Understanding God’s election

[PaulThomson]

There's no text in scripture that teaches that man comes into this world in a state of innocence or moral/spiritual neutrality. That's your personal piece of fiction.

Psa 106:38
And shed innocent blood, even the blood of their sons and of their daughters, whom they sacrificed unto the idols of Canaan: and the land was polluted with blood.

Psa 58:3
The wicked turn aside (ZoR-U: qal perfect) since the womb (Me-RaCheM) they went astray (Tha'-U: qal perfect) as soon since the belly (Mi-BeTeN), speaking lies.

 

[PaulThomson]

Rufus said:
There's no text in scripture that teaches that man comes into this world in a state of innocence or moral/spiritual neutrality. That's your personal piece of fiction.

Paul Thomson:
The last verse was carelessly emended. I left "as soon" in the verse. There is no "as soon as" in the Hebrew.

Psa 106:38
And shed innocent blood, even the blood of their sons and of their daughters, whom they sacrificed unto the idols of Canaan: and the land was polluted with blood.

Psa 58:3
The wicked turn/turned aside (ZoR-U: qal perfect) since the womb (Me-RaCheM; not "in the womb" (Be-ReCheM) they go/went astray (Tha'-U: qal perfect) since the belly (Mi-BeTeN; not in the belly Bi-BeTeN), speaking lies.

Scripture makes no claim that we are born sinful, but says we depart from what we were in the womb to turn aside and go astray and become sinners.

 

[Rufus]

Mat 7:18
A good tree (agathon dendron) is not able (ou dunatai: present tense) to bring keep on bringing forth (poiein: present infinitive, has a continuous present sense) evil fruit (ponErous karpous), neither (oude) [is able] a corrupt tree (sapron dendron) to keep on bringing forth (poiein: present infinitive, has a continuous present sense) good fruit (kalous karpous).

the verse clearly does not say that a good tree is only able to be bringing forth good fruit, nor that the evil tree is only able to be bringing forth evil fruit. The point Jesus is making is that good trees produce mostly good fruit, and the evil trees produce mostly evil fruit.

So anyone can do good sometimes. Even the pharisees could give good gifts sometimes, to people like their own children.

Yes, "the Pharisees" could give "good" gifts even though there was no good thing in their flesh. This is because when they gave those "good gifts", their motive was not to glorify God, which is man's chief end. Moreover, have you never read:

Luke 13:6-9
6 Then he told this parable: "A man had a fig tree, planted in his vineyard, and he went to look for fruit on it, but did not find any. 7 So he said to the man who took care of the vineyard, 'For three years now I've been coming to look for fruit on this fig tree and haven't found any. Cut it down! Why should it use up the soil?'

8 "'Sir,' the man replied, 'leave it alone for one more year, and I'll dig around it and fertilize it. 9 If it bears fruit next year, fine! If not, then cut it down.'" ?
NIV

 

[Rufus]

Rufus said:
There's no text in scripture that teaches that man comes into this world in a state of innocence or moral/spiritual neutrality. That's your personal piece of fiction.

Paul Thomson:
The last verse was carelessly emended. I left "as soon" in the verse. There is no "as soon as" in the Hebrew.

Psa 106:38
And shed innocent blood, even the blood of their sons and of their daughters, whom they sacrificed unto the idols of Canaan: and the land was polluted with blood.

Psa 58:3
The wicked turn/turned aside (ZoR-U: qal perfect) since the womb (Me-RaCheM; not "in the womb" (Be-ReCheM) they go/went astray (Tha'-U: qal perfect) since the belly (Mi-BeTeN; not in the belly Bi-BeTeN), speaking lies.

Scripture makes no claim that we are born sinful, but says we depart from what we were in the womb to turn aside and go astray and become sinners.

The sons and daughters in Ps 106 are "innocent" only in the sense that they didn't have true experiential knowledge of good and evil. "Innocent" doesn't mean they didn't have a sin nature or that they didn't sin -- only that they were too young to understand what good and evil is.

And of course, the wicked don't sin when in the womb, they sin after they exit the womb, as all of us did. Since man cannot not sin, then this can only mean man is a sinner by nature. Of course, the sin nature itself is inherited at conception, but their sin is never manifested to the world until after they are born.

Ps 51:5
5 Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity,
and in sin did my mother conceive me.
ESV

And, no, David is not teaching that his mother was a slut and bore him out of wedlock, or bore him by committing adultery, which is the standard FWT retort. And besides, it was God who made David to trust in Him! David's faith originated from God!

Ps 22:9-10
9 Yet you brought me out of the womb;
you made me trust in you
even at my mother's breast.
10 From birth I was cast upon you;
from my mother's womb you have been my God.
NIV

So...not only was Moses a Calvinist, but so was David. Kool, huh? I think so, even though you very likely read 9b as saying, "you FORCED me trust in you..." You coerced me to believe in you. You didn't give me an opportunity to exercise my own "freewill", but subverted it instead.

 

[Rufus]

Without regard to the source of its origin, I think we would all agree that faith brought forth good fruit in Abel, and specifically faith in Christ since Abel likely heard Adam and Eve's account of God's word even if he, Abel, didn't hear from God Himself. But scripture clearly lets us know that Cain, himself, did hear directly from God, i.e. "if you do well...but if not, sin crouches...and its desire is for you..." but his, Cain's, deeds were fleshly, led by his jealousy or hatred or whatever physical emotion. Cain's work was not at all compelled by faith (which he would've done well to do) faith is spiritual in nature because one goes by that which one does not see when one walks by faith.
Why would waste time explaining to Cain, "IF you do well...then" if God was fully aware that Cain could not do well even if he'd wanted, i.e. willed, to? Cain paid homage to his own emotional desire to sin rather than to God's, and so sin owned him.

How did Abel's flesh (sin nature) produce this faith; for those controlled by the flesh cannot please God (Rom 8:8)?

Re your question I bolded: Ask yourself why God would give His Holy Law to Israel and require them to keep his covenant of law perfectly, even though He knew perfectly well they would never be able to do what He commanded?

 

[wwjdmichael101]

"He chose us in him before the creation of the world" is understood in the context of God's foreknowledge. I believe that God, in His omniscience, knew who would choose to accept or reject His offer of salvation before the world was created. This foreknowledge doesn't negate human free will but rather acknowledges it.

 

[PaulThomson]

The sons and daughters in Ps 106 are "innocent" only in the sense that they didn't have true experiential knowledge of good and evil. "Innocent" doesn't mean they didn't have a sin nature or that they didn't sin -- only that they were too young to understand what good and evil is.

And of course, the wicked don't sin when in the womb, they sin after they exit the womb, as all of us did. Since man cannot not sin, then this can only mean man is a sinner by nature. Of course, the sin nature itself is inherited at conception, but their sin is never manifested to the world until after they are born.

Ps 51:5
5 Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity,
and in sin did my mother conceive me.
ESV

And, no, David is not teaching that his mother was a slut and bore him out of wedlock, or bore him by committing adultery, which is the standard FWT retort. And besides, it was God who made David to trust in Him! David's faith originated from God!

Ps 22:9-10
9 Yet you brought me out of the womb;
you made me trust in you
even at my mother's breast.
10 From birth I was cast upon you;
from my mother's womb you have been my God.
NIV

So...not only was Moses a Calvinist, but so was David. Kool, huh? I think so, even though you very likely read 9b as saying, "you FORCED me trust in you..." You coerced me to believe in you. You didn't give me an opportunity to exercise my own "freewill", but subverted it instead.

Calvinists have spent centuries devising post hoc rationalisations for why the bible does not mean what it says according to common parlance. I was brought forth in a hospital and conceived in a bedroom. That does not mean I have had a bedroom and a hospital in me since I was conceived and born respectively.

A fish may be conceived in a kelp bed and hatch in the open sea, but that does not mean the fish has had a kelp bed and the open sea inside of it since it was conceived and hatched respectively. Any reasonable person can see from this that your proof text just does not affirm what you so confidently assume it does because your Calvinist coaches confidently programmed you to believe it does.

Have you ever made someone trust you? Did you do that by monergistically imparting your own trust in yourself into the other person? Or did you do and say things that showed your integrity to the other person so that you persuaded them to trust you. Words and phrases so often have a special uncommon meaning when applied to God in Calvinism in order to make scripture say what the calvinist wants it to say to support his/her LOUPI tenets.

 

[PaulThomson]

Yes, "the Pharisees" could give "good" gifts even though there was no good thing in their flesh. This is because when they gave those "good gifts", their motive was not to glorify God, which is man's chief end. Moreover, have you never read:

Luke 13:6-9
6 Then he told this parable: "A man had a fig tree, planted in his vineyard, and he went to look for fruit on it, but did not find any. 7 So he said to the man who took care of the vineyard, 'For three years now I've been coming to look for fruit on this fig tree and haven't found any. Cut it down! Why should it use up the soil?'

8 "'Sir,' the man replied, 'leave it alone for one more year, and I'll dig around it and fertilize it. 9 If it bears fruit next year, fine! If not, then cut it down.'" ?
NIV

You have fallen into the hasty generalisation fallacy again, friend.

This is one particular tree which the archardist is asserting has not been producing any good fruit for three years. Can we reasonably assume that the orchardist is speaking literally and means absolutely no good fruit for three the last three years, or is he using hyperbole to express his frustration and there was a smattering of edible fruit among mostly diseased fruit? Can we reasonably assume the tree is only three years old, so has never produces any good fruit during its lifetime? Can we assume the tree is a lot older than three years, and has never had a year where most of the fruit was good. Is the parable about Jesus' tree years of ministry to Israel, and about Judaism not producing any faith during those three years (literally), or producing very little faith in those three years (hyperbolically).
Can we reasonably assume that because this one tree has failed to produce sufficient good fruit to justify it being kept alive, therefore no trees in the orchard have ever produced any good fruit?

Your interpretation of the parable makes a lot of rash assumptions and generalisations in order to make it fit the O of the Calvinist LOUPI doctrines, i.e.
Limited atonement
Omnifaceted imperfection.
Unconditional election
Perseverance of the saints
Irresistible grace.

 

[PaulThomson]

How did Abel's flesh (sin nature) produce this faith; for those controlled by the flesh cannot please God (Rom 8:8)?

Re your question I bolded: Ask yourself why God would give His Holy Law to Israel and require them to keep his covenant of law perfectly, even though He knew perfectly well they would never be able to do what He commanded?

Original sin is a Fifth Century Augustinian/Roman Catholic invention. Those who do not see Original sin in scripture will not be persuaded by appeals to Original sin in order to bolster other claims about what scripture teaches. Abel was not always being controlled by His flesh. Sometimes Abel was looking at life from the perspective of His spirit and acting according to that perspective, which meant He was sometimes able to act with a faith that pleased God.

 

[PaulThomson]

Your original observation re: J6:35 was a good one IMO. I'd ask you to rethink this one. Look at all the wording in 6:35. Here's why:

► c. Emphatic Negation Subjunctive

1) Definition

Emphatic negation is indicated by οὐ μή plus the aorist subjunctive or, less frequently, οὐ μή plus the future indicative (e.g., Matt 26:35; Mark 13:31; John 4:14; 6:35). This is the strongest way to negate something in Greek.

One might think that the negative with the subjunctive could not be as strong as the negative with the indicative. However, while οὐ + the indicative denies a certainty, οὐ μή + the subjunctive denies a potentiality. The negative is not weaker; rather, the affirmation that is being negatived is less firm with the subjunctive. οὐ μή rules out even the idea as being a possibility: “ου μή is the most decisive way of negativing someth. in the future.”58

Emphatic negation is found primarily in the reported sayings of Jesus (both in the Gospels and in the Apocalypse); secondarily, in quotations from the LXX. Outside of these two sources it occurs only rarely. As well, a soteriological theme is frequently found in such statements, especially in John: what is negatived is the possibility of the loss of salvation.

2) Illustrations

Matt 24:35
οἱ λόγοι μου οὐ μὴ παρέλθωσιν59

My words will not at all pass away.

John 10:28
δίδωμι αὐτοῖς ζωὴν αἰώνιον καὶ οὐ μὴ ἀπόλωνται εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα

I give them eternal life, and they will not at all perish.

John 11:26
πᾶς ὁ ζῶν καὶ πιστεύων εἰς ἐμὲ οὐ μὴ ἀποθάνῃ

Everyone who lives and believes in me will never die.

Rom 4:8
μακάριος ἀνὴρ οὗ οὐ μὴ λογίσηται κύριος ἁμαρτίαν

Blessed is the man whose sin the Lord will not at all count.

Heb 13:5
οὐ μη´ σε ἀνῶ οὐδ᾽ οὐ μη´ σε ἐγκαταλίπω60

I will not at all fail you nor will I ever leave you.

Cf. also Matt 5:18, 20; 13:14; Mark 9:1, 41; 13:2; Luke 6:37; 18:7; 21:18; John 6:37; 8:12, 51; 20:25; Acts 13:41; Gal 5:16; 1 Thess 5:3; Heb 8:12; 1 Pet 2:6; Rev 2:11; 3:5, 12; 21:27.

From Greek Beyond the Basics by Daniel Wallace

I should respond to this. Yes, I concede your point, having looked at the examples of ou me + the aorist subjunctive. That construction does express "it's not possible in any way."

 

[Mem]

How did Abel's flesh (sin nature) produce this faith; for those controlled by the flesh cannot please God (Rom 8:8)?

Re your question I bolded: Ask yourself why God would give His Holy Law to Israel and require them to keep his covenant of law perfectly, even though He knew perfectly well they would never be able to do what He commanded?

Because Israel said they couldn't approach God for fear, but they told Moses, "Whatever God says, we will do..." So, effectively, they were asking for a way to approach God other than by trusting in His Grace.