Understanding God’s election

[PaulThomson]

But you conveniently forget that only God's [elect] sheep can hear his voice and respond appropriately to the Gospel. Only those whom the Father gives to the Son will respond positively to the Gospel.

Not agreeing with your interpretation of scripture is not "conveniently forgetting" your opinion on what scripture says. It is not agreeing with what looks like nonsense coming from your keyboard.

 

[PaulThomson]

I don't know New Testament Greek. Certainly in English Jesus seems quite clearly to be saying that the reason His hearers did not believe was that they were not of His sheep. The next words support this view:

“"My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me.” (Joh 10:27 NKJV)

Perhaps someone here who does know NT Greek can tell us whether the Greek of John 10:26 could possibly mean "You are not of my sheep. [I deduce this] because you do not believe in Me."

You are not my mother, because you are not 5'4".
Does this men that the cause of you not being my mother is your excessive height, and if you were 5'4", you would be my mother?
Or is it saying that the reason I deduce you are not my mother is because you are not 5'4" tall?

The same phrasing of words can have several possible meanings. We should be able to acknowledge that, and not pretend that a particular phrasing can only mean what I want it to mean to support my argument.

 

[DavidLamb]

You are not my mother, because you are not 5'4".
Does this men that the cause of you not being my mother is your excessive height, and if you were 5'4", you would be my mother?
Or is it saying that the reason I deduce you are not my mother is because you are not 5'4" tall?

The same phrasing of words can have several possible meanings. We should be able to acknowledge that, and not pretend that a particular phrasing can only mean what I want it to mean to support my argument.

There is considerable difference between, "You are not my mother is because you are not 5'4"" and
"But you do not believe, because you are not of My sheep." In the first, the woman being spoken to is a different height to the speaker's mother, so she cannot be the speaker's mother. It would be silly to say that the speaker meant that if the woman was 5ft 4in tall, she would be his mother, because there are plenty of women who are that height. Jesus is explaining why they don't do something - believe in Him. Let's see His words in a little more of their context:

“Then the Jews surrounded Him and said to Him, "How long do You keep us in doubt? If You are the Christ, tell us plainly." Jesus answered them, "I told you, and you do not believe. The works that I do in My Father’s name, they bear witness of Me. "But you do not believe, because you are not of My sheep, as I said to you. "My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me.” (Joh 10:24-27 NKJV)

The whole context shows that Jesus cannot mean, "You are not my sheep because you do not believe." The subject is their unbelief.

 

[Magenta]

There is considerable difference between, "You are not my mother is because you are not 5'4"" and
"But you do not believe, because you are not of My sheep." In the first, the woman being spoken to is a different height to the speaker's mother, so she cannot be the speaker's mother. It would be silly to say that the speaker meant that if the woman was 5ft 4in tall, she would be his mother, because there are plenty of women who are that height. Jesus is explaining why they don't do something - believe in Him. Let's see His words in a little more of their context:

“Then the Jews surrounded Him and said to Him, "How long do You keep us in doubt? If You are the Christ, tell us plainly." Jesus answered them, "I told you, and you do not believe. The works that I do in My Father’s name, they bear witness of Me. "But you do not believe, because you are not of My sheep, as I said to you. "My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me.” (Joh 10:24-27 NKJV)

The whole context shows that Jesus cannot mean, "You are not my sheep because you do not believe." The subject is their unbelief.

Jesus also calls them children of the devil.

 

[studier]

You ae performing the fallacy of negative inference: inferring that saying "because you do not believe,' is a statement of causality. "Your not being of my sheep is causing you not to believe in Me."

However, "because you do not believe in me" could be evidential/deductive, "You are not of my sheep. [I deduce this] because you do not believe in Me."

What manuscript(s) was it that you use?

What conjunction are you dealing with in the second clause of John10:26, hoti?

 

[PaulThomson]

There is considerable difference between, "You are not my mother is because you are not 5'4"" and
"But you do not believe, because you are not of My sheep." In the first, the woman being spoken to is a different height to the speaker's mother, so she cannot be the speaker's mother. It would be silly to say that the speaker meant that if the woman was 5ft 4in tall, she would be his mother, because there are plenty of women who are that height. Jesus is explaining why they don't do something - believe in Him. Let's see His words in a little more of their context:

“Then the Jews surrounded Him and said to Him, "How long do You keep us in doubt? If You are the Christ, tell us plainly." Jesus answered them, "I told you, and you do not believe. The works that I do in My Father’s name, they bear witness of Me. "But you do not believe, because you are not of My sheep, as I said to you. "My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me.” (Joh 10:24-27 NKJV)

The whole context shows that Jesus cannot mean, "You are not my sheep because you do not believe." The subject is their unbelief.

I tried.

 

[PaulThomson]

What manuscript(s) was it that you use?

What conjunction are you dealing with in the second clause of John10:26, hoti?

The Received Text has "gar".
The Morphological Greek New Testament has hoti. Either can mean because/for.

 

[Rufus]

DBY Matthew 26:40 And he comes to the disciples and finds them sleeping, and says to Peter, Thus ye have not been able to watch one hour with me?

Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics by Daniel Wallace says the construction is used over 400 times in Matt-Acts.

Many times, you'll see it translated as past tense so it can take some work to find them. Darby, KJV, YLT may be easier to see the present tenses in.

Wallace also doesn't think Rom7 are historic presents as some others do (if you care to search you can find articles written on the topic). Here's Wallace's section and footnote showing his work as of his time of writing:

3) Romans 7:14-24

Throughout this section of Romans, Paul speaks in the first person singular in the present tense. For example, in 7:15 he declares, “For that which I am doing I do not understand; for I am not practicing what I would like to do, but I am doing the very thing I hate” (ὃ γὰρ κατεργάζομαι οὐ γινώσκω· οὐ γὰρ ὅ θέλω τοῦτο πράσσω, ἀλλ ᾽ ὃ μισῶ τοῦτο ποιῶ). Some would see the presents here as dramatic or historical presents. But since Paul is speaking in the first person, this label is not at all likely. In other words, one cannot appeal to the idiom of the historical present for support of the view that Paul is referring to his past, non-Christian life in this text.51 If one wants to hold the view that Paul is either not describing himself in this text, or else he is speaking corporately (so as to include himself only in a general way), syntax is not the route to get there.52


52 I have struggled with this text for many years (in more ways than one!), and have held to three different views. My present view is that the apostle is speaking as universal man and is describing the experience of anyone who attempts to please God by submitting the flesh to the law. By application, this could be true of an unbeliever or a believer. The present tenses, then, would be gnomic, not historical, for they refer to anyone and describe something that is universally true. This view sees no shift in the person in the “I” of vv 7-13 and 14-25 (which is a basic problem for other views) and is able to handle vv 9, 14 and 25 under one umbrella. The biggest problem for it is that “I” then is figurative, not literal. Further, the interplay between syntax and rhetorical language is a conundrum that deserves greater exploration.

I was clear on what I see in the language of Rom7-8. As I recall, I think I even mentioned Paul being representative of men struggling to please God under law. Wallace is clearly thinking this also. He's speaking of the "gnomic" present where others suggest the other forms of rhetoric, I mentioned to resolve the "I" and present tenses.

I read several articles online to get up to speed on the HP (Historic Present) idiom. I do see Paul mainly describing his personal battle between the flesh (his sin nature) and the Spirit. The world doesn't have this kind of battle, for the world's religions all teach a works-based salvation. Plus the world doesn't have the Holy Spirit to fight against. But Christians do indeed have the struggles that Paul describes (cf. 1Cor 3:3). While Paul called the Corinthians "worldly" in this text, he could have just as easily said "fleshly" or "or the flesh" and it would not have changed the sense of the text. After all, those OF the world can only live according to the flesh. Also, legalists are a prideful, arrogant and self-deceived bunch because they think they can please God with good living.

Of course, as Christians mature and grow in grace and knowledge of the Lord, this internal warfare between the flesh and the Spirit eventually ceases to dominate their Christian life. This is why it is so crucially important for professing Christians to grow in their Faith, and no book like Hebrews brings out this teaching better, in my opinion, since the original audience was in danger of falling away from the faith. This is why Hebrews so often exhorts its readers to persevere in the faith. The writer's audience needed to advance from the "milk" of the Word to the "meat" of it, etc.

The link below is interesting and it mentions this guy Wallace and another Greek scholar Runge. It seems many people think that with minor exceptions, e.g. apocalyptic literature, the HP is used mainly in narratives, which of course Rom 7 is not.

https://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2095

This gets denied. Quite often, actually. Nice to see it being acknowledged.

What else can the unregenerate do!? There's only two kinds of people in the world: Those in Adam who can only live according to their sinful nature, and those in the Last Adam whose lives are characterized by walking by the indwelling Spirit.

 

[studier]

The Received Text has "gar".
The Morphological Greek New Testament has hoti. Either can mean because/for.

OK. I was looking at both and saw the variant.

Sometimes I don't look at these things until I see you challenging the status-quo. Per BDAG Lexicon:

hoti can have a consecutive sense - you don't believe > so you are not my sheep. John7:35; John14:22

gar:

• can be a marker of clarification - you don't believe > to clarify, you are not my sheep
• can be a marker of inference (self-evident conclusions) - you don't believe > so you are not my sheep

 

[Magenta]

What else can the unregenerate do!? There's only two kinds of people in the world: Those in Adam who can only live according
to their sinful nature, and those in the Last Adam whose lives are characterized by walking by the indwelling Spirit.

It is part and parcel the very thing free willers deny... some of whom have no idea who the natural man
is, and show this by ascribing to him characteristics and abilities only the spiritual man possesses.

 

[studier]

What else can the unregenerate do!? There's only two kinds of people in the world: Those in Adam who can only live according to their sinful nature

Repetitive. I understand your position.

Repetition in response:

Those in Adam who don't reject God's existence (known via the grace and power of His revelation) and retain some associated understanding and sense of judgment have the inner battle Paul spoke of. The [imperfectly] moral in need of Christ.

Interesting how He provides the instruction and the means to be victorious but kept us in this body and kosmos to continue the battle.

 

[Rufus]

PaulThomson said:
By "those whom You have given Me" Jesus may have been referring only to the twelve, or those who had so far believed in Him, not also all the people who would believe in Him in the future. In fact, because Jesus later prays also for those who will believe in Him through those the Father had already given Him, we know that at this time not all had been yet given to Jesus.

Jhn 17:20 Neither pray I for these alone (i.e. those you have given me out of the world), but for them also which shall believe on me through their word ( a distinct group other than those you have given me out of the world).

Perhaps Jesus would have to purchase all with His blood, before the Father was to give them all to Him.



When I use the phrases "May have been referring" and "perhaps", I am obviously not "declaring my opinion as if that's what the text plainly says".

I am simply pointing out that what you are declaring as your opinion on the text is not something that the text clearly says.

All the elect were given to Jesus in eternity before the beginning of time (2Tim 1:9; Tit 1:2). This last passage says that the hope of eternal life was promised before the beginning of time! But promised to whom!? None of us were around before the beginning of time! So, to whom was the promise made? It could only be the Eternal Son of God who is Federal Head of God's people. This is why the New Covenant is called the "eternal" covenant!

Also, if anyone interprets Jn 17:2 in such a narrow sense as to limit the number given to Jesus as being at most only first century disciples (perhaps up to the 500 to whom Christ appeared after his resurrection), then that is the complete number that was saved in this world, for the text clearly that the Son will give eternal life to all the Father has given to Him.

Furthermore, your creative, biased interpretation arbitrarily omits the Second Sheepfold spoken of in v.20. Why would Jesus even mention those if they, too, weren't given to Him!? Jesus always had "the other sheep" in mind (see Jn 10 the Good Shepherd Discourse). They weren't just a mere afterthought, most especially because the Father covenanted with the Son in eternity to make him the Lord and Savior of the Gentile nations (thus fulfilling God's promise to Abraham)-- to make Him the Light of all the nations (the world), cf. Isa 46). Paul very likely had this OT passage, and/or other very similar ones in mind, when he wrote about the eternal life that was promised in Tit 1:2.

And you also conveniently forget that NO ONE CAN COME to the Son unless the Father draws them (Jn 6), which means no sinner was ever saved apart from the effectual saving grace of the Father. The only people who truly seek Christ are those the Father effectually draws to Him.

 

[Rufus]

Repetitive. I understand your position.

Repetition in response:

Those in Adam who don't reject God's existence (known via the grace and power of His revelation) and retain some associated understanding and sense of judgment have the inner battle Paul spoke of. The [imperfectly] moral in need of Christ.

Interesting how He provides the instruction and the means to be victorious but kept us in this body and kosmos to continue the battle.

No unregenerate sinner understands God's spiritual truth apart from God's effectual grace (Rom 3:11), since they are unspiritual. And the world is filled with RELIGIOUS people who "don't reject God's existence", yet categorically reject his Gospel. Hell will literally be loaded with "believers in God" who tried to enter the kingdom or win His favor through their own means.

Matt 7:14
14 For the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are few .
ESV

 

[Rufus]

Not agreeing with your interpretation of scripture is not "conveniently forgetting" your opinion on what scripture says. It is not agreeing with what looks like nonsense coming from your keyboard.

Well, Jesus in Jn 10 didn't teach that that sheep and goats alike can hear him, know him and follow him. ONLY HIS sheep (the elect) can hear his inward call

 

[studier]

No unregenerate sinner understands God's spiritual truth apart from God's effectual grace (Rom 3:11), since they are unspiritual

By God's grace, every human being knows God exists. Man left to his own, apply the string of pearls in Rom3. But God has not left man to his own - see Rom1-2.

And the world is filled with RELIGIOUS people who "don't reject God's existence", yet categorically reject his Gospel.

True. But it also contains [imperfectly] moral people who have not rejected God's revelation of His existence and judgment who at some point, accept His revelation of His righteousness and His Son.

The power of God's revelation.

 

[Rufus]

By God's grace, every human being knows God exists. Man left to his own, apply the string of pearls in Rom3. But God has not left man to his own - see Rom1-2.



True. But it also contains [imperfectly] moral people who have not rejected God's revelation of His existence and judgment who at some point, accept His revelation of His righteousness and His Son.

The power of God's revelation.

There's no such animal in scripture as "[imperfectly] moral people". There are only two biblical categories of people in the world: The righteous (those perfectly moral in Christ) and the unrighteous who totally miss the [moral] mark, since they are outside of Christ.

And for your info, the Gospel that is only revealed in Special Revelation is not revealed through Natural Revelation in the Sun, Moon, Stars, Constellations or other sundry celestial bodies. If the Message of Life has been revealed in Natural Revelation, there would be no need for the Great Commission.

 

[rogerg]

Well, Jesus in Jn 10 didn't teach that that sheep and goats alike can hear him, know him and follow him. ONLY HIS sheep (the elect) can hear his inward call

Good point, Rufus, and John 8:43, 47, 1 Co 2:14, confirms that:

[Jhn 8:43, 47 KJV]
43 Why do ye not understand my speech? [even] because ye cannot hear my word. ...
47 He that is of God heareth God's words: ye therefore hear [them] not, because ye are not of God.

[1Co 2:14 KJV]
14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know [them], because they are spiritually discerned.

 

[Magenta]

By God's grace, every human being knows God exists.

The heavens declare God's glory.

Quite a different issue than believing the gospel.

Only by the Holy Spirit of God can one say that Jesus Christ is Lord.

I am not speaking of mimicry, either. Confessing and believing in one's heart are the requirement.

Believing in one's heart... not the wicked heart of the natural man. Many believe that evil thing can produce good fruit.

Psalm 19 verse 1 ~ The heavens declare the glory of God the skies proclaim the work of His hands.

 

[Rufus]

Good point, Rufus, and John 8:43, 47, 1 Co 2:14, confirms that:

[Jhn 8:43, 47 KJV]
43 Why do ye not understand my speech? [even] because ye cannot hear my word. ...
47 He that is of God heareth God's words: ye therefore hear [them] not, because ye are not of God.

[1Co 2:14 KJV]
14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know [them], because they are spiritually discerned.

"....because ye are NOT of God"! Or as the NIV translates the verse:

John 8:47
47 He who belongs to God hears what God says. The reason you do not hear is that you do not belong to God."
NIV

This verse stands in sharp relief to the Good Shepherd Discourse since Jesus referred to the sheep as MY sheep. And all His sheep belong to Him!

Of course, the reason the Pharisees, whom Jesus was addressing in Jn 8, did not belong to God is because they belonged to the devil (v.44).

 

[PaulThomson]

Well, Jesus in Jn 10 didn't teach that that sheep and goats alike can hear him, know him and follow him. ONLY HIS sheep (the elect) can hear his inward call

"Inward call"? LOL.