"3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ, 4 just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we would be holy and blameless before Him." (Ephesians 1:3-4) In the above verse the Apostle Paul writing to the believers at the church in Ephesus is declaring that God the Father chose 'us' i.e. the believers, before the foundation of the world. If that were the case all the believers whoever was and is and will be believing in Jesus and thus become believers only those people were chosen to become believers much before their creation. That's basically predestination of certain individuals to become believers. However, that effectively leaves out all those who are not chosen by God to go to hell. In other words, it is God who creates certain individuals meant to go to heaven and others to hell. If the above statements were to be true, then, God will be unjust and unloving. Furthermore, it will be unfair for God to command his people to preach the gospel to all creation. In the light of the above conundrum how to understand "God chose us before the foundation of the world?"

Some scholars say that "Paul" did not write Ephesians , whereas they are confident that he did write Romans. Who are they talking about when they say that? Some quick possibilities could be - The author of Romans - The Paul who Luke speaks of - The early Christian missionary to the gentiles - The Paul who Peter speaks of Now, obviously, if one is defining Paul as the author of Romans, then the deduction that Romans is a genuine letter of Paul becomes trivial. So, my question is "what are the trivial facts about Paul?" or "if scholars had to replace the word 'Paul' with a description then what would that description be?"

On many websites I find variations on a quote by C. H. Spurgeon. He is commenting on “Be filled with the Spirit” from Ephesians. I first encountered this quote in *The Way of Holiness* by Stephen F. Olford, in “The Signpost of Spirit-fullness”. > “This is not a promise; it is a command to obey.” None of the places I have looked cite the sermon or other publication where he said this. This includes using Gemini, Copilot and a focused Google search of Spurgeon.org. On what occasion did he say this? What is the fuller context?

I’ve been doing some dedicated reading into what I’ll call the “neo-patriarchy movement” as a lot of this literature has been gaining traction in my congregation. One of the consistent ideas in this camp that I find questionable is that the husband has an exclusive and uni-lateral role in discipling his wife: > The Bible also teaches that a wife should be a disciple of her husband…a husband should be instructing and teaching his wife. She should not make this duty superfluous by going elsewhere for the instruction. > > “Reforming Marriage” Doug Wilson > Though both men and women are to seek wisdom, women are instructed to seek it from men; from their husbands. > > “It’s Good to be a Man” Michael Foster The passages used to support the concept in both cases are 1.) 1 Cor. 14:35 which instructs wives to ask their husbands at home if they have questions in the assembly, 2.) Eph. 5:26 which discusses a husband washing his wife with the word. My thoughts both for and against this view: 1) There are multiple interpretations of the Corinthians passage, which can’t be debated here. However I hold to the “judging prophecies” view. In that case this is just saying in this context it would subvert male authority for women to speak out in judging prophecies.. The purpose of them asking their husbands isn’t to give a universal rule of exclusive husband discipleship, but to maintain order in the worship service. 2) Eph. 5:26: It might be a hot take, but I think it fits better with the flow of this passage if you take this section as referring to what Christ does, not what the husband does. In any case, if you do take this as a command to husbands, its still seems a stretch that this is creating a general rule of exclusive, uni-lateral husbandly discipleship. At most this could be taken as giving the husband the responsibility of caring for his wife's general spiritual welfare. 3) We know that “there is one mediator between God and men” 1 Tim 2:5, that all Christians can approach the throne of God “with confidence” (Heb. 4:16), and that through Jesus we now “have access to the father” (Eph. 2:18). So it seems odd that a woman getting married would result in her access to Christ being reduced. It also seems unbiblical that her husband would act as a sort of mediator to this degree. 4) Multiple examples of women learning directly from Jesus or other men: Jesus with Mary and Martha, the woman at the well, Paul teaching Lydia and the other women in Acts, the women following around Jesus and his ministry in Luke. 5) Even Calvin doesn’t see this passage as an exclusive, uni-lateral discipleship role. “When he says husbands, he does not prohibit them from consulting the prophets themselves, if necessary. For all husbands are not competent to give an answer in such a case; but, as he is reasoning here as to external polity…it is the part of the prudent reader to consider, that the things which he here treats are intermediate and indifferent, in which there is nothing unlawful, but what is at variance with propriety and edification.” 6) This concept does account for a the wife being a helper to her husband. How can she help him, if all the wisdom she receives, he already has since he gave it her? 7) On the other hand, in Genesis, God does give the command to Adam directly and not to Eve as well. (Although Eve wasn’t around to hear it at the time). 8) In my earlier examples of Jesus directly teaching women, none of them were married. The only exception is Joanna the wife of Chuza. But in her case she is not explicitly taught by Jesus (although it’s hard to believe she would not have heard his teaching while traveling with him). 9) If you hold to a different interpretation of 1 Cor. 14 or Eph. 5:26, then there may be a stronger case to take v. 35 as building a general rule of exclusive male discipleship. *I know this can be a hot topic, so thoughtful comments dealing with the biblical text and/or Christian teaching only. Please no patriarchy bashing.

The Bible says > It is by grace that you are saved, by the means of faith. And it does not come from you, it is the gift of God’. (Eph 2:8). > So faith comes from what we hear, and what we hear comes from the word of Christ.’ (Rom 10:17). According to the passages of the Bible quoted (Ephesians 2:8 and Romans 10:17), faith and grace are necessary for salvation. However, these passages also emphasize the importance of hearing the word of Christ. In this context, is it possible to be saved without having heard of Jesus? Can we be saved without having heard of Jesus?

In Ephesians 6:12, Paul writes: “For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places.” ‭‭Ephesians‬ ‭6‬:‭12‬ ‭ESV‬‬ The standard, modern understanding of this passage is that our true opponents are not physical enemies, but rather evil spiritual forces that attempt to sow division and chaos. How has this passage been used historically, and has it ever been used to justify war by dehumanizing the enemy? If so, could you point me to some examples?

At the end of his letter to the Ephesians, St. Paul says (Ephesians 6:19-20) > Pray also for me, that whenever I open my mouth, words may be given me > so that I will **boldly** make known the mystery of the gospel, 20 for > which I am an ambassador in chains. Pray that I may proclaim it > **fearlessly**, as I should. Proclaiming boldly and fearlessly the Gospel is a priority for Paul. Paul in Acts is, indeed, described as speaking **boldly** (Acts 28:31). Yet when it comes to a belief that certain Trinitarians hold is **essential to salvation**, namely, that Jesus is God in the Trinitarian sense (as opposed to Jesus = God in the sense of agency, as Moses in Exodus was or the judges in Psalm 82 were), we don't seem to find any clear and consistent articulation of this in Paul's voluminous writing. Perhaps the closest is Philippians 2:6-8, which is semantically unclear, or Romans 9:5, which is grammatically ambiguous. This can be contrasted with Paul's views that Jesus = the Christ (repeated clearly and ad nauseam throughout his writings and in Acts) or that Jesus was crucified (ditto). According to those who hold Jesus is God in the Trinitarian sense *and* that this belief is crucial to the Gospel message, why does St. Paul not clearly and consistently articulate this in his writings (or does he)?

Ephesians 4:11ff reads: >And He gave some as apostles, and some as prophets, and some as evangelists, and some as pastors and teachers, for the equipping of the saints for the work of service, to the building up of the body of Christ; until we all attain to the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a mature man, to the measure of the stature which belongs to the fullness of Christ. (Ephesians 4:11–13, American Standard Version ) I have been attempting to view the NT early church as an expression of the DNA of Christ instead of a clear blueprint of what the church should look like today. This is one example of the kind of passage that I have been struggling to understand correctly. Is there an author anyone knows of that might give me this perspective or can anyone tell me from this passage and the context if there does seem to be a very specific blueprint?

The concept of "fivefold ministry" comes from Ephesians 4:11-13: > 11 And he gave **the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the shepherds and teachers**, 12 to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, 13 until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ [ESV] Are there any denominations that believe that the totality of the fivefold ministry is available to women? In other words, are there any denominations that believe that the existence of female pastors, female teachers, female evangelists, female prophets and female apostles is entirely within the realm of possibility in modern times? **Note:** for reasons for not conflating spiritual gifts and church offices (some make this distinction), see https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/90856/50422 ___ **Related**: https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/90741/50422

>**Job 31:1–4 (DRB)** I made a covenant with my eyes, that I would not so much as think upon a virgin.1 2 **For** what part should God from above have in me, and what inheritance the Almighty from on high? 3 **Is not destruction** to the wicked, and aversion to **them that work iniquity?** 4 Doth not he consider my ways, and number all my steps? The very similar New Testament equivalent might be: >**Ephesians 5:1–7 (DRB)** Be ye therefore followers of God, as most dear children; 2 And walk in love, as Christ also hath loved us, and hath delivered himself for us, an oblation and a sacrifice to God for an odour of sweetness. 3 **But fornication,** and all uncleanness, or covetousness, let it not so much as be named among you, as becometh saints: 4 Or obscenity, or foolish talking, or scurrility, which is to no purpose; but rather giving of thanks. 5 ***For know you this and understand,*** that no fornicator, or unclean, or covetous person (which is a serving of idols), hath inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God. 6 Let no man deceive you with vain words. For because of these things **cometh the anger of God** upon the children of unbelief. 7 Be ye not **therefore** partakers with them. As a *Catholic*, it seems obvious to me from reading this that Job avoids sin in general (something for which Scripture praises him: cf. 1:1), but here fornication or thoughts thereof, *because* if he did not he would have no part in God, because he would be wicked by definition. This directly links works with justification, and Job lucidly and freely chose to take this course of life ('made a convenant with [myself]') because of the risk of not having done so. But in Calvinism *there is no* even theoretical risk of losing salvation, and therefore no need to avoid sins *so as to avoid* such a fate (i.e., whereas there is motive for avoiding sins which is not a salvific reason, so Calvinists believe). Question -- According to Calvinists, how does Job view his works in relation to his justification/salvation? Thanks in advance. --- 1 Cf. Mt. 5:28.

Roman Catholics Christians reject the concept of faith alone (ie that we are justified solely by our faith in Jesus Christ) and that we are justified by both our faiths and our works, but how do they interpret Ephesians 2:8-9 which clearly teaches faith alone? > For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: > it is the gift of God: > > Not of works, lest any man should boast.

> "For he chose us in Christ ***before*** the foundation of the world that we may be holy and unblemished in his sight in love." > Eph 1:4 NET Does "he chose us in him before the foundation of the world" signify the chronological sequences in God's plans within eternity?

I'm trying to get some perspectives on how these two scriptures can be resolved: > 1 Kings 19:11-12 NIV: > > The LORD said, “Go out and stand on the mountain in the presence of > the LORD, for the LORD is about to pass by.” Then a great and powerful > wind tore the mountains apart and shattered the rocks before the LORD, > but the LORD was not in the wind. After the wind there was an > earthquake, but the LORD was not in the earthquake. After the > earthquake came a fire, but the Lord was not in the fire. And after > the fire came a gentle whisper. > > > Ephesians 1:22-23 NIV: > > And God placed all things under his feet and appointed him to be head > over everything for the church, which is his body, the fullness of > him who fills everything in every way. So, if God was not in the wind, earthquake, or fire how can he fill everything in every way? This may require a separate post but if God fills everything does he then fill Satan?

It's said in *Summa Theologica* that the trinity ist eternal, three persons each one being G'd a well known fact in Christianism. I'd like to know, what is the greek explanation or the following (**Matthew 28:19**) and if it was very changed (by translation): > Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the > name of the **Father** and of the **Son** and of the **Holy Spirit**, (ESV) And we see a distinction amongst three words, why this happens if indeed G'd is One, and why would it be that they would be G'd if G'd is **One**, Aquinas says that He is one times one times one, this is, He isn't three as a number, but I'd like to point out that even though this seems true, isn't there a dialectic thinking in this? And in **Ephesians 4:6** the following, just as a reflection: > One God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all. More, I'd like to add the following: *if G'd is One, then isn't everything and everyone G'd? For if they weren't Him, then He wouldn't be One (the contrapositive)*, then if this stands, meaning that there is just Him, why is there a perception of evil which isn't Him? *obs.: the title is called if trinity is eternal as a way to say if it's the reality that trinity attempts to explain or G'd He Himself in an absolute manner*

The idea of a 5-fold ministry originally comes from Ephesians 4:11-13: > 11 And he gave **the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the shepherds and teachers**, 12 to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, 13 until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ [ESV] There are Christians who believe in a present-day continuation/restoration of these 5 offices. One notable example, in my opinion, is the Five-Fold Church [5F Church] ([website](https://5fchurch.org/) , [YouTube channel](https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCYHO1g5-Hz4TBelH_L7xpjg)) , based in Los Angeles, California, whose lead pastor, Kathryn Krick, claims to have been called by God to be an apostle, as her personal YouTube channel [Apostle Kathryn Krick](https://www.youtube.com/c/ApostleKathrynKrick) makes patently clear. However, a passage that is commonly cited to argue for the cessation of the offices of Apostle and Prophet is Ephesians 2:19-22, particularly verse 20: > 19 So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, 20 **built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets**, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone, 21 in whom the whole structure, being joined together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord. 22 In him you also are being built together into a dwelling place for God by the Spirit. [ESV] The Got Questions' article [*What is the five (5) fold ministry?*](https://www.gotquestions.org/five-fold-ministry.html) presents this argument: > The concept of the five-fold ministry comes from Ephesians 4:11, "It was he who gave some to be (1) apostles, some to be (2) prophets, some to be (3) evangelists, and some to be (4) pastors and (5) teachers." Primarily as a result of this verse, some believe God has restored, or is restoring, the offices of apostle and prophet in the church today. Ephesians 4:12-13 tells us that the purpose of the five-fold ministry is, "to prepare God’s people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ." So, since the body of Christ definitely is not built up to unity in the faith and has not attained to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ, the thinking goes, the offices of apostle and prophet must still be in effect. > > **However, Ephesians 2:20 informs us that the church is "built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus Himself as the chief cornerstone." If the apostles and prophets were the foundation of the church, are we still building the foundation?** Although Jesus Christ is most definitely active in the church today, His role as the cornerstone of the church was completed with His death, burial, resurrection, and ascension. **If the work of the cornerstone is, in that sense, complete, so must the work of the apostles and prophets, who were the foundation, be complete**. > >What was the role of the apostles and prophets? It was to proclaim God’s revelation, to teach the new truth the church would need to grow and thrive. The apostles and prophets completed this mission. How? By giving us the Word of God. The Word of God is the completed revelation of God. The Bible contains everything the church needs to know to grow, thrive, and fulfill God’s mission (2 Timothy 3:15-16). The cornerstone work of the apostles and prophets is complete. The ongoing work of the apostles and prophets is manifested in the Holy Spirit speaking through and teaching us God’s Word. In that sense, the five-fold ministry is still active. **Question:** How do Christians who believe in current-day Apostles, Prophets and the 5-fold ministry interpret Ephesians 2:20 in a way that is consistent with their views? ____ Somewhat related: - https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/85908/50422 - https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/86076/50422

This may sound silly at first but there seems to be some logic to it. If we are called to "... love [our] enemies and pray for those who persecute [us]" and Saint Paul claims that our real battle is "... against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms." Are we therefore called to both love and pray for demons and even Satan himself? Matthew 5:44 (Love your enemies) > But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. Ephesians 6:12 (The Armor of God) > For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms. If we already pray for "the rulers" and "the authorities", I see no reason to not continue the trend and pray for "the powers" or "the spiritual forces of evil" My only issue with this idea is that we know what happens to Satan in the end and I know they say "no prayer is wasted" but it sure seems a prayer for Satan would be. Revelation 20:10 (Satan cast into a lake of fire) > And the devil, who deceived them, was thrown into the lake of burning sulfur, where the beast and the false prophet had been thrown. They will be tormented day and night for ever and ever.

This question was asked in April 2016: https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/48011/what-arguments-are-given-that-ephesians-was-not-written-by-paul One answer said the letter was written by Tychicus, to the Ephesians, and he wrote it in Rome. This reference was provided: >Written from Rome unto the Ephesians by Tychicus. Ephesians 6:24 KJV https://bible.com/bible/1/eph.6.24.KJV My KJV does not actually say that. Here are four relevant verses from Ephesians: >KJV Ephesians1:1: “Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, to the saints which are at Ephesus, and to the faithful in Christ Jesus...” >KJV Ephesians 6:21-22: “But that ye also may know my affairs, and how I do, Tychicus, a beloved brother and faithful minister in the Lord, shall make known to you all things: Whom I have sent unto you for the same purpose, that ye might know our affairs, and that he might comfort your hearts.” >KJV Ephesians 6:24: “Grace be with all them that love our Lord Jesus Christ in sincerity. Amen.” What I would like to know is ***what arguments support the view that Ephesians WAS written by Paul?***

According to the opening paragraph of the article for the Book of Ephesians on Wikipedia, it is not universally held that Ephesians was written by Paul. A source on that site says, > Hoehner surveys 279 commentators from 1519 to 2001, finding 54% favor Pauline authorship, 39% conclude against Pauline authorship, and 7% remained uncertain. What arguments support the claim that Paul did not write the book of Ephesians?

In Ephesians 6:10-20, the apostle Paul teaches an important mystery: all Christians are in spiritual warfare against invisible evil forces from the kingdom of Satan. And just like soldiers have to wear armors for protection in the natural realm, Christian are to put on the whole armor of God so they may have complete protection in the spiritual realm. > 10 Finally, be strong in the Lord and in the strength of his might. 11 **Put on the whole armor of God, that you may be able to stand against the schemes of the devil**. 12 **For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places**. 13 Therefore **take up the whole armor of God**, that you may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand firm. 14 Stand therefore, having fastened on the belt of truth, and having put on the breastplate of righteousness, 15 and, as shoes for your feet, having put on the readiness given by the gospel of peace. 16 In all circumstances take up the shield of faith, with which you can extinguish all the flaming darts of the evil one; 17 and take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God, 18 praying at all times in the Spirit, with all prayer and supplication. To that end, keep alert with all perseverance, making supplication for all the saints, 19 and also for me, that words may be given to me in opening my mouth boldly to proclaim the mystery of the gospel, 20 for which I am an ambassador in chains, that I may declare it boldly, as I ought to speak. [Ephesians 6:10-20, ESV] A Christian covered in the full armor of God must be like a spiritual tank, capable of wreaking tremendous havoc in the kingdom of Satan. And as an expert military strategist, I would expect Satan to have special tactics in place to target those Christians who are particularly dangerous to his kingdom, in order to make them stumble. Do any Christian denominations or groups dig deep into this topic? Do any Christian congregations teach about the different tactics that Satan and his kingdom may employ to pierce through the spiritual armor of a Christian? Is this even possible to begin with? And in a hypothetical worst case scenario, could the armor of a Christian end up so broken and pierced that even their salvation might be in danger?

In several passages Christ says that he will dwell in his followers. Ephesians 3:17 is one of the clearest: > Ephesians 3:16-17a: I pray that out of his glorious riches he may strengthen you with power through his Spirit in your inner being, so that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith. Doctrines & Covenants 130:3 however says that > [D&C 130:3](https://abn.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/130?lang=eng) : John 14:23—The appearing of the Father and the Son, in that verse, is a personal appearance; and the idea that the Father and the Son dwell in a man’s heart is an old sectarian notion, and is false. So how do LDS reconcile this contradiction?