Understanding God’s election

[Magenta]

Dear Magenta , I love your inserts ? Is that what they r called ? I enjoy them very much but I have to tell u that I find them very hard to read , because of the fonts and the colours , maybe it's just my phone , has anyone else mentioned this to u , it makes me a bit sad that I can't always read them .

Hello Suze, thank you for your feed back, as I do appreciate it, and I know that all the fonts I have to choose from (which is literally hundreds and hundreds) are not all appropriate, as some are too "scrolly," and so I do take care when choosing them, and also take steps to further remove them from the background so they stand out more and are more legible. I know that things do look different on phones, not just colour and contrast, but the images (I call them Scripture panels, or just panels for short) are smaller, which would then make the text harder to read also. Have you tried zooming in on the panel to make the font larger? When I am on my phone, if I tap an image like that, it opens to display just the image, and I can zoom in from there. I am also working on adding all the text in my Scripture panels to the posts they get attached to, though I put that text in white font so it would not be seen unless you highlighted it (I am not sure how you would do that on a phone) or quoted the message and turned/toggled off the BB code with the little cog that is at the extreme right hand side of all the icons above the message box. That allows you to see all the code in any post and then does display hidden text as well.

The text for that panel is:

Man is deceitful (Jeremiah 17:9), full of evil (Mark 7:21-23), loves darkness rather than
light (John 3:19), cannot come to God on his own (John 6:44), does not seek for God
(Romans 3:10-12), is helpless and ungodly (Romans 5:6), nothing good dwells in his flesh
(Romans 7:18), is a slave of sin (Romans 6:20; John 8:34; 2 Timothy 2:26), cannot receive
spiritual things (1 Corinthians 2:14), is dead in his sins (Ephesians 2:1), is by nature a child
of wrath (Ephesians 2:3), is at enmity with God (Ephesians 2:15), hostile to God and cannot
submit to God's law (Romans 8:7). Therefore we rightfully conclude in accordance with the
conditions described of the natural man in Scripture that his inherent inclination is to reject
God. Thanks be to God, Who appoints people to believe (Acts 13:48), chooses who is to be
holy and blameless (Ephesians 1:4), predestines us to adoption (Ephesians 1:5), calls according
to His purpose (2 Timothy 1:9), chooses us for salvation (2 Thessalonians 2:13), leads us to
and grants us repentance (Romans 2:4; 2 Timothy 2:24-25), grants the act of believing
(Philippians 1:29), works faith in the believer (John 6:28-29), causes us to be born again
(1 Peter 1:3), born again not by our will but by His will (John 1:12-13), draws people to Himself
(John 6:44), grants that we come to Jesus (John 6:65), predestines us to salvation (Romans 8:29-
30), and circumcises our heart (Romans 2:29), all according to His purpose (Ephesians 1:11).

Haha now that is a lot of text and a rarity with my panels, but sometimes it is necessary.

 

[Rufus]

Jesus taught free will when he said to repent or seek and when he lamented that Jerusalem was “unwilling”.
Paul assumed free will when he urged belief in Jesus as Messiah and Lord.

You're a broken record! The commands in the bible denote man's spiritual/moral obligation...NOT his ability. According to your line of reasoning, God gave the Law to Moses so that Israel would keep it. Yet, no one ever did perfectly, save for the Second Man.

 

[Rufus]

I'll answer this in a moment, but the issue that I'll remain focused on is that the flesh has a way of thinking that it works to assert. The flesh is not omnipotent.

The flesh is distinct from the inner man, the mind, the will as shown by the words Paul uses in Rom7-8. It asserts its way of thinking against the inner man, the mind, the will. In a man who has not rejected God's revelation of Himself, the battle rages in the inner man because he is able to choose to retain God in his knowledge because God's revelation of Himself and His Law doing its work in men is of God.

There are several reasons proposed and of course debated for the present tense in Rom7:15-25. A few:

• They are historical present tenses that make the past more vivid and brings the narrative to life. Such are also used elsewhere in the NT, and we use them today as we might draw ourselves back to a time and place and explain it as if we're there.
• Within these it's noted that all of these present tenses are speaking only about this life under law wherein this battle in the inner man is waged so these presents are providing a focus on this.
• Paul is speaking in rhetorical language and taking the place of all who live in this experience he has come to understand. One such rhetorical device some propose is called "prosopopeia". Another is the "Literary I".
• Another study I recall speaks of how these presents are at use in legal matters.

The point being, there are several ways this section of Rom7 can be viewed in styles that are and were used in literature. Those continuing to study Paul are seeing more and more how extensively he used rhetorical devices to get his point across to different cultures.

Then Shirley you'll be able to give me a few examples of such that are "used elsewhere in the NT?

Also, are all unregenerate sinners controlled by their sin nature (i.e. flesh)?

 

[GWH]

You're a broken record! The commands in the bible denote man's spiritual/moral obligation...NOT his ability. According to your line of reasoning, God gave the Law to Moses so that Israel would keep it. Yet, no one ever did perfectly, save for the Second Man.

At least the logic is not broken.
Moral obligation obviously connotes moral accountability.

 

[Jimbone]

God places Christians under greater scrutiny and correction regarding their actions than those who face law and legal penalties.
When a Christian acts in an un-Christian like/immoral, manner, God is quick and severe to punish and correct them.
But it does not affect their eternal salvation because they were saved by Christ's righteousness imputed to them, not
by their righteousness

[Pro 3:11,12 KJV]
11 My son, despise not the chastening of the LORD; neither be weary of his correction:
12 For whom the LORD loveth he correcteth; even as a father the son [in whom] he delighteth.

[Pro 22:15 KJV] 15 Foolishness [is] bound in the heart of a child; [but] the rod of correction shall drive it far from him.

Only one ignorant of the Holy Spirit can ask this. I fear there are many here that think they know Jesus and are born again, and they are not. I know what that's like personally and we cannot know these truths until God transforms us and opens our eyes to them. I have to assume those who talk so much about it taking our choice to be saved, or that we have to obey to stay saved, or that we can lose salvation do not KNOW Him. They don't KNOW the power of God so they speak so poorly of it, they have so little regaurd for Him that there's no way they've encountered to REAL power of God yet to make the arguments they do. That's the conclusion I'm leaning to, nothing else makes sense.

 

[Rufus]

At least the logic is not broken.
Moral obligation obviously connotes moral accountability.

Yes, it does. So, what is your point?

And your logic is very broken because it doesn't square with logic of scripture. For example, you cited the passage wherein Jesus laments Jerusalem's rejection of Him because they were unwilling to receive Him and believe in Him. 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.

 

[studier]

Then Shirley you'll be able to give me a few examples of such that are "used elsewhere in the NT?

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.

Also, are all unregenerate sinners controlled by their sin nature (i.e. flesh)?

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.

 

[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

 

[studier]

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

The discussion re: the historic present is why I gave you a list of other views. As you can see, there are different takes on that section of Romans. I see it in line with Wallace and others who for different reasons see it as rhetorical and Paul speaking about the inner battle of anyone under law (or in law including Gentiles) that has not rejected God per Rom1 and beyond that Jews who were living for Him. Even if Paul is personalizing it, he was/is not alone.

That linked discussion looks familiar and I'm pretty certain I've seen it. Thanks.

The newer research on Paul is coming up with a lot of discussion about his fairly extensive use of rhetoric for various reasons. Here's a link to NT Wright's NT translation. Note how he titles that section "Looking back on life under the law" so he's looking at it in some type of historic sense or another. In the next heading he seems to be picking up something like the "Literary I" or at least identifying and highlighting the "I" concept.

Romans 7 NTFE - Dying to the law - Surely you know, my - Bible Gateway

 

[Magenta]

After all, those OF the world can only live according to the flesh.

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

 

[Magenta]

"Free will" in the Bible? ~ Freedom is something believers are called to (Galatians 5 verse 13). We need Jesus to “set us free” (Galatians 5 verse 1). If Jesus has not freed us from the bondage of sin, then we are still slaves to sin (Romans 6 verses 6-7). Freedom is found in the presence of the Spirit (2 Corinthians 3 verse 17). Only Jesus can give us true freedom (John 8 verse 36). Only through His lovingkindness can we truly make choices unfettered by a nature that is inherently hostile toward God.

 

[PaulThomson]

And finally, if God loves every sinner on this planet w/o exception, how come God didn't give every sinner to Christ? And how come Christ didn't pray for all sinners w/o exception in John 17? And how come Jesus didn't show himself to the entire world after he rose from the dead?

God did give every sinner w/o exception to Christ. And Jesus did pay for all sinners w/o exception. Jesus is showing Himself to the entire world. The church is His physical body and is supposed to be expressing His spirit in visible ways. Just as Jesus said, if you have seen Me you have seen the Father, the genuine Christian walking in the Spirit can say, "If you have seen Me, you have seen Jesus."

 

[DavidLamb]

God did give every sinner w/o exception to Christ. And Jesus did pay for all sinners w/o exception. Jesus is showing Himself to the entire world. The church is His physical body and is supposed to be expressing His spirit in visible ways. Just as Jesus said, if you have seen Me you have seen the Father, the genuine Christian walking in the Spirit can say, "If you have seen Me, you have seen Jesus."

So why do we read in the high priestly prayer of Jesus:

“"I pray for them. I do not pray for the world but for those whom You have given Me, for they are Yours.” (Joh 17:9 NKJV)

 

[PaulThomson]

So why do we read in the high priestly prayer of Jesus:

“"I pray for them. I do not pray for the world but for those whom You have given Me, for they are Yours.” (Joh 17:9 NKJV)

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.

 

[DavidLamb]

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.

Against that idea, we have Jesus saying to some of His Jewish hearers:

“"But you do not believe, because you are not of My sheep, as I said to you.” (Joh 10:26 NKJV)

He didn't say they could become His sheep in the future by believing, but that they did not believe because they were not of His sheep.

 

[PaulThomson]

Against that idea, we have Jesus saying to some of His Jewish hearers:

“"But you do not believe, because you are not of My sheep, as I said to you.” (Joh 10:26 NKJV)

He didn't say they could become His sheep in the future by believing, but that they did not believe because they were not of His sheep.

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."

 

[Jimbone]

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.

This is you adding your interpretation to scripture, that's not what it says. The whole "It could mean this, and it may mean that" is just you adding what you think it is to the text, that's not what it plainly says. You have to mold what it says to fit your ideas by adding extra words to scripture. I don't think you're doing it maliciously or with any kind of deceptive intent, but regardless that's what you're doing here. I also think we all do this to an existent, but you are declaring your opinion as if that's what the text plainly says when it is not.

 

[DavidLamb]

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."

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."

 

[GWH]

Yes, it does. So, what is your point?

And your logic is very broken because it doesn't square with logic of scripture. For example, you cited the passage wherein Jesus laments Jerusalem's rejection of Him because they were unwilling to receive Him and believe in Him. 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.

My point is just what you said "yes" to.
And it squares with the logic of love, which is quite scriptural,
whereas TULIP does not.

 

[PaulThomson]

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.

This is you adding your interpretation to scripture, that's not what it says. The whole "It could mean this, and it may mean that" is just you adding what you think it is to the text, that's not what it plainly says. You have to mold what it says to fit your ideas by adding extra words to scripture. I don't think you're doing it maliciously or with any kind of deceptive intent, but regardless that's what you're doing here. I also think we all do this to an existent, but you are declaring your opinion as if that's what the text plainly says when it is not.

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.