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.

 

[PaulThomson]

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.

You are evading the question to avoid experiencing too strong a sense of cognitive dissonance.

 

[PaulThomson]

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

He didn't.

 

[PaulThomson]

@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).

The word for hear akouO also means listen, and the word for see horaO means to perceive rather than just to see with the eyes. I would understand Jesus as judging that would not believe because they had not listened to God's teaching and had not discerned or perceived God's true nature, which they could have done by experiencing His goodness through acting on what the Old Testament and Jhn the Baptist as the last OT prophet had been teaching.

 

[PaulThomson]

Just like the multitude that followed him over to the other side of Sea of Galilee. They, too, came to him for the wrong reasons. And Jesus, knowing all men's hearts, pointed this fact out to them immediately! So...when Jesus said that "no one can come to me unless the Father draws them", he's NOT saying that no one of the planet can come to him; rather, he's saying that unless the Father's hand is in a person's coming, he will not come with the right motives -- for the right reasons.

Your conclusion does not follow logically from your premises. It does not follow that because Jesus was critical of their motives for coming (John 6:26), therefore "No one can come to Me unless the Father draws him" (18 verses later in John 6:44) means "No one can believe in Me unless the Father draws him." You are wresting John 6:44 out of its immediate context and stapling it to 6:26, to gerrymander an argument that supports your theological presuppostions.

Jhn 6:26 Jesus answered them and said, Verily, verily, I say to you, You seek me, not because you saw the miracles, but because you did eat of the loaves, and were filled.
Jhn 6:27 Labour not for the meat which perishes, but for that meat which endures to everlasting life, which the Son of man shall give to you: for him has God the Father sealed.
Jhn 6:28 Then said they to him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God?
Jhn 6:29 Jesus answered and said to them, This is the work of God, so that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.
Jhn 6:30 They said therefore unto him, What sign show you then, that we may see, and believe you? what do you work?

The plain reading of the text is that Jesus criticises their motive in seeking Him, because it was merely to fill their bellies (v.26).
Jesus presents them with the correct motive for seeking Him: labour (ergazesthe: present imperative, keep on making an effort) to come seeking for imperishable food that endures to aeonous life. (v.27)
They ask what they must do in order to keep on working (ergazometha: present deponent subjunctive) the works (erga) God requires. (v. 28)
Jesus tells them what they are doing, putting in an effort to seek out Jesus, is the work of God, the purpose of which is to bring them to faith in Him (v.29) through seeing the miracles (v.26) and hearing the words of life that He is speaking (v.27) to those who are coming to Him.
They then ask for a sign that will help them believe He is truly sent by God. (v.30)

There is no indication here that only those chosen by God for eventual rebirth are coming to Jesus "for the right motives", and the rest of those coming to Jesus here are not really coming to Jesus, if they are not coming for the purpose of listening attentively to His teaching in order to be brought to faith in Jesus.

This is precisely why Jesus gave them the Bread of Life teaching. Jesus' words are very similar to what Paul taught in 1Cor 12:3 when he told the church that "no one can say that Jesus is Lord except by the Holy Spirit". Again, Paul didn't mean that no one can speak those words, but rather no one can speak them and truly mean it unless the Holy Spirit is [effectually] leading them.

Jhn 6:35 And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that comes to Me shall never hunger; and he that believes on Me shall never thirst.

I would suggest that the fact that Jesus distinguishes between "coming to Him" to receive the bread of life (Himself), and "believing in Him" to receive the water of life (the Holy Spirit) would militate strongly against your thesis that coming to Jesus and believing in Jesus are synonyms. It seems plain from the text that the people described in John 6 are being attracted to Jesus by the Father through the words and deeds Jesus is doing in the Father's power. The aim is that people who keep coming to Jesus He will keep on distributing to them the words of life. And that those who keep coming and keep listening will eventually believe He is the Messiah promised in Moses and the other Old Covenant prophets, including John the Baptist. And that those who believe in Jesus and receive Him as Messiah, He will give the Holy Spirit.

So, it appears to me, Mr. PT, that God's giving of people and drawing them to Christ is by his efficacious grace. When Jesus told them that no can come to him unless his Father enables them, he's saying that no one can come unless God literally empowers them to do that very thing. God actually causes or compels them to come! And this coming is for their spiritual good and for the Father's glory!

Now, I have a question and an observation to make re John 5. Jesus told the Pharisees in v. 42 is that they did not have the "love of God" (or love for God) in their hearts. Do you think that this lack of love for the Son was instrumental in them not believing on Him? And since they had no love for Him, wouldn't this mean they hated him?

Observation: Another parallel between chapters 5 and 6 can be found in 5: 35 where Jesus reveals that these Pharisees at one time actually enjoyed John's light. The Pharisees resemble the rocky soil in the Parable of the Soils (Lk 8:13) in that they received the Word with joy for a while but they had no root; for they believed for a while but eventually they fall away when their spurious faith was tested.

It may seem so to you, Rufus. But efficacious grace (Grace that cannot be rejected) is not a biblical "thing". Enabling someone to do something does not have tio mean compelling them to do it. Giving someone an invitation to an exclusive party, enables them to come, but it does not amount to your concept of efficacious grace. Building a bailey bridge over a river when a flood has washed out the original bridge, enables people to cross the river by car, but it does not compel them to do so.

Certainly, a lack of love for the Son would be instrumental in their not believing on Him.
In koinE Greek, "the love of God", or God's love (agapEn theou: genitive case) is not the same as "love for God" (agapEn thOi: dative case).

 

[studier]

The word for hear akouO also means listen, and the word for see horaO means to perceive rather than just to see with the eyes. I would understand Jesus as judging that would not believe because they had not listened to God's teaching and had not discerned or perceived God's true nature, which they could have done by experiencing His goodness through acting on what the Old Testament and Jhn the Baptist as the last OT prophet had been teaching.

IMO Jesus in 5:37 is referring back to the testimony of John the Baptist who had seen the form of the Spirit and [heard] God speak to him. He was another witness to whom God testified. The Father's voice was not highly unusual during Jesus' time here.

NKJ John 5:32-37 "There is another who bears witness of Me, and I know that the witness which He witnesses of Me is true. 33 "You have sent to John, and he has borne witness to the truth. 34 "Yet I do not receive testimony from man, but I say these things that you may be saved. 35 "He was the burning and shining lamp, and you were willing for a time to rejoice in his light. 36 "But I have a greater witness than John's; for the works which the Father has given Me to finish-- the very works that I do-- bear witness of Me, that the Father has sent Me. 37 "And the Father Himself, who sent Me, has testified of Me. You have neither heard His voice at any time, nor seen His form.

NKJ John1:32-34 And John bore witness, saying, "I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and He remained upon Him. 33 "I did not know Him, but He who sent me to baptize with water said/spoke to me, 'Upon whom you see the Spirit descending, and remaining on Him, this is He who baptizes with the Holy Spirit.' 34 "And I have seen and testified that this is the Son of God."​

NKJ Luke 3:22 And the Holy Spirit descended in bodily form like a dove upon Him, and a voice came from heaven which said, "You are My beloved Son; in You I am well pleased."​

​

Later in John: NKJ John12:28-30 "Father, glorify Your name." Then a voice came from heaven, saying, "I have both glorified it and will glorify it again." 29 Therefore the people who stood by and heard it said that it had thundered. Others said, "An angel has spoken to Him." 30 Jesus answered and said, "This voice did not come because of Me, but for your sake.

 

[Mem]

Later in John: NKJ John12:28-30 "Father, glorify Your name." Then a voice came from heaven, saying, "I have both glorified it and will glorify it again." 29 Therefore the people who stood by and heard it said that it had thundered. Others said, "An angel has spoken to Him." 30 Jesus answered and said, "This voice did not come because of Me, but for your sake.

Could this not be seen as an example of those who, initially, neither heard (recognized as distinctly) His voice nor seen his form (rightly perceived God), and so the need for Jesus to answer them, "This (the distinct voice you are hearing is God which)..."?

Even in use of the example of John the Baptist, who later sent message to Jesus for confirmation even after he had heard and seen, "Are you the one that we are expecting? Or should we wait for another?"

 

[studier]

Interpreting John5 re: Election:

Coming to[ward] Jesus

NKJ John5:39-40 "You search the Scriptures, for in them you think you have eternal life; and these are they which testify of Me. 40 "But you are not willing to come to Me that you may have life.

• Jesus tells the Judeans in Jerusalem who were seeking to kill Him that:
  • They make a careful or thorough effort to learn / they search/examine/investigate the Scriptures because they consider it probable/think/suppose to have eternal life in/by means of the Scriptures.
    • And yet these Scriptures are testifying about Jesus
      • And the Judeans are not willing to come to[ward] Jesus so they may have [eternal] life.
• These Judeans
  • Do not understand the Scriptures they work so hard to examine
  • Do not see Jesus their Messiah in the Scriptures that give legal testimony of Jesus
  • Do not will to come to Jesus for eternal life because they think eternal life is in the Scriptures rather in Jesus

The human will is involved in not coming to Jesus. The human will is affected by human suppositions, in this case suppositions about the Scriptures.

Pre-crucifixion Jesus was continually teaching from the Scriptures about Himself and debating the Scriptures.

Post-ascension the practice continued: NKJ Acts 17:1-5 Now when they had passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where there was a synagogue of the Jews (Judeans). 2 Then Paul, as his custom was, went in to them, and for three Sabbaths reasoned with them from the Scriptures, 3 explaining and demonstrating that the Christ had to suffer and rise again from the dead, and saying, "This Jesus whom I preach to you is the Christ." 4 And some of them were persuaded; and a great multitude of the devout Greeks, and not a few of the leading women, joined Paul and Silas. 5 But the Jews who were not persuaded, becoming envious1, took some of the evil men from the marketplace, and gathering a mob, set all the city in an uproar and attacked the house of Jason, and sought to bring them out to the people.

• Paul discussed/argued/instructed by opening up/explaining/interpreting and demonstrating/pointing out things about the Messiah/Christ and that Jesus is the Christ.
  • Some of the Judeans in the synagogue were caused to come to a particular point of view/were convinced/persuaded.

It’s things like all this effort by Jesus and those who followed Him to teach and discuss and argue and debate and explain and interpret Scripture to convince – to persuade – to cause to change the thinking and cause to come to the correct point of view – those people who have been led to misunderstand Scripture and seek life from Scripture that only Jesus Christ gives that is part of this debate about coming to[ward] Jesus and ultimately about election.

The persuasion in Acts17 was done by Paul taking days to discuss and explain Jesus Christ from Scripture. For this post I’m not going to go through a bunch more Scripture to reason this out and it normally comes back to the same few verses anyway that are used to make a case for TULIP and all interpretive traditions. To be fair to all, for this post:

• All this persuasion from Scripture may:
  • Be convincing people of truth about Jesus and eternal life – people who had presupposed wrongly that eternal life was to be had from Scripture as it was taught by those shepherding Jerusalem. And this wrong supposition caused them to not will – to not choose – to come to Jesus.
  • Be convincing people who knew eternal life came from Messiah that Jesus is Messiah.
    • This could be an important thing to consider re: OC Faith.
• But what John5 is most certainly telling us about the Judeans Jesus was dealing with is they:
  • Were concerned about honoring men of reputation rather than honoring their Messiah
  • Were concerned about receiving honor from one another rather than from God
  • Did not have the love of/for God within them
  • Were not understanding the legal testimony of the Scripture they examined so intensely
  • Did not believe Moses [who they certainly championed]
  • Did not hear or see God as John the Baptist did and did not accept his legal testimony nor the Father’s testimony
  • Did not accept the legal testimony of the works Jesus did nor the legal testimony of the Scriptures.
  • Did not believe [in] Jesus and were not able to believe in Jesus, did not receive Jesus, did not honor Jesus for the above reasons.
  • No matter all that was going on with and around them they refused/did not will to come to Jesus because they misunderstood the legal testimony of Scripture
    • Is all this the drawing/enabling of God for men to come to Jesus?
    • Just what is it that men hear and learn from the Father to come to Jesus John6:45?
    • Is the drawing/enabling – what men hear and learn from the Father to come to Jesus - “efficacious” or can it be refused by human will as a result of being misled?

 

[studier]

Could this not be seen as an example of those who, initially, neither heard (recognized as distinctly) His voice nor seen his form (rightly perceived God), and so the need for Jesus to answer them, "This (the distinct voice you are hearing is God which)..."?

Even in use of the example of John the Baptist, who later sent message to Jesus for confirmation even after he had heard and seen, "Are you the one that we are expecting? Or should we wait for another?"

If I understand you correctly, it seems it could be God speaking to affirm to people who had not heard His voice before. Although the NKJ makes it sound like people had just heard thunder, John uses the same word in Rev6:1 and elsewhere to speak of how loud it was and it's clear what the voice said.

At the same time, I think this loud voice of God also hardens already hardened hearts. I didn't get into it yet, but I see Jesus hardening hearts in John6 in a profound way as He keeps getting more intense up to and through the eat His flesh and drink His blood speech.

I also think John the Baptist heard and saw well and did his job providing legal testimony and later was given reassurance. So, the affirmation could include some who had not heard before and some who had heard from John either directly or from others which was probably many if not most by John12.