• **Notifications**: Notifications can be dismissed by clicking on the "x" on the righthand side of the notice.
  • **New Style**: You can now change style options. Click on the paintbrush at the bottom of this page.
  • **Donations**: If the Lord leads you please consider helping with monthly costs and up keep on our Forum. Click on the Donate link In the top menu bar. Thanks
  • **New Blog section**: There is now a blog section. Check it out near the Private Debates forum or click on the Blog link in the top menu bar.
  • Welcome Visitors! Join us and be blessed while fellowshipping and celebrating our Glorious Salvation In Christ Jesus.

Can the external call of the gospel by itself produce faith in the heart of the natural man?

I know I haven't responded to this post yet. It is very long. I will need to bookmark it and get back to it at some point. We had one violent thunderstorm roll one after another, two nights in a row. Internet went out yesterday early afternoon and I am way behind. Playing catch up.
No problem. I have been busy myself and alot of issues (my brother in law and church leader was rushed to hospital with a possible stroke.. Prayers are requested)

I hope you suffer no physical damage to your property or person in these storms. it has been rough year! (we had tornadoes and high winds in my area last night
 
That requires exegesis of the passage and within its context and the context of the full counsel of God on salvation. I am too far behind to do that here because of storms taking down the internet. So I will start a thread and direct you to it with my exegesis, when I get time. You are of course free to engage with it or not, read it or not.

For it is by GRACE we have been saved through faith

Salvation is the gift (grace) not faith

If faith was the gift.

it would say for it is by grace I have been given faith to be saved

I was saved by grace alone.. not by any other means. I was not saved by faith. the legalist who wants to say I believe I was saved by faith alone is in error. because I was not saved by faith period

I was saved through it not by it

thats what the passage says, it is stand alone.

the words through faith is not the means of salvation. it is not the gift. It is the fact God is saying he will not force you to receive it. Grace is based on Gods love and mercy.
In what way am I trying to remove faith? Have I not been addressing it? Just a note, with no animosity or accusation in it: if you did not respond by breaking up my sentences or my thoughts and responding to each as an isolated statement, your post would not be so long. And it wouldn't remove my words from their context. Please try and shorten your posts.
I will try to break up posts maybe in the future so not so long. but I want to directly respond to individual things you say.

I have noticed when people try to respond and do not break my words up. it is hard to follow. and it appears they did not even read what I said, because their response seems to not address specific things I said in my post.. and I then have to repeat them
God is trying to do something? Then he must not be omnipotent.
God is many things

He is perfect power (omnipotent)
He is perfect justice (unlike human judges he judged righteously in all ways.)
He has perfect righteousness (in all ways he does what is right.).
He has perfect love (scripture speaks of his great love over and over. and his love is not like human love. It is not self serving, he does not serve himself and he tells us to be like him, not serving self)

all these things work together and make God who he is.


It is as different as God is from my father. Or yours. Or anyone's. The distance between God and man cannot be calculated or comprehended. So there is no comparison between those two things.
actually your right

But God uses human terms to try to describe himself. and we are created in Gods image, we should not forget these two facts

God is perfect love. he demands we love like he loves unconditionally. He tells us to love everyone. Not just those who chose to love, or those in our family or our church or our click. But everyone (The two great commands he give, which he says encompasses the whole law and prophets)

its hard for me to see a God to tell us to love everyone unconditionally. when he refuses to do that himself.
They earned nothing. They were condemned already. They got justice.
 
Did I say that we are not supposed to speak in human terms? In all sincere kindness, please read more carefully what I actually say and having done so, then compose an appropriate response. Thank you.
I am responding as to how I see what you are saying


If I misread what you said. instead of telling me to stop doing something, correct me and tell me what you meant.

if we are going to take offense for everything someone says. we will never get anywhere.


Are you saying that is what I am doing? Or that is what I said we should do?

I am saying iot appears you are doing this

Grace and faith. you are trying to change the meanings and give them some theological meaning instead of just trying to interpret than as written.

The catholic church does this so much it can be frustrating trying to explain things to them, because they give meaning not found in the meanings as written (they give them what I always call church meanings, which a laymen would not even understand.. and in reality, it only supports their view) so should be taken with a grain of salt..

I do not think people purposely does this, I think it is a taught reaction. based on what we have been taught.. by those we trust.

I have been guilty of this myself.. so I am not judging what I have not done myself.

and rememeber, i said this in response to what I thought you were trying to say

if this is what you are doing. I am warning against it.. because it does not help either of us


I don't know the purpose of you posting all of this, but it went far, far away from post #238 it was responding to and didn't bother to answer any of the questions that I asked. This is why we get into trouble in our communication. Do you suppose we can get back to what we were doing so well up to this point?
I just responded to the post you made.
Comparisons like this---man to God in order to define what God is doing in respect to salvation----do not work as a valid interpretation of what God is doing or does. We are not engaging in a conversation about what man does in relation to other men. We are engaging in a conversation about what God-----the unique and sovereign---does in establishing a relationship with mankind. You are comparing apples and oranges as though they were the same thing.

God does not offer something to anyone. Who has the upper, controlling hand in that situation? God or man? This is where those who believe in the "free choice" of salvation, go awry in a great deal of their Bible interpretation. It throw everything off and makes it impossible to see it correctly. God gives the gift of faith to those he has predestined to belong to him. Jesus himself says this. "Those the Father gives me---". These he draws, these believe when they hear, these hear his voice and follow him. (I have given those scriptures.)


The called are given the gift of faith.

Will address rest tomorrow if I can get internet connection on my lap top. Have it on all my other devices (on tablet now). But I don't like doing it this way. I have not been able to post or sign out since this afternoon. Mainly came back to post this part and sign out. See you tomorrow.
from the words you spoke and I highlighted it it appeared you were trying to say we can not use terms to explain biblical things..

I am not sure what you mean by me getting off topic
 
A spiritually dead person can ONLY choose to sin.
never said otherwise.
That is, no matter what is right or wrong, what is good or what is bad, in his eyes, is still corrupted by his enmity with God. Romans 8:8 "Those who are in the realm of the flesh cannot please God." I hope I don't need to further demonstrate the line of logic, there.
Do a good study of what it means to be In Christ. "...no longer I, but Christ in me."
Receiving Gods gift. is not a good work. its why we can not boast.

so saying we can not do it because we can only sin does not fit.

I can not be rewarded by receiving his gift in faith either. Salvation is a gift. not a reward.
 
it would be awful if God forced people.

you can not force people. then claim you are a God of love. nor can you refuse others the ability to believe and call yourself a God of love
Who made that rule?

Am I being forced if I choose what I prefer?

Remember: our ways are not God's ways, and his thoughts are not our thoughts,
In fact, his ways are higher than our ways, and his thoughts are higher than our thoughts (Isa 55:8-9).

And God's ways both make willing and give to prefer.
 
Grace and faith. you are trying to change the meanings and give them some theological meaning instead of just trying to interpret than as written.
They do have theological meanings and it is the theological meanings that must be used in Bible interpretation. That IS interpreting them as they are written.
from the words you spoke and I highlighted it it appeared you were trying to say we can not use terms to explain biblical things..
I don't know how to make it anymore clear. Maybe this will help. You used a analogy from the world of humans (an apple) to interpret a scripture (Eph 2:8), using that analogy of a human receiving a gift from a human and the choice of accepting or rejecting salvation, was derived from that.

The way to find out what God (an orange) is saying in the scripture, we must look to him. Who is he? Did he offer to rescue Israel from slavery (which is a type of our deliverance in redemption from the kingdom of darkness, as we are told I believe in Gal and also Hebrews) or did he simply deliver them with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm? That would be a proper comparison of two things.
 
For it is by GRACE we have been saved through faith
Therefore faith is necessary. What does it say about Abraham? His faith was counted as righteousness. Without faith, there is no justification.
Salvation is the gift (grace) not faith
Is the gift given without what is necessary for it to be received?
If faith was the gift.

it would say for it is by grace I have been given faith to be saved
Why would Paul have to put it in your words? In my exegesis it shows grammatically how Paul was deliberately saying everything about salvation, including faith, is a gift from God. If God does not give us the faith as a gift, where does it come from? Paul is writing in Greek, not English.
I was saved by grace alone.. not by any other means. I was not saved by faith. the legalist who wants to say I believe I was saved by faith alone is in error. because I was not saved by faith period
The Reformers were not legalists, (in teaching) the apostles were not legalists, God is not a legalist. And yet, from the Reformers we have the five solas, one of which is faith, and one which is grace. Paul says we are saved through faith. God says Abraham's faith was counted as righteousness. Faith alone in Christian theology, simply means not by works. Without faith--- faith in the person and work of Jesus---there is no salvation. As to being saved by grace alone ----that means by no other means can anyone reconcile themselves to God unless he extends grace to an evil and wicked people and also provides the means of reconciliation. WHich he did in Christ coming to redeem us (pay a satisfaction for our release). By placing our trust in him and him alone to reconcile us we are saved by this grace (faith).
I was saved through it not by it

thats what the passage says, it is stand alone.
It is not stand alone for there are also places in Scripture that say "by" faith. In which case the "by" is expressing it as a means to salvation. We get there no other way.
I will try to break up posts maybe in the future so not so long. but I want to directly respond to individual things you say.
Are you skimming my posts? Not an accusation, I catch myself doing the same things sometimes and have to go back and re-read. Breaking up posts is fine as long as the train of thought remains intact. But I asked you to not break up my sentences ( that does increase the length of a post, but my primary reason was because it removes it from it full context and either slightly or completely distorts what I was saying,
God is many things

He is perfect power (omnipotent)
He is perfect justice (unlike human judges he judged righteously in all ways.)
He has perfect righteousness (in all ways he does what is right.).
He has perfect love (scripture speaks of his great love over and over. and his love is not like human love. It is not self serving, he does not serve himself and he tells us to be like him, not serving self)

all these things work together and make God who he is.
How then can he simply be trying to do things?
actually your right

But God uses human terms to try to describe himself. and we are created in Gods image, we should not forget these two facts

God is perfect love. he demands we love like he loves unconditionally. He tells us to love everyone. Not just those who chose to love, or those in our family or our church or our click. But everyone (The two great commands he give, which he says encompasses the whole law and prophets)
He has to use human terms to reveal himself. But what you describe above concerns us as image bearers. It also focuses on one attribute as though it were the supreme attribute, rather than that all his attributes are fully equal all the time. He intends to destroy the wicked. Does that fit your definition of love? Also, he does not tell us to love everyone unconditionally. This loving our enemies is not doing them any harm and being a help when they need help. (See the account of the good Samaritian.) It is not a feeling. And riddle me this: Does a mother love her children more than she loves the neighbors children? Is that prohibited by God?
its hard for me to see a God to tell us to love everyone unconditionally. when he refuses to do that himself.
Well, he doesn't tell us to do that. Did he love Israel and not love Egypt? I believe the Bible gives us the answer to that plainly.
 
Last edited:
No problem. I have been busy myself and alot of issues (my brother in law and church leader was rushed to hospital with a possible stroke.. Prayers are requested)

I hope you suffer no physical damage to your property or person in these storms. it has been rough year! (we had tornadoes and high winds in my area last night
Prayers are given.

I received no damage, to me or property all gratitude to God who has such mercy on widows and orphans! They were fierce though. I have always loved them, those storms. The weather report can be scary as they put things that are possible given the atmospheric conditions as though get ready it WILL happen. We did get a wind gust of 101 mph and they were predicting tennis ball size hail. We got no hail at all. God owns those storms, and he directs their paths. At least my local channel quit calling it mother nature!
 
John 3: in response to nicodemus question. How can these things be (how are we born again)

14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up,
You left out a lot. What prompted Nicodemus to ask Jesus "How can these things be?" was Jesus saying 3-8 Jesus answered him, (and here N had not even asked Jesus anything, he had only made a statement about Jesus) "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God." Nicodemus said to him, "How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born?" Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Do not marvel that I said to you, 'You must be born again.' The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear its sounds, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit."

Jesus is talking about being born again. That it is something the Spirit does and no one can see the kingdom of heaven unless he is first born again. Nicodemus wants to know how this born again "thing" can be. He asks, "How can this be." Jesus answered him, "Are you the teacher of Israel and yet do not understand these things?

Why did Jesus rebuke him for not knowing already what he had just said since he was a teacher of the Law? Linking the "water" and the "Spirit" as he did are likely references to OT passages of God pouring out his Spirit in the end times (the post resurrection days) (Isa 32:15; 44:3; Ez 36:25-27).

11-15 Trutly, truly, I say to you, we speak of what we know, and bear witness to what we have seend, but you do not receive our testimony. If I told you earthly things and you do not believe, how can you believe if I tell you heavenly things? No one has ascended into heaven except he who descended from heaven, the Son of Man. And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up, that whoever believes in him may have eternal life.

Here Jesus is making another comparison to himself and the prefiguration of the snake on a pole. He is telling Nicodemus who he is. But he does not say an option is being offered as in the OT. He does not say look upon him and receive eternal life. He simply says whoever believes in him will have eternal life.
 
when is a person born again? When they believe. not only are they born again, But they will never perish.. and will live forever 9eternal security is in tact and promised)
Jesus had just said that one had to be born again first. IOW there is no believing without being born again. Being born is receiving life right? Now think back to Eph 2. When you were dead in sin God in his great mercy made you alive. Think of 1 Cor where we are told the natural man CANNOT understand the things of the Spirit. Nicodemus proves that point. He was a teacher of the Law and he couldn't understand the spiritual things governing the natural things.
this would be more then enough to prove his point. He could have stopped here. But he did not. He again will reiterate and expound on this premis.. that we are born again, when in faith we look to Gods provision.


16 For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.

its one thing to say it once. But here Jesus repeats his message.. He loved Israel so9 much he offered them a bronze serpent. He however loved the whole world so much, he offered himself

in both cased. whoever believes were saved. they are born again, they will never die. and they will live forever
How is this showing 1. that an option to believe or not is offered along with believing? And 2. That we are born again by believing? We seem to now be talking about two things at the same time or the conversation switched gears.

I will get to the rest tomorrow.
 
never said otherwise.
So how does one "accept Christ" if he is not regenerated?
Receiving Gods gift. is not a good work. its why we can not boast.
So I've heard. Yet you can't explain how it's even possible. Does it not please God? Romans 8:8 says the mind governed by the flesh cannot please God.
so saying we can not do it because we can only sin does not fit.
Bad logic. Explain how one's choosing Christ is possible for the mind governed by the flesh. Romans 8:8.
I can not be rewarded by receiving his gift in faith either. Salvation is a gift. not a reward.
Not calling it a reward. I'm calling it bogus, if it is the result of man's decision. John 1: "...born, not by the will of man, but of God." Submitting to him —even inviting him in— is not salvation, but the result of regeneration and the faith that is a necessary part of regeneration. All the gift by entirely by grace. Can you explain how submitting to God does not please God? (Romans 8:8 again) While you're at it, take a look Romans 8:7, where the mind governed by the flesh can't even submit to God's law.
 
Notice. Jesus takes nicodemus back to a time, and place. and event Nicodemus would have been very familiar with. this would immediately bring to his remembrance the time the children of Israel due to their sin was sent a bunch of serpents by God.. They cried out. So God had moses make a bronse serpent and lifted it up. and said whoever looks at this serpent will live.

The opportunity was there for everyone. But not everone looked. Only those who trusted God were saved. the rest died.

in the same token then Jesus said he will be lifted up. ie, the serpent was a type of him and the pole was a type of the cross.

15 that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life.

remember, this whole conversation is about being born again. While we are alive in the flesh, we must be made alive in the spirit by being born this second time (spiritually)

when is a person born again? When they believe. not only are they born again, But they will never perish.. and will live forever 9eternal security is in tact and promised)
Ok. A fresh morning and I can give this more and better attention.

In John 3, before we get to this portion of the conversation, Jesus has already made it plain that being born again is completely a spiritual, inner work of God by the Holy Spirit, and according to the will of the Father. According to the will of the Father, if we consider what we already know of Scripture and of God, and by the scriptures repeated using the terms, "the elect", the "called", "those given to Christ by the Father", that this work of God of regeneration is not a matter of human choice, but according to the will of God (John 1:12-13). It is like the wind, Jesus says, no one knows where it comes from or where it goes. It is those who God has re-birthed into Christ who believe. Not those who believe and then are re- birthed because they have believed.

The comparison to what happened in the wilderness can only go so far. It only points to Christ and a future event, but the two events are not doing the same thing. In the wilderness with Moses, looking upon the snake on a pole, was not to give eternal life, but to keep from being put to death then and there. When Jesus was nailed to a cross and died, it was about providing eternal life for those God was giving him, defeating the power of Satan to condemn those he died in the place of, breaking the chains of sin that held them in bondage, and ultimately destroying that serpent completely. Nicodemus as a teacher, should have understood the typology and should have known who Jesus really was---Messiah---and what Messiah came to do.

So using that incident from the OT does not prove that our salvation is a matter of our choice. Or that faith is the cause of the new birth. I do appreciate the thought and effort that you put into expounding on the scriptures in question. I hope that you will at least consider what I have said also.
 
Last edited:
17 For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved.
once again, Jesus offers more insite..I am not sent to judge (the jews thought he was. and he would spare them, because they were his) Jesus said he was sent so they MAY be saved - (Aorist Passive Subjunctive) there is no gaurantee that all in the world will be saved. He died so they may be saved Just like all the jews were nto all saved. although the bronze serpent was sent for them all)

18 “He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.


Οὐ γὰρ ἀπέστειλεν ὁ Θεὸς τὸν Υἱὸν εἰς τὸν κόσμον ἵνα κρίνῃ τὸν κόσμον, ἀλλἵνα σωθῇ ὁ κόσμος δι᾽ αὐτοῦ.
(John 3:17, NA28).

The two iva clauses (purpose statements) show contrast: Not to condemn, but to save.

The aorist subjunctive verbs (in blue above) express purpose/result.

The contrast (ἀλλ᾽) (green) is emphatic and highlights God's saving intention in sending the Son.

Full literal translation: "For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him."

It is not a question of possibility when it says "might" or "may". This is Jesus we are talking about who was sent by the Father for the express purpose of saving the world. And we see in Rev 21 the completion of the Covenant of Redemption, that he does just that. So "world" in this passage is not referring to people, but to the created world, that will be populated only by those who have been redeemed in Christ. These people will come from all over the world. (That is why Jesus, just before his ascension, commanded the disciples to begin the process of taking the gospel to all the nations, gathering his flock (people).
the final conclusion to this whole conversation is this

A person who believes. as was mentioned multiple times. Is born again, Will never perish, and will be saved and Have Gods promise they will live forever.

A person who is still in the state of unbelief is still dead. must be born again, still condemned. because they have not believe

so I am sorry. Your statement is not true. It is not only stated as fact. it is indicated as fact.
The final conclusion, having been supported by the full counsel of God (the Scripture), is that a person who believes HAS been born again by the Holy Spirit, and the faith through which they are saved is the fruit of that new birth. If genuine faith in Christ exists, it is proof of election----that is where God sent the Holy Spirit to apply the work of Jesus.

A person who does not believe has not been born again into the kingdom. They may be at some point, but if they remain in unbelief, they remain condemned, because the Holy Spirit was not sent to them to birth them into the kingdom. (Wait for it. Don't get upset.)

Romans 9: 18-20 So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills. You will say to me then, "Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?" But who are you O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, "Why have you made me like this?" Has the potter no right over the clay---"

The absolute truths that God gives us about himself are the most important of all our life. They are a treasure far beyond any treasure the world gives. And it is a grace and a mercy that he has stopped down so far as to become one of us in order to covenant with us and give them to us. We should come to the place where we want to know the truth, his truth, even if we don't like it. Even if it clashes with the very root and depth of our fall that cries out to be in control, to have God bend to our will instead of bending to his.
 
This is far to complicated and I think gets to the root of the issue
Can I believe and not have faith? Even Demons believe there is one God.. yet they tremble.
Logically, there is nothing complicated about it at all. Using the fact that even the demons believe there is one God does not support anything related to my question. Demons cannot be saved, by God's decree. Demons and angels and Satan, are not included in the Covenant of Redemption. Jesus did not die as a substitute for them.

And you have made a distinction between believe and have faith that does not exist when it pertains to the person and work of Jesus in salvation. They are used the same way, as the same thing, in Scripture. The faith is saving faith , that trusts only in Christ, and belief is in the person and work of Christ. Faith is belief.
Yes, you can believe and reject at the same time. people do it all the time. They believe in God but when it comes down to trusting God.
1. they either reject the fact they are so evil they are condemned,
2. They reject the fact that they can not save themselves by following some religious system (like the jews and many in the church)
3. They recieve God in spirit. but then try to perfect that salvation with their works. hence they do not trust the cross is enough to save them.
Believing in the existence of God is not enough to save. Never was, never will be. There is only one way TO God and that is belief and trust in the person and work of Christ. What you have described are people who do not believe. And who therefore do not have saving faith.
The people of Israel cried out to moses asking for help. they believe God could do it

But when it came down to faith. some reacted and received Gods gift. the rest rejected and were killed
Two entirely different situations. This is before the advent and work of Christ. And no one in the OT had self generated faith. It was given by God, not offered, because it was given to serve HIS purposes in redemption. The example you keep giving as your proof of options, of a gift offered, is simply not a valid one. There were two covenants, structured differently, and serving different purposes. The first prepared the way for the second. So this event you keep bringing up, was about obedience -----but faith.
if you want to talk to me, talk to me, I really do not care to discuss eisegesis or whatever you want to call it. i want to discuss what the word says. If you wish to do that. lets go.. I am all for it.
I am discussing what the word says. Exegesis is a part of being able to establish the truthfulness of what one says by pulling it out of the scripture, relating it to all contexts that are involved in interpretation----of anything. Eisegesis (which is what you did,even if you don't know what it is called, or consider that is what you did) is an interpretation that reflects the personal ideas of viewpoint of the interpreter, reading that into the text. What you said was no where in the text, or in any other text in Scripture.
 
But it removes Gods character and his omniscience. God KNEW who would See, he KNEW who would come. trying to remove the words whoever sees and believes, which by the way Jesus said WAS THE WILL OF GOD, just makes the whole passage of John 6 in this conversation non sensical.
John 6: 64-65 "But there are some of you who do not believe.: (For Jesus knew from the beginning who those were who did not believe, and who it was who would betray him.) And he said, "This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father."
John 10:25-30 Jesus answered them, "I told you, and you do not believe because you are not among my sheep. My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who gives them to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of
That is to clarify what scriptures we are talking about and what they say. If they do not say exactly what they do say and mean exactly what they mean, what do they mean and say instead? How to you make the align with what you think God's character is? They only make nonsense out of the entire chapters in John 6 and John 10 and remove God's omniscience and character if they take away from his omniscience and character. So how do they do that? Or is it possible that there are things about his omniscience and character that you do not want to be there?
God KNEW who would See, he KNEW who would come. trying to remove the words whoever sees and believes, which by the way Jesus said WAS THE WILL OF GOD, just makes the whole passage of John 6 in this conversation non sensical.
Either God knows who would come to Jesus before they do by looking at everything and learning it by looking at it (to put it in human terms), as is described above; or he knows who will come to him because he has chosen them to come to Jesus, predestines them to be conformed to the image of Christ, calls them, justifies them, and glorifies them. Which of those two things is a sovereign God and an omniscient God, and which one is not? To delve deeper into that would require a though examination of something you brought up that really does not relate to the question of John 6: 64-65 and what it says, the subject of the meaning of foreknow in Scripture as it relates to God. John 6:64,65 says that no one can come to Jesus unless it is granted him by the Father, and that is why some believe and some don't. That has nothing to do with God knowing beforehand who would come to him.

ANd I have not removed the words "whoever sees and believes". They still stand firm. What you have done is added a concept "in order for God's character to not be compromised, he must give equal opportunity for everyone to accept or reject Christ" that just is not there.
the whole conversation is centered around not working for food which perishes. but food which endures forever. Eating the bread from heaven, Eating his flesh and blood. Coming to him
That is not what the whole conversation is centered around. It is centered around Jesus and who he is. Why do you think the Jews kept getting angrier and angrier?
you can not sit there and say only people who come, believe receive will get these things, then say non of that matters..
Well, I didn't.
again, we do not just remove a part of a passage because it does not support us, we must take it all
Then stop doing that. If you are honest about it and paying attention, when I quote just a portion of a chapter or collection of verses, the meaning I give to it does not change even when the entire chapter or conversation is used. I am also careful that no place else in the Bible will contradict the meaning I have given. I realize that probably you can't see that and will not acknowledge it, so just consider this portion of the conversation not necessary. I am just trying to get through this long long post.
James said we are not justified by faith only but by works.. If we take this as written, like you are trying to take the few verses you posted. without getting context and taking everything said into account. We risk doing what I am trying to appose in another chatroom. that I am ignoring James, who said flat out. we are saved by faith and works.. You and I both know this is not true. But there are some who want force the bible to fit their belief, and not the opposite..
And it doesn't help that you keep going off on a rabbit trail involving a whole different subject. Start a thread about it.

In the next section of your post, you begin a conversation centered on what it means that God foreknows. So I will post this, and when I have been refreshed, I will treat it as a separate topic and separate post.
 
Lets take the whole of scripture in context.

You answered your own question though. Jesus knew from the beginning who would believe and who would not.

Foreknowledge is the basis for predestination.

God knows who will believe.

he also knows what it will take for them to believe. that why not everyone comes to Faith the same way. and also why God is justified in the end. no matter what a person choses
1. That is two different scriptures from two different places. John 6 and John 10. It is not all part of one context,
2. I didn't need to answer the question, it was me who asked the question?
3.Neither passage says anything about foreknowledge or predestination. And if foreknowledge is used as a contingency God looks at, predestination is not necessary. The elect are predestined to be conformed to the image of Christ. You have made man the central actor in salvation, and God a bystander in the effectualness of Christ's life and death. Don't bother saying that you haven't done this. Even if it was not your intention, it is what it is. And don't go to the escape hatch of accusing me of misrepresenting you.
4. God knows who will believe because he has elected them to belong to the Son.
5. Again you have God not sovereign at all, but completely reactive to the whims and will of men. And, no, not everyone comes to faith the same way.
5.a. God does not need to be justified. The elect are justified in/to him.

It is God who foreknows (knows them before the foundation of the world). This is not a casual knowing of them, who they are, but an intimate knowing them as in love). See post # 277 below.
 
@Eternally-Grateful




οὓς προέγνω

  • 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

  • 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

Reformed view:

  • Not simply foreseeing faith or human decisions.
  • The verb προγινώσκω is understood as relational and elective — "those whom He foreknew" = those He set His love on beforehand.
  • Supported by the use of γινώσκω in both OT and NT for covenantal knowledge (cf. Amos 3:2; John 10:14).
"God’s foreknowledge is not passive foresight, but active foreloving — the setting of His covenantal affection on His people."
R.C. Sproul

When God is the subject προέγνω is never used in the Bible to mean mere foresight of future choices. Rather it is always used in a covenantal relationship way.

Romans 11:2 God has not rejected his people whom he foreknew (προέγνω).
Paul is referring to Israel, God's covenant people. (Who did not choose him, but he chose them.) A Parallel with Amos 3:2 You only have I known of all the
families of the earth

1 Peter 1:20 He (Christ) was foreknown (προεγνωσμένου) before the foundation of the world
Refers to Jesus, not human choices. Jesus was foreordained in the
covenant of redemption to do what he did. It shows purposeful intention.

Those who reject election according to the Reformed tradition assume the meaning God knowing in advance who would have faith, in Romans 8:29, but it is not derived from the way the word is used elsewhere. The grammar and biblical usage overwhelmingly suggest foreloving or choosing in advance, not passive observation.
 
They thought Jesus came as conquering messiah, not as the suffering servant.
Nevertheless, they did not think they were Jesus' sheep as you stated. And neither did they think Jesus came as a conquering Messiah. They thought he was a blasphemous nut. And it avoids the statement of Jesus that they did not believe because they were not his sheep. WHich is why I gave the scripture, pointing out that people can be face to face with him, witness his miracles, and not believe and the reason they don't believe is because they were not given to him by the Father. The Holy Spirit had not regenerated them.
Judas did the same. He though Jesus would free them from rome. He failed to see the purpose for Jesus walk on earth at that time.

Most of the city did the same. when he came in riding a donkey. they thought he was going to come in and kick romans out. and set up his kingdom. they welcomed him with Palms, which is what they did when a conquering king came into a city.. Once they realized just like Judas did, that this was not the case. they turned and crucified him.
Irrelevant to the conversation.
But Jesus did come to them, he did try to draw them. as shown in his words he spoke the day he came to jerusalem

Matthew 23:37

Jesus Laments over Jerusalem​

“O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the one who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing!

That's also why Jesus spoke of eating his flesh and blood.. To separate the wheat from the tares. He knew in doing so they would leave disgusted.. and that's what happened. Even though his disciples still was not sure exactly what it all meant. they stayed, understanding, You have the words of eternal life. and we have come to believe
Let's see. Jesus raised to life a man who had been in the grave for four days. He walked on water. Turned water into wine. Fed 5,000 with a few loaves of bread and a couple of fish, gave sight to the blind, hearing to the deaf, commanded demons and they obeyed him, commanded the weather and it obeyed. Rose from the grave himself after three days. Walked through walls after this resurrection. And ascended up to his Father in heaven. But he was powerless to draw men to himself? That picture of Jesus needs repainting.

And your interpretation of Matt 23:37 needs re-evaluated.

Here is a way to look at it that does not present Jesus/God as weeping over his helplessness in the face of the will of sinful men. We can do this thought the themes in the passage.
God's compassion: Genuine, but not thwarted, having been express through long -suffering calls to repentance.
Man's responsibility: Rejection is real and culpable.
Election and reprobation: Jesus's lament does not imply universal election, but covenantal responsibility and divine sorrow over rebellion.
Jesus as God: He speaks as Yahweh lamented through the prophets---full of mercy, yet executing judgment.
That's also why Jesus spoke of eating his flesh and blood.. To separate the wheat from the tares. He knew in doing so they would leave disgusted.. and that's what happened. Even though his disciples still was not sure exactly what it all meant. they stayed, understanding, You have the words of eternal life. and we have come to believe
I do not see any correlation.
 
They do have theological meanings and it is the theological meanings that must be used in Bible interpretation. That IS interpreting them as they are written.
grace = unmerited favor
faith = a confidence in, to be persuaded, to belief based on proof, ie. not a blind faith. but evidentiary faith

those are the definitions.

lets use them, not give them meanings outside their boundaries
I don't know how to make it anymore clear. Maybe this will help. You used a analogy from the world of humans (an apple) to interpret a scripture (Eph 2:8), using that analogy of a human receiving a gift from a human and the choice of accepting or rejecting salvation, was derived from that.
because that is what was said. and it is shown in john 1 12. and so many other passages that that is what happenes
The way to find out what God (an orange) is saying in the scripture, we must look to him. Who is he? Did he offer to rescue Israel from slavery (which is a type of our deliverance in redemption from the kingdom of darkness, as we are told I believe in Gal and also Hebrews) or did he simply deliver them with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm? That would be a proper comparison of two things.
well we must set our religious ideas aside. the simplicity in Christ can be destroyed when we try to insert things according to our doctrines our beliefs.. and not just look at what he says

2 Corinthians 11:3
But I fear, lest somehow, as the serpent deceived Eve by his craftiness, so your minds may be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.

I see this happen all the time. we call them church words. words taken outside their base meanings. which support a church theology. But in outsider of this reality the church imposes. no one would ever use that word that way
 
Therefore faith is necessary. What does it say about Abraham? His faith was counted as righteousness. Without faith, there is no justification.
and without justification, there is no forgiveness of sin

and without forgiveness of sin, there is no life. (we are still left dead. seperated condemned, in adam)
Is the gift given without what is necessary for it to be received?
the gift is paid in full

one must recieve it.. or they can deny and reject it. for whatever reasons (and there are many)

Again, God will not force you to take his gift.. Nor will he keep it from you.
Why would Paul have to put it in your words? In my exegesis it shows grammatically how Paul was deliberately saying everything about salvation, including faith, is a gift from God. If God does not give us the faith as a gift, where does it come from? Paul is writing in Greek, not English.
lol.. Here we go with the church words again.

Could you have faith if

1. Jesus did make atonement for your sin?
2. If God did not show you he is real (his creation)
3. If God did not draw you to himself by whatever reason he used to draw you over time?
4. If the HS did not convict you of sin righteousness and judgment
5. If God did not help you understand the gospel
6. If God did not prove himself trustworthy, to give you confidence that what he is offering you is real. is trustworthy, He is trustworthy and he will keep his promise. to persuade you that he is trustworthy. even if your faith might be as small as a mustard seed (as the tax collector)

was it your work that got you on your knees? or was it Gods work?

In this light, faith is a gift.

But salvation is the gift being spoken of in Eph 2 what good is salvation if you have faith, but refuse to recieve? it would be nothing.

Your not saved by faith. your saved by grace.. not sure how many more times this has to be said.


The Reformers were not legalists, (in teaching) the apostles were not legalists, God is not a legalist. And yet, from the Reformers we have the five solas, one of which is faith, and one which is grace. Paul says we are saved through faith. God says Abraham's faith was counted as righteousness. Faith alone in Christian theology, simply means not by works. Without faith--- faith in the person and work of Jesus---there is no salvation. As to being saved by grace alone ----that means by no other means can anyone reconcile themselves to God unless he extends grace to an evil and wicked people and also provides the means of reconciliation. WHich he did in Christ coming to redeem us (pay a satisfaction for our release). By placing our trust in him and him alone to reconcile us we are saved by this grace (faith).

It is not stand alone for there are also places in Scripture that say "by" faith. In which case the "by" is expressing it as a means to salvation. We get there no other way.

Are you skimming my posts? Not an accusation, I catch myself doing the same things sometimes and have to go back and re-read. Breaking up posts is fine as long as the train of thought remains intact. But I asked you to not break up my sentences ( that does increase the length of a post, but my primary reason was because it removes it from it full context and either slightly or completely distorts what I was saying,

How then can he simply be trying to do things?

He has to use human terms to reveal himself. But what you describe above concerns us as image bearers. It also focuses on one attribute as though it were the supreme attribute, rather than that all his attributes are fully equal all the time. He intends to destroy the wicked. Does that fit your definition of love? Also, he does not tell us to love everyone unconditionally. This loving our enemies is not doing them any harm and being a help when they need help. (See the account of the good Samaritian.) It is not a feeling. And riddle me this: Does a mother love her children more than she loves the neighbors children? Is that prohibited by God?

Well, he doesn't tell us to do that. Did he love Israel and not love Egypt? I believe the Bible gives us the answer to that plainly.
what part of God draws is hard to understand?

yes. By these words. your showing faith alone is not earning ones salvation. so why is it taught in here that if I have faith, I have tried to save myself? (is this not synergism)

no person comes to tru saving faith in christ, that kind that justified unless the repent.

Many claim to have faith. but a claimed faith is not a real faith.

a legalist claims faith. but their faith is their works, in self. not god

A licentious claims to have faith. but they to in pride. have failed to repent. they think because they said some sinners prayer. they are magically saved and can live like the devil.

grace is in the middle.. I believe you and I both believe this grace gospel.. The difference is you think God saved you first (before justification which is before faith) I think God saved me after (after justification) which is recieved through faith
 
Back
Top