Understanding God’s election

[Magenta]

John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

 

[Cameron143]

Actually it is the Gospel stated by you which is the lie, because it leaves out the most important part.

It's the same gospel Paul shared in 1 Corinthians 15. And telling someone that God sent His Son because He loved the world isn't a lie.

 

[Magenta]

Well...the FWs will worry because while they talk a good game about Christ dying for all, at the same time they know He is only the potential Savior of all since they limit his atonement qualitatively.

Though some will say all hear even though that contradicts what Jesus said.

Actually, a lot of what free willers say contradict things Jesus said...

 

[Rufus]

I'll see your OT Scripture and raise you MT 5:44&48. Are you Jewish?
It is common knowledge that RM 9:13 can express approval-disapproval rather than "Jacob I saved, but Esau I damned".

(However, I may look at those other references later just for fun :^)

And I'll see your Mat 5 texts and raise you Jn 10:17; 14:21; 15:10; 16:27.

Re Esau, God did not bring him into a covenant relationship with Himself, as he did with Jacob. Neither did God bring Ishmael into a covenant relationship with himself either. That's the whole point to the opening verses in Rom 9. There are two kinds of Jews: Children according to the flesh, and children according to the promise. Ishmael and Esau were of the former kind. Neither were true children of Abraham.

 

[BillyBob]

Actually, a lot of what free willers say contradict things Jesus said...

Rom 3:11 no one understands;
no one seeks for God.

 

[Magenta]

Rom 3:11 no one understands;
no one seeks for God.

Psalm 14:1-3; Job 15:16 ~ The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.” They are corrupt; their acts are vile. There is no one who does good. The LORD looks down from heaven upon the sons of men to see if any understand, if any seek God. All have turned away, they have together become corrupt; there is no one who does good, not even one. Man is vile and corrupt.

 

[Magenta]

Romans 3:10-12

 

[GWH]

And I'll see your Mat 5 texts and raise you Jn 10:17; 14:21; 15:10; 16:27.

Re Esau, God did not bring him into a covenant relationship with Himself, as he did with Jacob. Neither did God bring Ishmael into a covenant relationship with himself either. That's the whole point to the opening verses in Rom 9. There are two kinds of Jews: Children according to the flesh, and children according to the promise. Ishmael and Esau were of the former kind. Neither were true children of Abraham.

Okay, but I hope you know that my goal is harmonizing GW rather than proof-texting,
so how do YOU harmonize MT 5:44&48 with those in JN that you cited?

 

[Magenta]

And I'll see your Mat 5 texts and raise you Jn 10:17; 14:21; 15:10; 16:27.

Re Esau, God did not bring him into a covenant relationship with Himself, as he did with Jacob. Neither did God bring Ishmael into a covenant relationship with himself either. That's the whole point to the opening verses in Rom 9. There are two kinds of Jews: Children according to the flesh, and children according to the promise. Ishmael and Esau were of the former kind. Neither were true children of Abraham.

From Galatians 4:22-24 plus 28-29 and 5:1 Abraham had two sons, one by the slave woman and the other by the free woman. His son by the slave woman was born according to the flesh, but his son by the free woman was born through the promise. These things serve as illustrations, for the women represent two covenants. One covenant is from Mount Sinai and bears children into slavery. We, like Isaac, are children of promise. The son born by the flesh persecuted the son born by the Spirit. It is the same now. It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not be encumbered once more by a yoke of slavery.

 

[GWH]

Without asking me any questions about what I believed or any dialogue concerning my views on salvation you
up and declared I blaspheme God by ascribing hatred of humanity to Him when I have never said or done any
such thing, and in fact, my every post proclaims His love. Try getting honest... though I rarely see such liars repent.
Then you pretend I am debating some straw man when I am addressing specific things said in these threads by
certain people over and over and over again. You did not say them? Bully for you.

I am glad you do not ascribe hatred of non-elect humanity to God,
and I apologize for getting the impression that you were one of those
who do so at least implicitly by saying that God determines not to save them but only the elect.
However, I must protest being called a liar for making an honest mistake.
I am also glad that you were not including me in those people you spoke of in post #10326, saying

"It is worse than that. The free willers deny pretty much everything said of the natural man in ascribing
to him characteristics and abilities possessed only by the spiritual man. Some have no idea what is even
meant to put the natural man beside the spiritual. The terms mean nothing to them. Whole swaths of the
Bible are overlooked, ignored, and outright denied regularly. They deny slavery to sin. They deny that
a corrupt tree cannot bring forth good fruit. They deny that the gospel message is foolishness to those
who can neither receive not comprehend the spiritual things of God. They claim that by the sheer force
of their will -with no help from God because that would be unfair after all!- the natural man can choose,
can just decide, to believe what makes zero sense to him. They reduce belief to making a decision. "

My reply was "Not sure if your "they" includes me, but just in case it does, I will clarify that rather than reducing belief to a decision, I glorify God for loving all of humanity and gracing every sinner with sufficient volition so they may seek salvation, find the Gospel, choose to follow Christ and so be saved." So don't know why you didn't say "bully" for me right then and thank me for the clarification.

Do you want to share your clarifying statement that would parallel mine?

 

[PaulThomson]

Grace itself may be abstract but it's manifestations are concrete. Rain and sunshine are concrete. Salvation and faith are real things.

Agreed. Many of the gifts provided by God's and man's unmerited favour are physically manifest. Man's grace is often selective. Men will often give unmerited gifts in one case, but not in another, based on the limits of the giver's resources. But God's resources are unlimited, so His ability to provide is universal and indiscriminate, and based on universal and indiscriminate conditions. Therefore, whether any particular person experiences God's gracious gifts being offered to all, depends on that person's accepting the gifts freely offered and receiving them by faith.

 

[Magenta]

I am glad you do not ascribe hatred of non-elect humanity to God,
and I apologize for getting the impression that you were one of those

You did not get that impression. You made it up and posted it as a fact when you had absolutely nothing to base it on.
That is called bearing false witness. You had a list of things you made up and decided were true based on your sick imagination.

Do you want to share your clarifying statement that would parallel mine?

1 John 4:8b~ God is Love

 

[NOV25]

Yes, I missed your joke, so I'm not as smart as you thought I was.

Yes, I do not remember discussing the kerygma with you.

Why did you think it seems Catholic? Is that bad?

(I guess you have not seen me being critical of papal infallibility :^)

I was raised as a Baptist but learned that OSAS contradicted Scripture teaching perseverance and omnilove,
so now I would say that I am a GW-loving ecumenical and kerygmatic Christian.

lol touché

——

Of course seeming Catholic is bad and you’re not helping your case with the last paragraph lol

So you were raised Baptists, any idea where the Catholicism began to seep in-if you don’t mind me asking.

I was raised in New England, it’s infested with Catholics. Mum went to catholic school, I was raised in public, but the teachers may as well been nuns with all the yard stick action I saw lol 😆

 

[PaulThomson]

I meant to finish what I started but missed doing so. Again, just supplementing @PaulThomson (PT) responses:

The 'through faith" part of Eph2:8 is relatively simple but again some decisions need to be made. From the same reference Greek Grammar Book:

Διά (dia)

A. Basic Uses (with Genitive and Accusative)

1. With Genitive

a. Agency: by, through

b. Means: through

c. Spatial: through

d. Temporal: through(out), during

2. With Accusative

a. Cause: because of, on account of, for the sake of

b. Spatial (rare): through

The phrase is dia + faith (genitive), so we can see how "through" is being chose as the translation. Also, the spatial chart for prepositions PT provided is an excellent tool to keep at hand.

The problem we can see above is "through" can be used to convey 3 different meanings.

I'm just going to put forth and example of how the translation 'by grace through faith' could be reconsidered. In the Instrumental category of the Dative [] grace we might consider [because of] grace you are (or have been) saved by means of faith not from/as a result of works, [of] God the gift. IOW because God is gracious and applies grace to man's situation, God saved man by the instrumentality of faith and not as a result of works (because man could not do such saving works), [of] God the gift. IOW, we can try these different concepts of classifying this grammar and see how it compares to the rest of Scripture.

There are a couple other considerations here that could help. "faith" in some manuscripts is anarthrous and in some is articular. I'm not checking all the evidence at the moment. The Greek article (the) is used differently than in English so we'd have to decide how it's being used if we conclude it should be there. If we so conclude, then it could open up a few interesting considerations, because at times "the faith" is not man's belief/faith, but is the Gospel. So, just a note.

Also, as I think I saw PT address, there is a verbal construction here that is not too unusual but is not the norm. It is speaking of or including something done/completed in the past. With all that's being said in context, e.g. the made alive, raised and seated together with Christ this also sounds to me like it's not just positional as many if not most interpret it, but more precisely Paul may be speaking of or including the fact that it's God's Salvation Plan (because of His grace and which uses the instrument of faith).

Fun, huh?

@studier
Here is an interesting verse with dia + accusative in one place and dia + genitive in second.
Rom 4:25
Who (hos) was delivered (paredothE) for our offences (dia hEmOn paraptOmata: accusative plural), and (kai) was raised (EgerthE) for our justification (dia hEmOn dikaiOsin: genitive singular).

So, dia + the accusative (dia paraptOmata).
Can we reason that dia + something conveys the sense of both entering and leaving that something as one complete act. Unless you both enter and leave, you did not go through. And the accusative implies movement toward, So the nuance conveyed in this dia + accusative combo is that, when Jesus was handed over, He both entered our offences (He was not bearing our offences, then He was). And He also left behind our offences (He was bearing them and then He was not). Hence "through our offences". And since the action in view is being handed over (to death), the movement involved in handing over is toward the thing through which the person is passing. Hence the accusative case is the natural choice. Jesus is being handed over into bearing our offences.

Now, dia + the genitive (dia dikaiOsin).
Can we reason the same regarding dia as above. Dia + something conveys the sense of both entering and leaving that something as one complete act. Unless you both enter and leave, you did not go through. And the genitive implies movement away from. So the nuance conveyed in this dia + genitive combo is that when Jesus was raised, He entered our justification (He was not justifying us, and then He was, by taking on our sins). And He left behind our justification (He was bearing our sins in death and then He was not, after being raised). Hence "through our justification" And since the action in view is being raised (out of death), the movement involved in raising is away from the thing through which the person is passing. Hence the genitive case is the natural choice. Jesus is being raised away from bearing our offences to justify us.

This can perhaps be summarised as: "He was handed over to the bearing of our offences for a season, and was raised out of the bearing of our offences, through which He had been justifying us."

 

[PaulThomson]

Rom 3:30
Seeing it is one God, which shall justify the circumcision by faith (ek pisteOs), and uncircumcision through faith (dia pisteOs).

Why the difference? Maybe because Paul is assuming that Jews are beginning from a position in faith and so can be justified out of that faith, hence ek pisteOs out of faith. But the Gentiles have to come into faith before being justified out of faith, hence

@studier
Here is an interesting verse with dia + accusative in one place and dia + genitive in second.
Rom 4:25
Who (hos) was delivered (paredothE) for our offences (dia hEmOn paraptOmata: accusative plural), and (kai) was raised (EgerthE) for our justification (dia hEmOn dikaiOsin: genitive singular).

So, dia + the accusative (dia paraptOmata).
Can we reason that dia + something conveys the sense of both entering and leaving that something as one complete act. Unless you both enter and leave, you did not go through. And the accusative implies movement toward, So the nuance conveyed in this dia + accusative combo is that, when Jesus was handed over, He both entered our offences (He was not bearing our offences, then He was). And He also left behind our offences (He was bearing them and then He was not). Hence "through our offences". And since the action in view is being handed over (to death), the movement involved in handing over is toward the thing through which the person is passing. Hence the accusative case is the natural choice. Jesus is being handed over into bearing our offences.

Now, dia + the genitive (dia dikaiOsin).
Can we reason the same regarding dia as above. Dia + something conveys the sense of both entering and leaving that something as one complete act. Unless you both enter and leave, you did not go through. And the genitive implies movement away from. So the nuance conveyed in this dia + genitive combo is that when Jesus was raised, He entered our justification (He was not justifying us, and then He was, by taking on our sins). And He left behind our justification (He was bearing our sins in death and then He was not, after being raised). Hence "through our justification" And since the action in view is being raised (out of death), the movement involved in raising is away from the thing through which the person is passing. Hence the genitive case is the natural choice. Jesus is being raised away from bearing our offences to justify us.

This can perhaps be summarised as: "He was handed over to the bearing of our offences for a season, and was raised out of the bearing of our offences, through which He had been justifying us."

Or maybe as : He went through bearing our offences, and he was raised after coming through justifying us.

Here's another interesting variation involving dia.

Rom 3:30
Seeing it is one God, which shall justify the circumcision by faith (ek pisteOs), and uncircumcision through faith (dia pisteOs).

Why the difference? Maybe because Paul is assuming that Jews are beginning from a position in faith on account of them believing Moses, and so can be justified out of that faith transferred to Jesus, hence ek pisteOs out of faith. But the Gentiles have to come into faith first before being justified out of faith, hence dia pisteOs through faith.

 

[Mem]

What woman who gave two shekels? I know about the woman who gave two mites:

“Then one poor widow came and threw in two mites, which make a quadrans.” (Mr 12:42 NKJV)

I understand that there were 384 mites needed to make one shekel.

Thank you for that correction. I was sure I chose the wrong denomination, in the back of my mind, when I wrote 'shekels', on one hand just wanting to quickly close my thought and on the other hand having a proclivity toward working as lazily in scholarship. But this would've bugged me, in the back of my mind for who knows how long until I saw "mites"! Truly, you have released me from a persistent annoyance, in the back of my ocd mind, that God knows might've irritated me indefinitely without resolution and left me at a loss about what it even was that was bothering me!

 

[Mem]

Fun, huh?

So so fun, really. I'm just glad to see that my idea of it is at least not impossible at this point. It makes me want to take up Greek, just as I also attempted an introduction to Hebrew. But, alas, I'm also considering taking up a fledgling study in nunchakus, or the staff... I can't decide...

Thank you, for being water, my friend.

 

[DavidLamb]

Faith/belief comes first although the experience may seem simultaneous.
So you are still in the same place.
Oh well.

Not according to Ephesians 2, where Paul writes to the Christians at Ephesus:

“And you He made alive, who were dead in trespasses and sins, in which you once walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit who now works in the sons of disobedience, among whom also we all once conducted ourselves in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, just as the others. But God, who is rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, even when we were dead in trespasses, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), and raised us up together, and made us sit together in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, that in the ages to come He might show the exceeding riches of His grace in His kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God,” (Eph 2:1-8 NKJV)

A sinner dead in trespasses and sins does not have the ability to have faith.

 

[DavidLamb]

Thank you for that correction. I was sure I chose the wrong denomination, in the back of my mind, when I wrote 'shekels', on one hand just wanting to quickly close my thought and on the other hand having a proclivity toward working as lazily in scholarship. But this would've bugged me, in the back of my mind for who knows how long until I saw "mites"! Truly, you have released me from a persistent annoyance, in the back of my ocd mind, that God knows might've irritated me indefinitely without resolution and left me at a loss about what it even was that was bothering me!

Thanks! I am pleased you didn't take offence.

 

[PaulThomson]

Mr. PT yesterday (you know...our resident Gr. scholar) balked at my interpretation of Jn 11:26 and accused me of spiritualizing the text. Here's how vv. 25-26 read:

John 11:25-26
25 Jesus said to her, "I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in me will live, even though he dies; 26 and whoever lives and believes in me will never die. Do you believe this?"
NIV

Verse 25 is most certainly speaking of the bodily resurrection. We can know this in two ways: A) the future tense of the verb "will live". This plainly speaks to a future event. And B) the death spoken of in the last part of the verse is physical. Jesus is comparing apples to apples. Believers will live [again] physically in the age to come even though in this age they physically die.

Verse 26 is structured the same way; yet notice the difference in verb tenses! "Whoever lives and believes" (PRESENT tense). And whoever does these things presently can be assured that they "will never die" (future tense). But the death spoken of here cannot possibly mean physical death, since all believers eventually die physically (save for the two biblical exceptions of Enoch and Elijah); therefore the death spoken of here can only be referring to the Second [eternal] Death (Rev 2:11; 20:6, 14; 21:8). Jesus once again is comparing apples with apples. Whoever possesses spiritual life in this present age will never experience spiritual, eternal death in the age to come!

And the third piece of evidence that this is the correct interpretation can be seen in the faith that is mentioned in this latter verse. PT maintained that v.26 is also talking about the physical resurrection; but this makes no sense whatsoever given the biblical definition of "faith". Mr. PT forgets that faith eventually gives way to SIGHT in the New Order. Who needs to believe what will be right before their very eyes and ears -- and indeed all their senses!? When all men stand before God, will they not have empirical proof of his existence?

Heb 11:1
11:1 Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see.
NIV

Therefore, the fact that Jesus links "living" [now] with "believing" [now] tells us immediately that he's talking about spiritual life and faith in this age! Faith is most certainly necessary in this age but not in the next one! In the age to come, no saint will any longer be hoping for anything, nor will there will be any uncertainity or doubt about God, his holy character or his Truth. Faith fades into the background because it will be replaced by Sight! And the fact that Jesus puts life before belief is highly significant and harmonizes with many other scriptures, including the NC promises in Ezek 36-37. Death must retreat from the Light of Life before the Darkness can comprehend it and believe the Gospel.

That is one way of parsing the text: Verse 25 could be about those who are contemporaries of Mary, Martha and Jesus, and any of them that are believing in Jesus will be resurrected at the last day, if they die before the last day. And verse 26 is about the same people, that among those present, whoever is spiritually alive and/even believing will never die spiritually.

However, that is not the only way to parse the text. Mary and Martha believed there would be a day when the dead would be raised physically.
23 Jesus says to her, Your brother shall rise again [in the resurrection at the last day].
24 Martha says to him, I know that he shall rise again [in the resurrection] at the last day.

Lazarus was now physically dead. So, what would Martha hear Jesus saying next?

25 Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life... (Jesus is claiming to be the one who will raise the dead in the resurrection at the last day)

... he that is believing in me (when they die, like Lazarus had been doing),
though he had died (physically, before the resurrection at the last day, as Lazarus had done) yet shall he live [in the resurrection at the last day]:
(Martha believe Lazarus will rise again somehow. Jesus tells Martha that participating in this resurrection depends on believing in Him.

26 And whosoever is living [at the resurrection at the last day], and is believing in me [at the resurrection at the last day] shall never die.

Do you believe this?

27 She saith unto him, Yea, Lord: I believe that thou art the Christ, the Son of God, which should come into the world.

Martha says she believes it will be the Christ who raises the dead who believe in Him, and that she believes Jesus is that Christ.

Now you can prefer your own parsing, but you cannot rationally dismiss my parsing as unreasonable and illogical and impossible.