Another Question for the Arminian

[XrzrX]

And literally the next verse is "For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who sees the Son and believes in Him will have eternal life.." He later specifies that "Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to Me..". It's pretty clear, the Father was always speaking of Jesus, the humble heard.. the lofty wouldn't listen. The Father was always teaching of Jesus.. the simple understood, the "wise".. outsmarted themselves. The meek inherit the earth, because they listened, and learned from the Father.. and the Father gives them to the Son.. the Inheritor of the earth.

 

[John Bauer]

And literally the next verse is, "For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who sees the Son and believes in him will have eternal life."

Who believes? The sheep (cf. John 10:26).

Who will have eternal life? The sheep whom the Father gives to the Son (John 10:28; 17:2).

He later specifies, "Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to me."

He also specifies, "You don't listen and respond because you don't belong to God" (John 8:47).

The humble heard. The lofty wouldn't listen. ... The simple understood. The "wise" outsmarted themselves.

Correction: The sheep, who belong to the Father, recognize the Son's voice and follow him—not because they are humble or simple, but because they are sheep who belong to God (John 10:27-29).

 

[XrzrX]

Who believes? The sheep (cf. John 10:26).

Who will have eternal life?

"..EVERYONE who sees the Son and believes in Him will have eternal life.." I know you've checked the word, it does indeed mean "All men" (not "all kinds", but all period).
So, I don't understand how you deny that one.
John 10:8.. "I am the door; if ANYONE enters through Me, he will be saved..".

The sheep whom the Father gives to the Son (John 10:28; 17:2).

Already explained..

He also specifies, "You don't listen and respond because you don't belong to God" (John 8:47).

"But you do not believe because you are not of My sheep.." John 10:26
"My Father, who has given them to Me is greater than all.." Again, Israel were the Father's flock.. those that listened and learned from the Father, the Jews.. recognized Jesus' voice because they were expecting Him. You know this is the context because Jesus goes on to say "And I have other sheep, which are not from this fold; I must bring them also, and they will hear My voice; and they will become one flock with one shepherd." So, what sheep is He talking to? The Father's sheep, that were drawn by the Father through Egypt, the Desert etc, and who are the other sheep? The ones when He "draws ALL MEN to Himself by being lifted up".

Correction: The sheep, who belong to the Father, recognize the Son's voice and follow him—not because they are humble or simple, but because they are sheep who belong to God (John 10:27-29).

‘Thus says Yahweh, the God of Israel, “Regarding the words which you have heard, because your heart was soft and you humbled yourself before God when you heard His words against this place and against its inhabitants, and because you humbled yourself before Me, tore your clothes and wept before Me, I truly have heard you,” declares Yahweh." 2 Chron 34:26-27

"The secret of the LORD is with them that fear him; and he will shew them his covenant." Psalm 25:14

"At that time Jesus declared, “I praise You, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because You have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children.." Matt 11:25

"Some of the Pharisees who were with Him heard this, and they asked Him, “Are we blind too?” / “If you were blind,” Jesus replied, “you would not be guilty of sin. But since you claim you can see, your guilt remains.” John 9:39-41

"God opposes the proud but shows favor to the humble," James 4:6

Correction: Circular reasoning isn't the answer.. but rather, a very linear, a constant theme from creation to this very moment.

The meek... shall inherit the earth.

 

[John Bauer]

"EVERYONE who sees the Son and believes in him will have eternal life." I know you've checked the word; it does indeed mean "all men." Not "all kinds," but all—period.

So, I don't understand how you deny that one.

Who said I deny it?

"Everyone who believes" ≠ "everyone believes."

We both know that not everyone believes. So, who believes?

The Bible tells us: Those who belong to God—the sheep.

Here is another way the Bible provides the same answer: "All who had been appointed for eternal life believed."

It is consistently the same answer.

... because Jesus goes on to say, "And I have other sheep, which are not from this fold ..."

And there is the answer, right before your eyes ("this fold"). Ethnic Israel was the fold (covenant community), not the sheep. Speaking to certain ethnic Israelites—born by natural descent, circumcision, and Torah observance—Jesus flat out said, "You are not my sheep."

Again, who believes? The sheep.

So, what sheep is he talking to?

He is talking to the sheep who belong to his Father's flock, which does not include all of ethnic Israel (v. 26). Jesus calls his sheep out of that fold (v. 3) and brings in others (Gentiles, v. 16; 11:52) to form one flock under one shepherd as the true ecclesia, his body.

[Quoting a series of prooftexts without context or comment.]

I have no idea how any of that was supposed to conflict with what I said.

 

[Arial]

I’d simply note that this is a clear example of lifting words out of their context. There’s a substantial difference between a gathered nation publicly ratifying the Mosaic covenant (Deuteronomy 30:19) and individuals being chosen by God according to His sovereign grace in salvation. The former—corporate covenant obedience under the law—does nothing to negate the latter, nor does it suddenly transform God’s sovereign election into a libertarian free will choice by man.

The shorter answers are better when responding to confusion as opposed to longer posts teaching, it's just about bringing forward the logical point, yes?

How do we know when to include more teaching? Or is it more like teaching logically?

Exactly.

 

[Arial]

One phenomenon I have noticed is the demand with expected cooperation from the opposition, that the opposition deal with the "freewiller" on his own terms, answering him according to his own assumptions and precepts and even use of language. It is one of the things that marks those who insist on self-determination, that expects everyone, including God, to think in their way.

This is why, to me, arguing with them is almost fruitless, except that the Word of God will not return to him void, until they get a proper mind as to the person and nature of God himself. I almost always want to, but don't, start there with them. I don't because the logical sequence that flows from that is too long and full of confusion and reactions. But that's where it needs to start.

Exactly.

 

[XrzrX]

Who said I deny it?

"Everyone who believes" ≠ "everyone believes."

We both know that not everyone believes. So, who believes?

The Bible tells us: Those who belong to God—the sheep.

Here is another way the Bible provides the same answer: "All who had been appointed for eternal life believed."

It is consistently the same answer.




And there is the answer, right before your eyes ("this fold"). Ethnic Israel was the fold (covenant community), not the sheep. Speaking to certain ethnic Israelites—born by natural descent, circumcision, and Torah observance—Jesus flat out said, "You are not my sheep."

Again, who believes? The sheep.




He is talking to the sheep who belong to his Father's flock, which does not include all of ethnic Israel (v. 26). Jesus calls his sheep out of that fold (v. 3) and brings in others (Gentiles, v. 16; 11:52) to form one flock under one shepherd as the true ecclesia, his body.




I have no idea how any of that was supposed to conflict with what I said.

You are trapped in a syllogistic circle. You have to ignore that people are called to believe, why does Paul say that they try to "persuade" men? It's the ol' Calvinist "going through the motions just to 'say we did'.." doctrine.
In the context of John, yes not all ethnic Israel are sheep, not the point.. the ones that "listened and learned from the Father" were. He says it right in the verse. Verbatim. "The Father who sent Me bears witness about Me.." and.. "Everyone who has heard the Father and learned from Him comes to Me..". This isn't citing "magic".. it's a plain statement, "If you had believed Moses you would believe Me..". He's drives home the point that the scriptures had been pointing to Him, the Father pointing to Him.. and IF they had listened and learned, they would recognize His voice.

 

[XrzrX]

Who said I deny it?

"Everyone who believes" ≠ "everyone believes."

We both know that not everyone believes. So, who believes?

The Bible tells us: Those who belong to God—the sheep.

Here is another way the Bible provides the same answer: "All who had been appointed for eternal life believed."

It is consistently the same answer.




And there is the answer, right before your eyes ("this fold"). Ethnic Israel was the fold (covenant community), not the sheep. Speaking to certain ethnic Israelites—born by natural descent, circumcision, and Torah observance—Jesus flat out said, "You are not my sheep."

Again, who believes? The sheep.




He is talking to the sheep who belong to his Father's flock, which does not include all of ethnic Israel (v. 26). Jesus calls his sheep out of that fold (v. 3) and brings in others (Gentiles, v. 16; 11:52) to form one flock under one shepherd as the true ecclesia, his body.




I have no idea how any of that was supposed to conflict with what I said.

And the "prooftexts" were a clear response to your 'correction'.. they all show the point I cited, that the reason God did "hide" the truth from some, was because of their posture toward Him.. not "election", He hid it from the proud and lofty, it says it verbatim and the verses show Him literally saying it, so if they appear 'out of context' to you, it's you...

 

[makesends]

"..EVERYONE who sees the Son and believes in Him will have eternal life.." I know you've checked the word, it does indeed mean "All men" (not "all kinds", but all period).
So, I don't understand how you deny that one.
John 10:8.. "I am the door; if ANYONE enters through Me, he will be saved..".

Have you read it in the Greek? John 6:40 has the sense of 'all those believing'. Just as in John 3:16 there is reason to think by the wording, that it is simply giving the principle involved and making no statement as to who those that believe are or are not, and NO implication nor even hint to infer that it is up to chance or human free will, who believes. Granted, it makes no statement, either way, but only the clinical sense of identifying the principle involved in who is saved: the ones that are believing —oh, also, by the way, believing is in the present tense, not indicative of "I made the salvation decision, by believing on him on July 24, 1987, and therefore am saved". If one does not continue to believe, he is not saved, and if one does continue to believe, it is because that belief is the work of the Spirit of God who was given him and will never leave him.

And John 10:9 uses the indefinite article which still carries the clinical sense of 'the one entering in'. There is no hint that it is an unknown, or some unselected, quantity or group of individuals, that happen by free will to choose to come in. It is, again, simply the fact that CHRIST is the door, and the way, as he continues to say further on.

And, by the way, that passage and its comparison of a hired shepherd vs the true shepherd is a strong hint toward the Godhood of Jesus Christ. The hired shepherd has no real interest in the well-being of the sheep, but is only performing an unreliable function.

Already explained..

"But you do not believe because you are not of My sheep.." John 10:26
"My Father, who has given them to Me is greater than all.." Again, Israel were the Father's flock.. those that listened and learned from the Father, the Jews.. recognized Jesus' voice because they were expecting Him. You know this is the context because Jesus goes on to say "And I have other sheep, which are not from this fold; I must bring them also, and they will hear My voice; and they will become one flock with one shepherd." So, what sheep is He talking to? The Father's sheep, that were drawn by the Father through Egypt, the Desert etc, and who are the other sheep? The ones when He "draws ALL MEN to Himself by being lifted up".

‘Thus says Yahweh, the God of Israel, “Regarding the words which you have heard, because your heart was soft and you humbled yourself before God when you heard His words against this place and against its inhabitants, and because you humbled yourself before Me, tore your clothes and wept before Me, I truly have heard you,” declares Yahweh." 2 Chron 34:26-27

"The secret of the LORD is with them that fear him; and he will shew them his covenant." Psalm 25:14

"At that time Jesus declared, “I praise You, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because You have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children.." Matt 11:25

"Some of the Pharisees who were with Him heard this, and they asked Him, “Are we blind too?” / “If you were blind,” Jesus replied, “you would not be guilty of sin. But since you claim you can see, your guilt remains.” John 9:39-41

"God opposes the proud but shows favor to the humble," James 4:6

Correction: Circular reasoning isn't the answer.. but rather, a very linear, a constant theme from creation to this very moment.

The meek... shall inherit the earth.

There is no circular reasoning in the Reformed view of those two passages. It is a straightforward inference that the sheep (believers) already believe and know the voice of the Shepherd, and run from the thief and robber.

There IS circular reasoning in trying to argue that the Reformed are wrong by using multiple verses against them as YOU see them. That door swings both ways, and, like me, you will be measured against your own standard.

 

[XrzrX]

Have you read it in the Greek? John 6:40 has the sense of 'all those believing'. Just as in John 3:16 there is reason to think by the wording, that it is simply giving the principle involved and making no statement as to who those that believe are or are not, and NO implication nor even hint to infer that it is up to chance or human free will, who believes. Granted, it makes no statement, either way, but only the clinical sense of identifying the principle involved in who is saved: the ones that are believing —oh, also, by the way, believing is in the present tense, not indicative of "I made the salvation decision, by believing on him on July 24, 1987, and therefore am saved". If one does not continue to believe, he is not saved, and if one does continue to believe, it is because that belief is the work of the Spirit of God who was given him and will never leave him.

And John 10:9 uses the indefinite article which still carries the clinical sense of 'the one entering in'. There is no hint that it is an unknown, or some unselected, quantity or group of individuals, that happen by free will to choose to come in. It is, again, simply the fact that CHRIST is the door, and the way, as he continues to say further on.

And, by the way, that passage and its comparison of a hired shepherd vs the true shepherd is a strong hint toward the Godhood of Jesus Christ. The hired shepherd has no real interest in the well-being of the sheep, but is only performing an unreliable function.

There is no circular reasoning in the Reformed view of those two passages. It is a straightforward inference that the sheep (believers) already believe and know the voice of the Shepherd, and run from the thief and robber.

There IS circular reasoning in trying to argue that the Reformed are wrong by using multiple verses against them as YOU see them. That door swings both ways, and, like me, you will be measured against your own standard.

Well, as we discussed earlier, I, like you, can't remember ever not believing. If anyone has the perfect reason to believe the "election" doctrine it is me. I never 'made a decision', I only remember His Spirit drawing near to me as a child and in that moment I knew Exactly who He was, and it was as if I had known Him always, as in before I was born.. eternally. I didn't 'decide' I just knew, and loved Him. And similarly, years later when hearing the actual Gospel, same thing.. I simply knew it was the same Voice. I recognized it as the same One. So, I could easily claim the tenets of Calvinism.. it absolutely seems I was simply "born a believer". Yet... when I read scripture, it simply doesn't lend itself that a human is 'incapable' of laying down their sword and agreeing with God. It's ALL through the bible, over and over and over again. And the verses allegedly supporting 'election doctrine' have to be worked waaaay harder than they should be to fit, when a natural reading is not only 'easier' but harmonizes without brutal coercion.

 

[makesends]

Well, as we discussed earlier, I, like you, can't remember ever not believing. If anyone has the perfect reason to believe the "election" doctrine it is me. I never 'made a decision', I only remember His Spirit drawing near to me as a child and in that moment I knew Exactly who He was, and it was as if I had known Him always, as in before I was born.. eternally. I didn't 'decide' I just knew, and loved Him. And similarly, years later when hearing the actual Gospel, same thing.. I simply knew it was the same Voice. I recognized it as the same One. So, I could easily claim the tenets of Calvinism.. it absolutely seems I was simply "born a believer". Yet... when I read scripture, it simply doesn't lend itself that a human is 'incapable' of laying down their sword and agreeing with God. It's ALL through the bible, over and over and over again. And the verses allegedly supporting 'election doctrine' have to be worked waaaay harder than they should be to fit, when a natural reading is not only 'easier' but harmonizes without brutal coercion.

You here contrast the tenets of Calvinism with what you read in Scripture. WHERE does Calvinism posit or promote brutal coercion? It's a strawman argument. Neither Calvinism nor Reformed theology says "a human is 'incapable' of laying down their sword and agreeing with God". It says the unregenerated are incapable of doing so. I say the unregenerate WILL NOT, because they are at enmity with God —indeed they cannot, because at the core they are at enmity with God.

You say that you already loved him. Pretty much daily, I, (in my own weak estimation of my own weakness, "God help me a poor sinner", and all that), "let go and let God", "...[lay] down [my] sword and [agree] with God". But it is because I am born again; the Spirit of God has taken up permanent residence in me, and is "working in [me] both to will and to do according to his purposes". Only God can make my confessions real. Apart from him they are nothing but noise and vanity.

The verses needn't be worked at all. But it seems to me a bit humanistic and self-exalting to suppose one is able to read a modern translation of ancient Greek texts in a modern mindset —particularly a humanocentric mindset, involving contrived self-confidence as a mere human— to do much more to understand God's communication to us, quite apart from God's spirit working in us. That we can understand some, I agree. So, apparently, does AI. But AI doesn't have a rebellious nature, nor even "the old man" still at work in the regenerated.

They needn't be worked, because they are written as meant. It is our duty to do our best to be pure in the understanding, and not careless, assuming things God did not include according to our current worldview.

I try to at least keep my worldview as pure as I see truth from Scripture, beginning with the beginning of all things, besides himself. God is the cause of it all. And truth starts there. "First Cause", Omnipotent, Aseity, and, in the context of this conversation, "The One Who Began All Else, for His Purposes. We are not there yet. We don't know him, nor what he is doing. (Sure we know him, but not as we are known by him). But all reasoning and understanding should begin there, to be as reliable as possible. The Reformed and Calvinists call it 'Sovereignty', but that doesn't get across the power of the fact of God as THE REASON for very Reality. We are the silly worms who consider ourselves able to do something in and of ourselves.

 

[XrzrX]

You here contrast the tenets of Calvinism with what you read in Scripture. WHERE does Calvinism posit or promote brutal coercion? Its a strawman argument. Neither Calvinism (nor Reformed theology) says "a human is 'incapable' of laying down their sword and agreeing with God". It says the unregenerated are incapable of doing so. I say the unregenerate WILL NOT, because they are at enmity with God —indeed they cannot, because at the core they are at enmity with God.

You say that you already loved him. Pretty much daily, I, (in my own weak estimation of my own weakness, "God help me a poor sinner", and all that), "let go and let God", "...[lay] down [my] sword and [agree] with God". But it is because I am born again; the Spirit of God has taken up permanent residence in me, and is "working in [me] both to will and to do according to his purposes". Only God can make my confessions real. Apart from him they are nothing but noise and vanity.

The verses needn't be worked at all. But it seems to me a bit humanistic and self-exalting to suppose one is able to read a modern translation of ancient Greek texts in a modern mindset —particularly a humanocentric mindset, involving contrived self-confidence as a mere human— to do much more to understand God's communication to us, quite apart from God's spirit working in us. That we can understand some, I agree. So, apparently, does AI. But AI doesn't have a rebellious nature, nor even "the old man" still at work in the regenerated.

They needn't be worked, because they are written as meant. It is our duty to do our best to be pure in the understanding, and not careless, assuming things God did not include according to our current worldview.

I try to at least keep my worldview as pure as I see truth from Scripture, beginning with the beginning of all things, besides himself. God is the cause of it all. And truth starts there. "First Cause", Omnipotent, Aseity, and, in the context of this conversation, "The One Who Began All Else, for His Purposes. We are not there yet. We don't know him, nor what he is doing. (Sure we know him, but not as we are known by him). But all reasoning and understanding should begin there, to be as reliable as possible. The Reformed and Calvinists call it 'Sovereignty', but that doesn't get across the power of the fact of God as THE REASON for very Reality. We are the silly worms who consider ourselves able to do something in and of ourselves.

You can't seem to be able to see the subtle Docetism in your philosophy here. The Calvinist superimposes it on scripture. Along with Fatalism, and Determinism... and in fact, the most extreme version of meticulous determinism. It is absolutely Gnostic philosophy. Calvinist ruffle at the comparison, but it's textbook. Again, I'm weary of debating it because it's almost exactly like debating with Mormons, they simply Cannot see.. or, will not. You hear of people coming out of it, and we would probably agree, the Spirit did it. But man, between the Dispys, Calvys, "Lawkeepers", Universalists, Deity deniers and on and on.. the simple Christian, looks around and says' What.. on God's green earth is going on". It's exhausting. "We preach Christ crucified..". It's enough.

 

[Arial]

Yet... when I read scripture, it simply doesn't lend itself that a human is 'incapable' of laying down their sword and agreeing with God. It's ALL through the bible, over and over and over again. And the verses allegedly supporting 'election doctrine' have to be worked waaaay harder than they should be to fit, when a natural reading is not only 'easier' but harmonizes without brutal coercion.

That is a bit amusing, since those opposed to election change the natural/clear meaning of all the words associated with it, or change the "who" it applies to, to the "what" it applies to.

Here are the words:
Elect
Called
Foreknew
Predestined
Chosen

Give your definition of them and relate that definition to scriptures.

 

[makesends]

You can't seem to be able to see the subtle Docetism in your philosophy here. The Calvinist superimposes it on scripture. Along with Fatalism, and Determinism... and in fact, the most extreme version of meticulous determinism. It is absolutely Gnostic philosophy. Calvinist ruffle at the comparison, but it's textbook. Again, I'm weary of debating it because it's almost exactly like debating with Mormons, they simply Cannot see.. or, will not. You hear of people coming out of it, and we would probably agree, the Spirit did it. But man, between the Dispys, Calvys, "Lawkeepers", Universalists, Deity deniers and on and on.. the simple Christian, looks around and says' What.. on God's green earth is going on". It's exhausting. "We preach Christ crucified..". It's enough.

1) Ok, let's go through it. How does Docetism relate to my philosophy here? Give me the sequence of thought—not just, this that Calvinists say, sounds like that, which is Docetism.
2) What is "the most extreme version of meticulous determinism"?
2b) What does "fatalism" have to do with 'meticulous determinism'?
3) What is "Christ crucified" without definitions and qualifiers? Does not everything —especially the Gospel— begin with God? What then is 'God', without kissing up to humanocentric, self-important, temporally-defined, notions?
3b) What is "the simple Christian"?

Please, do not try to answer the third question with some sort of pompous shout-down about those who are uneducated in Christendom's lexicon.

 

[XrzrX]

1) Ok, let's go through it. How does Docetism relate to my philosophy here? Give me the sequence of thought—not just, this that Calvinists say, sounds like that, which is Docetism.

We are the silly worms who consider ourselves able to do something in and of ourselves... and 'total depravity' are straight out of the Gnostic handbook.

2) What is "the most extreme version of meticulous determinism"?

The most extreme version of determinism, 'meticulous determinism'. That states God 'determines' that every horror the wicked commit, is ordained of God, because He 'allows' it. The exact argument atheists use.

2b) What does "fatalism" have to do with 'meticulous determinism'?

Didn't say it did, outside they are both Gnostic tenets.

3) What is "Christ crucified" without definitions and qualifiers?

"For indeed Jews ask for signs and Greeks search for wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified.." He's happy to leave it at that.

Does not everything —especially the Gospel— begin with God? What then is 'God', without kissing up to humanocentric, self-important, temporally-defined, notions?

The Docetism again. Doing what God says to do, choose, believe, have faith... is not 'humancentric, self-importance' .. it's reading what is written.

3b) What is "the simple Christian"?

Please, do not try to answer the third question with some sort of pompous shout-down about those who are uneducated in Christendom's lexicon.

One unburdened by 50K 'isms' that cause what should be brothers and sisters in Christ to bicker for centuries.

 

[XrzrX]

That is a bit amusing, since those opposed to election change the natural/clear meaning of all the words associated with it, or change the "who" it applies to, to the "what" it applies to.

Here are the words:
Elect
Called
Foreknew
Predestined
Chosen

Give your definition of them and relate that definition to scriptures.

I know how you parse Rom 8. It says pretty clearly, He knew beforehand those that would believe, He predestined that they would be conformed to the Image of Christ. Now you say He ONLY 'calls' those people, but it doesn't say that.. you insert it. As far as Chosen, Israel was 'Chosen' to be a vessel fit for destruction and a cautionary tale. Believers are Chosen to be Temples of the Spirit, light to the nations, and children of God. As far as pertains to us.. the Elect are elect because we are the Saved. The Saved are not saved because they are the "Elect".

 

[makesends]

We are the silly worms who consider ourselves able to do something in and of ourselves... and 'total depravity' are straight out of the Gnostic handbook.

That doesn't answer my question. It shows correlation, at best —not causation. You were linking them, not by similarity, but by relationship.

The most extreme version of determinism, 'meticulous determinism'. That states God 'determines' that every horror the wicked commit, is ordained of God, because He 'allows' it. The exact argument atheists use.

Is that all that meticulous determinism states? (But what you said is, as I remember, "...the most extreme version of meticulous determinism...". Are you revising your statement?) I too believe in meticulous determinism, but I do not think that what God did/does in such horrors as even the eternal torment of souls in the Lake of Fire, is an end in itself, but as means to the unimaginable joy of being his particular creation in Heaven for the objects of his mercy. To me, to think he did not ordain all things whatsoever comes to pass, is to say that he is not Omnipotent First Cause, and is an indication of ignorance concerning the visceral horror that sin is and ignorance concerning the purity of God.

Didn't say it did, outside they are both Gnostic tenets.

Again, you see correlation. Where is the causation? I didn't come to these that I believe by the Gnostic route.

The Docetism again. Doing what God says to do, choose, believe, have faith... is not 'humancentric, self-importance' .. it's reading what is written.

Considering it possible to do it, apparently just because God says to do it, does not indicate that it is possible to do it, apart from God. The command does not imply the ability to obey.

One unburdened by 50K 'isms' that cause what should be brothers and sisters in Christ to bicker for centuries.

Or, one who is unwilling to give up his self-deterministic hopes.

 

[Arial]

I know how you parse Rom 8. It says pretty clearly, He knew beforehand those that would believe, He predestined that they would be conformed to the Image of Christ. Now you say He ONLY 'calls' those people, but it doesn't say that.. you insert it. As far as Chosen, Israel was 'Chosen' to be a vessel fit for destruction and a cautionary tale. Believers are Chosen to be Temples of the Spirit, light to the nations, and children of God. As far as pertains to us.. the Elect are elect because we are the Saved. The Saved are not saved because they are the "Elect".

οὓς προέγνω "those whom He foreknew"​

• οὓς: relative pronoun, accusative masculine plural, referring to people (direct object of the verb).
• προέγνω: aorist active indicative, 3rd person singular of προγινώσκω ("to foreknow" or "to choose beforehand").
  
  • Aorist: punctiliar action (complete)
  • Active voice: subject (God) performs the action
  • Indicative mood: statement of fact

προώρισεν "He also predestined"​

• προώρισεν: aorist active indicative, 3rd person singular of προορίζω ("to predestine, determine beforehand")
  
  • Same tense, voice, and mood as above, emphasizing a completed divine action

οὓς δὲ προώρισεν, τούτους καὶ ἐκάλεσεν "those He predestined, these He also called"​

• οὓς: relative pronoun, accusative masculine plural (again, direct object)
• δὲ: conjunction, often translated "and" or "but", functioning here to connect clauses
• προώρισεν: repeated verb as above
• τούτους: demonstrative pronoun, accusative masculine plural, emphatic (translated “these”)
• καὶ: coordinating conjunction, “also”
• ἐκάλεσεν: aorist active indicative, 3rd person singular of καλέω καλέω ("to call")

οὓς ἐκάλεσεν, τούτους καὶ ἐδικαίωσεν "those He called, these He also justified"​

• οὓς: relative pronoun, accusative masculine plural
• ἐκάλεσεν: same as above
• τούτους: demonstrative pronoun, accusative masculine plural
• ἐδικαίωσεν: aorist active indicative, 3rd person singular of δικαιόω ("to justify, declare righteous")

• οὓς δὲ ἐδικαίωσεν, τούτους καὶ ἐδόξασεν "those He justified, these He also glorified"​

  • οὓς: relative pronoun, accusative masculine plural
  • δὲ: connecting conjunction
  • ἐδικαίωσεν: same verb and form as above
  • τούτους: demonstrative pronoun, accusative masculine plural
  • ἐδόξασεν: aorist active indicative, 3rd person singular of δοξάζω ("to glorify")
• The structure supports monergism — God alone initiates and completes salvation.
• No one drops out of the chain: all foreknown are predestined, all predestined are called, all called are justified, and all justified are glorified.
• Salvation is God-centered, not man-centered, and accomplished entirely by His sovereign grace.

(Courtesy ChatGPT)

---

 

[XrzrX]

οὓς προέγνω "those whom He foreknew"​

• οὓς: relative pronoun, accusative masculine plural, referring to people (direct object of the verb).
• προέγνω: aorist active indicative, 3rd person singular of προγινώσκω("to foreknow" or "to choose beforehand").
  • Aorist: punctiliar action (complete)
  • Active voice: subject (God) performs the action
  • Indicative mood: statement of fact

προώρισεν "He also predestined"​

• προώρισεν: aorist active indicative, 3rd person singular of προορίζω("to predestine, determine beforehand")
  • Same tense, voice, and mood as above, emphasizing a completed divine action

οὓς δὲ προώρισεν, τούτους καὶ ἐκάλεσεν "those He predestined, these He also called"​

• οὓς: relative pronoun, accusative masculine plural (again, direct object)
• δὲ: conjunction, often translated "and" or "but", functioning here to connect clauses
• προώρισεν: repeated verb as above
• τούτους: demonstrative pronoun, accusative masculine plural, emphatic (translated “these”)
• καὶ: coordinating conjunction, “also”
• ἐκάλεσεν: aorist active indicative, 3rd person singular of καλέω καλέω ("to call")

οὓς ἐκάλεσεν, τούτους καὶ ἐδικαίωσεν "those He called, these He also justified"​

• οὓς: relative pronoun, accusative masculine plural
• ἐκάλεσεν: same as above
• τούτους: demonstrative pronoun, accusative masculine plural
• ἐδικαίωσεν: aorist active indicative, 3rd person singular of δικαιόω ("to justify, declare righteous")

• οὓς δὲ ἐδικαίωσεν, τούτους καὶ ἐδόξασεν "those He justified, these He also glorified"​

  • οὓς: relative pronoun, accusative masculine plural
  • δὲ: connecting conjunction
  • ἐδικαίωσεν: same verb and form as above
  • τούτους: demonstrative pronoun, accusative masculine plural
  • ἐδόξασεν: aorist active indicative, 3rd person singular of δοξάζω ("to glorify")
• The structure supports monergism — God alone initiates and completes salvation.
• No one drops out of the chain: all foreknown are predestined, all predestined are called, all called are justified, and all justified are glorified.
• Salvation is God-centered, not man-centered, and accomplished entirely by His sovereign grace.

(Courtesy ChatGPT)

---

Chat gpt? You know it's logo is the 'star of David' split and one side reversed? Just an interesting tidbit, but yeah, that's "a" interpretation of proginosko.. yet, he uses the same exact word in 11:2 to simply mean 'those He knew before". You guys handle this word like Dispys handle "pleroma" in the same chapters.. where it has consistent meaning all through the book, and somehow one instance 'miraculously' has a different definition to fit a doctrine. Doesn't fly for me, regardless of what 'Chat gtp' thinks.. or um, doesn't "think".. wait, does it think?!

 

[makesends]

Chat gpt? You know it's logo is the 'star of David' split and one side reversed? Just an interesting tidbit, but yeah, that's "a" interpretation of proginosko.. yet, he uses the same exact word in 11:2 to simply mean 'those He knew before". You guys handle this word like Dispys handle "pleroma" in the same chapters.. where it has consistent meaning all through the book, and somehow one instance 'miraculously' has a different definition to fit a doctrine. Doesn't fly for me, regardless of what 'Chat gtp' thinks.. or um, doesn't "think".. wait, does it think?!

If you can show how omnipotent omniscient God can logically know all things before creating whatever brought those things about, without meaning to, INTENTIONALLY, please! have at it.

If God knew ahead or not, he intended it, and did what it took to accomplish it. Therefore, what he knew, he purposely caused. Whatever God does, he KNOWS intimately in every detail WITH INTENTION. You complain that in 11:2 the same word means something else. What makes you think it means something else? God intended them to do what he caused them to do, if in no other way, by creating the world, did he not? Why not?

Demonstrate how God can make something he did not intend. Or demonstrate that what comes to pass does so by other means, either by "plain reading" of Scripture without bias, or by logic.