Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I'm saying what's said in the context. The context states the "if" side.I'm not sure what you're saying here? Why does God find fault if they reject God's one and only son? These are the Jews that rejected Jesus that we're refering to. The rest believed and were saved.
No, it's not limited to Jewish people, but it is limited to unbelievers, which both Jew and gentile are included. Have you an example of God hardening a believer? I'd like to see it.
That was the passage you were quoting. I was making an observation of fact, not an assertion of interpretation.I'm not sure how you came to this conclusion. Verses may help.But it's even worse than that. Paul's answer obliterates any thought that Paul is retracting back to, "Oh, He's only hardening those who didn't have faith." No, God intentionally formed them and hardened them. It's what the passage says. It's what Paul is arguing. It's just not what you're arguing.
For what it's worth, God foreknew everything about everyone. If it were just that God knew about the person, the verse proves too much. God knew about everyone. So God called everyone, justified everyone, glorified everyone. Turning back to Romans 8, I scan the text for Paul talking about foreknowing about someone's faith. It's not there.This just shows God's foreknowledge of who he would love, Which I know that God is all knowing. This is your predestination... God foreknew.
Um, how would they have their inheritance in the first place again, without believing? They wouldn't be recovering what belonged to them ... although that's what Paul says about the Jewish people. If the basis is faith, then inheritance is through faith. If there's a natural connection though, the inheritance would naturally extend to the children. And by the same token, to Gentiles whose descendants didn't persist in the faith.Well, it means sorta the same thing, if they would just only believe they would recover their inheritance.
Can you really read through Romans 11 as if the election of the Jewish people is to a physical nation, while the election of the Gentiles is to a spiritual one now? I've never seen it pulled off successfully here.Yes, it is hard to cross over from a physical kingdom to a now spiritual one and understand everything pretaining to the promises made to the physical nation of God.
Your quotation jumps from one word to the other without caring very much about which is which. I think Paul had specific intent in using each of these words, and they don't always swap out with one another.not sure what you're saying here.mmm. So in your view Spirit == righteousness == salvation == promise. If you make everything the same, then nothing will come out any differently.
ok... first off, lets put to light these verses that you are refering to that say this, then we can discuss it.
Yes, well, new birth by the Holy Spirit generates faith in God, which gains a declaration that you're righteous before God
No. For were your last phrase true, then no one would believe in Jesus.
It doesn't work in this order simply because no one can have a faith that saves without the Spirit of God.
Only if it's not split out Scripturally into how Scripture uses the concepts.Are you calling the plan of salvation a blob?
The heart of man is in the Hand of God. If God's election is not from the human will, it must be paradoxical that some people just sit on the fence with no molding by the Hand of God. It certainly isn't in Paul's view in Romans 9. Nor Jesus: "Those who aren't for me are against me; those who don't gather with me, scatter."Yes, in most cases, men's hearts are hard because of their own will, only a few cases does God "harden" a heart of an unbeliever to bring about a greater purpose. Perhaps this person, he foreknew he would reject him, so he uses him as an object of wrath.
Clearly not, for if God wants all men to be saved with no other qualification, they would be saved. God's omnipotent, right?You then are a universalist? Because God has already revealed to us that his will is that All men be saved.
Excluded middle. Nobody said it was random. Is every choice God makes random in your estimate? Would you trust God with choosing the events of your life? By the logic above you'd be trusting in random choices.Otherwise you believe he just picks a few people at random to enter the kingdom. This is non-sense.
I believe I pointed out election is not of human will in Romans 9:16. For this idea to work personal faith can't be from the will, either.I think the biggest problem people seem to have is that they think that faith is a work.
I neglect the point because I do think faith can be considered meritorious just like works. "I have faith so you've gotta let me in." That's what contradicts salvation by grace (even by grace through faith, as an instrument, not a warrant). Works were a problem because they were thought of as obligating God, like a wage (cf Rom 4:1-4). Faith can be considered the same thing.The bible makes it clear that it definitely is not because they are in contrast. Faith/belief is a choice, that anyone can make, the choice is reject him or believe HIm, this includes repentance. This is the only way that we can recieve his mercy, is if we ask for mercy, it is the only way that God can use us, is if we repent which comes through true belief. Then if we die to ourselves, we can recieve His new life. This is His plan of salvation.
God cannot create/author/cause evil. God is love, He is GOOD --- and both those are THINGS, not qualities. God is perfect, and cannot stand sin; He cannot cause/sanction/approve of it.DrSteve said:I say He could and I am hardly alone in that answer.
You need to learn what foreknew means in a biblical sense. It is not just awareness of something, which is what we usually understand to know something. God knows everything, by virtue of the fact that He is God.Romans 8
29For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers.
You have judged Him by His action, not by His motive.God cannot create/author/cause evil. God is love, He is GOOD --- and both those are THINGS, not qualities. God is perfect, and cannot stand sin; He cannot cause/sanction/approve of it.
WE din't say He "glories in"God cannot glory in sinful destruction; His glory is a quality of Himself.
same as aboveIf anyone can disagree with this, please explain how; else it's established that "God does not glory in the perishing of men
John 3 16"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son,[a] that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life
God so loved the WORLD, which includes ALL MEN.
His "motives" are just as pure as He is. He can't stand sin; how could He want anyone TO sin?Rick said:You have judged Him by His action, not by His motive.
He hates sin; how could it serve His glory?WE din't say He "glories in"
we say it SERVES His glory.
But what about Esau?
Ro 9:13 - Show Context As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.
John must've meant all kinds of men, or else Paul was mistaken, right?
Yes, God can, but he chose from the beginning not to. Thus, it would no longer be "free" will if he forced us. We would then be robots. Are you saying that we are just mere robots? what's the point in saving us then? Oh, I forgot, God couldn't glorify himself without punishing us. I wonder all of the fuss with trying really hard to not punish us and give us mercy through the cross? Wouldn't he be even more glorified with more people being punished?God can not change Ben's will ???
You need to learn what foreknew means in a biblical sense. It is not just awareness of something, which is what we usually understand to know something. God knows everything, by virtue of the fact that He is God.
In Genesis, it is said that Adam knew his wife, and a son was born to them. Did Adam not know who Eve was before she bore him a son? Of course not! Knew, in this context, means intimate relations, or intimate knowledge.
That is what is meant by "those God foreknew, He also did predestine". He set His Love on certain individuals (by no means just a "few" as is often falsely charged by anti-Calvinists), and those individuals He predestined to be saved (conformed to the Image of His Son). These people are referred to as the Elect of God. Scripture shows us that Election is before the foundation of the world. hence the term "Foreknew", as in knew intimately, before the foundation of the world. In the Psalms, David said that God knew all his inward parts, and all of his days, before there were any of them. And we know that God had a special love for David, a man after His own Heart. David was one of the Elect.
You have to learn the way words were used in the times, and in the vernacular of the day. Even English usage changes over time, so the KJV is often hard to understand, because the word usage is archaic, and we don't speak that way now, as they did back then (1600's)
I like the ESV. Very readable, yet very accurate.. The NKJV is also good.
You have judged Him by His action, not by His motive.
WE din't say He "glories in"
we say it SERVES His glory.
same as above
I don't really care how this Owen person twisted the meaning of the word "world." The world means still means all men. The verse means that God loves all men and wishes all men to come to repentance. Otherwise he would have said. "God so loved those he loved" or "God so loved his elect, that he..." ect. This STILL is not evidence for calvinism. I still do not see ANY evidence for Calvinism, and it is a very dangerous belief. I guess it has gone unnoticed for centuries because it is a subtle difference and a subtle twisting, but it does make a world of difference in our attitudes and life view, in the gospel, in one word "Everything" we believe in.I find it really challenging to examine just what is being said in John 3:16
The word world cannot be loosely translated as meaning every one for all time, including those who have already perished. No one would grant that it includes all men in hell, or those who had previously been in hell at the time of the crucifixion. But by not granting this, the scope of those for whom God so loves is already limited. I quote John Owen at length, First Now, this love we say to be that, greater than which there is none. Secondly, by the world, we understand the elect of God only, though not considered in this place as such, but under such a notion as, being true of them, serves for the farther exaltation of God's love towards them, which is the end here designed; and this is, as they are poor, miserable, lost creatures in the world, of the world, scattered abroad in all places of the world, not tied to Jews or Greeks, but dispersed in any nation, kindred, and language under heaven. Thirdly, i[na pa/j o` pisteu,wn in order that every believer, is to us, and is declarative of the intention of God in sending or giving his Son, con­taining no distribution of the world beloved but a direction to the person whose good was intended, that love being an unchangeable intention of the chiefest good. Fourthly, Should not perish, but have life everlasting, contains an expression of the particular aim and intention of God in this business; which is, the certain salvation of believers by Christ. And this, in general, is the interpretation of the words which we adhere unto, which will yield us sundry arguments, efficient each of them to evert the general ransom; which, that they may be the better bottomed, and the more clearly convincing, we will lay down and compare the several words and expression of this place, about whose interpreta­tion we digress, with the reason of our rejecting the one sense and embracing the other:­ The first difference in the interpretation of this place is about the cause of sending Christ; called here love. The second, about the object of this love; called here the world. Thirdly, Concerning the intention of God in sending his Son; said to be that believers might be saved.[24] As Owen again states, It is the special love of God to his elect, as we affirm, and so, consequently, not any such thing as our adversaries suppose to be intended by it, - namely, a velleity or natural inclination to the good of all.[25] It must be kept in mind that Owen did believe God gave good things to lost men, but it does not argue a natural disposition in Him to do so in this saving sense.
http://www.apuritansmind.com/Arminia...OfJohn3_16.htm
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?