New Epistles has now moved over to WordPress

You will find New Epistles blog on the WordPress blog platform. You'll find my newer posts at the updated URL http://NewEpistles.com without the "www" in front of "NewEpistles.com"

Facebook has agreed to let third party advertisers use your pictures without your permission

Facebook has agreed to let third party advertisers use your posted pictures without your permission. Click on "Settings" up at the top where you see the "Logout" link. Select "Privacy". Then select "News Feed and Wall". Next, select the tab that reads "Facebook Ads". In the drop down box, select "No One". Then save your changes. Do it now. Help your friends...cut and paste this into your status.

Note, the "Facebook Ads" page is visible on Internet Explorer and Apple's Safari, but not on Mozilla Firefox.

Switching over to WordPress...some day

Brian (at Living the Crucified Life) asked me:

“When are you coming over to Wordpress? You can transfer everything over with no problems and get tons of more interaction!”

I’ve been thinking and thinking about moving over to WordPress for a long time but well, as a thinker who just keeps thinking about it but doing nothing about it, I ask myself “Will I ever get to it?” I see my friend Gary Zimmerli (Sundry Times) just recently switched to WordPress, and Better Bibles Blog also switched not too long ago too. I am slow. I have been a die-hard Blogger fan because it’s so easy to use. But I do know WordPress is really good. I will have to just do it and get it over with.

So, expect New Epistles to be on WordPress…someday.

Church on Sunday?

Cartoonist Jon Birch has some great funnies on The Ongoing Adventures of ASBO Jesus. I love it because it makes me laugh when I need something less serious.

Who really deserves the Honest Scrap Award?

Who really deserves the Honest Scrap Award? I have been tagged by TC Robinson who was in turn tagged by Polycarp (and I don’t know how much further back other taggers go?)

I’m supposed to tell you 10 HONEST things about myself and then nominate 7 other blogs that I think deserve to receive the Honest Scrap Award.

Here goes my ten honest things about myself:

1. I drive a black Volkswagon Golf and would never want to switch to another car (except maybe for a Jetta someday).
2. I never watch TV anymore because I don’t have cable or satellite, and I don’t regret it for one second.
3. I like science fiction shows and movies, and also thriller dramas, and I do not like horror.
4. I’m a thinker-type, as opposed to a feeler-type and so admit that I don’t have a lot of patience for people who don’t make any sense when they get angry or flustered. But I have to try since I am a pastor and a pastor is suppose to provide some pastoral care to people.
5. I was ordained back in April 2009 in the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Canada.
6. Preaching really turns me on.
7. I’m a closet Calvinist but since I’m confessing this, I might as well call myself as a new Calvinist.
8. Politically, I’m a conservative who likes Barack Obama.
9. I have lived in three Canadian provinces (B.C., Ontario and Saskatchewan) and one U.S. state (Virginia).
10. I have mostly been a city slicker all my life but I’m currently living in a small town and have lived in one other small town before my current town of Davidson, Sask.

Now I nominate seven nominees:

1. Peter Kirk
   
2. CD-Host
   
3. Stan McCullars
   
4. Timothy (Catholic Bibles)
5. Rich (Exegete Reflections)
6. ElShaddai Edwards
   
7. Gary Zimmerli

I would like to be a Calminian, but I'm not convinced

Craig Blomberg has just posted on the Koinonia blog about the middle position between Calvinism and Arminianism, which he labels as "Calminian”. I am not sure about this position. When it comes down to it, it seems to end up sounding like a form of Arminianism to me. The scriptures he refers to are also used to defend the 5-points of Calvinism. I don’t claim to be an expert in the Calvinist-Arminian debate and I would like to do further study in this middle position he describes as Molinism (named after the medieval Jesuit priest Molina).

Aside from this debate, I love his understanding because his quote indicates his struggle in this debate:

"so many Bible-believing, godly evangelical Christians would have wound up on each side. The former wants to preserve the Scriptural emphasis on divine sovereignty; the latter, on human freedom and responsibility. Both are right in what they want and correct to observe in Scripture the theme that they stress."

I can really sympathize with how Blomberg feels about this. He is right when both sides create caricatures of what the other side believes. I have seen and read it in books and I just laugh about it when I see it. These caricatures that Arminians are selfish and refuse to submit to the sovereign will of God is laughable. And the caricature that Calvinists are merciless and heartless souls who agree that God delights in condemning many to hell is also laughable.

Sometimes, I wish I was neither a Calvinists or an Arminian. But sometimes I take pride in the 5-points of Calvinism. And I also can sympathize with my Arminian brothers and sisters because I was one myself.

Was Bishop Schori really talking about the heresy of selfishness?

I know others have already blogged about this but I will continue doing so here. Concerning the previous post on Bishop Schori’s claim on heresy, I had emailed her office about this paragraph below and asked for some clarification about what she meant. I was curious about her statement but did not get any reply.

"The overarching connection in all of these crises has to do with the great Western heresy – that we can be saved as individuals, that any of us alone can be in right relationship with God. It’s caricatured in some quarters by insisting that salvation depends on reciting a specific verbal formula about Jesus. That individualist focus is a form of idolatry, for it puts me and my words in the place that only God can occupy, at the center of existence, as the ground of being. That heresy is one reason for the theme of this Convention."

"the great Western heresy – that we can be saved as individuals…. That individualist focus is a form of idolatry"

As an evangelical Lutheran who appreciates inner piety, it showed me that there are some in the leadership of The Episcopal Church that don’t get it. As evangelicals, we do believe that we can be saved on a personal basis. We are each saved one by one, where each person entering the new kingdom called into the glorious communion of Jesus Christ called the Church of Christ. Evangelicals are not individualist focus. We are all individuals and we are also united as one in Christ. We care about others deeply and if we didn’t, would we be doing so much evangelism? We care about the eternal and spiritual well-being of others, not just ourselves. If we don’t care about evangelism and inviting them into the kingdom of God, that would be selfish individualism. There are evangelical and non-evangelical Christians who have failed in caring for others. Selfish individualism is a fruit of sin, but the person in the individual is not a bad thing in and of itself. The person in the individual have received a bad name due to selfishness. So could it be that what Bishop Schori was really talking about was the heresy or sin of selfishness?

reciting a specific verbal formula about Jesus

Bishop Schori’s jab was directed at the sinner’s prayer that evangelicals appreciate. Evangelicals appreciate how we are saved by faith in Christ, and in faith confess our confidence in Christ in a public way. We also appreciate the opportunity for confession and forgiveness. That is what the sinner’s prayer essentially is. And why not? We profess our faith the Apostles’ Creed too? We also have confession and forgiveness to repent of our sins. We also publicly profess our faith when we are confirmed at age 15 or 16? Sometimes, much to my dismay, these public professions and confessions in our churches do not carry much meaning in a lot of lapsed Episcopalians/Anglicans and Lutherans who have left the church entirely. So much for “specific verbal formula about Jesus”! Meaning in words can be empty and meaningless when they do not come from the heart and when faith is non-existent within the individual. But thank God that as a church, our faith has not lapsed. As a church, our faith is upheld by the grace and mercy of God.

It saddens me that there is a lack of understanding of the evangelical faith and this gap is still wide. There are people like Bishop Schori, who remain cocooned in her liberal mainline ivory towers and never come down off from it. When they don’t come down to discover that there are some people in her denomination that appreciate a form of personal inner piety, they will remain ignorant about this until kingdom come.

What infuriated evangelicals was when she attacked this personal inner piety that she used to caricaturize evangelicals with. In doing so, she also knowingly or unknowingly attacked some evangelical Episcopalians in her own church. She may have been so focussed on attacking evangelicals that I think she also unknowingly attacked evangelicals in her own church. And yes, there are evangelicals in mainline denominations like the Episcopal Church. They are also sometimes called “orthodox Episcopalians/Anglicans” or “conservative Episcopalians/Anglicans”. If she did know her jab would insult some evangelical Episcopalians, I hope she does not just see them as merely collateral damage.

Perhaps she was already so furious with evangelical Episcopalians for leaving The Episcopal Church and the formation of the new denomination within the Worldwide Anglican Communion called the Anglican Church in North America (ACNA) . Could it be the people in this new denomination she was really attacking? [Watch video on http://www.acnaassembly.org. Interesting to find Pastor Rick Warren addressing the Inaugural Assembly of ACNA. I don't remember ever seeing an evangelical Southern Baptist invited to speak at an Anglican inaugural event as important as this. This is truly something new. ]

The Bishop discovers heresy?

Katherine Jefferts Schori, Bishop of the Episcopal Church (USA), recently used the word "heresy". Albert Mohler analyzed this usage. Here is the article:

Several years ago, Methodist theologian Thomas C. Oden announced a most unusual quest: "I am earnestly looking for some church milieu wherein the sober issue of heresy can at least be examined," he declared. He added, "I am looking, like Diogenes with his sputtering lamp, for a church or seminary in which some heresy at least conjecturally might exist."

As Oden acknowledged, his announced quest was deeply ironic, for in the world of mainline Protestantism heresy has become an almost absent category. With so many alternative theologies, revisionist doctrines, and radical conceptions of Christianity, heresy has become the norm, rather than the exception. As Oden explained:

I have sought for some years to find a theological dialogue where a serious methodological discussion is taking place about how to draw some line between faith and unfaith, between orthodoxy and heresy. But almost everywhere that I have asked about the subject I have found that the very thought of inquiring about the possibility of heresy has itself become marked off as the prevailing archheresy. The archheresiarch is the one who hints that some distinction might be needed between truth and falsehood, right and wrong.

In other words, the only heresy recognized in much of liberal Protestantism is the heresy of believing in the possibility of heresy. This is not only a matter of observation -- it is a declaration proudly made by many, who declare the categories of heresy and orthodoxy to be both out of date and out of style.

All this makes recent comments by Dr. Katherine Jefferts Schori, Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church, all the more interesting. In her opening address to the General Convention of the Episcopal Church, meeting this week in Anaheim, California, the Presiding Bishop raised, of all things, the issue of heresy.

In the history of Christian theology, the word heresy has been most properly applied to what the church has recognized as false and unbiblical teachings concerning the doctrines most closely related to Christ and the Trinity. The word heresy should properly be reserved for teachings that directly reject what the Bible reveals and the Church has confessed concerning the person and work of Christ and the reality and integrity of the Trinity. There are any number of false teachings and erroneous doctrines, but the term heresy should be restricted to those most central to the Gospel itself.

The bishop raised no shortage of eyebrows when she ventured to use the word heresy -- a word hardly common to recent Episcopal discourse. As Bishop Jefferts Schori offered her remarks, her church was entering its General Convention after suffering the defection of many churches and several dioceses. As she acknowledged in an understatement, her denomination is in crisis. In light of this crisis, she offered her diagnosis of the problem. Here is the paragraph that encapsulates Bishop Jefferts Schori's diagnosis:

The crisis of this moment has several parts, and like Episcopalians, particularly the ones in Mississippi, they’re all related. The overarching connection in all of these crises has to do with the great Western heresy – that we can be saved as individuals, that any of us alone can be in right relationship with God. It’s caricatured in some quarters by insisting that salvation depends on reciting a specific verbal formula about Jesus. That individualist focus is a form of idolatry, for it puts me and my words in the place that only God can occupy, at the center of existence, as the ground of being. That heresy is one reason for the theme of this Convention.

There it is -- that word so recently denied entry into any discussion. But note carefully that the Bishop identified as heresy what the church -- throughout all the centuries and in every major tradition -- has recognized as central to the Christian faith. The confession that "Jesus Christ is Lord" has been central to biblical Christianity from the New Testament onward. In every tradition, some individual profession of this "specific verbal formula" has been understood to be essential to Christian identity.

Interestingly, the bishop's comments could, in other contexts, have been directed at a legitimate concern more commonly known among evangelicals. A good number of American evangelicals press a simple formula often known as the "sinner's prayer" as an instrument of demonstrating conversion. The use of such a formula can be a way of reinforcing a convert's understanding of the Gospel and of assisting a convert to articulate the Gospel in a way that makes sense and expresses the new convert's faith.

On the other hand, the sinner's prayer can be used in a mechanistic and manipulative way in order to insinuate --- if not outright to declare -- that the repeating of these words in itself constitutes the experience of salvation. Had the Presiding Bishop been concerned about evangelistic excesses and confusions in her church, her concern might have been both timely and legitimate. Regrettably, this bishop has made clear that her concern is something altogether different.

Indeed, her assertion of heresy was directed to the very idea of individual conversion to faith in Christ -- the faith that has always and everywhere defined authentic Christianity. In her address, she made her views clear: "I said that this crisis has several elements related to that heretical and individualistic understanding. We’ve touched on one – how we keep this earth, meant to be a gift to all God’s creatures. The financial condition of the nations right now is another element. The sins of a few have wreaked havoc with the lives of many, as greed and dishonesty have destroyed livelihoods, educational possibilities, care for the aged, and multiple forms of creativity – and that’s just the aftermath of Ponzi schemes for which a handful will go to jail."

Don't miss this -- the Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church openly lamented a focus on evangelization that would seek conversions for such a focus would divert the attention of her church from ecological, economic, and other political imperatives. This was the main thrust of her address, with this central theme indicative of her larger episcopal agenda.

The bishop is simply not concerned with seeing persons come to a saving knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ. She has made this clear over and over again and her convictions were well-known when she was elected as the denomination's Presiding Bishop. Shortly after her election, she spoke to TIME magazine concerning Jesus Christ: "We who practice the Christian tradition understand him as our vehicle to the divine. But for us to assume that God could not act in other ways is, I think, to put God in an awfully small box." She explicitly denies that conscious faith in Jesus Christ is necessary for salvation, and has done so on multiple occasions.

The irony of all this was not lost on many Episcopalians and other observers. The Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church finally summoned the determination to apply the word heresy --- and then applied this most serious term of odious rejection to the Gospel itself.

Of course, this reality is far more tragic than ironic. It does not take long for a church that is severed from Scripture to move from recognizing genuine heresy and denouncing it, to denying the very possibility of heresy at all, and then to reclaiming the word only to use it as an instrument of attacking the very heart of the Christian faith.

Eighteen centuries ago, Irenaeus (a bishop who sought to defend the faith against false teachings) warned his church and explained that heresy is often "craftily decked out in an attractive dress, so as, by its outward form, to make it appear to the inexperienced (ridiculous as the expression may seem) more true than the truth itself." Well, heresy has taken off its disguise in the case of Presiding Bishop Katherine Jefferts Schori. Here we see heresy -- true heresy -- in its most undisguised form.

________________________

Sources:

Opening Address by Presiding Bishop Katherine Jefferts Schori to the General Convention of the Episcopal Church, Anaheim, California, July 7, 2009. [read here]

Thomas C. Oden, "Can We Talk About Heresy?," The Christian Century, April 12, 1995. [read here]

Who is more right?

Who is more right? Evangelicals, Calvinists, charismatics, or Lutherans? I am coming to the conclusion that either none of us may be more right than the other, or we are all correct. This may sound like a statement lost in the morass of theological confusion.

What I sometimes notice in all these categories of theologies is a tendency in being over-anxious to defend their beloved theologies--especially on the blogosphere because we aren't talking to them in person. The reason I am saying this is so that I can confess since I have found myself exhibiting a less-than-graceful attitude toward someone. We seem to put down our critics in order to make a case for our own theology (or mix of theologies). Sometimes, I may do this too; so I must try to hold myself accountable or need someone to help me do so.

No matter how open-minded we may think we are, when a critical comment is thrown toward our way and a sensitive chord is struck within us while our guard is down, we can be quick to return critical comments with our own critical comments against our critic. When Lutherans attack charismatics…Calvinists attack Arminians…evangelicals attack seemingly non-evangelicals, it can create barriers. However, without any conversation, theological barriers will never come down. So we must continue to open and carry on theological conversations. That is why I feel that blogging on theology is a wonderful thing; however, blogging can also be a vehicle that creates barriers when we don’t exhibit grace to other people with different theological beliefs.

In reading books from various theological backgrounds, I see a common tendency towards anxiety in people from all denominations…especially when we feel insecure about our own theology. We tend to see our own theology making the most sense to us, being the most logical, most biblical, and therefore, the most orthodox and true. Until we see how one another’s theology makes logical sense from the other’s perspective, it will be difficult for us to respect the theology of the other, and barriers will continue without any hope of being dismantled.

I am sympathetic to people who hold any theological beliefs because I hold or held many. As a charismatic evangelical Lutheran who is a closet Calvinist and former-Arminian, I hope to see my entire Christian family in Christ come together some day in understanding, in grace and in love. I still have much to work on in myself.

Am I a closet Calvinist?

Am I a closet Calvinist? I did not think I would start reading Calvins Institutes. I was only kidding when I said ìn a previous post 500th Anniversary of Calvin:

Perhaps I'll celebrate by reading a chapter from Calvin's Institutes of the Christian Religion? No, that's been done before.

First indication: To my surprise I actually started reading Calvin's Institutes of the Christian Religion. I like it but I do not think I will stop reading since I am on a roll. Yeah!

Second indication: What sort of confirmed my liking for Calvin, in a funny sort of way, was the result on a quiz Which Modern Evangelist/Theologian are You? My results are: here (John Piper). Does this mean I am a closet Calvinist? If so, do I need to come out of the closet?

Third indication: To strengthen this hunch that I might be a closet Calvinist, I also took this odd-ball of a quiz to see what my C-Factor was and I scored 83%. (HatTip: Nick Norelli)I do not give much validity to this stupid quiz. I cannot believe I scored so high...83%! This means I am too uptight. What does this mean for me? I really have to be less of a Calvinist because true Calvinist do not know how to take it easy in life. Here is the result to this test:

You are a genuine Calvinist. You have been tried and tested in Calvinism. Your attitude in live is straight and strict. You are a hard working person, who pays attention to others. However, you never show off these qualities. After all, in the eyes of God, everyone is a sinner. You know how to control your emotions, and no one can say you have an easy and luxurious way of life.

Work = 100%
Strictness: 80%
Sobriety: 60%
Relationships: 100%
Beliefs: 100%

Now you tell me if I am a closet Calvinist. If so, I might have to go and find a Calvin picture to hang in my office ;)

I came out as John Piper. What are you?

I just took this quiz. HatTip: ElShaddai. Both ElShaddai and TC Robinson came out as Rob Bell. I know I am definitely not a Rob Bell so when I found out I was a John Piper, I was a little surprised but really should not be surprised. After all, I like listening to Piper. His preaching inspires me...a lot. Here is the result. You have to sign onto Facebook to take the quiz.

Kevin took the Which Modern Evangelist/Theologian are You? quiz and the result is John Piper

You are the Pastor of Bethlehem Baptist in Minneapolis. You are a brilliant thinker, writer and preacher. However, you also question wether John Calvin was enough of a Calvinist. You wield the sword of protection for any perceived threat to God's sovereignty. Unfortunately, your idea of God's sovereignty is pretty much limited to the idea of "Predestination" and not much else. No one can doubt where your heart stands, and you are deeply passionate about Christ. Unfortunately, you are often perceived as being narrow & rigid. It's not fair, but you might do yourself a favor by not reminding people what degenerate, filthy robots we are. (Most of us already know that)

The bible belongs in public school classrooms

The teaching of the bible in our public classrooms has been reduced to “nil” in my country of Canada. I remember the last time the bible was ever publicly read in the classroom was in the second grade (in the Province of British Columbia). The loss of bible reading in public schools across our nation is a real travesty. The reading of scripture and teaching of Christian morality was never intended to be removed from public school classrooms. The founders of Canada's public school system would be shocked today.

The Ontario Public School Act (1896) states:

“It shall be the duty of every teacher of a public school to teach diligently and faithfully all of the subjects in the public school course of study; to maintain proper order and discipline in his pupils in his school; to encourage his pupils in the pursuit of learning; to include, by precept and example, respect for religion and the principles of Christian morality and the highest regard for truth, justice, love of country, humanity, benevolence, sobriety, industry, frugality, purity, temperance and all other virtues.”

What and how we teach in our public classrooms affects the next generation. If we are ignorant of our one and true Christian heritage, our next generation will be just as ignorant. One generation follows the next. Bishop John Strachan, one of the leaders who helped form our public education system said:

“The church must continue to play a central role in education. You cannot divorce religion from education because schools will inevitably reflect the philosophical and religious or (irreligious) biases of those who direct them.”

There is great wisdom in our Christian heritage. If we forsake this, we will eventually lose our nation. As a Canadian who loves my country, I hope and pray that our nation will return to God and recognize God's sovereignty in our lives. I’m not saying that our schools have to be church-run, nor am I say that our nation should be a theocracy. When American President Thomas Jefferson spoke about the idea of the separation of state and church, he was not advocating for the creation of a secular society that we have today. Our courts of law and public institutions have gravely misunderstood this and carried it into a wrong direction by denying God’s sovereignty and supremacy.

An informative starter guide I found helpful for public schools in the U.S. to put the bible education back in the classrooms can be found on the Society of Biblical Literature website. It's a guide for Bible Electives in Public Schools written by Moira Bucciarelli.

John Calvin's 500th birthday

What did I do to celebrate John Calvin's birthday yesterday? Nothing except post this picture of him on the blog today. But I should do something original, shouldn't I?

Perhaps I'll celebrate by reading a chapter from Calvin's Institutes of the Christian Religion? No, that's been done before.

Perhaps I'll celebrate by hanging a picture of him in my church office? No, some even have his picture hanging in their washrooms already.

Perhaps I'll celebrate by praying for him? No, some have prayed for his life and even his death centuries earlier.

Perhaps I'll celebrate by naming my next child after him? Calvin Sam? No, it doesn't have a good ring to it.

I think I'll just admire this picture for a second and that'll be it.

Reconciling evolutionism-creationism with infallibility and inspiration of scripture

Blogger Jeremy Pierce at Parableman recently posted Francis Collins and Intelligent Design about five different views in the spectrum of creationism-evolutionism. Jeremy Pierce is a blogger who has interesting things to say about social-political-biblical issues.

As a Christian, where do you stand within this spectrum of creationism-evolutionism views?

1. Atheistic evolution: Everything we experience is best explained by naturalistic explanations such as natural selection and random chance, with no guidance from an intelligent being.

2. Naturalistic-like theistic evolution: Natural selection and what appears to be random chance constitute the best scientific account of human origins, but God intelligently guided the process along by setting up the laws of nature so that they would lead to human development.

3. Non-naturalistic theistic evolution: Natural selection and the mechanisms of the standard evolutionary account are correct in postulating human origins from common descent with other animals, but God intelligently guided the process along by intervening in the natural order.

4. Special creation (old-earth): Divine intervention occurred to create human beings at a certain time in history without humans having descended from other animals. Nevertheless, this took place in the general time scheme scientists accept for when humans first appeared, and the universe and the earth are as old as our best science generally takes them to be.

5. Special creation (young-earth): Divine intervention occurred to create human beings at a certain time in history without humans having descended from other animals. This happened during the one exact week that God used to create the universe and all life on earth, with humans appearing on the sixth day of that week.

I commented that:

I've struggled in bouncing back and forth between views # 2-4. I still find these 3 views plausible within the confines of inspiration and infallibility of scripture, which are things I don't want to forsake. But I find that with view #2 I have a tough time reconciling with the infallibility of Scripture. I don't know.

Ephesians 1:4-5 – Whose love are we talking about? Our love or God's love?

In Ephesians 1:4-5, whose love is the writer of Ephesians talking about -- the love in God's child or the love of God? Notice that εν αγαπη (en agape) in the Greek NT is located at the end of v.4; however, en agape could also be placed at the start of a new sentence in v.5, which would render a different meaning in the text. "Love" is stuck in the middle between v.4 and v.5. The various translations also take positions right down the middle. The NRSV, NASB, NKJV, NJB and REB locate love (en agape) at the end of v.4 so that love is understood as an attribute within the child of God. Love modifies holiness and blamelessness. Whereas, the ESV, RSV, TNIV, NAB, GNT and HCSB locates love (en agape) at the beginning of v.5; so then, love is understood as an attribute of God’s own character (i.e., "in love [God] predestined us"). As a result, these translations are understood as two differing ideas. It can be a major difference, not a minor one and it completely changes how the passage is understood by the reader. (Note, NLT also locates love in v.4 but love modifies the word "chosen" so it's meaning is understood almost the same as TNIV and ESV). [This post has been edited.]
______________________

Ephesians 1:4-5:

4 καθως εξελεξατο ημας εν αυτω προ καταβολης κοσμου ειναι ημας αγιους και αμωμους κατενωπιον αυτου εν αγαπη

5 προορισας ημας εις υιοθεσιαν δια ιησου χριστου εις αυτον κατα την ευδοκιαν του θεληματος αυτου (Greek New Testament, Nestle-Aland 27th edition)

...even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love he predestined us for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will, (ESV)

For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight. In love he predestined us for adoption to sonship through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will—(TNIV)

Even before he made the world, God loved us and chose us in Christ to be holy and without fault in his eyes. God decided in advance to adopt us into his own family by bringing us to himself through Jesus Christ. This is what he wanted to do, and it gave him great pleasure. (NLT)

just as he chose us in Christ before the foundation of the world to be holy and blameless before him in love. He destined us for adoption as his children through Jesus Christ, according to the good pleasure of his will, (NRSV)

Before the foundation of the world he chose us in Christ to be his people, to be without blemish in his sight, to be full of love; and he predestined us to be adopted as his children through Jesus Christ. This was his will and pleasure (REB)