Systematic Bible Study

[LifelongLearner]

I see you went to sleep about the time I woke up. What Bible book are you reading now and what version?
Do you make notes in the margins? I also am enjoying the congenial fellowship with those who love to LGW
(which is my motto :^)

Notes in the margins, that's actually a really good idea. I have five on and offline Bibles, including the C. S. Lewis Bible. Might be useful for others to know, that the Internet Archive commissioned a free to download PDF of it, which is still available. I bought the hardback too, it was £30 even secondhand but i love C. S. Lewis, personally love The Screwtape Letters more than Mere Christianity too. My favourite Bible translation currently is the RSV 1952,

Would really appreciate ideas on effective study and organisation but will go get some sleep now. Blessings and sweet dreams all for now.

 

[GWH]

Notes in the margins, that's actually a really good idea. I have five on and offline Bibles, including the C. S. Lewis Bible. Might be useful for others to know, that the Internet Archive commissioned a free to download PDF of it, which is still available. I bought the hardback too, it was £30 even secondhand but i love C. S. Lewis, personally love The Screwtape Letters more than Mere Christianity too. My favourite Bible translation currently is the RSV 1952,

Would really appreciate ideas on effective study and organisation but will go get some sleep now. Blessings and sweet dreams all for now.

Well, starting from the beginning is logical, but then reading the gospel of Matthew after Genesis makes sense, and then an epistle such as Ephesians might be helpful--but by all means have fun chasing rabbits as they are encountered. I had fun doing that and connecting dots on my own in the margins, although a Bible with margin notes is helpful if it leaves enough space on the edges for me. One thing I like about the NIV is its fairly extensive concordance.

 

[LifelongLearner]

Well, starting from the beginning is logical, but then reading the gospel of Matthew after Genesis makes sense, and then an epistle such as Ephesians might be helpful--but by all means have fun chasing rabbits as they are encountered. I had fun doing that and connecting dots on my own in the margins, although a Bible with margin notes is helpful if it leaves enough space on the edges for me. One thing I like about the NIV is its fairly extensive concordance.

Yep, i have the NIV too, it's good for sure but the style of the RSV is my favourite currently. Loved the almost poetic style of the KJV for quite a few months but the plain with nuance speech of the NIV appeals to me at the moment.

Pretty sure i've completed the Bible once GWH but yes, i select books to read. Have a good memory so it's easy for me to do, just re-read Jeremiah and was saddened as the Lord reveals so much about the hurt he sometimes feels in the book. Thought reading the Bible might be something of a mission but am often gripped by what i read. Think there are far more fables in the supposed *real* history we're fed than the Bible is often accused of containing.

Think you're right, my sometimes whimsical approach was good enough for a first read, now it's time to target my research better. Definitely will look at the NIV concordance in a little while, it's just coming up to 11am here, think you're UK too? Advice from seasoned believers is welcome and appreciated by me, i have a lot to learn and shortcuts are welcome.

EDIT: "but the plain with nuance speech of the NIV " RSV!

 

[GWH]

Yep, i have the NIV too, it's good for sure but the style of the RSV is my favourite currently. Loved the almost poetic style of the KJV for quite a few months but the plain with nuance speech of the NIV appeals to me at the moment.

Pretty sure i've completed the Bible once GWH but yes, i select books to read. Have a good memory so it's easy for me to do, just re-read Jeremiah and was saddened as the Lord reveals so much about the hurt he sometimes feels in the book. Thought reading the Bible might be something of a mission but am often gripped by what i read. Think there are far more fables in the supposed *real* history we're fed than the Bible is often accused of containing.

Think you're right, my sometimes whimsical approach was good enough for a first read, now it's time to target my research better. Definitely will look at the NIV concordance in a little while, it's just coming up to 11am here, think you're UK too? Advice from seasoned believers is welcome and appreciated by me, i have a lot to learn and shortcuts are welcome.

EDIT: "but the plain with nuance speech of the NIV " RSV!

An early to bed early riser in Texas here.

I sorta read the Bible through four times accidentally, beginning with the NEB because it was quite popular so my parents gave it to me for Christmas back about 1967, then the Good News Bible (TEV), which I tried to use for memorization before receiving the NIV when given it upon my ordination by Clinton Baptist Church in 1982, then The Apologetics Study Bible when given by my daughter for Christmas in 2010 (each time having to redo my margin notes :^). But my NIV is the dirtiest, especially Ephesians.

 

[LifelongLearner]

An early to bed early riser in Texas here.

I sorta read the Bible through four times accidentally, beginning with the NEB because it was quite popular so my parents gave it to me for Christmas back about 1967, then the Good News Bible (TEV), which I tried to use for memorization before receiving the NIV when given it upon my ordination by Clinton Baptist Church in 1982, then The Apologetics Study Bible when given by my daughter for Christmas in 2010 (each time having to redo my margin notes :^). But my NIV is the dirtiest, especially Ephesians.

Appears we're a similar physical age but not spiritual knowledge age. I was brought up RC, baptised at 2 days, first communion at 7, confirmed at 8, as if children so young can make such meaningful choices. In all fairness, the secular education was excellent, like many other Catholic Schools. The Nun who taught science told us the chair leg she pointed at didn't really exist, it was all molecules bouncing off each other. We were only seven! Pretty radical and our jaws dropped

 

[PaulThomson]

We pray as Paul did regarding his thorn that the pain will be alleviated and issues resolved. Verse 4 can be introduced by whomever gets time and inclination first for everyone's comments.

It is always Jesus' will to heal, as I read the New Testament.

Eph 1:4
According as (kathOs) he-chose (exelexato) us (humas) in him (en autOi) before (pro) [the] foundation (katabolEs) of [the] world (kosmou), we (humas) to be being (einai) holy (hagious) and (kai) without blame (amOmous) before him (katenOpion autou) in love (en agapEi):

Various ways to group these phrases in Greek.

1. According-as he-chose-us-in-him before-[the]-foundation-of-[the]-world us-to-be-being-holy-and-without-blame before-him in-love:

OR -

2. According-as he-chose-us in-him-before-[the]-foundation-of-[the]-world us-to-be-being-holy-and-without-blame before-him in-love:

One fact that mitigates against "us" being "each one of us" is that Paul does not use "each of us" (ekaston humOn), so I think Paul is saying that the church ("us" collectively, the body of Christ) was chosen before creation to be the primary goal of the creation project, a people like the chosen One (holy and without blame) and headed by the chosen One. This body was populated as sinners were added by putting their faith in Yahweh and Christ.

 

[GWH]

Appears we're a similar physical age but not spiritual knowledge age. I was brought up RC, baptised at 2 days, first communion at 7, confirmed at 8, as if children so young can make such meaningful choices. In all fairness, the secular education was excellent, like many other Catholic Schools. The Nun who taught science told us the chair leg she pointed at didn't really exist, it was all molecules bouncing off each other. We were only seven! Pretty radical and our jaws dropped

I am reminded of an exhibit that portrayed the interior of an atom as resembling the universe with as much empty space relatively between the atomic particles. Amazing!

 

[GWH]

It is always Jesus' will to heal, as I read the New Testament.

Eph 1:4
According as (kathOs) he-chose (exelexato) us (humas) in him (en autOi) before (pro) [the] foundation (katabolEs) of [the] world (kosmou), we (humas) to be being (einai) holy (hagious) and (kai) without blame (amOmous) before him (katenOpion autou) in love (en agapEi):

Various ways to group these phrases in Greek.

1. According-as he-chose-us-in-him before-[the]-foundation-of-[the]-world us-to-be-being-holy-and-without-blame before-him in-love:

OR -

2. According-as he-chose-us in-him-before-[the]-foundation-of-[the]-world us-to-be-being-holy-and-without-blame before-him in-love:

One fact that mitigates against "us" being "each one of us" is that Paul does not use "each of us" (ekaston humOn), so I think Paul is saying that the church ("us" collectively, the body of Christ) was chosen before creation to be the primary goal of the creation project, a people like the chosen One (holy and without blame) and headed by the chosen One. This body was populated as sinners were added by putting their faith in Yahweh and Christ.

Thanks PT, I don't see any meaningful difference in the two translations, but again it was fun seeing the Greek words again.
I actually could read the Greek NT while learning it in seminary (in passages that I was familiar with in English :^)

I will again try to conflate them:

EPH 1:4, “For he chose us in him before the foundation/creation of the world to be holy and blameless before him.”

The NIV has "In love" at the beginning of the next sentence. Do you agree? If so, we will include it in verse five.

Now regarding the commentary, do y'all agree that

1. the verb “chose” is synonymous with saved and elected.
2. “In him” means the same as “in Christ” in the previous verse.
3. "Before the foundation/creation" indicates that the reason God created the entire vast universe was to serve as the stage
upon which to enact His plan of salvation of human sinful souls.
4. “To be holy” means to be set apart or saved.
5. “And blameless in his sight” refers to sharing/being credited with the righteousness of Christ,
as in RM 3:20, “Therefore, no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law.”

? over...

 

[PaulThomson]

Thanks PT, I don't see any meaningful difference in the two translations, but again it was fun seeing the Greek words again.
I actually could read the Greek NT while learning it in seminary (in passages that I was familiar with in English :^)

I will again try to conflate them:

EPH 1:4, “For he chose us in him before the foundation/creation of the world to be holy and blameless before him.”

The NIV has "In love" at the beginning of the next sentence. Do you agree? If so, we will include it in verse five.

Now regarding the commentary, do y'all agree that

1. the verb “chose” is synonymous with saved and elected.
2. “In him” means the same as “in Christ” in the previous verse.
3. "Before the foundation/creation" indicates that the reason God created the entire vast universe was to serve as the stage
upon which to enact His plan of salvation of human sinful souls.
4. “To be holy” means to be set apart or saved.
5. “And blameless in his sight” refers to sharing/being credited with the righteousness of Christ,
as in RM 3:20, “Therefore, no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law.”

? over...

1. No. chose is synonymous with elected, but not with saved. Before the foundation of the world God planned to produce a family of believers who would willingly serve His Son. The necessity for sending a Saviour was not determined before the creation, but the possibility of needing to send a Saviour was anticipated, and the Son was willing to go, if needed. So, IMHO, back then, the body of believers were not chosen to be saved, but were chosen to be matured into the Son's image.
2. Yes.
3. No. The reason for creation according to this verse was to produce a family of believers in the Father and the Son. The reason for Jesus coming in flesh was to save.
4. No. To be holy is to be set apart. God is holy, but not saved.
5. No. Blameless in His sight means having all sins forgiven so that only what is good remains. I can't see where we are ever said to have been imputed with Christ's own righteousness. We are declared righteous by having sins washed away. Remove the stains and what remains is clean and spotless.

 

[PaulThomson]

EPH 1:4, “For he chose us in him before the foundation/creation of the world to be holy and blameless before him.”

The NIV has "In love" at the beginning of the next sentence. Do you agree? If so, we will include it in verse five.

"In love" could be qualifying what follows, yes.

Eph 1:5 - [in love (en agapEi) having predestinated (prohorisas: aorist, after predestinating) us (hEmas) unto (eis) adoption (huiothesian) by Jesus Christ (dia IEsou Christou) to himself (eis auton), according to the good pleasure (kata tEn eudokian) of his will (tou theEmatos autou),

Adoption (eudokia) in the first century was not like adoption of children today. Adoption was what a father did when he began to share the management of his enterprise with his son, accepting his son into full adulthood. Romans says that our adoption will be at our resurrection, when we receive a physical body like Jesus' glorious physical body and begin to reign with Him over the earth.

Rom 8:23
And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body.

This reigning over the earth with Christ was what God predestined for "us", the collective of believers who would trust in the Son and serve Him willingly. And this was an intention that was grounded in God's love. This raising of a family to reign with the Son pleased God, and was willed/desired by God, because it would be an expression of condescending love, and God is humble love.

 

[GWH]

1. No. chose is synonymous with elected, but not with saved. Before the foundation of the world God planned to produce a family of believers who would willingly serve His Son. The necessity for sending a Saviour was not determined before the creation, but the possibility of needing to send a Saviour was anticipated, and the Son was willing to go, if needed. So, IMHO, back then, the body of believers were not chosen to be saved, but were chosen to be matured into the Son's image.
2. Yes.
3. No. The reason for creation according to this verse was to produce a family of believers in the Father and the Son. The reason for Jesus coming in flesh was to save.
4. No. To be holy is to be set apart. God is holy, but not saved.
5. No. Blameless in His sight means having all sins forgiven so that only what is good remains. I can't see where we are ever said to have been imputed with Christ's own righteousness. We are declared righteous by having sins washed away. Remove the stains and what remains is clean and spotless.

1. Hmm. Don't see how one can mature without being saved.
3. Again, I think that is an illogical dichotomy. However, I agree that God's plan did not predetermine which individual souls would be saved. I employ the illustration of God determining the flow of the river of history without determining how the fish swim regarding salvation.
4. Ditto. What reason do you have for divorcing holiness from salvation?
5. The only good/clean that remains is the righteousness of Christ, which believers are credited or imputed or declared as sharing through faith. Not sure why you would view imputed as not synonymous with credited and declared.

Thanks for introducing 1:5; I will get back to you on that after giving others a chance to chime in.

 

[PaulThomson]

1. Hmm. Don't see how one can mature without being saved.

Since the fall, one can't mature without being saved. But before the fall, maturing was possible without a fall.

The reason "saved" is not synonymous with "chosen" and "elected" in this verse, is because it applies in this verse to the optimal plan before the fall, when it was hoped that the body of Christ might come about without a fall, even though a fall was anticipated as possible and the sacrifice of the Son was anticipated as a possibility. and the Son was consenting to be sent as a sacrifice, if needed.

 

[PaulThomson]

3. Again, I think that is an illogical dichotomy. However, I agree that God's plan did not predetermine which individual souls would be saved. I employ the illustration of God determining the flow of the river of history without determining how the fish swim regarding salvation.

IMO, God's pre-fall plan did not predetermine that any souls would need to be saved. And since this verse is describing God's plan before creation, it is desribing the state of God's plan before the fall.

 

[PaulThomson]

4. Ditto. What reason do you have for divorcing holiness from salvation?

Again, IMO in this verse, God's plan was pre-fall, and that pre-fall plan did not include a necessary fall that would necessitate salvation.

 

[PaulThomson]

5. The only good/clean that remains is the righteousness of Christ, which believers are credited or imputed or declared as sharing through faith. Not sure why you would view imputed as not synonymous with credited and declared.

I agree that imputed means credited and reckoned, and that declared can have the sense of reckoned/imputed in some cases. But I am not on board with the claim that we are credited/reckoned /imputed with Christ's own righteousness, or declared to have Christ's own righteousness.

Which texts are you leaning on to support your view that we are credited/imputed with and are declared to have Christ's own righteousness instead of our own?

 

[kqr_anointed]

Naturally, we should do what we can do to live holy lives. But thank God, when we do make mistakes, we can be forgiven. We do not lose our God-given position of holiness, and we remain blameless and above reproach—all “in Christ.”

Meyer, Joyce. The Everyday Life Bible: The Power of God's Word for Everyday Living (Function). Kindle Edition.

 

[kqr_anointed]

4 just as [in His love] He chose us in Christ [actually selected us for Himself as His own] before the foundation of the world, so that we would be holy [that is, consecrated, set apart for Him, purpose-driven] and blameless in His sight.

Meyer, Joyce. The Everyday Life Bible: The Power of God's Word for Everyday Living (Function). Kindle Edition.

 

[GWH]

Since the fall, one can't mature without being saved. But before the fall, maturing was possible without a fall.

The reason "saved" is not synonymous with "chosen" and "elected" in this verse, is because it applies in this verse to the optimal plan before the fall, when it was hoped that the body of Christ might come about without a fall, even though a fall was anticipated as possible and the sacrifice of the Son was anticipated as a possibility. and the Son was consenting to be sent as a sacrifice, if needed.

It seems more likely that Paul spoke of maturation after the fall and that God knew the fall was inevitable, so salvation via faith in Christ was optimal from the start, although A&E could only have remained unfallen by persevering in believing GW = CJ.

I agree that God did not determine any soul to sin and be condemned.

 

[PaulThomson]

It seems more likely that Paul spoke of maturation after the fall and that God knew the fall was inevitable, so salvation via faith in Christ was optimal from the start, although A&E could only have remained unfallen by persevering in believing GW = CJ.

I agree that God did not determine any soul to sin and be condemned.

Well, I agree with J D Vance. It is imperative that we have the freedom to express our different perspectives on issues, so that we are aware of all the available options and can make informed choices regarding what we will believe. We don't have to agree on every point.

 

[GWH]

I agree that imputed means credited and reckoned, and that declared can have the sense of reckoned/imputed in some cases. But I am not on board with the claim that we are credited/reckoned /imputed with Christ's own righteousness, or declared to have Christ's own righteousness.

Which texts are you leaning on to support your view that we are credited/imputed with and are declared to have Christ's own righteousness instead of our own?

PHP 3:7-9, "Whatever were gains to me [via obeying the law per v. 6] I now consider loss for the sake of Christ... for whose sake I have lost all things... that I may gain Christ and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ..."