Understanding God’s election

Magenta · Apr 15, 2025

Of course not.

Rufus · Apr 15, 2025

Then a FWer will retort: God is a ROBOT!

But a believer who is well grounded in biblical theology would reply back: No! He's just immutable!

Once again, FWers unwittingly sell themselves out to more extremism! When they think of "free" or "freedom", they think one- dimensionally -- largely in terms of "free TO...." as opposed to "free FROM". But true freedom requires the latter form of freedom before we can be free TO do right. Therefore, God is the only TRULY FREE person in this universe! Since he is free from all sin, evil, corruption, wickedness, profanity, etc., then he is totally free to do ONLY what is righteous and good.

The devil has truly deceived FWers into believing that they are free as [amoral] little birdies to do whatever their depraved, corrupt, sin-filled hearts want even though scripture everywhere characterizes sinners as slaves, captives and prisoners to sin, the world and the devil.

GWH · Apr 15, 2025

Rufus said:

Well...can God sin? Can he lie? Can he deny himself?

And do you think anyone in New Eternal Order will be able to sin?[/QUOTE]

The third problematic issue is not as commonly debated as the others; it concerns the freedom of God.

Can God be evil? Is God the Father able to change His will, is God the Son free to sin, and could God the Holy Spirit become demonic? Is it possible for God to be tricky? If God cannot do what He has decreed to be evil, then He would not be as free as volitional creatures, and there would be no basis for praising His holiness. Paul (in Rom.9:16-21) upholds the freedom of God to love or hate as He chooses. Just as God created physical laws such as gravity, so He created moral laws such as “love everyone” and determined a plan of salvation involving the atoning death of Messiah to win our redemption from hell. Thou shalt love (Matt.22:37-40).

The cliche “might makes right” is true; it is because God is almighty that only He can determine what is right ultimately. There is no super-divine authority that determines God; God is self-determined. The only basis humans have for evaluating whether God is just is understanding how God’s acts and judgments are consistent with the moral principles He has ordained for those created in His image (Rom.3:22-26). God determined that His nature would be eternally all-loving, although it is free because God could have chosen not to anoint Jesus to atone for sins.

If God were ever to change His mind, it would mean that God is tricky and that morality is ultimately arbitrary. Thus, ultimate reality would indeed be a farce. This is why we should not take God and divine love for granted. Instead, we should be eternally grateful that God has decreed loving to be right, and He promises never to change (Mal.3:6). Let us praise God in the spirit of Psalm.66:1: “Shout with joy to God, all the earth! Sing to the glory of his name; Offer him glory and praise!”

Rufus · Apr 15, 2025

GWH said:

Well...can God sin? Can he lie? Can he deny himself?

And do you think anyone in New Eternal Order will be able to sin?

The third problematic issue is not as commonly debated as the others; it concerns the freedom of God.

Can God be evil? Is God the Father able to change His will, is God the Son free to sin, and could God the Holy Spirit become demonic? Is it possible for God to be tricky? If God cannot do what He has decreed to be evil, then He would not be as free as volitional creatures, and there would be no basis for praising His holiness. Paul (in Rom.9:16-21) upholds the freedom of God to love or hate as He chooses. Just as God created physical laws such as gravity, so He created moral laws such as “love everyone” and determined a plan of salvation involving the atoning death of Messiah to win our redemption from hell. Thou shalt love (Matt.22:37-40).

The cliche “might makes right” is true; it is because God is almighty that only He can determine what is right ultimately. There is no super-divine authority that determines God; God is self-determined. The only basis humans have for evaluating whether God is just is understanding how God’s acts and judgments are consistent with the moral principles He has ordained for those created in His image (Rom.3:22-26). God determined that His nature would be eternally all-loving, although it is free because God could have chosen not to anoint Jesus to atone for sins.

If God were ever to change His mind, it would mean that God is tricky and that morality is ultimately arbitrary. Thus, ultimate reality would indeed be a farce. This is why we should not take God and divine love for granted. Instead, we should be eternally grateful that God has decreed loving to be right, and He promises never to change (Mal.3:6). Let us praise God in the spirit of Psalm.66:1: “Shout with joy to God, all the earth! Sing to the glory of his name; Offer him glory and praise!”

Are you saying that God is not immutable? He can act contrary to his good, holy and righteous nature, even though, unlike us, He is Light and there is no darkness in Him?

And what about the resurrected saints in the New Order: Will they be free to choose to sin?

And when Jesus said, "If the Son shall make you free, you will be free indeed", what do you think he meant?

GWH · Apr 15, 2025

Rufus said:

I believe GW teaches that He is sovereign and can do whatever He determines to do, except not be and not be God/omnipotent.

I believe GW teaches that God created humanity with MFW, which will be retained in heaven, and that God is righteous and rightly praised because He has promised never to change His good nature.

I believe Jesus meant that God is able to perfect human souls via the plan He determined before He created the Old Order:
free to sin but free from sin because of lessons learned during the earthly/mortal experience.

Rufus · Apr 15, 2025

GWH said:

You didn't answer any of my three questions except in the vaguest of terms! I guess you don't like the attribute of God's Immutability very much. But since God cannot sin because his thrice holy nature is immutable, then I have to think that you believe God is a robot, correct?

Also, if saints retain "freewill" in heaven, how is it that no saint will be capable of sinning? You do realize that Christ's redemptive work entails a total restoration of this earth back to its pre-fall pristine, Edenic glory, right, and that this earth will longer be under any curse? And no curse means no sin whatsoever. And no sin means no one will ever die. So...given these facts, if you're consistent with your soteriology, then you must believe that the eternal, visible Kingdom in the New Order will be filled with robots, correct?

GWH · Wednesday at 5:01 AM

Rufus said:

You didn't answer any of my three questions except in the vaguest of terms! I guess you don't like the attribute of God's Immutability very much. But since God cannot sin because his thrice holy nature is immutable, then I have to think that you believe God is a robot, correct?

Also, if saints retain "freewill" in heaven, how is it that no saint will be capable of sinning? You do realize that Christ's redemptive work entails a total restoration of this earth back to its pre-fall pristine, Edenic glory, right, and that this earth will longer be under any curse? And no curse means no sin whatsoever. And no sin means no one will ever die. So...given these facts, if you're consistent with your soteriology, then you must believe that the eternal, visible Kingdom in the New Order will be filled with robots, correct?

Of course you disagree with my answers and fail to realize that Christ is capable of sinning as were A&E pre-fall,
which means no robots.

Rufus · Wednesday at 12:45 PM

GWH said:

(emphasis and edit mine)

I didn't ask you whether or not God-Incarnate could sin! You don't pay attention very well, do you? But I am glad that you answered as you did because it reveals how much you hate the doctrine of God's immutability, holiness, goodness and righteousness. For even though Christ now possesses a spiritual, glorified body, you still believe that He IS still capable of sinning and will have that capability throughout all eternity. Wow! What a comforting thought to know that one day Jesus Christ could very well go rogue and rebel against his Father!

And the implications to your insipid theology is that since the saints' Federal Head IS capable of sinning and He will always have that capability forever, then the saints in the eternal New Order must equally be as capable of sinning! As the Head of the Body goes, so goes the entire Body, right? His disciples are not greater than He is, are they? Everyone in the universe is FREE TO sin at any time in any place for any reason (Do I hear a loud and hearty AMEN from all FWers!?) , including God in whom there is NO DARKNESS! And all this further implies that no one in the universe is truly free FROM sin or the world or the devil. And all this in turn implies that the human race could fall a second time! Yet, your man-made theology is a lie, for it contradicts scripture.

And the final implication to this heretical view of God and his Christ is that sin and death have not been conquered by Christ! God's power is insufficient to overcome sin and death once and for all -- because if Grace isn't greater than these two principles and they are an eternal possibility, then of what value is eternal salvation? All the saints throughout all eternity will be living under the dark, foreboding specter of Sin and Death. Christ hasn't truly conquered death for all eternity if sin (death's cause) is still a real and palpable possibility.

Quite a theology you have there...

Mem · Wednesday at 1:04 PM

PaulThomson said:

Makes perfect sense to me. A sheep adopts a particular shepherd when it trusts him to lead them to pasture, or back into his fold. It can wander away from its shepherd but that doesn't necessarily mean that it does this to look for another shepherd. That is, if another shepherd shows up at any time, it would not follow him, since he is not that sheep's shepherd. So, Jesus' sheep trust Him and so it would seem that belief precedes trust, rather than the other way around, considering if an other shepherd who is a stranger to them called to them it wouldn't trust to follow after him so readily, unless he is able to convince them to believe in his faithfulness to care for them. In Jesus' case, He exhibits that care as much as He declares it, whether they believe it or not, while the wolf shepherd, the hireling, only declares it in order to draw the sheep away to slaughter.

Rufus · Wednesday at 1:11 PM

Mem said:

The only reason why it's only God's sheep who hear the Shepherd and believe is because the Father gave HIS [chosen] sheep to the Good Shepherd in the first place (See John 6). These elect sheep stand in sharp contrast to those who never belonged to God (Mat 7:23), for Christ never knew them.

Mem · Wednesday at 1:15 PM

Rufus said:

The only reason why it's only God's sheep who hear the Shepherd and believe is because the Father gave HIS [chosen] sheep to the Good Shepherd in the first place (See John 6). These elect sheep stand in sharp contrast to those who never belonged to God (Mat 7:23), for Christ never knew them.

So you don't agree. Ok. Noted.

Rufus · Wednesday at 1:45 PM

Mem said:

And you don't agree with Jesus' teaching in his Bread of Life Discourse in John 6. Also duly noted.

Rufus · Wednesday at 3:56 PM

The Key to Unlocking God's Treasure

According to FWT, there is but one master key to unlock and access God's saving grace: Man's "freewill" choice to repent and believe the Gospel. After an unregenerated sinner has chosen to repent and believe the gospel, this allegedly awakens the Passive Cosmic Spectator of the Universe to react to/repay the sinner with all that His great salvation entails, e.g. gift of the Holy Spirit, new heart, justification, etc., etc. But what a shame that this man-made theology doesn't square with scripture; for the bible explicitly reveals what the key to God's treasure of salvation is...and it's not what FWers are trying to con us into believing. So...let's go on a little journey and play Connect the Dots, which no FWer will be capable of doing because they won't want to arrive at the only viable, logical and biblical conclusion.

1. Unregenerate Sinners Naturally Have No Disposition of Heart to Fear the Lord (Rom 3:18).

2. Only God's Elect Saints Fear Him (Rev 19:5).

3. The Fear of the Lord is the Precursor to Obtaining Godly Knowledge (Prov 1:7).

4. The Fear of the Lord is also the Precursor to Obtaining Godly Wisdom (Ps 111:10).

5. The Fear of the Lord is a Fountain of Life That Turns a Man Away From the Snares of Death (Prov 14:27).

6. The Fear of the Lord Leads to Life (Prov 19:23).

7. The Fear of the Lord is the Sure Future Hope of the Wise who Possess This Gift (Prov 23:17-18).

Given all these facts, it's no wonder the prophet wrote:

Isa 33:6
6 In that day he will be your sure foundation, providing a rich store of salvation, wisdom, and knowledge. The fear of the LORD is the key to this treasure.
NLT

Or,

Isa 33:6
6 He will be the sure foundation for your times,
a rich store of salvation and wisdom and knowledge;
the fear of the LORD is the key to this treasure.
NIV

Or,

Isa 33:6
6 And there shall be stability in your times, an abundance of salvation, wisdom, and knowledge; the reverent fear and worship of the Lord is your treasure and His.
AMP

Or,

Isa 33:6
6 And there shall be stability in thy times, abundance of salvation, wisdom, and knowledge: the fear of Jehovah is thy treasure.
ASV

Or,

Isa 33:6
6 and he will be the stability of your times,
abundance of salvation, wisdom, and knowledge;
the fear of the Lord is Zion's treasure.
ESV

Or,
Isa 33:6
6 he will be the stability of your times,
abundance of salvation, wisdom, and knowledge;
the fear of the LORD is Zion's treasure.
NRSV

Other literal translations render part B of this text as "fear of the Lord is his treasure" (KJV); or "fear of Jehovah -- it [is] His treasure" (YLT); of "the fear of the Lord [is] His treasure" (NASB), etc.

From everything I've posted about the Fear of the Lord, it becomes obvious that this godly disposition of the heart is crucially important and absolutely necessary for every believer to possess. For this reason, it is indeed every elect believer's coveted treasure! And this is why I prefer this translation. However, it's also feasible that God himself would value his great gift and consider it highly valuable since no one can come to faith and repentance apart from having this godly disposition placed in his heart by God. And this last thought brings me to the final point of this post.

Since no unregenerate sinner naturally has this godly disposition of heart, then one would naturally wonder how anyone ever comes to have it. The answer is that it's a gift that God promised to give under the New Covenant. No unregenerate sinner generates this godly attitude from within; rather this disposition is placed in the hearts of God's elect so that they will seek him, believe the gospel and repent of their sins.

Jer 32:39-41
39 I will give them one heart and one way, that they may fear me forever, for their own good and the good of their children after them. 40 I will make with them an everlasting covenant, that I will not turn away from doing good to them. And I will put the fear of me in their hearts, that they may not turn from me. 41 I will rejoice in doing them good, and I will plant them in this land in faithfulness, with all my heart and all my soul.
ESV

It's no wonder at all, then, that the key to unlocking God's great treasure is the Fear of Himself that he sovereignly, graciously and unilaterally places in all the hearts of all his chosen people. The treasure is not man's will, nor anyone's "freewill" choice, nor anyone's faith, nor anyone's repentance.

I will have more to say about Isa 33:6 in another post because I know many here will miss the obvious because subconsciously they don't want to acknowledge and what is there in black and white.

GWH · Wednesday at 5:13 PM

Rufus said:

(emphasis and edit mine)

I didn't ask you whether or not God-Incarnate could sin! You don't pay attention very well, do you? But I am glad that you answered as you did because it reveals how much you hate the doctrine of God's immutability, holiness, goodness and righteousness. For even though Christ now possesses a spiritual, glorified body, you still believe that He IS still capable of sinning and will have that capability throughout all eternity. Wow! What a comforting thought to know that one day Jesus Christ could very well go rogue and rebel against his Father!

And the implications to your insipid theology is that since the saints' Federal Head IS capable of sinning and He will always have that capability forever, then the saints in the eternal New Order must equally be as capable of sinning! As the Head of the Body goes, so goes the entire Body, right? His disciples are not greater than He is, are they? Everyone in the universe is FREE TO sin at any time in any place for any reason (Do I hear a loud and hearty AMEN from all FWers!?) , including God in whom there is NO DARKNESS! And all this further implies that no one in the universe is truly free FROM sin or the world or the devil. And all this in turn implies that the human race could fall a second time! Yet, your man-made theology is a lie, for it contradicts scripture.

And the final implication to this heretical view of God and his Christ is that sin and death have not been conquered by Christ! God's power is insufficient to overcome sin and death once and for all -- because if Grace isn't greater than these two principles and they are an eternal possibility, then of what value is eternal salvation? All the saints throughout all eternity will be living under the dark, foreboding specter of Sin and Death. Christ hasn't truly conquered death for all eternity if sin (death's cause) is still a real and palpable possibility.

Quite a theology you have there...

Yes, and I bet it is closer to correct than yours, which is more man-made than mine.
Why would you think Jesus was free to sin when incarnate but not when in heaven?
Since humanity was created in God's image and sinned, why do you think God is less free?
How dare you demand that God love you but not everyone else!
Seems illogical to me, although because neither of us knows which version is true,
it is also illogical to call each other liars rather than potentially mistaken.

PaulThomson · Thursday at 1:24 AM

studier said:

I lean toward the Received Text as more trustworthy, but it is worthwhile considering what difference the other versions of the Greek text introduce into a passage. I am completely unimpressed with Sinaiticus and Vaticanus.

The RT goes with gar. The MGNT goes with hoti.

Gar, as I understand its present status in linguistic analysis, having researched this more, is a discourse marking particle indicating that what follows is providing further support for what immediately proceeds it: in conveys "after all" or "you see". But hoti is a subordinating conjunction that introduces a reason for what comes before or after it.

Jhn 10:24 Then came the Jews round about him, and said to him,
"How long are you keeping us in suspense? If You be the Christ, tell us plainly."
Jhn 10:25 Jesus answered them,
"I told you, and you believed not: the works that I am doing in my Father's name, they are bearing witness of me.
Jhn 10:26 But you are not believing, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said to you.
Jhn 10:27 My sheep are listening to my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. "

Received Text John 10:26-27 ἀλλ᾽ ὑμεῖς οὐ πιστεύετε οὐ γὰρ ἐστὲ ἐκ τῶν προβάτων τῶν ἐμῶν καθὼς εἶπον ὑμῖν
τὰ πρόβατα τὰ ἐμὰ τῆς φωνῆς μου ἀκούει, κἀγὼ γινώσκω αὐτά καὶ ἀκολουθοῦσίν μοι
But you are not believing Me. After all/ You see, you are not my sheep, just as I said to you. My sheep are listening to my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. (You are not listening to My voice and following Me, so it is evident that you do not believe Me.)

i.e. You are not believing what I just told you, but called it nonsense. Why should I expect you to believe me, if I tell you something else plainly). Additional evidence that you are not believing Me is that you are not My sheep, because sheep listen to and follow their shepherd, and you are not listening to and doing what I tell you to do.

Morphological GNT 10:26-27 ἀλλὰ ὑμεῖς οὐ πιστεύετε ὅτι οὐκ ἐστὲ ἐκ τῶν προβάτων τῶν ἐμῶν
τὰ πρόβατα τὰ ἐμὰ τῆς φωνῆς μου ἀκούουσιν κἀγὼ γινώσκω αὐτά καὶ ἀκολουθοῦσίν μοι

!0:26-27 But you are not believing me, because you are not my sheep. My sheep are listening to My voice, and I know them, and they are following Me. "
On the face of it this could mean,
"The reason you are not believing Me, is that you are not My sheep. My sheep listen to Me and do what I tell them to do.

i.e. "You need to become a sheep before you can believe Me. But you are not my sheep, which is why you are not believing Me. If you had become a sheep, you would be listening to My voice and following Me."

However, it could be read as an elipsis for,
" But (I can tell) you are not believing Me, because you are not My sheep. My sheep are listening to My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me."
i.e. "The reason (I can tell) you are not believing Me, is that you are not My sheep. My sheep are listening to Me and doing what I tell them to do. Therefore, you are not My sheep."

This would mean,
"My sheep are listening to my voice and following me: doing what I tell them to do. (I can see that) you are not believing Me, because you are not listening to Me and doing what I tell you to do. (I can see that) you are not my sheep, because you are not behaving as My sheep behave.
Both Greek texts allow for an understanding that Jesus is presenting not listening and not following/obeying as evidence for the deduction that "You are not believing Me." But The Received Text says this more directly.

Mem · Thursday at 2:21 AM

Rufus said:

I'm not following you, probably because I don't believe you... See what I did there?

Mem · Thursday at 2:25 AM

Rufus said:

Indeed, the first thought that initially occurred to me upon seeing that cc had been parked was the peculiarity of its coincidence with the commencement of Passover...

PaulThomson · Thursday at 4:44 AM

GWH said:

When you say that "God cannot determine not be God/omnipotent," do you mean that no Person in the Community we call God can become "not omnipotent " Or just that it cannot be that all members of the divine Community surrender omnipotence at one and the same time ?

GWH · Thursday at 5:32 AM

PaulThomson said:

I mean that although atheists can conceive of no God, if an omnipotent God exists, it is inconceivable to me
that Existence (I AM) could commit suicide and not exist or not be omnipotent except in the incarnate dimension(s).

studier · Thursday at 10:55 AM

PaulThomson said:

Thanks for your usual detail. Since you've provided all of this, I'm going to add to it with some lexical details and from some reasoning that I think ends up with where you seem to end up.

I don't at the moment see the conclusion being a simple language issue of what gar or hoti mean, because their range of meanings can support a simple causal interpretation (because = saying they're not His sheep so they don't or even can't believe) or they can mean things like you're saying where the lack of belief is evidence that they're not His sheep.

So, the content of all that Jesus says and that John provides record of IMO needs to assist us to know what gar or hoti is saying.

In trying to refocus this morning to respond to your effort, this is what I see. In my notations I'm going to just translate the present tense verses as present continuous using them to draw out some of the sense of what's going on at the moment:

NKJ John10:23-27

23 And Jesus walked in the temple, in Solomon's porch.

24 Then the Jews surrounded Him and said to Him, "How long do You keep us in doubt? If You are the Christ, tell us plainly."

He has been telling them and has been showing them
- Later in this chapter, when He does tell them plainly – they want to stone them
  - This is all just another ruse for them to condemn Him

25 Jesus answered them, "I told you, and you do not believe. The works that I do in My Father's name, they bear witness of Me.

I told you and you are not believing
- Jesus is answering their game
The works testimony clause runs into the next verse and is more answer to their game.

26 "But you do not believe, because you are not of My sheep, {as I said to you = TV] are hear.

Jesus has told them and they are not believing (v.25)
Jesus’ works testify concerning Him – BUT they are not believing the testimony (v.26)
- Gar:
  - For this reason – you are not from My sheep (similar to Causal hoti)
  - Clarifying – you are not from My sheep
  - Confirming – you are not from My sheep
  - Inferring (self-evidently concluding) – you are not from My sheep
- Hoti:
  - Narrative or discourse content – N/A
  - Explanatory clauses
    - Epexegetical - you are not believing = you are not from My sheep
    - Ellipses - (I think I can see how you're interpreting ellipsis, but I'm not sure it's applicable or the best approach)
  - Direct discourse – N/A
  - Causality – because you are not from My sheep (similar to gar: for this reason)
  - Consecutive – so that (as a result) you are not from My sheep

27 "My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me.

My believing sheep are hearing My voice
- akouō can trend into obeying
And-I am knowing (ginōskō can mean "recognizing") My believing sheep
- kagō can have a reciprocal meaning - e.g. and I in turn - so this could be showing us that His sheep are hearing and He in turn is knowing them
- ginōskō can also trend into speaking of close relationship and it can speak of recognizing.
- The present tense of ginōskō I think is also important to note. I'll explain at the end.
My believing sheep are following Me
At one time I think I mentioned that these clauses could be chiastic. Chiasms can be identified by seeing the parallelism between clauses. Here the parallel would be the hearing and following. The central clause would be the main point which I'm going to identify the potential importance of as I reason further to help me with the gar or hoti interpretation. Also, please include in this what I just said about kagō as it may be showing us what you've been saying about evidence. So, here's the chiasm:
- A. My [believing] sheep are hearing (even obeying) My voice
  - B. And-I am [reciprocally] knowing (recognizing) My [believing] sheep
- A'. And My [believing] sheep are following Me
Again, hearing (obeying) and following are parallel - one elaborates the other - hearing and following tend to merge
And the hearing and following are being used in parallel and explanatory to believing
The central point is Jesus knowing (recognizing) those who are His:

Jesus knows His believing sheep

They are believing what He says
They are believing His works testimony
They are hearing His voice
They are following Him

Thus, Jesus knows who are not His sheep:

They are not believing what He says
They are not believing His works testimony
They are not hearing His voice
They are not following Him

It seems to me this evidentiary concept you've been drawing out makes the most sense. A seemingly small word (kagō) and a statement about Jesus knowing - which is not necessary in the instruction if not important - seem to be key. The present tense of ginōskō also seems important. If this was delving more deeply into who Jesus is and what He knows from His Father, it could have been stated in the aorist or perfect tense. It's not imperative that it's not because the present tense can just be stating a fact, but combined with the other points above, it seems to me to just be shoring up the present experiential, reciprocal, and evidentiary points being made.

cont'd

Understanding God’s election

Senior Member

Well-known member

Groovy

Well-known member

Groovy

Well-known member

Groovy

Well-known member

Senior Member

Well-known member

Senior Member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Groovy

Well-known member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Well-known member

Groovy

Well-known member