: and were children by nature of wrath. “Children,” rather than “the children,” as it is given by AV and all the other old English Versions (except Wycl., who has “the sons”). From what he and his fellow-Christians did in their pre-Christian life, Paul turns now to what they were then. The statement is so constructed as to throw the chief emphasis on the ἧμεν and the ὀργῆς. For ἦμεν the better attested form is ἤμεθα. Some good MSS. and Versions ([133] [134] [135] [136] [137], Syr.-Harcl., Vulg.) read φύσει τέκνα, and that order is accepted by Lachmann, while a place is given it in the margin by Tregelles. The order τέκνα φύσει, however, which is that of [138] [139] [140], Chrys., etc., and both the TR and the RV, is to be preferred. The ἧμεν makes it clear that it is no longer doing (ποιοῦντες) simply that is in view, but being, condition. The τέκνα is the same kind of idiomatic phrase as the former υἱοί, only, if possible, stronger and more significant. It describes those in view as not only worthy of the ὀργή, but actually subject to it, definitely under it. But what is this ὀργή itself? It is not to be identified with punitive righteousness (τιμωρία), punishment (κόλασις), future judgment, or the effect of God’s present judgment of men, but denotes the quality or affectus of wrath. But is it man’s wrath or God’s? The word is certainly used of the passion of wrath in us (Ephesians 4:31; Colossians 3:8; Jam 1:19, etc.), and so the whole phrase is understood by some to mean nothing more than that those referred to were given to violent anger or ungovernable impulse (e.g., Maurice, Unity, p. 538). But this would add little or nothing to what was said of the lusts of the flesh and thoughts, and would strip the whole statement of its point, its solemnity, and its universality. It is the Divine wrath that is in view here; as it is, indeed, in thirteen out of twenty occurrences in the Pauline writings, and that, too, whether with or without the definite article or the defining Θεοῦ (cf. Moule, in loc). This holy displeasure of God with sin is not inconsistent with His love, but is the reaction of that love against the denial of its sovereign rights of responsive love. The term φύσις, though it may occasionally be applied to what is habitual or to character as developed, means properly what is innate, implanted, in one by nature, and this with different shades of meaning (cf., e.g., Romans 2:14; Galatians 2:15; Galatians 4:8, etc.). The clause means, therefore, that in their pre-Christian life those meant by the ἡμεῖς πάντες were in the condition of subjection to the Divine wrath; and that they were so not by deed merely, nor by circumstance, nor by passing into it, but by nature. Their universal sin has been already affirmed. This universal sin is now described as sin by nature. Beyond this Paul does not go in the present passage. But the one is the explanation of the other. Universal sin implies a law of sinning, a sin that is of the nature; and this, again, is the explanation of the fact that all are under the Divine wrath. For the Divine wrath operates only where sin is. Here is the essential meaning of the doctrine of original sin. That it finds any justification here is denied, indeed, by some; even by Meyer, who admits, however, that elsewhere (e.g., in Romans 6) Paul teaches that there is a principle of sin in man by nature, and that man sins actually because of that innate principle. But he argues that it is in virtue not of the principle itself, but of the acts of sin by which that principle expresses itself, that we are in a state of subjection to the Divine wrath. This, however, is to make a nature which originates sinful acts and which does that in the case of all men without exception, itself a neutral thing.

 

[David1701]

Sure they are as per Ephesians 2 which I quoted .

Now hang on a minute! Eph. 2 does not say that the elect were under God's condemnation or wrath, before salvation. It says that we were, by nature, children of wrath, which is not the same thing at all. It means, as I posted previously, and with which you agreed, that we were, by nature, deserving of God's wrath, just like everyone else.

 

[Eleanor]

This is good from Expositors Greek N.T

Expositor's Greek Testament
Ephesians 2:3. ἐν οἷς καὶ ἡμεῖς πάντες ἀνεστράφημέν ποτε: among whom also we all had our life and walk aforetime. The AV gives “also we all”; Tynd., Cov., Gen., “we also had”; Bish., “we all had”; RV, “we also all”. The ἐν οἷς cannot mean “in which trespasses” (so Syr., Jer., Beng., etc.); for the ὑμῶν of Ephesians 2:1 is against that, and the form would have been ἐν αἷς as ruled by the nearest noun ἁμαρτίαις. It can only refer to the υἱοὶ τῆς ἀπειθείας. The καὶ ἡμεῖς πάντες is in contrast with the καὶ ὑμᾶς of Ephesians 2:1 and the περιεπατήσατε of Ephesians 2:2. Paul had begun by speaking of the moral condition of these Gentiles before their conversion. He now adds that these Gentiles were in no exceptional position in that respect, but that all, Jews as well as Greeks, Jewish-Christians like himself no less than Gentile Christians like his readers, had been among those who once lived in obstinate disobedience to God. Paul seldom misses the opportunity of declaring the universal sinfulness of men, the dire level of corruptness on which all, however they differed in race or privilege, stood. So here the ἡμεῖς πάντες is best taken in its utmost breadth—not merely “all the Jewish-Christians” (Mey.), but = the whole body of us Christians, Jewish and Gentile alike included. For the περιεπατήσατε of Ephesians 2:2 we have now ἀνεστράφημεν, “had our conversation” (AV), “conversed” (Rhem.), “lived” (RV). Like the Heb. חָלַךְ it denotes one’s walk, his active, open life, his way of conducting himself.—ἐν ταῖς ἐπιθυμίαις τῆς σαρκὸς ἡμῶν: in the lusts of our flesh. Definition of the domain or element in which their life once was spent. It kept within the confines of the appetites and impulses proper to fallen human nature or springing from it. The noun ἐπιθυμία has its usual sense of craving, the craving in particular of what is forbidden; σάρξ in like manner has its large, theological sense, human nature as such, in its physical, mental and moral entirety, considered as apart from God and under the dominion of sin.—ποιοῦντες τὰ θελήματα τῆς σαρκὸς καὶ τῶν διανοιῶν: doing the desires of the flesh and of the thoughts. The ποιοῦντες is sufficiently represented by the “doing” of Wycl., Cov., Rhem., RV. The AV and other Versions give “fulfilling”. The word θέλημα is of very rare occurrence, except in biblical and ecclesiastical Greek. It denotes properly the thing willed, but is used also of the Divine purpose (e.g., Ephesians 1:9), or command (e.g., Ephesians 5:17), etc. Here, as also in John 1:13, it denotes inclination or desire. The pl. διανοιῶν is best rendered “thoughts,” with Wycl., Cov., Rhem. and RV margin; RV text, following the AV and other Versions, gives “mind”. In the LXX the singular represents the OT לֵב, and denotes the mind in the large sense, inclusive of understanding, feeling and desiring. It is only the context that gives it the sense of wicked thoughts. Two sources of evil desire and impulse, therefore, are indicated here, viz., our fallen nature in general and the laboratory of perverted thoughts, impressions, imaginations, volitions, in particular.—καὶ ἦμεν τέκνα φύσει ὀργῆς: and were children by nature of wrath. “Children,” rather than “the children,” as it is given by AV and all the other old English Versions (except Wycl., who has “the sons”). From what he and his fellow-Christians did in their pre-Christian life, Paul turns now to what they were then. The statement is so constructed as to throw the chief emphasis on the ἧμεν and the ὀργῆς. For ἦμεν the better attested form is ἤμεθα. Some good MSS. and Versions ([133] [134] [135] [136] [137], Syr.-Harcl., Vulg.) read φύσει τέκνα, and that order is accepted by Lachmann, while a place is given it in the margin by Tregelles. The order τέκνα φύσει, however, which is that of [138] [139] [140], Chrys., etc., and both the TR and the RV, is to be preferred. The ἧμεν makes it clear that it is no longer doing (ποιοῦντες) simply that is in view, but being, condition. The τέκνα is the same kind of idiomatic phrase as the former υἱοί, only, if possible, stronger and more significant. It describes those in view as not only worthy of the ὀργή, but actually subject to it, definitely under it. But what is this ὀργή itself? It is not to be identified with punitive righteousness (τιμωρία), punishment (κόλασις), future judgment, or the effect of God’s present judgment of men, but denotes the quality or affectus of wrath. But is it man’s wrath or God’s? The word is certainly used of the passion of wrath in us (Ephesians 4:31; Colossians 3:8; Jam 1:19, etc.), and so the whole phrase is understood by some to mean nothing more than that those referred to were given to violent anger or ungovernable impulse (e.g., Maurice, Unity, p. 538). But this would add little or nothing to what was said of the lusts of the flesh and thoughts, and would strip the whole statement of its point, its solemnity, and its universality. It is the Divine wrath that is in view here; as it is, indeed, in thirteen out of twenty occurrences in the Pauline writings, and that, too, whether with or without the definite article or the defining Θεοῦ (cf. Moule, in loc). This holy displeasure of God with sin is not inconsistent with His love, but is the reaction of that love against the denial of its sovereign rights of responsive love. The term φύσις, though it may occasionally be applied to what is habitual or to character as developed, means properly what is innate, implanted, in one by nature, and this with different shades of meaning (cf., e.g., Romans 2:14; Galatians 2:15; Galatians 4:8, etc.). The clause means, therefore, that in their pre-Christian life those meant by the ἡμεῖς πάντες were in the condition of subjection to the Divine wrath; and that they were so not by deed merely, nor by circumstance, nor by passing into it, but by nature. Their universal sin has been already affirmed. This universal sin is now described as sin by nature. Beyond this Paul does not go in the present passage. But the one is the explanation of the other. Universal sin implies a law of sinning, a sin that is of the nature; and this, again, is the explanation of the fact that all are under the Divine wrath. For the Divine wrath operates only where sin is. Here is the essential meaning of the doctrine of original sin. That it finds any justification here is denied, indeed, by some; even by Meyer, who admits, however, that elsewhere (e.g., in Romans 6) Paul teaches that there is a principle of sin in man by nature, and that man sins actually because of that innate principle. But he argues that it is in virtue not of the principle itself, but of the acts of sin by which that principle expresses itself, that we are in a state of subjection to the Divine wrath. This, however, is to make a nature which originates sinful acts and which does that in the case of all men without exception, itself a neutral thing.

Can you summarize this in ten words or less?

 

[civic]

They are. . .until they aren't, when they come to saving faith.

God preserves them until he brings them there, his timing being for the sake of his own purposes.

It doesn't change their condition prior to salvation- children of wrath just like everyone else is under the curse of sin, death, judgement and condemnation.

Barnes agrees below

The children of wrath - Exposed to wrath, or liable to wrath. They did not by nature inherit holiness; they inherited that which would subject; them to wrath. The meaning has been well expressed by Doddridge, who refers it "to the original apostasy and corruption, in consequence of which people do, according to the course of nature, fall early into personal guilt, and so become obnoxious to the divine displeasure." Many modern expositors have supposed that this has no reference to any original tendency of our fallen nature to sin, or to native corruption, but that it refers to the "habit" of sin, or to the fact of their having been the slaves of appetite and passion. I admit that the direct and immediate sense of the passage is that they were, when without the gospel, and before they were renewed, the children of wrath; but still the fair interpretation is, that they were born to that state, and that that condition was the regular result of their native depravity; and I do not know a more strong or positive declaration that can be made to show that people are by nature destitute of holiness, and exposed to perdition.

Even as others - That is, "do not suppose that you stand alone, or that you are the worst of the species. You are indeed, by nature, the children of wrath; but not you alone. All others were the same. You have a common inheritance with them. I do not mean to charge you with being the worst of sinners, or as being alone transgressors. It is the common lot of man - the sad, gloomy inheritance to which we all are born." The Greek is, οἱ λοιποί hoi loipoi "the remainder, or the others," - including all; compare the notes at Romans 5:19. This doctrine that people without the gospel are the children of wrath, Paul had fully defended in Romans 1-3. Perhaps no truth is more frequently stated in the Bible; none is more fearful and awful in its character. What a declaration, that we "are by nature the children of wrath!" Who should not inquire what it means? Who should not make an effort to escape from the wrath to come, and become a child of glory and an heir of life?

 

[David1701]

I cannot agree with you here, as the wrath of God abides on all outside of Christ, John 3:36, and Ephesians 2:3 shows we too were like the rest of mankind in that respect.

But we can agree to disagree here, I simply see it as an eternal truth, and see it as taking place on the OT elect, as well as the NT elect.

But were we outside of Christ? Were we not chosen "in Him", before the foundation of the world? I know that we don't get all the benefits of the atonement, until we have believed in Jesus; but, there are some that we do get (e.g. being kept alive until we believe; God getting the gospel to us, etc.).

Is John 3:36 not about someone who hears the gospel?

The Eph. 2:3 verse is about our nature and what we deserved, not what we got.

 

[civic]

I'd say it all comes down to understanding God's wrath. We were under it like the rest of mankind by our very nature, in the same way as the rest of mankind. That's what the text says and means. But it is OK if you disagree with me.

Can you see me through the screen raising my hand about Gods wrath

 

[brightfame52]

Sure they are as per Ephesians 2 which I quoted .

No theyre not. You dont understand Eph 2

 

[civic]

No theyre not. You dont understand Eph 2

My understanding of it is just fine and many Calvinists agree with me and so did the couple of Theologians who are Calvinists agree. So My understanding can't be that flawed now can it ?

 

[civic]

Yep, like Arnold Horshack!

No vinny bobarino

 

[brightfame52]

I'd say it all comes down to understanding God's wrath. We were under it like the rest of mankind by our very nature, in the same way as the rest of mankind. That's what the text says and means. But it is OK if you disagree with me.

Now does the text say they were under Gods wrath ? Eph 2:3

Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.

 

[Eleanor]

But were we outside of Christ? Were we not chosen "in Him", before the foundation of the world? I know that we don't get all the benefits of the atonement, until we have believed in Jesus; but, there are some that we do get (e.g. being kept alive until we believe; God getting the gospel to us, etc.).

Is John 3:36 not about someone who hears the gospel?

The Eph. 2:3 verse is about our nature and what we deserved, not what we got.

We were born spiritually dead, guilty of the sin of Adam imputed to us (Ro 5:18) and under condemnation, just like everyone else.
We were outside of Christ just like everyone else until our sovereign rebirth by the will of God.

 

[civic]

Bro, you won't believe this, but I was down in my office, and I saw this book by Martyn Lloyd-Jones on my shelf I never saw before. It is on Ephesians 2. This just reminded me of that.

It was like a gift that came out of nowhere. I'm going to see what he says on all this when I take some time.

Nice post your findings !

 

[brightfame52]

My understanding of it is just fine and many Calvinists agree with me and so did the couple Theologians who are Calvinists agree. So My understanding can't be that flawed now can it ?

No its not just fine, it actually ignores the fact that Christ has appeased Gods wrath for the elect that He died for.

Even when Gods elect are being enemies, they have been reconciled to God by His Sons Death Rom 5:10
10 For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.

So explain how people Christ died for are reconciled to God while enemies, unbelievers, and be under Gods wrath at the same time ?

 

[brightfame52]

"even as others" "like the rest (of mankind)" is the answer.

Does it say they were under Gods wrath sir ?