Matthew 22:14

[atpollard]

For many are called, but few are chosen.”

Why? If many are called, why are only a few chosen?
How does this work?

Just looking at it empirically …

What percentage of the world population [8 billion] can honestly claim that they have NEVER heard of Jesus and have no idea who he is? [MANY, MANY, MANY have heard the call]

… and how many of them has God chosen to join Jesus at the wedding feast in heaven as the Bride? [VERY FEW according to the narrow gate that few find]

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

You said in Post 12, they recieved Christ; that's through Faith, right? How about the Weedy Soil then?

Jeremiah 4:3 NIV; This is what the LORD says to the people of Judah and to Jerusalem: “Break up your unplowed ground and do not sow among thorns.

Hebrews 6:8 NIV; But land that produces thorns and thistles is worthless and is in danger of being cursed. In the end it will be burned.

Ellicott's Commentary Sow not among thorns.--Not without a special interest as, perhaps, containing the germ of the Parable of the Sower in Matthew 13:7. Here, as there, the seed is the "word of God," spoken by the prophet, and taking root in the heart, and the thorns are the "cares of this world," the selfish desires which choke the good seed and render it unfruitful.

Jeremiah 4:3 - God Calls Israel by His Promise

For this is what the LORD says to the men of Judah and Jerusalem: Break up your unplowed ground, and do not sow among the thorns.

biblehub.com

Post 12 was about john 1. Did you mean another post?

The 1st three solid did nto have faith, I have stated this multiplied times

 

[ReverendRV]

Post 12 was about john 1. Did you mean another post?

The 1st three solid did nto have faith, I have stated this multiplied times

Isn't it true that the Rocky and Weedy Soils then needed to be made good first?

 

[makesends]

if the power is not received it will not be given

If the power is not given it will not be received.

Either way

1. If you do not recieve him, You will not be saved, or made a child of God

Those who are saved and made children of God will most certainly receive him.

2. The people he came to. His own people. They rejected him. They did not recieve him.

11 and 12 go together.

He came unto his own, but his own received him not.

But as many as have recieved him.

Yep. And to them alone. I still haven't heard it explained how, in your construction, they managed to receive him while at enmity with him and unable to submit to his law and while unable to please him (Rom 8:7,8). Yet you do insist they cannot be regenerated "while in sin". Have you added to this equation the fact of them being slaves to sin? All I've heard you say to that is that God convinces them. Do they change themselves, then, once they become convinced?

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

Isn't it true that the Rocky and Weedy Soils then needed to be made good first?

The rocky and weedy soils are 2 different reactions to the gospel.. Both lack faith. And both are quickly taken away.

If the power is not given it will not be received.

It is given otherwise it would not be recieved or rejected

Those who are saved and made children of God will most certainly receive him.

They already did

Yep. And to them alone. I still haven't heard it explained how, in your construction, they managed to receive him while at enmity with him and unable to submit to his law and while unable to please him (Rom 8:7,8). Yet you do insist they cannot be regenerated "while in sin". Have you added to this equation the fact of them being slaves to sin? All I've heard you say to that is that God convinces them. Do they change themselves, then, once they become convinced?

If they did not receive him they are still dead in sin.

God just does not overrule his justice and make someone Alive in sin

Once again they do not do it to please him or fulfill the law. Not sure where this thinking comes from

But as many as have recieved him. To them.

It’s quite simpke

Do not receive him. Like his own did not and you will not be given the right to become Gods children

 

[makesends]

makesends said:
If the power is not given it will not be received.

It is given otherwise it would not be recieved or rejected

That's equivalent to what I just said. Apparently you think it implies something more.

They already did

If they did not receive him they are still dead in sin.

God just does not overrule his justice and make someone Alive in sin

So you think a person's decision is the hinge on being made alive AND on justifying himself?

But you are repeating yourself. How does what I say reduce to "God....mak[ing] someone alive in sin"? How does it reduce to God overruling his justice?

Once again they do not do it to please him or fulfill the law. Not sure where this thinking comes from

I'm not referring to their motive for doing it. What needs asked here is whether or not one's volitional act of receiving Him pleases God. I say it does, very much so, because that was God's intention and plan and work from the beginning. If it pleases Him, then, —which pleasing Him is something Romans 8:8 says is impossible for those in the realm of the flesh— , they cannot receive Him, if they are in the realm of the flesh.

Now, you will probably see me as contradicting myself, because I said that one's volitional act of receiving Him pleases Him. That would be because you necessarily take that 'receiving' to be instrumental in securing one's salvation. I do not. I take it as one's voluntary response to having been regenerated, and now gladly accepting fellowship with God —THAT is when the joy and relief and so many other things come subjectively in. (And yes, it does necessarily accompany regeneration; that is not just an admission—I insist on it. If it doesn't happen, one is not saved.)

But as many as have recieved him. To them.

It’s quite simpke

Do not receive him. Like his own did not and you will not be given the right to become Gods children

Your last sentence is not logically proven by the verse nor the context, as causally sequential. It only says that to those who received him he gave the right to become God's children. Again, it does not grammatically show causal sequence. You eisegetically added that.

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

makesends said:
If the power is not given it will not be received.

That's equivalent to what I just said. Apparently you think it implies something more.

So you think a person's decision is the hinge on being made alive AND on justifying himself?

I just go by what God said my friend.

I guess I would say ask God why he said that is the way he demands it..

But you are repeating yourself. How does what I say reduce to "God....mak[ing] someone alive in sin"? How does it reduce to God overruling his justice?

If you have not been justified. You are still dead in sin.

I have seen nothing to show me I should see it any other way

I'm not referring to their motive for doing it. What needs asked here is whether or not one's volitional act of receiving Him pleases God. I say it does, very much so, because that was God's intention and plan and work from the beginning. If it pleases Him, then, —which pleasing Him is something Romans 8:8 says is impossible for those in the realm of the flesh— , they cannot receive Him, if they are in the realm of the flesh.

Did the tax collector please God. What that his purpose.

I saw a man crying out in pain and suffering. Not a man trying to please God

Now, you will probably see me as contradicting myself, because I said that one's volitional act of receiving Him pleases Him. That would be because you necessarily take that 'receiving' to be instrumental in securing one's salvation. I do not. I take it as one's voluntary response to having been regenerated, and now gladly accepting fellowship with God —THAT is when the joy and relief and so many other things come subjectively in. (And yes, it does necessarily accompany regeneration; that is not just an admission—I insist on it. If it doesn't happen, one is not saved.)

But as many as have recieved him, to THEM John 1

He who believes is not condemned (born again) he who does not believe is condemned already (john 3)

but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name. John 20

Thats why I continually say. John is a great passage. for Jesus tells us in his own words

Your last sentence is not logically proven by the verse nor the context, as causally sequential. It only says that to those who received him he gave the right to become God's children. Again, it does not grammatically show causal sequence. You eisegetically added that.

John 1: 10 He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, and the world did not know Him. 11 He came to His [own, and His own did not receive Him12 But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name: 13 who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

Not sure why people make it difficult

He came to the world. But the world did not know him
He came into his own, but his own did not receive him (Israel did not receive him)
but as many as DID receive him, to THEM he gave the power to become children of God;.

The simplicity that is in christ. do not read to much inter it. Just take it as written.

 

[makesends]

I just go by what God said my friend.

Well, no. You go by what you read God to have said.

I guess I would say ask God why he said that is the way he demands it..

If you have not been justified. You are still dead in sin.

I have seen nothing to show me I should see it any other way

Did the tax collector please God. What that his purpose.

I saw a man crying out in pain and suffering. Not a man trying to please God

I just finished saying that the man's motives are irrelevant as to his salvation. Did you not read that?

But as many as have recieved him, to THEM John 1

He who believes is not condemned (born again) he who does not believe is condemned already (john 3)

but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name. John 20

Thats why I continually say. John is a great passage. for Jesus tells us in his own words



John 1: 10 He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, and the world did not know Him. 11 He came to His [own, and His own did not receive Him12 But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name: 13 who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

Not sure why people make it difficult

He came to the world. But the world did not know him
He came into his own, but his own did not receive him (Israel did not receive him)
but as many as DID receive him, to THEM he gave the power to become children of God;.

The simplicity that is in christ. do not read to much inter it. Just take it as written.

Well, at this point we are just repeating ourselves. I am trying to tell you that what you take as what God simply says is not what it simply says, but is your use of what you read, interpreted according to your worldview's assumptions. I also tell you that coincidence is not causation, which you only answer by repeating what you said before, about simplicity, as if man's volition instead of God's is simplicity. So, I think I'm done.

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

Well, no. You go by what you read God to have said.

well thanks for your opinion. But I see you doing this.. But this is not how to discuss the word. by accusing each other.

I just finished saying that the man's motives are irrelevant as to his salvation. Did you not read that?

And? This is supposed to prove something to me?

Well, at this point we are just repeating ourselves. I am trying to tell you that what you take as what God simply says is not what it simply says, but is your use of what you read, interpreted according to your worldview's assumptions. I also tell you that coincidence is not causation, which you only answer by repeating what you said before, about simplicity, as if man's volition instead of God's is simplicity. So, I think I'm done.

And I am trying to say the same to you.

so yes. we are just going back and forth. both thinking we hear from God..

And 1 more time. STOP with your accusation of worldview.

Once again, this is a strawman, the same could be said of you.

 

[makesends]

well thanks for your opinion. But I see you doing this.. But this is not how to discuss the word. by accusing each other.

And yet, that is where your post went with it. Accuse or not, (and I admit I do it), we all do it. We pretty much can't help it, in spite of all efforts to the contrary. So, we do the best we can —you with your "plain-reading" "simplicity", and I with my attempts at exegesis.

And? This is supposed to prove something to me?

Well, yes, it shows you are not responding to my argument/logic, but instead appearing to not even have read what I said. It has become no longer debate, but rather reassertion of earlier claims.

And I am trying to say the same to you.

so yes. we are just going back and forth. both thinking we hear from God..

I don't think I'm hearing from God. I claim to be trying to understand what he wrote.

And 1 more time. STOP with your accusation of worldview.

Once again, this is a strawman, the same could be said of you.

Yes, no doubt it could be said of me, and you will say so again, I expect, if we continue. Nevertheless, one's worldview does color everything that person sees, thinks of and considers. Everyone's logic is built on presuppositions and further definitions along the way of their logical sequences —definitions colored by their worldview. It is inescapable. It's not an accusation. It's simply descriptive, but your worldview claims otherwise, as though somehow a person is capable of pure thought.

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

And yet, that is where your post went with it. Accuse or not, (and I admit I do it), we all do it. We pretty much can't help it, in spite of all efforts to the contrary. So, we do the best we can —you with your "plain-reading" "simplicity", and I with my attempts at exegesis.

You act like I do not do proper hermeneutics

Well, yes, it shows you are not responding to my argument/logic, but instead appearing to not even have read what I said. It has become no longer debate, but rather reassertion of earlier claims.

It’s a back and forth

I don't think I'm hearing from God. I claim to be trying to understand what he wrote.

Yes, no doubt it could be said of me, and you will say so again, I expect, if we continue. Nevertheless, one's worldview does color everything that person sees, thinks of and considers. Everyone's logic is built on presuppositions and further definitions along the way of their logical sequences —definitions colored by their worldview. It is inescapable. It's not an accusation. It's simply descriptive, but your worldview claims otherwise, as though somehow a person is capable of pure thought.

So how can I get saved?

 

[makesends]

You act like I do not do proper hermeneutics

Yep.

It’s a back and forth



So how can I get saved?

Lol, Nicodemus.

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

Yep.

Lol, Nicodemus.

John 3: 14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up, 15 that whoever believes in Him should [not perish but have eternal life. 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. 17 For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved. 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.

I was born again by this 40 some years ago.

and oh. I learned proper hermeneutics and ICE principles about 30 years ago.. But thank you for assuming

 

[Carbon]

True, the seed goes to all, but not every heart is ready for it.

Not every heart is ready for it? May I ask, how does a heart get ready for it?

 

[makesends]

John 3: 14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up, 15 that whoever believes in Him should [not perish but have eternal life. 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. 17 For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved. 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.

I was born again by this 40 some years ago.

and oh. I learned proper hermeneutics and ICE principles about 30 years ago.. But thank you for assuming

I thought I responded to this a few days ago. Apparently it didn't post.

Your experiential event has you feeling like (thinking subjectively that) you were born again by that. You confuse, at best concurrence with causation. I think you are even confusing fellowship with regeneration and salvation. I think you were already regenerated, though it could be that it happened concurrently with what you felt. Causally, logically, regeneration is necessary, in order for you to choose Christ.

As for ICE's (Thomas Ice, I assume you mean) principles of hermeneutics, you need to learn from someone else. Like all of us, he is necessarily biased in a certain direction, and as a result, not only are his applications of good hermeneutics colored by what he believes, but his methods of hermeneutics are colored by it. But I'm not going to get into a study of his hermeneutics— I just want you to admit to yourself that none of our hermeneutics is pure and entirely logical.

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

I thought I responded to this a few days ago. Apparently it didn't post.

Your experiential event has you feeling like (thinking subjectively that) you were born again by that. You confuse, at best concurrence with causation. I think you are even confusing fellowship with regeneration and salvation. I think you were already regenerated, though it could be that it happened concurrently with what you felt. Causally, logically, regeneration is necessary, in order for you to choose Christ.

As I read your post, it appears to me You’re trying to determine what you think I experienced according to your theology. I have seen this a few times.

Again look to the tax collector. That about showes what I experienced

As for ICE's (Thomas Ice, I assume you mean) principles of hermeneutics, you need to learn from someone else. Like all of us, he is necessarily biased in a certain direction, and as a result, not only are his applications of good hermeneutics colored by what he believes, but his methods of hermeneutics are colored by it. But I'm not going to get into a study of his hermeneutics— I just want you to admit to yourself that none of our hermeneutics is pure and entirely logical.

Never heard of him. I just know the pastor teacher I had as a teen and young adult used the ICE principles

isogogica
Categorization
Exegetics

I assume that’s what many theologians use in hermeneutics.

I am trying to remember when I gave my Roman’s 9 teaching I explained some

1 historical perspective. What would the people it was written to be thinking
2 scripture context in context of what was written and if OT quoted go To OT to Find actual Context
3 origional language sadly English is a poor language and can cause confusion or misapplication. Based on English defenition
4 biblical context. Is it biblically in line with if it causes other area of scripture to contradict. Something is wrong need to adjust our thinking (us scripture to base your belief. Not your belief to interpret scripture

 

[Hazelelponi]

As I read your post, it appears to me You’re trying to determine what you think I experienced according to your theology. I have seen this a few times.

Again look to the tax collector. That about showes what I experienced

Can I offer something?

@makesends knows things about my salvation experience that only my husband knows.

I told @makesends because I trust him to keep his mouth shut... Lol.

But also because I trust him as a brother in Christ. If he wants to psychoanalyze me according to his theology I figured that was a good thing. He knows where my weaknesses might lie, and when I make theological error because I'm interpreting Scripture through the wrong lens (that of personal experience/personal thoughts) over what the Scripture says then it needs pointed out.

I think we all need checked sometimes, because Scripture isn't a matter of private interpretation. This is why we need one another, and why God made us a church. To encourage, to teach, to check one another when we are failing at the checking ourselves.

It can be uncomfortable sometimes sure, you have to face yourself, but I always see this as a net positive. And thank God He didn't leave us alone, but we have comfort upon comfort towards our completion.

All this to say, you really are misreading the brother, and are defensive without reason.

 

[makesends]

Can I offer something?

@makesends knows things about my salvation experience that only my husband knows.

I told @makesends because I trust him to keep his mouth shut... Lol.

Lol, or maybe because I forgot!

But also because I trust him as a brother in Christ. If he wants to psychoanalyze me according to his theology I figured that was a good thing. He knows where my weaknesses might lie, and when I make theological error because I'm interpreting Scripture through the wrong lens (that of personal experience/personal thoughts) over what the Scripture says then it needs pointed out.

I think we all need checked sometimes, because Scripture isn't a matter of private interpretation. This is why we need one another, and why God made us a church. To encourage, to teach, to check one another when we are failing at the checking ourselves.

It can be uncomfortable sometimes sure, you have to face yourself, but I always see this as a net positive. And thank God He didn't leave us alone, but we have comfort upon comfort towards our completion.

All this to say, you really are misreading the brother, and are defensive without reason.