My disclaimer: I have not read this thread; so if I write something that others have written, please be patient with the repetition.
Brainstorming through various verses
I'll start by just brainstorming. A few verses immediately come to mind. The first speaks of various individuals in building terminology.
The passage continues to use building terminology to describe Jesus, believers, and unbelievers.
A connection is made between God's choosing, the establishment of a holy nation, and a people for his own possession (for the purpose of the proclamation of God's glory in redemption).
A friend of mine, a few months ago, shared with me the building terminology in the book of Ephesians. I'll try my best to remember the words he pointed out. (1) In Ephesians 1:4 "to choose" is from a word that connects to brick/stone masons who would carefully select a stone. (2) In the same verses we have the phrase "foundation of the world." Foundation is another building terminology word. (3) Ephesians 2:10 utilizes the word "workmanship," so we who are made alive are also ones who God has built to function in a certain way. (4) Sadly, my memory is very hazy, and I cannot remember all of them anymore. I'm trying to remember a conversation at the mall several months ago, and a lot has happened since then. However, I'll at least quote the two verses mentioned above.
We also see, in Ephesians 3:7-13, a reference to the creative power of God, His eternal purpose, and His manifold wisdom. In particular, Paul seems to be speaking of the gospel's relationship to the Gentiles. I see this connecting back to the prior mentioned statement in 1:4, where God chose us in Him. This "in Him" refers to Christ as the instrument of redemption or maybe as one in fellowship and planning with God. An oft missed fact is that the "chose" in 1:4 is in the middle, and it makes sense to see this as God choosing for Himself. Also, the opening of verse 4 is translated by the ESV as "even as," and this is definitely a legitimate translation. However, I prefer to take the word in a causal sense, where one would translate it as "because."
This sense of the word would create a very interesting understanding of the relationship between verse 3 and 4. We are given a very significant summary statement speaking of the blessings found in Christ Jesus to us. Immediately following is a causal sense of the word "because," and this would lead us to conclude that Paul is explaining to us the causal foundation of the blessings we have in Christ. These blessings are built upon the past, current, and future working of God (1:4-14). Hence, I would suggest that we can read 3 and 4 in the following way.
In 1:6 we see some God-centered motivation mentioned.
Verse 1:13 speaks toward the praise of His glory.
We also have some very interesting comments.
God's wisdom, insight, purpose, plan are located in Christ for the unifying of all things in Him.
A Few Concluding Thoughts from the Previous Brainstorming
God's choice and redemption of His people is founded upon Himself and Christ in an eternal purpose and plan. As I have argued elsewhere, His choice is not conditioned upon the libertarian faith (the Arminian conditional election position) of people. Rather, God's knowledge is sourced ultimately in Himself (His self-sufficient nature). God chose a people, implemented His redemption of them, in keeping with His insanely amazing wisdom and planning. God's working does not rule out the activity of people; rather, God's working, building, creating, making alive, and fashioning brings about their activities. He gives them faith; therefore, they believe. They are His workmanship; therefore, they do good works. Thusly, God gets the glory. Redemption is God-centered. And the activity of people is not founded upon human ultimacy (as the libertarian/Arminian position assumes); rather the activity of people is founded upon God's grace and wisdom as He causes their lives to change to bring about His redemptive purposes.
Sadly, I've been falsely and stupidly accused of promoting synergism of the Arminian kind. The above words cannot possibly be taken that way. I hold to a compatibilist view, sometimes called concurrence, and I've argued extensively against libertarian freedom, which is a huge foundation of Arminian synergism (i.e. Arminian metaphysics).
In closing, I hope that these thoughts have helped. This has been a long time coming, and I hope that I've answered your questions and given you some food for thought. Please let me know what you think. I would love to see how you have evaluated these words.
