Understanding God’s election

[Rufus]

So you do not believe in God's eternal decree of all things that happen? Or are you suggesting that God decreed what He did not intend to happen?

I believe that what God did decree in the beginning, as well as what he intended, will most certainly come to past. What are several thousand years to an eternal God who transcends all time?

 

[Rufus]

.... through and through.

The only thing that is fatally "SICK" is the fallen world -- a world that CANNOT heal itself! Nor can it raise itself from the dead. Do you find any blind people in the NT healing themselves? Or the deaf who cannot hear, healing themselves? Or dead people coming back to life under their own power? Yet...when it comes to the spiritual real God-hating sinners who are in bondage to the world, the flesh and the devil can do all these things with their mighty will, which I suppose must be insulated against the devastating affects of sin.

 

[Kroogz]

If you knew anything about the bible at all,

Yeah. Pretty much sums up your witness for Christ and His word.

Antagonistic to HIS Doctrine. Antagonistic to His GOOD NEWS to the world........ ALL people. All people everywhere. All people of all time.

Now carry on to Prove your IQ and hinder HIS message to ALL people.....

 

[studier]

Jhn 5:38
And ye have not his word abiding in you: for/because (hoti) whom he hath sent, him ye believe not.
Jhn 5:39
Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.
Jhn 5:40
And ye will not come to me, so that/with the intention that (hina) ye might have life.
Jhn 5:44
How can ye believe, which receive honour one of another, and seek not the honour that cometh from God only?

I read hoti there as because, either causal, giving the reason why they have not God's word abiding in them v. 38 (they have not done what Jesus refers to later as believing Moses words 5:47; "having heard and LEARNED from God" 6:45, which if they had done, they would be coming to Him for the right reasons, to hear and learn from Jesus, whom Moses said they had to hear and learn from (Deut. 18:15); or diagnostic, giving the reason why Jesus can tell that they have not God's word abiding in them. It's obvious to Me that you do not have God's word abiding in you, because you don't believe in the one whom, through Moses and the other prophets, He promised to send.

I don't think 5:40 is saying they will not come to Jesus (full stop). It says they will not come to Jesus for the right reason, so that they might have life by receiving Him and His message. They are coming to him, but for wrong reasons.

What you mention is diagnostic is in the vein I was wondering if you'd hit. More in the next post. I'll flag you.

 

[Rufus]

Yesterday, Mr. Kroogz made this reply to a question I asked about why any Christian should pray to God for the salvation of any soul: In his answer in part was this:

Any believer with any doctrine knows we cannot pray to God to save someone. We pray for God to guide us to be open and willing to say things that will open eyes and ears to His Gospel.

Two items are noteworthy in the above statement: First, we "cannot" pray to God directly to save anyone. Apparently, that's taboo in Kroogz's world. Secondly, prayers concerning the salvation of souls must be made for those who are preaching or teaching the gospel because if God is "guiding" the evangelizing efforts, the recipients of the gospel message will have open eyes and ears to the Gospel through the gospel message. So, Kroogz totally leaves out the work and ministry of the Holy Spirit directly on the particular soul(s) hearing the gospel. All the hearers have to do, according to Kroogz, is hear or read the external call of the Gospel, and they're good to go. But this is extremism at its worst! For scripture teaches that people must hear the Word and be acted upon directly by the Holy Spirit. There must be the external call and internal call in every case! People are born again by the living Word of God and by the Spirit. And this makes perfectly good sense and preserves the integrity of the "new birth" metaphor, since the spiritual new birth mirrors a person's physical birth; for this latter birth also takes two different entities to [pro]create life.

Last night, I provided biblical proof that what he wrote above is completely false. But I only had time to cite several NT passages, so I'd like to round that out by now appealing to a few OT texts, wherein OT saints pray to God for salvation, for redemption, for deliverance, for restoration, for revival, etc. It appears the central OT passage could be the entire 80th Psalm in which the Psalmist prays for Israel to be saved.

Then we have Ps 85:4-7 wherein the psalmist prays to God for spiritual restoration and salvation.

In Ps 79:9, the psalmist prays for deliverance and forgiveness of sins.

In Ezek 34:11-16 God, speaking through the prophet, likens himself to a Shepherd who will be directly involved with his covenant people in bringing them back to the Land and nurturing and caring for them. Bringing the people back to their promised land would be critically important to their spiritual restoration since the temple would also be rebuilt eventually.

In the great penitential psalm of David (51), the king prayed for God to directly do a work in his heart. David prayed for a pure heart, a steadfast spirit and a willing spirit (vv. 10-12). David, evidently, believed in the efficacious grace of God!

So, all you smart alec FWs, I ask again: Since FWT categorically rejects the efficacious nature of God's work in sinners' mind, hearts and souls, and God does not directly cause anyone to believe the gospel and repent of their sins, then why would any FWer logically pray to God for the salvation of any soul since God is not the determining factor in anyone's salvation?

PT, Studier, anyone? Or do all you Freewillers behave consistently with your misguided theology and like Kroogz believe no one can really pray to God to directly save any particuar person's soul? Maybe my question has revealed a side to FWT adovocates that has largely been unknown...

 

[PaulThomson]

I believe that what God did decree in the beginning, as well as what he intended, will most certainly come to past. What are several thousand years to an eternal God who transcends all time?

Do you believe that what God decreed in the beginning and what God intended in the beginningare two different things? He did not intend what He decreed?

 

[studier]

@PaulThomson

John5:38 “hoti”

If we attach this to Moses – the legal witness/testimony of Scripture, it can work, but I see 5:38 referring to the legal witness/testimony of the Father 5:37 as I outlined it and as it is grammatically connected.

If we remain with 5:38 referring to the legal witness/testimony of the Father (note I’m inserting “[in]” as a potential interpretation of the grammar):

• The Father who sent Jesus has testified (perfect tense) concerning Jesus 5:37
  • They have not heard (perfect) at any time His voice 5:37
  • They have not seen (perfect) at any time His appearance 5:37
  • And they do not have His word (logos) remaining/abiding/residing (present) in them
    • hoti that [man] whom He sent, [in] this [man] they do not believe (present)
• So, the Father testified at some point in the past (see at minimum John1 re: the legal testimony of John the Baptist) & they did not hear Him nor see His form & they do not have the Father’s word/testimony residing in them 5:37
  • 5:38 hoti:
    • 4. marker of causality (BDAG) (see #c below re: explanatory clauses).
      • I don’t think in the strict sense of causality “because” works here. The cause of their not having God’s word/testimony is that they have not heard God’s voice nor seen God’s form.
    • 5.c. consecutive ὅτι so that (Pel.-Leg. p. 20 τί διδοῖς τοῖς ἀμνοῖς σου ὅτι ζωὴν αἰώνιον ἔχουσιν;=what do you give your sheep so that they have eternal life (BDAG)
      • The Father has testified concerning Jesus
        • They have not heard God’s voice not seen God’s form
          • They do not God’s word/testimony residing in them
            • Result they do not believe [in] Jesus whom God sent
    • 2. marker of explanatory clauses, that (BDAG) (My Note: Epexegetrical):
      • They do not have His word (logos) abiding in them meaning they do not believe [in] Jesus
        • God testified > they did not see nor hear God > God’s word/testimony is not in them = they do not believe in Jesus
      • In a way, this makes sense to me:
        • Though there could be an interesting connection between logos and Jesus, and both Jesus and John use such words connections at times, I think logos is more in the form of ‘message’ - in this case legal testimony.
        • Though I don’t see these two clauses as strictly epexegetical, the sense of explanatory could make some sense. I’ve never liked “that” as a translation as it’s just too vague IMO. But the two clauses could be seen to explain one another.
          • God’s word/testimony is not in them explains why they don’t believe [in] Jesus.
          • They don’t believe [in] Jesus explains that God’s word/testimony about Jesus is not in them.
          • There’s another sense of “because” that could be nuanced as explanatory but then it would not fall under “causal”.

The lack of belief of these Judeans in Jerusalem according to these few verses relates to their not seeing God’s form and not hearing God’s voice testify concerning Jesus.

5:37-38 explain more precisely (at least one reason) why they don’t believe (the Father's legal testimony)

John5:41-47 explains why they cannot – are not able to – believe (the Scripture's legal testimony).

 

[Rufus]

Yeah. Pretty much sums up your witness for Christ and His word.

Antagonistic to HIS Doctrine. Antagonistic to His GOOD NEWS to the world........ ALL people. All people everywhere. All people of all time.

Now carry on to Prove your IQ and hinder HIS message to ALL people.....

How can I be antagonistic "to HIS doctrine" when I used his Word to prove you to be a liar, ignorant of scripture and hostile to the one and only true Gospel?

 

[Rufus]

Do you believe that what God decreed in the beginning and what God intended in the beginningare two different things? He did not intend what He decreed?

He did not intend that his intentions would be realized through the First Adam but rather through the Last Adam.

 

[PaulThomson]

He did not intend that his intentions would be realized through the First Adam but rather through the Last Adam.

So, you believe He both intended Adam to sin and decreed he would do so.

 

[Rufus]

Now, I have a question that is open for one and all. The question is this: Why did God decree the Fall of mankind?

 

[Rufus]

So, you believe He both intended Adam to sin and decreed he would do so.

He intended for man to trust him, love him, serve him, worship and commune with him on his holy mountain (his temple) in Eden, which will all come to past on the last day with the Last Adam. The Last Adam is the true Adam, just as Christ is the True Israel.