Understanding God’s election

[brightfame52]

In John 6 "coming to Jesus" is coming to the place where Jesus is geographically. It's used the same way we all use it when we talk about someone coming to someone else. Why invent a metaphor when one is not needed to understand the text of John 6?

False

 

[Rufus]

That pretty much would destroy Psalm 23.

And a slew of other scriptures, as well, such as 2Tim 3:16; Rom 15:4; 1Cor 10:11, etc. And if all the scriptures written in the Old Covenant era are still useful, then how much more those written in the New Covenant era? When people deny the relevancy of passages to the saints in this NC era, they are really saying those scriptures have no spiritual and practical applications for us today. And this is tantamount to subtracting from God's Word which we're commanded not to do!

 

[Rufus]

False

According to PT's fallacious reasoning, then, the gospel invitation in Rev 22:17 as useless and misleading. The call is to "come"; yet Jesus is in Heaven in his glorified body so how can anyone living obey the command and go to Jesus in heaven? Or go where the water of life is, which is also in heaven and will be on restored earth.

In fact, if we take PT's "logic" to its end, the entire Book of Revelation is irrelevant to the NC Church today since everything written in the book was written to seven literal first century churches (22:16). PT would have to argue, to be consistent with himself, that NOT a thing written in Revelation applies to anyone except to the seven churches Jesus himself addressed in chapters 2 and 3.

 

[Rufus]

It is said by the "great shall be the peace of thy children". Their peace shall be great because they learned which gives them understanding, and therefore, their peace will be great. It is one continuous thought within the verse.

[Isa 54:13 KJV] 13 And all thy children [shall be] taught of the LORD; and great [shall be] the peace of thy children.

Yeah...but the Lord wasn't that great a teacher. Just because he "taught" doesn't necessarily mean anyone learned anything from him. And just because disciples on the road to Emmaus had burning hearts after Jesus opened up the scriptures to them doesn't mean they learned anything (Lk 24:25-32). After all, the passage doesn't say that they actually learned anything.

 

[brightfame52]

According to PT's fallacious reasoning, then, the gospel invitation in Rev 22:17 as useless and misleading. The call is to "come"; yet Jesus is in Heaven in his glorified body so how can anyone living obey the command and go to Jesus in heaven? Or go where the water of life is, which is also in heaven and will be on restored earth.

In fact, if we take PT's "logic" to its end, the entire Book of Revelation is irrelevant to the NC Church today since everything written in the book was written to seven literal first century churches (22:16). PT would have to argue, to be consistent with himself, that NOT a thing written in Revelation applies to anyone except to the seven churches Jesus himself addressed in chapters 2 and 3.

Rev 22:17 is for the regenerated, spiritually alive elect

 

[rogerg]

Yeah...but the Lord wasn't that great a teacher. Just because he "taught" doesn't necessarily mean anyone learned anything from him. And just because disciples on the road to Emmaus had burning hearts after Jesus opened up the scriptures to them doesn't mean they learned anything (Lk 24:25-32). After all, the passage doesn't say that they actually learned anything.

I know, after all, He's not a PhD.

 

[brightfame52]

Yeah...but the Lord wasn't that great a teacher. Just because he "taught" doesn't necessarily mean anyone learned anything from him. And just because disciples on the road to Emmaus had burning hearts after Jesus opened up the scriptures to them doesn't mean they learned anything (Lk 24:25-32). After all, the passage doesn't say that they actually learned anything.

If they were His children they were taught and learned. Also they were regenerated. God doesnt teach the reprobate, vessels of wrath.

 

[Jimbone]

I gave you my point in my own words. What could you not understand in my post?



If exhaustive divine determinism were true, why would Jesus be upbraiding for not recognising Him as Messiah people God predetermined not to recognise Him as Messiah?



Mat 11:25 At that time Jesus answered and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes.
Mat 11:26 Even so, Father: for so it became (egeneto: became) good in thy sight.

Or, perhaps, Jesus noticed that despite the general rejection by the elites, there were uneducated plebs who seemed to recognise Him, and Jesus was here appreciating that the Father was conveying the gospel by means that the proud elite would despise, but the humble were able to get the gist. If hiding these things from the wise BECAME good in God's sight, there must have been a different strategy that God had tried before this became His approach. We see Jesus reasoning with the Jewish leaders at age twelve. We see God providing the Jewish leaders with scripture that spoke of Him, but they nevertheless would not come to Him. So, God sent Jesus to the poor and needy and uneducated with Kingdom King story-time events and miracles that they received and kept coming back to Him to inspect Him more closely. The Pharisees and Sadducees despised this methods and only came to Him to refute and oppose Him.



Mat 11:27 All things are delivered unto me of my Father: and no man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will (boulEtai: present deponent subjunctive, i.e. may be being counselled) reveal (apokalupsai: aorist active infinitive, i.e. to keep on revealing) him.

The Son reveals the Father to whomsoever the Son is being counselled by the Father to keep on revealing the Father to them. How does Jesus keep on revealing the Father to people the Father counsels Him to do so? By living in relationship with such people. This does not mean that they will "see" the Father in Jesus. Even Philip failed to see the Father in Jesus despite living in community with Him for three years. .
Jhn 14:8 Philip saith unto him, Lord, shew us the Father, and it sufficeth us.
Jhn 14:9 Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?

Yes, Jesus is fine with God using methods that are accessible to the humble, poor and uneducated but are dismissed by the proud elite. The proud elite could "get it" if they would humble themselves like Nicodemus. Jesus is indeed there to reveal the Father, but He does so through His lifestyle, which perfectly expresses God's heart.



You seem to be assuming that God revealing Himself through Jesus to someone means that that person will necessarily see God through Jesus at the time Jesus is showing God to them. The scriptures don't give that guarantee. Certainly only those that God reveals Himself to can believe in Him. But not all whom God reveals Himself to end up recognizing and believing what they are being shown.

I've finally realized the biggest problem with most of us on here that just can't seem to stop "debating" the same exact things on here every day nonstop. It's mostly the same thing with unbelievers and politics. One side or both sides simply refuse to look at anything outside of their own viewpoint or hear the opposing view at all. Those like this will not look at anything from someone else point of view. You are like this with this topic. You've been taught that this is black and white, I see it like 'this" and you see it like "that", (and you're actually 100% wrong about "that", and what you think and say "that" is, is in fact wrong) and you will never allow them the grace, patients, and respect of listening to what they really believe, and maybe even by His grace, seeing that you both actually believe the same exact thing but come at it from different viewpoint.

The problem is that the way you think and say stuff like, "If exhaustive divine determinism were true, why would Jesus be upbraiding for not recognising Him as Messiah people God predetermined not to recognise Him as Messiah?", presented as an "gotcha" argument when this is really just you just brushing off a figment of your own imagination.

Thinking about it like this is seriously on a 2nd grade level to the point it should be embarrassing. The arguments you make are against childish strawmen that you made. And you do this in condescension as if you understand the mind of God. To be honest you just talk past the other person in your own world having your own conversation. This is why I'm not debating on here much anymore, just WAY too much of this going on. Just tried of wasting time, making Jesus name look bad. My only point here is you do not actually deal with what people are saying, you deal with what you feel they meant, or that they "have to mean if they disagree with you". It would be a benefit to you to engage with what people actually say and stop telling people what they believe before you correct "them".

 

[Rufus]

The LORD could be my Shepherd if only I could get to Him...Psalm 23:1A.

Ahh...so just like the Lord is a potential Savior in FWT, He's also a potential Shepherd to those who can figure out how to get to him. Makes perfectly good sense....to FWs, that is!

 

[Rufus]

PaulThomson said:


I gave you my point in my own words. What could you not understand in my post?



If exhaustive divine determinism were true, why would Jesus be upbraiding for not recognising Him as Messiah people God predetermined not to recognise Him as Messiah?

Because all of God's free moral agents (including angels) are morally culpable and accountable to God. The immutability of God does not permit him to lower his perfectly holy, righteous and just standards to sinners, even though they are powerless to help themselves. This is precisely why God sent "Superman" (Christ) into this world to do for the spiritually weak, wretched, helpless, infirm, impoverished and naked what they could not do for themselves. Just because Adam spiritually and utterly ruined all his progeny does not equate to a "free get-out-of-jail" card. Adam's sin and all its horrific, manifest consequences does not absolve anyone from what they should or ought to do!

 

[Rufus]

Rev 22:17 is for the regenerated, spiritually alive elect

I see it as a gospel invitation to the lost. The invitation is given by the Bridegroom and the Bride! However, only the elect who have been enabled by God will accept the invitation. Many are [externally] called, but few are chosen with a supernatural, internal call.

 

[brightfame52]

I see it as a gospel invitation to the lost. The invitation is given by the Bridegroom and the Bride! However, only the elect who have been enabled by God will accept the invitation. Many are [externally] called, but few are chosen with a supernatural, internal call.

Nope, its to the spiritually alive, who have spiritual desires. Unfortunately the lost are spiritually dead and love darkness.

 

[studier]

Jhn 6:44
No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him:

This is equivalent to saying, "Only those whom the Father is drawing at this time can come to Me."
And it is also equivalent to saying, "All that are coming to Me at this time must have been drawn by My Father."
And, "The only way anyone can come to Me at this time, is if the Father is drawing him."

The mistake in interpretation some are making here is to assume that "to come to Jesus" is a metaphor for "to believe in Jesus". Therefore they infer that 1. Only those whom the Father draws can come to Me.
is th same as 2. Only those whom the Father draws can believe on me.
3.Therefore, "All who come to Me, must believe on Me."

But John 6:44 does not say anything to imply that "believing on Jesus" equates to "coming to Jesus." "Coming to Jesus" is not mentioned in the verse.

No man can be a Navy Seal unless He passes the rigorous Seal training course.
Someone assumes that "driving past the Navy seal training course site" means the same thing as "passing the Navy Seal training course."
So, they infer that the only way anyone can become a Navy seal is to drive past the Navy Seal training facility.

This is the false equivalency fallacy, falsely equating two terms that are not the same.

Jhn 6:44
No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.

This is saying that all those that come to Me, I will raise at the last day.
We cannot infer that this means that only those that come to me, I will raise at the last day.

No one can come to this school unless they live in the same county, and I will teach them Math.
This means I will teach Math to all students who come to this school and live in this county.
Does this mean that I will teach Math only to students who come to this school and live in this county? No.
To assume it does, would be the negative inference fallacy.

Thanks. I'll read again after I get these thoughts posted:

One of the issues I’ve had with some re: John 6:44 is this (I’m translating):

John6:44 No [man] [is] able to come toward Me if the Father who sent Me does not draw him, and I will raise him in the last day.

Firstly, what this in essence says:

• If a man comes toward Jesus, then the Father has made him able to come toward Jesus
• There is an equivalency between the Father enabling and the Father drawing
• A Father enabled man is a Father drawn man
  • Jesus will raise the Father enabled/drawn man in the last day

Jesus has not said any man will or will not come to Him. He’s simply said the Father enables/draws a man to come to Jesus and He will raise the Father enabled/drawn man who comes to Him.

If we remain with this understanding and if this understanding is correct, then (while also realizing Jesus was talking at a specific time while He was on the earth) from it I have the following observations:

• The Father may enable/draw no man, one man, many men.
• One or more Father enabled/drawn men may or may not come toward Jesus as they have simply been given the ability to come toward Jesus – they have simply been drawn to come toward Jesus
• If one or more Father enabled/drawn men do come toward Jesus, then Jesus may or may not raise him/them in the last day, because:
  • Another stipulation may or may not be made in addition to the coming of a man toward Jesus
    • This is where the equivalency between coming and belief is considered.
    • As a notation, I've seen times in the Text where it seems the process is established only to see later in other parts of the Text that there is more involved.

So, IMO, if we’re going to build an understanding, then we should build slowly, methodically, carefully. As you have brought into this discussion, some will test our logic.

I just read an article where the author showed how another interpreter had fallen into the “Illicit Conversion Fallacy” in the way he interpreted John6:44. This verse seems simple until it is scrutinized by those trained in reasoning.

If you see any issues in my understanding, please do address them. The goal is to know accurately God’s Word.

NKJ Acts 18:26 So he began to speak boldly in the synagogue. When Aquila and Priscilla heard him, they took him aside and explained to him the way of God more accurately.​

​

NKJ Ephesians 5:15 See then that you walk circumspectly-accurately, not as fools but as wise,​

 

[studier]

God initiates; souls may cooperate until they die--or not.

Just repeating.

 

[Rufus]

Nope, its to the spiritually alive, who have spiritual desires. Unfortunately the lost are spiritually dead and love darkness.

According to that logic, we shouldn't be preaching the gospel to anyone, since we don't know who the spiritually alive and dead are. Yet, Jesus and all this apostles preached the gospel to whomever they encountered, even though most would refuse the invitation, as did servants sent out in the Parables of the Wedding Feast and the Great Banquet.

 

[Rufus]

Thanks. I'll read again after I get these thoughts posted:

One of the issues I’ve had with some re: John 6:44 is this (I’m translating):

John6:44 No [man] [is] able to come toward Me if the Father who sent Me does not draw him, and I will raise him in the last day.

Firstly, what this in essence says:

• If a man comes toward Jesus, then the Father has made him able to come toward Jesus
• There is an equivalency between the Father enabling and the Father drawing
• A Father enabled man is a Father drawn man
  • Jesus will raise the Father enabled/drawn man in the last day

Jesus has not said any man will or will not come to Him. He’s simply said the Father enables/draws a man to come to Jesus and He will raise the Father enabled/drawn man who comes to Him.

If we remain with this understanding and if this understanding is correct, then (while also realizing Jesus was talking at a specific time while He was on the earth) from it I have the following observations:

• The Father may enable/draw no man, one man, many men.
• One or more Father enabled/drawn men may or may not come toward Jesus as they have simply been given the ability to come toward Jesus – they have simply been drawn to come toward Jesus
• If one or more Father enabled/drawn men do come toward Jesus, then Jesus may or may not raise him/them in the last day, because:
  • Another stipulation may or may not be made in addition to the coming of a man toward Jesus
    • This is where the equivalency between coming and belief is considered.
    • As a notation, I've seen times in the Text where it seems the process is established only to see later in other parts of the Text that there is more involved.

So, IMO, if we’re going to build an understanding, then we should build slowly, methodically, carefully. As you have brought into this discussion, some will test our logic.

I just read an article where the author showed how another interpreter had fallen into the “Illicit Conversion Fallacy” in the way he interpreted John6:44. This verse seems simple until it is scrutinized by those trained in reasoning.

If you see any issues in my understanding, please do address them. The goal is to know accurately God’s Word.

NKJ Acts 18:26 So he began to speak boldly in the synagogue. When Aquila and Priscilla heard him, they took him aside and explained to him the way of God more accurately.​

​

NKJ Ephesians 5:15 See then that you walk circumspectly-accurately, not as fools but as wise,​

I know, after all, He's not a PhD.

For that matter, Jesus most likely never attended Rabbinic School! What in the world was he ever doing by presuming to be this great teacher? And then claiming to have a mortal lock on the Truth to boot!

 

[brightfame52]

@Rufus

According to that logic, we shouldn't be preaching the gospel to anyone,

Thats because your logic is governed by the flesh, the principles of men, the Gospel is primarily for the conversion of the spiritually alive elect, for their education and conversion. Pauls preaching was to reach the elect that they may obtain a knowledge of their eternal salvation 2 Tim 2:9-10

9 Wherein I suffer trouble, as an evil doer, even unto bonds; but the word of God is not bound.

10 Therefore I endure all things for the elect's sakes, that they may also obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory.

 

[studier]

I've finally realized the biggest problem with most of us on here that just can't seem to stop "debating" the same exact things on here every day nonstop. It's mostly the same thing with unbelievers and politics. One side or both sides simply refuse to look at anything outside of their own viewpoint or hear the opposing view at all. Those like this will not look at anything from someone else point of view. You are like this with this topic. You've been taught that this is black and white, I see it like 'this" and you see it like "that", (and you're actually 100% wrong about "that", and what you think and say "that" is, is in fact wrong) and you will never allow them the grace, patients, and respect of listening to what they really believe, and maybe even by His grace, seeing that you both actually believe the same exact thing but come at it from different viewpoint.

The problem is that the way you think and say stuff like, "If exhaustive divine determinism were true, why would Jesus be upbraiding for not recognising Him as Messiah people God predetermined not to recognise Him as Messiah?", presented as an "gotcha" argument when this is really just you just brushing off a figment of your own imagination.

Thinking about it like this is seriously on a 2nd grade level to the point it should be embarrassing. The arguments you make are against childish strawmen that you made. And you do this in condescension as if you understand the mind of God. To be honest you just talk past the other person in your own world having your own conversation. This is why I'm not debating on here much anymore, just WAY too much of this going on. Just tried of wasting time, making Jesus name look bad. My only point here is you do not actually deal with what people are saying, you deal with what you feel they meant, or that they "have to mean if they disagree with you". It would be a benefit to you to engage with what people actually say and stop telling people what they believe before you correct "them".

Why are you focusing this post on just one poster?

 

[Magenta]

Jesus has not said any man will or will not come to Him.

John 6:37 All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out.

 

[Magenta]

In John 6 "coming to Jesus" is coming to the place where Jesus is geographically.

I get it, now. You walk by sight and not by faith.