Why do some people believe and some do not?

[studier]

I am convinced that the hardening per se certainly is passive.

Being a pretty strict language guy, passive to me means something outside of them is hardening them.

 

[Cameron143]

CONT'D

4. to be aware of someth., perceive, notice, realize

a. w. acc.: their wickedness Mt 22:18; γ. δύναμιν ἐξεληλυθυῖαν that power had gone out Lk 8:46 (on the constr. w. the ptc. cp. PHamb 27, 13 [III BC]; BGU 1078 [I AD] γίνωσκε ἡγεμόνα εἰσεληλυθότα; POxy 1118, 7; Jos., Ant. 17, 342; Just., D. 39, 2 al.).

b. abs. (Ex 22:9; 1 Km 26:12) Mt 16:8; 26:10; Mk 7:24; 8:17.

c. w. ὅτι foll. (Gen 3:7; 8:11; 1 Macc 1:5 al.): ἔγνω τῷ σώματι ὅτι ἴαται she felt in her body that she was healed Mk 5:29; cp. 15:10; J 6:15; 16:19; Ac 23:6.

5. to have sexual intercourse with, have sex/marital relations with, euphemistic ext. of 1 (Menand., fgm. 558, 5 Kock; Heraclid. Lembus, Pol. 64 [Aristot., Fgm. ed. VRose 1886, 383]; oft. in Plut. and other later authors, and LXX [Anz 306]) w. acc., said of a man as agent (Gen 4:1, 17; 1 Km 1:19; Jdth 16:22; ApcMos 4; Did., Gen. 143, 9) Mt 1:25 (in connection w. the topic of 1:25f see Plut., Mor. 717e; Olympiodorus, Vi. Plat. 1 [Westermann, 1850]: φάσμα Ἀπολλωνιακὸν συνεγένετο τῇ μητρὶ αὐτοῦ τῇ Περικτιόνῃ καὶ ἐν νυκτὶ φανὲν τῷ Ἀρίστωνι ἐκέλευσεν αὐτῷ μὴ μιγνύναι τῇ Περικτιόνῃ μέχρι τ. χρόνου τῆς ἀποτέξεως. Ὁ δ᾽ οὕτω πεποίηκεν: ‘an apparition of Apollo had relations with [Plato’s] mother Perictione, and in a nocturnal appearance to Ariston [Plato's father] ordered him not to have intercourse w. P. until the time of her parturition. So he acted accordingly.’—The legend of Plato’s birth is traceable to Plato’s nephew Speusippus [Diog. L. 3:2; Jerome, Adv. Iovin. 1, 42]); of a woman (Judg 11:39; 21:12; Theodor. Prodr. 9, 486 H.) Lk 1:34 (DHaugg, D. erste bibl. Marienwort ’38; FGrant, JBL 59, ’40, 19f; HSahlin, D. Messias u. d. Gottesvolk, ’45, 117-20).

6. to have come to the knowledge of, have come to know, know (Nägeli 40 w. exx.)

a. w. acc.

α. of thing (Bar 3:20, 23; Jdth 8:29; Bel 35; Just., D. 110, 1 καὶ τοῦτο γ.): τὴν ποσότητα 1 Cl 35:3; hearts (Ps 43:22) Lk 16:15; will Ro 2:18; truth (Just., D. 139, 5; Tat. 13, 1) 2J 1; 2 Cor 5:21; grace 8:9; πάντα (2 Km 14:20; Just., D. 127, 2) 1J 3:20. τὶ 1 Cor 8:2a. W. object clause preceding: ὃ κατεργάζομαι οὐ γ. what I am accomplishing I really do not know Ro 7:15 (here γ. almost=desire, want, decide [Polyb. 5, 82, 1; Plut., Lycurg. 41[3, 9] ἔγνω φυγεῖν; Appian, Syr. 5 §18; Arrian, Anab. 2, 21, 8; 2, 25, 8; Paradox. Vat. 46 Keller ὅ τι ἂν γνῶσιν αἱ γυναῖκες; Jos., Ant. 1, 195; 14, 352; 16, 331]; mngs. 3 understand and 7 recognize are also prob.). W. attraction of the relative ἐν ὥρᾳ ᾗ οὐ γ. at an hour unknown to him Mt 24:50; Lk 12:46. W. acc. and ptc. (on the constr. s. 4a above) τὴν πόλιν νεωκόρον οὖσαν that the city is guardian of the temple Ac 19:35.

β. of pers. know someone (Tob 5:2; 7:4; Is 1:3) J 1:48; 2:24; 10:14f, 27; Ac 19:15; 2 Ti 2:19 (Num 16:5); Ox 1 recto, 14 (GTh 31). W. acc. and ptc. (s. α above, end and e.g. Just., A I, 19, 6) Hb 13:23.

b. w. acc. and inf. (Da 4:17; Just., D. 130, 2 al.) Hb 10:34.

c. w. ὅτι foll. (Sir 23:19; Bar 2:30; Tob 3:14) J 21:17; Ac 20:34; Phil 1:12; Js 1:3; 2 Pt 1:20; 3:3; γ. τοὺς διαλογισμοὺς ὅτι εἰσὶν μάταιοι he knows that the thoughts are vain 1 Cor 3:20 (Ps 93:11).—Oft. γινώσκετε, ὅτι you may be quite sure that Mt 24:33, 43; Mk 13:28f; Lk 10:11; 12:39; 21:31; J 15:18; 1J 2:29 (cp. UPZ 62, 32 [161 BC] γίνωσκε σαφῶς ὅτι πρός σε οὐ μὴ ἐπέλθω; 70, 14; 3 Macc 7:9; Judg 4:9; Job 36:5; Pr 24:12). In τοῦτο ἴστε γινώσκοντες, ὅτι Eph 5:5 the question is whether the two verbs are to be separated or not. In the latter case, one could point to Sym. Jer 49:22 ἴστε γινώσκοντες and 1 Km 20:3.

d. w. indir. question (Gen 21:26; 1 Km 22:3; Eccl 11:5; 2 Macc 14:32; Just., A I, 63, 3 τί πατὴρ καὶ τί υἱός) Lk 7:39; 10:22; J 2:25; 11:57.

e. w. adv. modifier γ. Ἑλληνιστί understand Greek Ac 21:37 (cp. X., Cyr. 7, 5; 31 ἐπίστασθαι Συριστί).

f. abs. (Gen 4:9; 18:21; 4 Km 2:3; Sir 32:8) Lk 2:43. τί ἐγὼ γινώσκω; how should I know? Hs 9, 9, 1.

7. to indicate that one does know, acknowledge, recognize as that which one is or claims to be τινά (Plut., Ages. 597 [3, 1]; Jos., Ant. 5, 112) οὐδέποτε ἔγνων ὑμᾶς I have never recognized you Mt 7:23; cp. J 1:10. ἐὰν γνωσθῇ πλέον τ. ἐπισκόπου if he receives more recognition than the supervisor (bishop) IPol 5:2. Of God as subject recognize someone as belonging to God, choose, almost=elect (Am 3:2; Hos 12:1; SibOr 5, 330) 1 Cor 8:3; Gal 4:9. In these pass. the γ. of God directed toward human beings is conceived of as the basis of and condition for their coming to know God; cp. the language of the Pythagoreans in HSchenkl, Wiener Studien 8, 1886 p. 265, no. 9 βούλει γνωσθῆναι θεοῖς· ἀγνοήθητι μάλιστα ἀνθρώποις; p. 277 no. 92 σοφὸς ἄνθρωπος κ. θεὸν σεβόμενος γινώσκεται ὑπὸ τ. θεοῦ; Porphyr., ad Marcellam 13 σοφὸς ἄνθρωπος γινώσκεται ὑπὸ θεοῦ; Herm. Wr. 1, 31 θεός, ὃς γνωσθῆναι βούλεται καὶ γινώσκεται τοῖς ἰδίοις; 10, 15 οὐ γὰρ ἀγνοεῖ τὸν ἄνθρωπον ὁ θεός, ἀλλὰ καὶ πάνυ γνωρίζει καὶ θέλει γνωρίζεσθαι. S. Rtzst., Mysterienrel.3 299f; Ltzm. on 1 Cor 8:3; RAC XI 446-659.—On the whole word: BSnell, D. Ausdrücke für die Begriffe des Wissens in d. vorplatonischen Philosophie 1924; EBaumann, ידע u. seine Derivate: ZAW 28, 1908, 22ff; 110ff; WBousset, Gnosis: Pauly-W. VII 1912, 1503ff; Rtzst., Mysterienrel.3 66-70; 284-308; PThomson, ‘Know’ in the NT: Exp. 9th ser. III, 1925, 379-82; AFridrichsen, Gnosis (Paul): ELehmann Festschr. 1927, 85-109; RPope, Faith and Knowledge in Pauline and Johannine Thought: ET 41, 1930, 421-27; RBultmann, TW I ’33, 688-715; HJonas, Gnosis u. spätantiker Geist I ’34; 2’55; EPrucker, Gnosis Theou ’37; JDupont, La Connaissance religieuse dans les Épîtres de Saint Paul, ’49; LBouyer, Gnosis: Le Sens orthodoxe de l’expression jusqu’aux pères Alexandrins: JTS n.s. 4, ’53, 188-203; WDavies, Knowledge in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Mt 11:25-30: HTR 46, ’53, 113-39; WSchmithals, D. Gnosis in Kor. ’55, 3’69; MMagnusson, Der Begriff ‘Verstehen’ e*sp. in Paul), ’55; RCasey, Gnosis, Gnosticism and the NT: CDodd Festschr., ’56, 52-80; IdelaPotterie, οἶδα et γινώσκω (4th Gosp.), Biblica 40, ’59, 709-25; H-JSchoeps, Urgemeinde, Judenchristentum, Gnosis ’56; EKäsemann, Das Wandernde Gottesvolk (Hb)2, ’57; HJonas, The Gnostic Religion, ’58; JDupont, Gnosis, ’60; UWilckens, Weisheit u. Torheit (1 Cor 1 and 2) ’59; DGeorgi, Die Gegner des Pls im 2 Cor, ’64; DScholer, Nag Hammadi Bibliography, 1948-69, ’71.—B. 1209f. DELG s.v. γιγνώσκω. EDNT. M-M. TW. Sv.

This is good. Those are all the definitions. The assignment of which meaning goes with each verse is subjective, however.

Do you believe that the meaning of Romans 1:21, 28, and 32 is the same as John 17:3? Why or why not?

 

[studier]

This is good. Those are all the definitions. The assignment of which meaning goes with each verse is subjective, however.

Do you believe that the meaning of Romans 1:21, 28, and 32 is the same as John 17:3? Why or why not?

If you'll look back, I think I already answered this. I think John, although using the same word as Paul, is not speaking about knowing God precisely the same way that Paul is. As I intimated, I have no problem with your adding an adjective to "knowing" to explain how you read J17. J17:3 needs to be elaborated IMO. I've seen many dabble with the meaning of eternal life and never even mention J17.

I recognize that both Paul and John speak of knowing God. So, I let the Text say what it says and work from there. When we read more deeply, John as you've noted is going into much more depth and relationship re: knowing God than Paul is in Rom1 and is adding knowing Jesus Christ whom God sent. But Paul does say they knew God. But we know that level of knowing Him Paul speaks of does not equate to eternal life. John even expands and elaborates the concept in 1J.

BTW, Rom1:28 & 32 are not using the same word as 1:21 and J17:3 which is why I brought in the "experiential" (practical, usable) concept of knowing.

 

[Cameron143]

If you'll look back, I think I already answered this. I think John, although using the same word as Paul, is not speaking about knowing God precisely the same way that Paul is. As I intimated, I have no problem with your adding an adjective to "knowing" to explain how you read J17. J17:3 needs to be elaborated IMO. I've seen many dabble with the meaning of eternal life and never even mention J17.

I recognize that both Paul and John speak of knowing God. So, I let the Text say what it says and work from there. When we read more deeply, John as you've noted is going into much more depth and relationship re: knowing God than Paul is in Rom1 and is adding knowing Jesus Christ whom God sent. But Paul does say they knew God. But we know that level of knowing Him Paul speaks of does not equate to eternal life. John even expands and elaborates the concept in 1J.

BTW, Rom1:28 & 32 are not using the same word as 1:21 and J17:3 which is why I brought in the "experiential" (practical, usable) concept of knowing.

This is the point I was leading to...that the context of knowing God in Romans 1 is through experiential knowledge of God as a result of experiencing nature and what can be experienced through conscience. This is vastly different than knowing God through the revelation of Himself...John 14:23, Matthew 16:17, Matthew 11:25-30.
Many here would say there is no difference between the two. This doesn't mean they aren't saved, but it does mean they live far below what is available to them. They know what the verses say but never live in its reality.

 

[Magenta]

This is the point I was leading to...that the context of knowing God in Romans 1 is through experiential knowledge of God as a result of experiencing nature and what can be experienced through conscience. This is vastly different than knowing God through the revelation of Himself...John 14:23, Matthew 16:17, Matthew 11:25-30.
Many here would say there is no difference between the two. This doesn't mean they aren't saved, but it does mean they live far below what is available to them. They know what the verses say but never live in its reality.

They read the words but the meaning escapes them. And then some will try to make out
that such knowledge is a shameful thing! Imagine that. God keeps the promises He makes
in Scripture but they mock and scoff such a concept. Where are these people really?

 

[Cameron143]

They read the words but the meaning escapes them. And then some will try to make out
that such knowledge is a shameful thing! Imagine that. God keeps the promises He makes
in Scripture but they mock and scoff such a concept. Where are these people really?

Same as all of us...in need of more grace.

 

[Magenta]

Same as all of us...in need of more grace.

Does growing in grace mean gaining more grace from God? .

 

[studier]

This is the point I was leading to...that the context of knowing God in Romans 1 is through experiential knowledge of God as a result of experiencing nature and what can be experienced through conscience. This is vastly different than knowing God through the revelation of Himself...John 14:23, Matthew 16:17, Matthew 11:25-30.
Many here would say there is no difference between the two. This doesn't mean they aren't saved, but it does mean they live far below what is available to them. They know what the verses say but never live in its reality.

NKJ John 14:23 Jesus answered and said to him, “If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our home with him.

NKJ Matt 16:17 Jesus answered and said to him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven

NKJ Matt 11:25-30 At that time Jesus answered and said, “I thank You, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that You have hidden these things from the wise and prudent and have revealed them to babes. 26 Even so, Father, for so it seemed good in Your sight. 27 All things have been delivered to Me by My Father, and no one knows the Son except the Father. Nor does anyone know the Father except the Son, and the one to whom the Son wills to reveal Him. 28 Come to Me, all you who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. 29 Take My yoke upon you and learn from Me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. 30 For My yoke is easy and My burden is light.”

Sorry, I'm ending up in edit mode for some reason so will post this and proceed on the next post

 

[Cameron143]

Does growing in grace mean gaining more grace from God?

In a sense, yes. John 1:16 says from His fulness we have all received grace upon grace. As Christians we should be experiencing an abundance of continuing grace. John 10:10 says He came to bring life, and in great abundance.

 

[Magenta]

In a sense, yes. John 1:16 says from His fulness we have all received grace upon grace. As Christians we should be
experiencing an abundance of continuing grace. John 10:10 says He came to bring life, and in great abundance.

Received as in past tense? In a sense? If they have received anything at all from
God why would they believe that to receive something different than anyone else
makes Him unfair? I would say that amounts to not knowing God at all.

 

[studier]

CONT'D

Some observations and comments:

• If your point is revelation, I don't think J14 is a great example. This is an example of why I don't interact too long with simple proof texting.
• In Matt16 and 11, the word "revealed" is used. The same Greek word is also used in Rom1:18 where the topic under discussion in that section we're dealing with is God's wrath. So, God reveals different things about Himself and different writers speak of different revelation.
• I addressed the issue about "experiential knowledge" and where it is being used in Rom1. You're again transporting it back into 1:19 & 21 where the word is not being used. They know about God's wrath because God revealed it to them. They know about God's power and divinity because He's revealed His wrath and made known, understood, and clear to them that He's powerful and divine. This is revelation of Himself and thus to an extent all men know Him. This is what Paul is making clear. They know God to the extent God purposed in revealing Himself in order to judge them if they reject Him.
• So, now we're dealing with not only the same wording of knowledge between Paul and John, but also the same wording of revelation between Paul and Matthew. I'm not sure why, but there we have it.
• God revealed certain things to mankind and made them responsible to live by that revelation.
• God revealed a certain thing to Peter and made Peter responsible to live by that revelation. Matt16
• The same goes re: the babes per Matt11. We're also dealing in Matt11 with this word I'm explaining as "experiential knowledge".
• The revelation discussed in Rom1 and John17 are different as twice or thrice acknowledged. But the revelation gives men knowledge of God so men know God as He purposes to be known.

 

[Cameron143]

Received as in past tense? In a sense? If they have received anything at all from
God why would they believe that to receive something different than anyone else
makes Him unfair? I would say that amounts to not knowing God at all.

I mean we should be becoming increasingly aware of and experiencing the grace of God more and more.

 

[Cameron143]

CONT'D

Some observations and comments:

• If your point is revelation, I don't think J14 is a great example. This is an example of why I don't interact too long with simple proof texting.
• In Matt16 and 11, the word "revealed" is used. The same Greek word is also used in Rom1:18 where the topic under discussion in that section we're dealing with is God's wrath. So, God reveals different things about Himself and different writers speak of different revelation.
• I addressed the issue about "experiential knowledge" and where it is being used in Rom1. You're again transporting it back into 1:19 & 21 where the word is not being used. They know about God's wrath because God revealed it to them. They know about God's power and divinity because He's revealed His wrath and made known, understood, and clear to them that He's powerful and divine. This is revelation of Himself and thus to an extent all men know Him. This is what Paul is making clear. They know God to the extent God purposed in revealing Himself in order to judge them if they reject Him.
• So, now we're dealing with not only the same wording of knowledge between Paul and John, but also the same wording of revelation between Paul and Matthew. I'm not sure why, but there we have it.
• God revealed certain things to mankind and made them responsible to live by that revelation.
• God revealed a certain thing to Peter and made Peter responsible to live by that revelation. Matt16
• The same goes re: the babes per Matt11. We're also dealing in Matt11 with this word I'm explaining as "experiential knowledge".
• The revelation discussed in Rom1 and John17 are different as twice or thrice acknowledged. But the revelation gives men knowledge of God so men know God as He purposes to be known.

John 14:23 is the Father and Jesus literally tabernacling with a believer. You don't find that to be direct revelation of the Godhead in communion and fellowship with the believer?
All the examples I gave were a direct revelation of God Himself to believers. This is vastly different from revelation through another source such as creation or conscience. The latter are available to all mankind. The personal revelation of God is only for believers.
You don't have to accept this, but personal revelation was what Adam and Eve experienced daily before the fall. Once sin entered in, it became increasingly more difficult to receive such revelation until the cross. God started by communing daily with Adam and Eve. After sin, God came less often to speak with men. Eventually He stopped speaking with everyone directly and spoke through the prophets. Since men couldn't get to Him, God established a priesthood. Then God stopped giving revelation at all for 400 years. That all changed with Jesus.
Look also at the construction of the temple. An outer court for Gentiles. Inside of that a court for Jewish women. Inside that a court for Jewish men. Inside that a court for priests. Inside that the Holy of Holies where 1 priest could go once a year. God was not exactly accessible. In fact, He was becoming less and less accessible.
Then along comes Jesus. He dies and the veil is rent. Direct access to God is restored to everyone who believes. And this is to be expected as one of the reasons Jesus came was to destroy the works of the devil. And so He is. And we should expect this to continue in greater and greater amounts until we again see Him face to face.

 

[sawdust]

It helps explain your thinking, yes. I like your first paragraph: Hear the Word > acknowledge its veracity (acknowledge its truth) > trust in it: Faith. 2nd paragraph also.

Thanks!

Are or were you a student of RBT?

I am.

 

[sawdust]

I thought faith was being persuaded by the word and trusting it to be truth. For example, God said to Abraham that his seed would be innumerable, and Abe was persuaded that God was telling the truth and of his own will believed

Faith
G4102 πίστις pistis (piy'-stis) n.
1. a trust.
2. a firm persuasion, a confidence.

I don't like the use of the term "persuaded" as that, in it's modern sense, doesn't necessarily result in believing someone. I can be persuaded to let someone do something without believing it is the best option or even the right thing. Not being omniscient, I have to allow that I'm not always right and give ground to some degree.

Faith is confidence in what you can't see (Heb.11:1) and it is the word that empowers that confidence if that is what you mean.

Faith comes from the word. It's the word at work in our lives that produces faith, not simply us believing something.

I look at it like this. We all hit circumstances in our lives where we feel ourselves walking on shaky ground. We haven't lost faith, but we simply are not sure. If we peel back the layers of what we say we believe until we reach that point where we are absolutely sure, that's the level of our faith. That's the place we can stand without deluding ourselves and are able to let God lead us on from there. I wasn't raised in a Christian home so there was much to learn and so many different stories being told, sometimes I had no idea what was the truth. I used to ask myself what do I believe with absolute certainty and that "Christ is Lord and Saviour and there is no other", was what I always ended at in those early years. It was being able to stand on that truth and at peace and allow the Lord to lead me on into all truth. Not that I am suggesting I have all truth now, but I am a lot further down the road and I know contentment beyond understanding.

 

[sawdust]

not you saying anything like this, of course, but just that the view you have lends itself to it.

if i am saved but the person next to me isn't, and all else was equal except i made a better decision about responding to the gospel, then i could brag that i was smarter than the other person, i was wise while they were stupid, i did something good, that they didn't do.

and i was saying, we don't see Paul expressing anything like that. we see instead he says his conversion was due to the grace afford to him.

It appeared you were accusing me of saying it, I apologise for misunderstanding.

It is not about making "better" decisions. It's about who you are. You are a believer. The person next to you might also be a believer but they just don't know it yet. If they are an unbeliever they will never become a believer but we have no idea who is and who isn't and so we witness in and out of season for that very reason.

I was not talking about how Paul was saved. I was showing how the sin nature resides in the flesh, not the soul so that when God applies grace and truth to our minds, like in the case of Paul in Rom.7 by way of the Law, the mind can still desire goodness in spite of the corruption in our flesh. The innate corruption doesn't come from our souls, the sin nature in the flesh deceives our minds and locks us into darkness but when the light shines, there is hope. The Law is a light that shines in the darkness but it lacks the power to make one righteous. It points to the Saviour but can never be the Saviour in itself.

 

[Magenta]

If they are an unbeliever they will never become a believer

Nonsense.

 

[Magenta]

The Law is a light that shines in the darkness

Where is this in Scripture?

 

[Melach]

Factor in actual free will and volition and your Greek "philosophical chaos bombs" ® are immediately defused and decommissioned.

but its not philosophy. the BIBLE teaches the bondage of the will.

the natural man cannot understand spiritual things. so how can he of his own free will just decide 'welp im gonna start obeying the law of God'

 

[Magenta]

but its not philosophy. the BIBLE teaches the bondage of the will.

the natural man cannot understand spiritual things. so how can he of his own free will just decide 'welp im gonna start obeying the law of God'

With the heart one believes and they assert that man, with his stony heart and inherently hostile-to-God mind is just going to up and believe what they find to be nonsense/foolishness. God promises to change our heart so that we may love Him and some if these nay-sayers call that being forced. At every turn they try to project their ignorance onto us.