Who Comes To The Cross? Only A Few.

Martin W. said:

Excellent

I hope more folks adopt your style of bible study. This is how it should be done.

A. Martin

Click to expand...

Why, this is called proof texting. It is simply taking passages of Scripture out of context to support a preconceived idea. Let's take a few of those passages and put them in context.

John 6:44, "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day."
John 6:37, "All that the Father gives me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will by no means cast out."

Click to expand...

What is actually happening here? For one thing Jesus said that He had only come to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

Matthew 15:21-24 ( KJV )
Then Jesus went thence, and departed into the coasts of Tyre and Sidon.
And, behold, a woman of Canaan came out of the same coasts, and cried unto him, saying, Have mercy on me, O Lord, thou Son of David; my daughter is grievously vexed with a devil.
But he answered her not a word. And his disciples came and besought him, saying, Send her away; for she crieth after us.
But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel

Since the Calvinist applies this to Christians it is incumbent upon him to show us how it pertains to Christians, since Jesus said He had only come to Israel. Then there is the issue of why Jesus said this. Here is a brief explanation of what was happening in Israel at this time.
I would like to explain John 6:37:45, it is not speaking of Calvinistic election.

John 6:37-45 ( KJV ) 37All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out. 38For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me. 39And this is the Father’s will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day. 40And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day. 41The Jews then murmured at him, because he said, I am the bread which came down from heaven. 42And they said, Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? how is it then that he saith, I came down from heaven? 43Jesus therefore answered and said unto them, Murmur not among yourselves. 44No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day. 45It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me.

First let's set the scene, God was setting the scene for the crucifiction, Jesus is speaking to unbelieving Jews. When Jesus said this, salvation had not yet gone to the gentiles. Jesus himself said,

Matthew 15:24 ( KJV ) 24But he answered and said,I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

Matthew 10:5-7 ( KJV ) 5These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not: 6But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. 7And as ye go, preach, saying, The kingdom of heaven is at hand.
So these verses only concern the Jews of Jesus day, also notice what Jesus said in verse 40,
John 6:40 ( KJV ) 40And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.

No one today will see the Son. Now, Jesus said that no one could come to Him unless the Father draws
Him, this is correct. God was setting up the crucifiction and for that to take place the Jews would have to reject the Messiah, God determined that Christ would die for sins,

Acts 2:23 ( KJV ) 23Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain:

For this to happen the Jews would have to reject the Messiah, so God blinded Israel,

Jesus

Mark 4:11-12 ( KJV ) 11And he said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables: 12That seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest at any time they should be converted, and their sins should be forgiven them.

Isaiah

Isaiah 6:9-10 ( KJV ) 9And he said, Go, and tell this people, Hear ye indeed, but understand not; and see ye indeed, but perceive not. 10Make the heart of this people fat, and make their ears heavy, and shut their eyes; lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and convert, and be healed.

Paul

Romans 11:25 ( KJV ) 25For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.

Paul

Romans 11:8 ( KJV ) 8(According as it is written, God hath given them the spirit of slumber, eyes that they should not see, and ears that they should not hear unto this
day.

Now had they understood, they would not have crucified the Lord.

1 Corinthians 2:8 ( KJV ) 8Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.

So since Israel was blinded NO ONE could come to Christ unless they were drawn by the Father, this is shown is verse 45,

John 6:45 ( KJV ) 45It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me.

So prior to the crucifiction all those who were drawn by the father come to Christ and he will in no way cast them out. Jesus said that it was the Fathers will that He should lift them up at the last day, Now the question is what does He mean by "it was the Fathers will that He should lift them up at the last day" is this something that must happen or is it what the Father desires to happen? I say that this is what the Father desires to happen but it doesn't have to happen, let's look at it. First the Calvinist would say that those who are drawn or given to Christ are the elect, So let's see who they are, John 17 tells us who they are,

John 17:2 ( KJV ) 2 As thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him.

John 17:6-8 ( KJV ) 6 I have manifested thy name unto the men which thou gavest me out of the world: thine they were, and thou gavest them me; and they have kept thy word. 7Now they have known that all things whatsoever thou hast given me are of thee. 8For I have given unto them the words which thou gavest me; and they have received them, and have known surely that I came out from thee, and they have believed that thou didst send me.

So we see from John 17 that the ones given to Christ by the Father were the disciples, Now Jesus said He should raise them up at the last day. Is that a guarantee? No,

John 17:12 ( KJV ) 12 While I was with them in the world, I kept them in thy name: those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled.

Now Judas was lost He will not be lifted up at the last day, you can say Judas wasn't saved, but you can't say that Judas wasn't one of those given to Christ by the Father. Judas WAS given to Christ by the Father. So it was the desire of God that all be lifted up, but that did not happen.
Now, as I said earlier this all took place so that the crucifiction could take place, after the crucifiction the Gospel was opened to the Gentiles, which is shown by Jesus statement in John 12,

John 12:32 ( KJV ) 32 And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me.
So we see that after the crucifiction the gospel has gone out to ALL men, now evryone has the opertunity to receive the Gospel. Which is evidenced in Acts 10,

Acts 10:34-35 ( KJV ) 34Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons: 35But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him. (Gentile)

Acts 2:36-38 ( KJV ) 36Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.
37Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do? 38Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

These same people who just a little while ago were crying out for Christ to be crucified were now cut to the heart and asked Peter what they needed to do to be saved. (Jew)

So, this is why it is so important to read and quote the Scriptures "IN" context.


Here is another,

John 1:12-13, "Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God- children not born of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband's will, but born of God."

Click to expand...

First, let me say that there is evidence that verse 13 has been tampered with. The Early Church claimed that the Gnostics changed this verse from the singular to the plural in order to apply it to those who received Him. The Early Church said that it was written in the singular as pertaining to Christ. In other words when John said, 'who was born not of the will of man, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of blood, but of God', he was speaking of Christ, not those who received Him.

However, even apart from this evidence the phrase itself as written does not support the Calvinist view. If we look at verse 12 John say as many as received Him. The Greek word translated received means to take hold of and it is in the active vioce which means that it is the subject who is performing the action. Therefore those who received Him were actively taking hold of Him. If it was God causing them to receive Christ receive would be in the passive voice. This shows that it was those who received Him that took the action.

Let's look at this passage.

Acts 13:48, "All who were appointed for eternal life believed."

Click to expand...

The Greek word translated appointed can also mean disposed, it can mean that someone was dispose to believe. The Calvinist says that God ordained these to believe. It that is the case then I would like the Calvinist to show me where Scripture teaches that the Gentile has no choice in salvation but the Jew does. You see, in the very same passage we have Paul also saying this.

Acts 13:44-48 ( KJV )
And the next sabbath day came almost the whole city together to hear the word of God.
But when the Jews saw the multitudes, they were filled with envy, and spake against those things which were spoken by Paul, contradicting and blaspheming.
Then Paul and Barnabas waxed bold, and said, It was necessary that the word of God should first have been spoken to you: but seeing ye put it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles.
For so hath the Lord commanded us, saying, I have set thee to be a light of the Gentiles, that thou shouldest be for salvation unto the ends of the earth.
And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed.

Paul tells these Jews that they have judged themselves unworthy of eternal life. They judged themselves unworthy, if their salvation was completely up to God's choosing how could they possibly judge themselves unworthy of eternal life? Another problem is that if the Jews judged themselves unworthy of eternal life, how can it be that the Gentiles did not also have this same option? Is there a different standard between the Jew and the Gentile, or did Paul say there is neither Jew nor Gentile in Christ.

Ephesians 1:4, "For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight."

Click to expand...

This passage speaks of the Jews, however, for the sake of the length of this post I will not go into explaining it. If anyone is interested in the explanation please let me know and I will be happy to supply it.

Romans 8:29, "For those he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son."

Click to expand...

This passage also speaks of the Jews, again for brevity I'll not post the explanation, but will supply it for those who are interested.


I think this is sufficient to show the necessity of posting and reading the Scriptures in context. If we take Scripture out of context we can appear to support just about any doctrine.

During this time is when Christ's ministry was limited only to the Jews and he didn't want people speaking of him.
You'll notice in the context of what he was speaking he was speaking of just that: his ministry (healing her).
This does not apply to salvation. Why? You omitted verse 28 in which Christ, because of her faith, heals her daughter anyway. So you see already the salvation was not to the Jews only, but he was just limiting his public exposure to them only at this time.

Click to expand...

Jesus said He had only come to the Jews .When he sent out the 70 He told them not to go to the Gentiles. You see many Christians miss the point of the Scriptures because they obsess over salvation, when Jesus said many times that He had come to bring the kingdom of God. There was a whole lot more to Jesus’ message than just salvation. He told His disciples when they went out to the Jews to say, behold the kingdom of God has come near. Salvation did not go to the Gentiles until the Great commission when Jesus said Go to the nations (Gentiles).

Matthew 28:18-20 ( KJV )
And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.
Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

Butch5, on 12 January 2011 - 01:43 PM, said:
First let's set the scene, God was setting the scene for the crucifiction, Jesus is speaking to unbelieving Jews. When Jesus said this, salvation had not yet gone to the gentiles. Jesus himself said,

Click to expand...

I feel I've addressed this above. Salvation was to the Gentiles already, he did not yet openly want himself revealed to the Gentile world yet.

Click to expand...

Well, that is not what He said, He said, I am not come but to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. Whether He healed a Gentile woman or not is irrelevant to the purpose for His coming

Butch5, on 12 January 2011 - 01:43 PM, said:
So prior to the crucifiction all those who were drawn by the father come to Christ and he will in no way cast them out.

Click to expand...

You do realize everything you've posted pertaining to this in no way contradicts what I've presented, yes?
In fact you help me prove it.

Click to expand...

But there’s a difference, you’re applies this to all people Correct? I’ve only applied it to those Jews who were living at that time.

Now, I believe, after reading what you said, what you'd disagree with is that people are STILL blinded. You agree they were, you made the case for me, but you disagree that people still are.
Simply see my other post, here http://www.christian...h__1#entry96615
There is no one who understands, no one who seeks God. This description of us today is the same exact one that applied to the people you're referencing.

Click to expand...

Again, Context my friend. All of those passages that spoke of the blinding, spoke of the blinding of Israel, not the Gentiles and not all people.
Your quote from Romans 3 here is out of context also, No one understands and no one seeks God. I’ve just had this discussion on another forum regarding this same passage. First of all, in Romans 3 Paul is addressing the Jewish believers at the Church in Rome. He is making the point that the Jews is no more righteous than the Gentiles. To prove that point he quotes the OT Scriptures. He is not trying to prove that every single human being is unrighteous, the context is Jew and Gentile, there is none righteous, neither the Jew nor the Gentile.
However, from Scripture we see that this is hyperbole, because God Himself says that some people were righteous and He also said that David was a man after His own heart. Surely you wouldn’t contend that Paul is contradicting God?

Butch5, on 12 January 2011 - 01:43 PM, said:
First the Calvinist would say that those who are drawn or given to Christ are the elect, So let's see who they are, John 17 tells us who they are, John 17:2 ( KJV ) 2 As thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him.
John 17:6-8 ( KJV ) 6 I have manifested thy name unto the men which thou gavest me out of the world: thine they were, and thou gavest them me; and they have kept thy word. 7Now they have known that all things whatsoever thou hast given me are of thee. 8For I have given unto them the words which thou gavest me; and they have received them, and have known surely that I came out from thee, and they have believed that thou didst send me.
So we see from John 17 that the ones given to Christ by the Father were the disciples

Click to expand...

Of course. You do realize it doesn't exclude other people, yes?
He was praying for his disciples here. He obviously wouldn't be addressing people OTHER than his disciples. "Dear Lord, I pray for my disciples you gave me. You didn't give me anyone other than the disciples, though."....
How silly is this assertion of yours.

Click to expand...

Is it? You see you have based you doctrine on an assumption that you have drawn that is not stated in Scripture. Where in Scripture do you find anyone else being given to Christ?
However, look at what else Jesus said,

John 17:20 ( KJV )
Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word;

It’s interesting that Jesus said those who will believe on me through their word. He didn’t say those who you have given me that have not yet believed.
My friend, Jesus said those who you have given me. That is past tense, “Have given” there is nothing in that statement about any future giving.

Butch5, on 12 January 2011 - 01:43 PM, said:
Now Judas was lost He will not be lifted up at the last day, you can say Judas wasn't saved

Click to expand...

Actually, no you can't.
He was speaking of guarding them and the only one lost was one not guarded, so that God's will could be carried out.
Truth is we don't know if Judas is in Heaven or Hell. He believed Christ was the Son of God, yet in a moment of sin (what makes his worse than mine or yours), betrayed him. I think the evidence he's in heaven outweighs that of him being in hell, but this is another topic. My point is that we don't know for CERTAIN.

Click to expand...

On the contrary my friend, Jesus was quite clear when He said none of them is lost but the son of perdition.

John 17:12 ( KJV )
While I was with them in the world, I kept them in thy name: those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled.

The Greek word translated perdition means destruction.

Thayer’s Greek Definitions
G684 ἀπώλεια apōleia Thayer Definition: 1) destroying, utter destruction 1a) of vessels 2) a perishing, ruin, destruction 2a) of money 2b) the destruction which consists of eternal misery in hell

Jesus left no question here.

Butch5, on 12 January 2011 - 01:43 PM, said:
John 12:32 ( KJV ) 32 And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me.
So we see that after the crucifiction the gospel has gone out to ALL men, now everyone has the opportunity to receive the Gospel.

Click to expand...

And yet if you take this literally, every person on earth should have been drawn to Christ and yet it didn't happen. So this cannot be literal but is rather addressing "all kinds of people". And as you later quote, "all nations". As we see in revelation every tribe, tongue, nation... Will have people from it. This is the scope of the gospel. Not literally all individuals but all types of people.

Click to expand...

Sorry friend, but it does mean literally all people. You see this is where the Calvinist doctrine causes misinterpretation. Just because everyone is drawn by Christ doesn’t mean that everyone will received Christ. Jesus is not speaking of all “People groups” . It stands to reason that if He drew all people then He would have those of every tribe, tongue, and nation. The apostle John makes it clear that Jesus gives understanding to every single person who comes into the world.

John 1:7-9 ( KJV )
The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe.
He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light.
That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.


The Greek word translated man is in the singular here, it means every person.

Butch5, on 12 January 2011 - 01:43 PM, said:
First, let me say that there is evidence that verse 13 has been tampered with.

Click to expand...

As far as we know, from the manuscripts we have, it's accurate. So please drop this nonsense.

Click to expand...

What manuscripts? The oldest manuscripts we have date to around 400 A.D. Tertullian made his comments on this passage around 200 A.D. That’s 200 years before our earliest manuscript, so there is no way to say “From the manuscripts we have”. The evidence against it is older and closer to the source. Rather than just dismissing it why not research it?

Here is an appetizer. Notice, however, that those who Tertullian is refuting are arguing for the same type of election that the Calvin did. Tertullian, however, is arguing against the Gnostics, who John called antichrist.
.
The Early Church Fathers: Ante-Nicene Fathers Volume 3
Tertullian

Chap. XIX.—Christ, as to His Divine Nature, as the Word of God, Became Flesh, Not by Carnal Conception, nor by the Will of the Flesh and of Man, but by the Will of God. Christ’s Divine Nature, of Its Own Accord, Descended into the Virgin’s Womb.
What, then, is the meaning of this passage, “Born not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God?” (John 1:13) I shall make more use of this passage after I have confuted those who have tampered with it. They maintain that it was written thus (in the plural) “Who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God,” as if designating those who were before mentioned as “believing in His name,” in order to point out the existence of that mysterious seed of the elect and spiritual which they appropriate to themselves. But how can this be, when all who 538 believe in the name of the Lord are, by reason of the common principle of the human race, born of blood, and of the will of the flesh, and of man, as indeed is Valentinus himself? The expression is in the singular number, as referring to the Lord, “He was born of God.” And very properly, because Christ is the Word of God, and with the Word the Spirit of God, and by the Spirit the Power of God, and whatsoever else appertains to God. As flesh, however, He is not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of man, because it was by the will of God that the Word was made flesh. To the flesh, indeed, and not to the Word, accrues the denial of the nativity which is natural to us all as men, because it was as flesh that He had thus to be born, and not as the Word. Now, whilst the passage actually denies that He was born of the will of the flesh, how is it that it did not also deny (that He was born) of the substance of the flesh? For it did not disavow the substance of the flesh when it denied His being “born of blood” but only the matter of the seed,’ which, as all know, is the warm blood as convected by ebullition into the coagulum of the woman’s blood. In the cheese, it is from the coagulation that the milky substance acquires that consistency,201II-11-201 which is condensed by infusing the rennet. We thus understand that what is denied is the Lord’s birth after sexual intercourse (as is suggested by the phrase, “the will of man and of the flesh”), not His nativity from a woman’s womb. Why, too, is it insisted on with such an accumulation of emphasis that He was not born of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor (of the will) of man, if it were not that His flesh was such that no man could have any doubt on the point of its being born from sexual intercourse? Again, although denying His birth from such cohabitation, the passage did not deny that He was born of real flesh; it rather affirmed this, by the very fact that it did not deny His birth in the flesh in the same way that it denied His birth from sexual intercourse. Pray, tell me, why the Spirit of God203II-11-203 descended into a woman’s womb at all, if He did not do so for the purpose of partaking of flesh from the womb. For He could have become spiritual flesh without such a process,—much more simply, indeed, without the womb than in it. He had no reason for enclosing Himself within one, if He was to bear forth nothing from it. Not without reason, however, did He descend into a womb. Therefore He received (flesh) therefrom; else, if He received nothing therefrom, His descent into it would have been without a reason, especially if He meant to become flesh of that sort which was not derived from a womb, that is to say, a spiritual one.

Butch5, on 12 January 2011 - 01:43 PM, said:
However, even apart from this evidence the phrase itself as written does not support the Calvinist view. If we look at verse 12 John say as many as received Him. The Greek word translated received means to take hold of and it is in the active vioce which means that it is the subject who is performing the action. Therefore those who received Him were actively taking hold of Him.

Click to expand...

I don't disagree. But this still does not address nor eliminate the question of who was given the opportunity. My point with this verse, which you totally missed, was the "born of God" part.
Regardless of who received, the fact is it still says only those who believed (this passage doesn't address WHO can believe), GOD gave the right to be born of GOD. My point was that it's all God.

Click to expand...

I didn’t miss your point but I think you missed mine. It wasn’t all of God. As I pointed out in the last post. “Receive” in verse 12 is in the active voice, that means the subject, “They,” are the ones performing the action. If it was all of God the word “Receive” would be in the passive voice indicating that the action was done to them not by them.


Now, you apply my prior theology regarding who can come (only those enabled), and the entire salvation process, as you can see, is a God thing.

It’s both God and man.

Butch5, on 12 January 2011 - 01:43 PM, said:
but seeing ye put it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles.

Click to expand...

Once more, you are reading assumptions into this text that aren't there. You're ASSUMING they had the ability to weigh in favor of Christ. Your own argument earlier should tell you they didn't have this luxury, their hearts were blinded, the only way they could judge was against Christ- but your argument changes depending on the topic being addressed I guess.

Click to expand...

Not so my friend, as I said prior, God was setting up the crucifixion. They couldn’t come before the crucifixion unless specifically drawn. However, remember that Jesus said if He was lifted up He would draw all men. At this point (Acts 13) the crucifixion had already happened and Christ had risen. We’ve already seen at Pentecost that three thousand of those Jews who had cried for Christ to be crucified had now become pricked in their hearts and repented, so obviously they could choose Christ. This passage in Acts 13 cannot in any way support Calvinistic election unless one is willing to admit that there are multiple ways of salvation for different people.

Butch5, on 12 January 2011 - 01:43 PM, said:
This passage speaks of the Jews, however, for the sake of the length of this post I will not go into explaining it. If anyone is interested in the explanation please let me know and I will be happy to supply it.

Click to expand...

Ahhh so Ephesians is addressing only the Jews, eh? That's the "us"? Explain 2:11, then, because it destroys your argument. It's not surprising why you didn't address it.
Therefore remember that at one time you Gentiles in the flesh
Or what about 3:1?
For this reason I, Paul, a prisoner for Christ Jesus on behalf of you Gentiles

It's clear the letter was written to both.

Click to expand...

My friend, I didn’t say Ephesians was written to the Jews, I said the passage you quoted was written about the Jews. You quote Ephesians 1:4, in that passage Paul is speaking of God’s blessings on the Jews.
If you take note to the grammar this should become clear. In verses 3-12 Paul uses first person, personal, plural, pronouns (we, us, our) Then in verse 13 he switches to second person personal, plural, pronouns (you, your). He is speaking of two groups of people here us, we, our, in which he includes himself and the other group you and your refers to his Ephesian readers.

For further evidence, if you read through verses 3-12 you will find descriptions that don’t apply to Paul’s Gentile readers. For instance in verse 11 he says,

Ephesians 1:11 ( KJV )
In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will:
He says we have obtained and inheritance, then in verse 13 he tells his Ephesian readers that they only have the down payment of their inheritance.
In verse 12 He say we (The we, us, our group) who first trusted in Christ. He contrasts this with ‘and you also after you believed were sealed with the holy Spirit’, this is the other group.

Butch5, on 12 January 2011 - 01:43 PM, said:
This passage also speaks of the Jews, again for brevity I'll not post the explanation, but will supply it for those who are interested.

Click to expand...

So who is the "us", "we", etc being addressed in Romans 8? Everyone in Christ. Reading the context would answer this. So once more, I'm not surprised you didn't address it.

There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. For the law of the Spirit of life has set you free in Christ Jesus from the law of sin and death.

Click to expand...

In context the “us” “we” etc. is the Jewish believers he is addressing. However, those who are called, predestined, justified and glorified are those in verse 28 who love God. If you take notice all of the verbs are in the past tense, they are a completed action of God. Paul is not giving the “Golden Chain”. He is giving evidence to support what he said in verse 28, that all things work together for good to those who love God. He reminds his Jewish readers of what God has done in the past for those who love Him. He has predestined, called, justified, and glorified them. Paul says for we “know”. The Greek word “know” is “oidamen” and carries the idea of knowing something form having seen or experienced it. A Jew would be readily familiar with their history and how God had done great things for those who love Him. Men like Noah, Abraham, Isaac, David, etc. Verse 29-30 are evidence to support Paul’s statement made in verse 28.

Butch5, on 12 January 2011 - 01:43 PM, said:
I think this is sufficient to show the necessity of posting and reading the Scriptures in context. If we take Scripture out of context we can appear to support just about any doctrine.

Click to expand...

That's a mighty pot, kettle argument. Especially considering you didn't address the majority of what's posted but instead proof texted your argument.

Click to expand...

Proof texted my argument? My friend as you see I did not make a statement and the find verses to support. I posted Scripture said what it means and then posted more Scriptue to show that what I said was correct.

TexUs said:

So is this admitting that yes, there was faith and healing and ministry to a non Jewish person? If so this kind of eliminates that scripture as support for you and you should probably drop this part of the argument.

Click to expand...

I think you're missing the point and ignoring the Scripture. Jesus said that he had only come to the Lost Sheep of the House of Israel. No matter what He did it doesn't change the fact that He only came to Israel. Paul also confirms this fact.

Galatians 4:4-5 ( KJV )
But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,
To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons.

The Gentiles were not under the Law the Jews were. Paul makes this clear in Romans 2.

Here Paul is telling the Jewish believers at the church in Rome that the Gentiles are also part of this covenant.

Romans 3:28-30 ( KJV )
Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.
Is he the God of the Jews only? is he not also of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also:
Seeing it is one God, which shall justify the circumcision by faith, and uncircumcision through faith.

Notice Paul's words, The Jews (Circumcision) shall be justified "By" and the Gentiles (Uncircumcision) shall be justified "through" faith. This is a big difference. The Gentiles shall be justified through the faith of the Jews. This is the teachings of Jesus. This shows that the faith was initially to the Jews.

LOL, what??????
If my purpose is to wash my car but instead I go and clean the inside of it too, does that mean the cleaning the inside didn't count or matter? Geeze.

Salvation of a Gentile is now "irrelevant". Wow.

Click to expand...

That analogy doesn't work, the inside of your car is part of your car, as such it would be included.. Suppose you had gone out for the purpose of washing your car. In the process you noticed that your wife's car had a flat tire and you went ahead and repaired. That doesn't change the purpose of your going outside. You went outside to wash you car, you did not go outside to fix the flat on your wife's car, that is just something you did in addition to washing your car. It was not the purpose of your going outside.

I do realize you applied it to Jews. As you acknowledge Israel didn't have the ability to see Christ, it's a first step to at least acknowledging the theology I presented as both being possible and as having happened before. All that remains is for you to see this is applied to Gentiles as well.

Click to expand...

Maybe you could supply Scripture showing that it was applied to the Gentiles. I've not seen any such thing in Scripture.

I don't think you can get around the, "no one, no not one". Clearly individualistic.

Click to expand...

Yes, and also clearly hyperbole, unless one is going to claim that God does not know what and who is righteous. As I've pointed out God Himself has called people righteous, Now, you have to square that with Paul's quote. If you understand Paul's quite extremely literally then you have a contradiction with God statements of righteous men. That doesn't even count the numerous other passages of Scripture that speak of people being righteous or blameless, etc.

This is one of the problem with these doctrines, they pick certain verse and interpret them how they want to.. For instance, this verse in Romans 3 Calvinists want to interpret extremely literally and say that it means there is not a single righteous person on the planet, yet when Jesus said He would draw all men, they want to say that all doe mean all, but instead means all types of men, when in fact Jesus made no distinction. Likewise when John said that Christ is the propitiation for the sins of the whole world, the Calvinist does not want to take that passage literally but want to say it means all kind of men.

So is God an adulterer as well?
Until God changed his heart, David couldn't do good, he still struggled just like you and I.

Click to expand...

And he struggled afterward. However, Let me ask you where Scripture says that God changed David's heart? If Scripture doesn't mention it then aren't we assuming?

Are you arguing that there are people that don't sin? Because it certainly seems that's where this necessarily must go.

Click to expand...

Am I arguing the some people don't sin? No, that is not required. Being justified does not mean one is sinless, it means one has been acquitted. To be justified one must have had sin or there would be no need to be justified. However, even the one who has been justified usually sins after they have been justified. That is why John says, 'If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins." As Christians we need a continual cleansing. IF being justified meant being sinless there would be no need for a continual cleansing.

John 6:37, case closed- you're wrong.
All that the Father gives me
[font="Georgia][size=2]
[/size][/font]
[font="Georgia][size=2]Who is the them that Christ is talking to, the crowd (6:22), which is clearly divided and separate from the disciples which were on the boat with Jesus.[/size][/font][/quote]

Case closed? What does it matter who Jesus is talking to? Where else in Scripture do we see anyone else being given to Jesus? We saw in John 17 that Jesus said, 'All you have given me', as I pointed out that is past tense. There is nothing in Scripture about anyone being given to Christ in the future.

[quote]Everyone the Father gives him will believe.[/quote]

But you haven't given any evidence that anyone is given after the death of Christ. Sure God gave Him people while He was on earth but there is nothing in Scripture that speaks of anyone being given in the future.


[quote]Yep- before the foundations of the world they were given.[/quote]

This is an assumption my friend, there is nothing in Scripture that states this. However, that doesn't change the fact that all of the giving is spoken of as being past tense in John 17.


[quote]John 8:44, we're all sons of the devil, so your point here is moot and mine still stands. We don't know if Judas was saved or not.[/quote]

On the contrary, Jesus was talking to he Pharisees in John 8:44. He did not speak of all men, again, context. However, unless you deny Jesus words we do know what happened to Judas, Jesus said he was lost.


[quote]Nonsense.
John 6:37, "[font=Georgia][i]For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified.[/i]"[/font]

So once more, if this was literal, all people would be saved.[/quote]

Once again, we need to keep the passages in context. Being drawn does not mean being saved. Jesus said,

John 12:32 ( KJV )
[color="#FF0000"]And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me.[/color]

Title : Strong’s Hebrew and Greek Dictionaries

G1670 ἑλκύω, ἕλκω helkuō helkō hel-koo'-o, hel'-ko Probably akin to G138; to drag (literally or figuratively):—draw. Compare G1667.
Title : Thayer’s Greek Definitions

G1670 ἑλκύω / ἕλκω helkuō / helkō Thayer Definition: 1) to draw, drag off 2) metaphorically, to draw by inward power, lead, impel

Jesus was talking about His drawing all people. Paul on the other hand is telling how God has invited them who love Him.

Romans 8:28-30 ( KJV )
And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose.
For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.
Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.

Who are the called? Paul tells us, they are those who love God in verse 28. It is these that God has invited to be conformed to the image of His Son. Yes, I wrote invited, you see, most of the English translations come from Reformation thought. The Greek word that is usually translated "Called" is also translated "invited". That puts a whole new perspective on what the verse means.
Title : Thayer’s Greek Definitions

G2564 καλέω kaleō Thayer Definition: 1) to call 1a) to call aloud, utter in a loud voice 1b) to invite 2) to call, i.e. to name, by name 2a) to give a name to 2a1) to receive the name of, receive as a name 2a2) to give some name to one, call his name 2b) to be called, i.e. to bear a name or title (among men) 2c) to salute one by name

So, Jesus and Paul are talking about two completely different things. Jesus said, 'If I am lifted up, I will draw all unto me'. Obviously He is speaking of a time after His death, yet this drawing is in the future from the point of His death. Paul on the other hand is giving past evidence of what God had done for those who love Him, in order to encourage his Jewish readers at the church in Roman. Jesus is speaking of lost people, Paul is speaking to believers of those who had in the past followed God.

You forget to mention it's also the singular masculine so once more if you take it literally, salvation isn't for women.

Click to expand...

My friend, Singular masculine refers to the gender and number of the Greek word, not to those Jesus was speaking of. The Greek word translated "Man" in the KJV, mean person or mankind, it is not limited to men alone. So, it can be taken quite literally. John's point is that Christ gives light (Understanding) to every person that comes into the world.

And again, I don't disagree with that. I agree that we receive it, he doesn't receive it for us.
However what this verse doesn't address is who is able to receive it- that's my point.

On the contrary, John says that He came to His own and His own received Him not. John here is speaking of the Jews, He says they didn't receive Him, yet then he says some did receive him. Now, this verse actually shows the way that people wrote back then, Compare this with the verse you quoted from Romans 3 saying there is none righteous. John says here that the Jews didn't receive Christ, yet in the next verse says that some did. Obviously the previous verse is meant t be taken generally and not to the extreme. This is the way we should understand the passage in Romans that says there is none righteous, especially since God Himself has called some people righteous.

"We", "Us"... The church.
You also neglected to mention that he also uses "you", "your" in 3-12.

Weak argument.

Click to expand...

No, he doesn't, he switches to the second person in verse 13. It's not a weak argument , it what the Scriptures say. Paul is describing two different groups of people here, that should be clear from the passage. As I also said there is internal evidence within the passage itself that does not allow it to be applied to Paul's Gentile readers

Or it's the church.

In fact we know from history that Claudius expelled Jews from Rome because of their attitudes toward the Gentiles. This is confirmed by Acts 18:2.

There's actually evidence in the letter itself that it was a primarily Gentile church anyway, see 1:5-6, 1:13.

While Paul does address some Jewish-only items (they're obvious), the vast majority is the church- Jew and Gentile. They're both on the same olive tree. They wall was removed from both. Anytime Paul specifically mentions a Jew/Gentile issue he quickly eliminate any "special" status of the Jews (see Chapters 4 and 9) and brings both groups under the Church of Christ as equal.

Click to expand...

I agree Paul's point in Ephesians is unity, however, that doesn't change the fact that verses 3-12 are speaking of the Jews. While the church at Ephesus was both Jew and Gentile, it is more likely that the leadership would be Jewish. This would seem logical simply because Paul would have a much easier time teaching a Jew that Christ was the Messiah. The Jews were waiting for the Messiah, the Gentiles weren't. the Jews had God's Law, the Gentiles didn't. the Jews knew God's promises, the Gentiles didn't. In order to fully explain the kingdom of God to the Gentiles Paul would have to teach them Israel's history before explain how Christ was the promised Messiah of the Jewish Scriptures. However, with a Jew this would be relatively simple, just show them how Christ fulfilled the prophecies and he would understand and be ready for leadership.

We see from Scripture that it was Paul's practice to go into the Synagogue first when he entered a new town. He would preach to the Jews first.

Yes because being this was written to believers, predestination, foreknowing, glorification, all of these things were taken place in the believer.

Click to expand...

That is not what Paul is saying. It was past tense when He wrote it. He is not speaking about Christians, he is speaking of OT saints who loved God, people like Abraham, Issac, David, etc.

Click to expand...

I'm not seeing what this has to do with the topic at hand so I'm going to drop it... I quoted and respond to it because I disagree with it but looking back I've got no idea why I responded to it as I don't see how it applies to what I'm trying to say.

Click to expand...

This is what it has to do with the issue. You quoted John 6 saying that no one can come to the Father unless they are drawn. My point in posting that passage is to show that in context Jesus was speaking to the Jews. He was not making a universal proclamation that no in all of history would be unable to come to Him. We saw from Jesus, Isaiah, and Paul that there was a partial blindness given to Israel. That was the reason no one could come to Christ unless they were specifically drawn. However, that changed after the crucifixion. Also, there was not blinding of the Gentiles so that statement that Jesus made about no can come unless they are drawn did not and does not apply to Gentiles.

Not at all. He knows who is righteous. No one. No not one.

Click to expand...

Isaiah 3:10 ( KJV )
Say ye to the righteous, that it shall be well with him: for they shall eat the fruit of their doings.

Ezekiel 3:20 ( KJV )
Again, When a righteous man doth turn from his righteousness, and commit iniquity, and I lay a stumblingblock before him, he shall die: because thou hast not given him warning, he shall die in his sin, and his righteousness which he hath done shall not be remembered; but his blood will I require at thine hand.

Ezekiel 3:21 ( KJV )
Nevertheless if thou warn the righteous man, that the righteous sin not, and he doth not sin, he shall surely live, because he is warned; also thou hast delivered thy soul.

Ezekiel 13:22 ( KJV )
Because with lies ye have made the heart of the righteous sad, whom I have not made sad; and strengthened the hands of the wicked, that he should not return from his wicked way, by promising him life:

Ezekiel 18:20 ( KJV )
The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.

These are just a few of the passages that speaking of people being righteous. This is God speaking through the prophets. Are you going to contend that none are righteous when God has said some are?

Only after faith.

On our own, No Not One.

Click to expand...

That is an assumption. There is nothing in Scripture that says that .

Psalm 51 is when David asks to be washed and cleaned by God and asks to be created a new heart.

Click to expand...

What about all of those prior years? David followed God for a long time before this.

You were arguing that some were righteous, not justified.

This means you believe some exist sinless, yes?

Click to expand...

The words are interchangeable. The Greek word means just or righteous. Neither however, requires one to be sinless

John 6 says "gives".

Click to expand...

Yes it does, however, we know that it was spoken to the Jews prior to the crucifixion. Since Jesus said He had only come to the Jews it only pertained to the Jews unless there is Scripture to indicate otherwise, which there isn’t.

Isn't it you that said an argument from silence is no argument at all?

Click to expand...

It’s not an argument from silence. As I pointed out above, Jesus said He had only come to the Jews. If He only came to the Jews, then what He said only pertains to the Jews. If we are going to apply what He said, to Gentiles then we need to find a place in Scripture that does so. That is the context of John 6 Jesus was speaking to Jews. Jesus told His disciples to go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them and teaching them all He had commanded them. From this we can understand that everything Jesus taught the 12 disciples can be applied to Gentiles. However, the words Jesus spoke to the unbelieving Jews was not teaching He gave His disciples. It was dialogue with unbelievers.

"For he chose us in him before the creation of the world"

Click to expand...

As I said, that passage in Ephesians that Paul writes is speaking of the Jews. The context does not allow it to be speaking of Paul’s Gentiles readers.

Actually he was speaking to a crowd of Jews, the specific addressing to the Pharisees stopped way back in the beginning of the chapter.
You'll also notice in v31, he separates the Jews. There are those that believe and those that don't. Those that don't are of their father, the devil.

Regardless, this still corrects me. Not for your reasons though. This corrects me because Judas was called a son of the devil which lumps him into the group of those that don't believe, those that aren't of God (v47).

Click to expand...

Those Jesus is speaking to are rejecting Him, that is why He says they are of their father the devil. Not everyone who is not a Christian is of the devil, only those who reject Jesus.

Interesting so your argument is calling vs drawing.

Again I would still maintain the words of Christ don't refer to all individuals, but all men without distinction (race, color, etc). I still don't have a problem with this as even if you are correct with the draw vs call (I suspect you might be right), this verse means nothing more than his ability to draw all men without distinction.

Click to expand...

John has already made it clear that Christ illuminates or gives understanding to every person who comes into the world. There is nothing in the context of this passage or the rest of Scripture that would indicate that this is anything other than every person who come into the world.

Because they weren't called.

Again, it doesn't address who can or cannot be called- no matter the argument you made, your assumption is "called all people", I'm saying that assumption is not within this text- it makes your assumption as equally valid as mine. Being that's the case I suggest we drop this verse because both of us are making assumptions we won't reconcile.

Click to expand...

It’s not an assumption my friend, just three verses prior John said that Christ lights every person who comes into the world. He says that Chrsit gives light to everyone and then says that Christ came to His own and they did not receive Him. If Christ gives light to every single person then surely the could have received Him but chose not to.

He uses second and first person in 1-12. That's my point. The argument you were attempting to make that it was only first person is false.

Click to expand...

My friend, where do you see any second person reference in those verses? There is none, Paul says “we, us, our) these are first person plural. Second person is “You and your” neither of those words occur in verses 3-12.
In addition I’ve pointed out that the internal evidence does allow that passage to be speaking of hte Gentiles either.

That's speculation because you know darn good and well this leader would have been read to the entire church.

Click to expand...

Yes, it is speculation; however, it is the logical assumption. Yes the letter would have been read to the entire church, however, it stands to reason that if you are going to place someone in a position of leadership you would find someone qualified and train them. A newly converted Gentile would know practically nothing of Jewish history. However, a newly converted Jew would be well versed in Jewish history and as such would only need a minimum of training to serve in a leadership role.

Paul's entire mission was to the Gentiles. To suggest he deviated from that and went Jewish-only for a few verses is silly.

Click to expand...

Yes, Paul’s mission was to the Gentiles, however, he regularly spoke with Jews. When we read of Paul’s travels we see it was his custom to first go into the synagogue to preach and then to the Gentiles.
It’s silly? Paul wrote whole chapters to the Jews in Romans

Except we know Biblically that the Gentiles also attended the temple, so again this is a weak argument. Acts 21:27+

Click to expand...

We’re speaking of the synagogues not the temple. There may have been a few Gentiles, however, the synagogues were places of Jewish worship. Pagan would not be in a synagogue worshipping.

We'll disagree about who he was talking about.
My entire point was your past tense argument is useless here because if this passage applies to Christians (which I think it does), past tense makes sense just as well as if it was past tense in a historical sense to the Jews.

Click to expand...

Look at the context, Paul is trying to encourage his Jewish readers at Rome. In order to encourage them he says, God works all things together for good to those who love Him. Then to prove what he just said for those did foreknow (Actually knew before) He did predestine to be conformed to the image of His Son. In verse 28 Paul said “For we know”, the Greek word is “Oidamen”, So Paul expects that his readers know that God has worked all thing together for good to those who love Him. How would his readers know this? They would know it because they learned the history of their nation. They would know all of the good that God did for Abraham, Isaac, David, Moses, etc. Etc. “Oidamen?” carries the idea of knowing something having perceived it. Well, Paul’s readers would have perceived it from their history.

John 6:44
“No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them, and I will raise them up at the last day.
Matthew 11:27
“All things have been committed to me by my Father. No one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal him.
Jesus was commanded to preach to the Jews, however Jesus came to save all who would recieve Him.
Jesus chose Paul to preach to the Gentiles.

God Bless,
Mercy

To answer the topic question, see Rev. 7. In addition to the 144,000 sealed elect in each of the 12 tribes, we see -

Rev 7:9​

​

​

​

Then, there are also the countless millions that have already died in Christ prior to the tribulation.

TexUs said:

I think this is a fruitless argument Butch. Plus I think I might take a few days break from this cauldron of heresy on this board for awhile. (Not due to what you've posted but other stuff).

I just don't think when you read the original text of Ephesians that Paul in any way makes a section specifically for Jews. There's no distinction. You ASSUME it, I say there's no distinction there. "We" could just as validly be the church as it could be Jews only. These assumptions are on both are parts in the entire argument and I don't think we'll ever reconcile our assumptions.

Click to expand...

That's cool Textus, however, my statement about Ephesians 1 isn't an assumption. You are correct about the word "We", it can be either inclusive or exclusive, which must be determined by the context. It is the internal evidence that tells us that It is exclusive. As we see in verses 3-12 Paul says we, and switches to the second person in verse 13. Paul says 'and you' this is different than the group in which Paul includes himself. In verse 12 he says,

Ephesians 1:12 ( KJV )
That we should be to the praise of his glory, who first trusted in Christ.

It was the Jews who first trusted in Christ, The and you refers to Paul's readers. This is also the Early Church understanding of this passage.

Title : The Early Church Fathers: Ante-Nicene Fathers Volume 3
Tertullian 195 A.D.
Again, what Christ do the following words announce, when the apostle says: “That we should be to the praise of His glory, who first trusted in Christ?” (Ephesians 1:12) Now who could have first trusted—i.e., previously trusted386II-8-386—in God, before His advent, except the Jews to whom Christ was previously announced, from the beginning? He who was thus foretold, was also foretrusted. Hence the apostle refers the statement to himself, that is, to the Jews, in order that he may draw a distinction with respect to the Gentiles, (when he goes on to say “In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel (of your salvation); in whom ye believed, and were sealed with His Holy Spirit of promise.” (Ephesians 1:13)


There is more, in verse 11 Paul says,

Ephesians 1:11 ( KJV )
In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will:

Paul says 'we have obtained an inheritance.' The Jews had received an inheritance the Gentiles had not. Paul says to the Ephesians,


Ephesians 1:13-14 ( KJV )
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,
Which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, unto the praise of his glory.

According to Paul the Ephesians have only received the down payment of their inheritance, the Jews, however, have recieved an inheritance. Thus Paul is not speaking of his Ephesian readers in verse 11. There is another issue, in verse

Ephesians 1:8-9 ( KJV )
Wherein he hath abounded toward us in all wisdom and prudence;
Having made known unto us the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure which he hath purposed in himself:

In this passage Paul says that God had abounded toward them in all wisdom and prudence and made know to them the mystery of His will. Now, if Paul had been speaking of his Ephesian readers why would he writer this?

Ephesians 1:15-18 ( KJV )
Wherefore I also, after I heard of your faith in the Lord Jesus, and love unto all the saints,
Cease not to give thanks for you, making mention of you in my prayers;
That the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give unto you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of him:
The eyes of your understanding being enlightened; that ye may know what is the hope of his calling, and what the riches of the glory of his inheritance in the saints,

Why would Paul pray that God would give the Ephesians the spirit of wisdom and enlighten their understanding if he had just said that God had abounded toward them in all wisdom and prudence making know to them the mystery of His will? That is contradictory. I think this is further evidence that Paul does not have the Ephesians in mind in verses 3-12. He also says as he opens the letter to the saints at Ephesus, this would seem to be a title he has given to the Jews as we see here.


Ephesians 2:11-19 ( KJV )
Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands;
That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world:
But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.
For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us;
Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace;
And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby:
And came and preached peace to you which were afar off, and to them that were nigh.
For through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father.
Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God;

Here Paul says that the Gentiles are fellow citizens with the saints.. He has contrasted the Jew and the Gentile in this passage

The verses 3-12 pertain to the Jews, more info can be found at these sights.

http://www.pfrs.org/commentary/Eph_1_3.pdf

And the audios on Ephesians at this site.

http://www.oasischristianchurch.org/audio.html