My thoughts around Romans 9

[BBAS 64]

The way I see, foreknowledge, is that God knew in advance that some would choose wisely, and others poorly, so He planned both a redemptive, and abasing plan, fitting for each type of choice made (this is still foreknowledge). There are also other things he planned as well. The cross is an example that was planned before the world began. These are still His actions, what God willed, and planned before time. But I don't believe free will is overridden. As we see in:

Luke 13:34 "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 brood under her wings, but you were not willing!

Good Day, Futureandhope

The way you see "foreknowledge" needs a bit of tweaking.

1. The scripture when using the verb form always applies the object as people, never something about them.

2. The noun form is something that God knows, as compared to something he does (verb).

so we see here Rom 8

Rom 8:29 For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified.

Are "those whom" (pronoun-people) object of the verb (His action) ; not the noun form (something about them)

Thayer Definition:

1) to have knowledge before hand

2) to foreknow

2a) of those whom God elected to salvation

3) to predestinate

Part of Speech: verb

So in this case the words in their forms correctly understood and the grammar do not support your understanding. You will also notice all the verbs here are the sole actions of God and the object is "those whom" (people)

In Him,

Bill

 

[BBAS 64]

Gee! I accidenly lost my reply. It was rather short. Sorry if I'm disappointing you with a short reply.

I was to write in my last post that the cause of free will is God. So no it's not uncaused. But it's not dependant on anything more than soul.

Of course our decisions are influenced by many things. But I mean free will can not be influenced, because free will is the "choice maker", the soul. God created us after His image and one thing I believe that means is that He gave us a soul with free will.

Why do I move my little finger? Because I choose to. Why do I choose to? Because I will it. Why do I will it? Because I choose to will it. Why do I choose to will it? Free will. There is no cause except "choice".

Good Day, Zoidar

Mostly agree you do choose to do....

But you are missing the desire ( mostly product of the heart) that always informs the will, if no desire to do you have no choice to make. If you are taken hostage and chained to a wall, you may indeed desire to escape and freely choice to, but you are unable. There are things that are outside your control that inhibit you ability to do the things you may choose ( they are not options), and in that respect you are not free.


In Him,

Bill

 

[zoidar]

Good Day, Zoidar

Mostly agree you do choose to do....

But you are missing the desire ( mostly product of the heart) that always informs the will, if no desire to do you have no choice to make. If you are taken hostage and chained to a wall, you may indeed desire to escape and freely choice to, but you are unable. There are things that are outside your control that inhibit you ability to do the things you may choose ( they are not options), and in that respect you are not free.


In Him,

Bill

Of course our possible choices are limited by circumstances. It's so hard to discuss free will because I feel there are always all these misunderstandings. The question is complex.

I see free will as something that isn't influenced by anything. Free will is the soul, the lens in which we see desires, emotions, thoughts and chooses which to listen to. It's on a higher level than our physical. At least that is how I see it. It's not that we have a free will, free will is. But it's a matter of what you believe about yourself, the world, the Bible and God.

 

[BBAS 64]

Of course our possible choices are limited by circumstances. It's so hard to discuss free will because I feel there are always all these misunderstandings. The question is complex.

I see free will as something that isn't influenced by anything. Free will is the soul, the lens in which we see desires, emotions, thoughts and chooses which to listen to. It's on a higher level than our physical. At least that is how I see it. It's not that we have a free will, free will is. But it's a matter of what you believe about yourself, the world, the Bible and God.

Good Day, Zoidar

As always thank you, you may find this helpful!

https://www.apuritansmind.com/wp-content/uploads/FREEEBOOKS/TheFreedomoftheWill-JonathanEdwards.pdf

In Him,

Bill

 

[zoidar]

Good Day, Zoidar

As always thank you, you may find this helpful!

https://www.apuritansmind.com/wp-content/uploads/FREEEBOOKS/TheFreedomoftheWill-JonathanEdwards.pdf

In Him,

Bill

Thanks, that's kind of you! But 144 pages is too much to go through. Especially since I already know where I stand in that question and why.

 

[FutureAndAHope]

You teach conditional salvation based on man, far from what Romans 9 teaches, that Salvation is conditioned on the Sovereign Will of God before the persons were ever born to do good or evil.

Do you listen to the words of Jesus, who was God? How does He say it happens. Calvinism speaks of God's choosing, but it is clear, who, and how He chooses. I quote it again:

But the Bible shows us who Jesus' sheep are, and to whom does the Father draw? How does He call?​

Joh 14:21-24 He who has My commandments and keeps them, it is he who loves Me. And he who loves Me will be loved by My Father, and I will love him and manifest Myself to him." Judas (not Iscariot) said to Him, "Lord, how is it that You will manifest Yourself to us, and not to the world?" Jesus answered and said to him, "If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our home with him. He who does not love Me does not keep My words; and the word which you hear is not Mine but the Father's who sent Me.​

Obedience, and receiving the light that God gives leads to the Fathers "choosing". To whom does God give light?​

John 1:9 That was the true Light which gives light to every man coming into the world.
​

You say I teach "conditional salvation", so too did Jesus. Look at Judas words:

"Lord, how is it that You will manifest Yourself to us, and not to the world?"
​

He is asking "who" God blinds, and to whom He reveals himself. Notice the order of the passage:

1. He who has my commandments and keeps them, he loves me
2. He will be loved by the Father
3. The Father will manifest Himself to them

Your doctrine says:

1. Man can not keep God's commands
2. So God chooses some random people to save
3. He reveals Himself to them

Heresy.

 

[FutureAndAHope]

Good Day, Futureandhope

The way you see "foreknowledge" needs a bit of tweaking.

1. The scripture when using the verb form always applies the object as people, never something about them.

2. The noun form is something that God knows, as compared to something he does (verb).

so we see here Rom 8

Rom 8:29 For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified.

Are "those whom" (pronoun-people) object of the verb (His action) ; not the noun form (something about them)

Thayer Definition:

1) to have knowledge before hand

2) to foreknow

2a) of those whom God elected to salvation

3) to predestinate

Part of Speech: verb

So in this case the words in their forms correctly understood and the grammar do not support your understanding. You will also notice all the verbs here are the sole actions of God and the object is "those whom" (people)

In Him,

Bill

Hi Bill,

Note strong's definition of the word.

G4267

προγινώσκω

proginōskō
prog-in-oce'-ko
From G4253 and G1097; to know beforehand, that is, foresee: - foreknow (ordain), know (before).

One of it's meanings is to forsee, which means to anticipate; to predict. By dictionary, the Greek word "foreknew" means knowing future events beforehand.

Barnes' Notes on the Bible

The literal meaning of the word cannot be a matter of dispute. It denotes properly to "know beforehand;" to be acquainted with future events. But whether it means here simply to know that certain persons would become Christians; or to ordain, and constitute them to be Christians, and to be saved, has been a subject of almost endless discussion.​

The fact is the definition I presented, or the rendering of the word has support. But like Barnes suggests people will dispute its meaning until the cows come home.

 

[rwe2156]

To better address your question: If God decides to never ever create a person, then God knows exactly what that person did in the future, which is nothing, but God would not know any history of what that person did, since that person has no history (he/she never was a person and made no free will choices).

Thats some serious tail chasing!

I don’t think we disagree. He works all things according to the counsel if his will Eph 1.

He can ordain a thing to happen of his own deliberate will, he can maybe allow a thing to happen - the idea of God removing his hand (God gave then over to their wicked hearts), but if he does not want a thing to happen, I can’t see it happening.

The hard thing to understand is whether foreknowledge is the same as foreordained.

Deism is the slippery slope unfortunately is what most people believe.

 

[BBAS 64]

Hi Bill,

Note strong's definition of the word.

G4267

προγινώσκω

proginōskō
prog-in-oce'-ko
From G4253 and G1097; to know beforehand, that is, foresee: - foreknow (ordain), know (before).

One of it's meanings is to forsee, which means to anticipate; to predict. By dictionary, the Greek word "foreknew" means knowing future events beforehand.

Barnes' Notes on the Bible

The literal meaning of the word cannot be a matter of dispute. It denotes properly to "know beforehand;" to be acquainted with future events. But whether it means here simply to know that certain persons would become Christians; or to ordain, and constitute them to be Christians, and to be saved, has been a subject of almost endless discussion.​

The fact is the definition I presented, or the rendering of the word has support. But like Barnes suggests people will dispute its meaning until the cows come home.

Good Day,

Barnes is correct although he does not make the grammatical inquiry in to the noun/verb forms and usage.


I agree to know people ( verb) not things about people (noun)

Those whom he foreknew (people), not things about people.

You said

"The way I see, foreknowledge, is that God knew in advance that some would choose wisely,"

The way you see it is incorrect, we are taking about a verb here so grammatically you are incorrect.



In Him,

Bill

 

[bling]

Thats some serious tail chasing!

I don’t think we disagree. He works all things according to the counsel if his will Eph 1.

He can ordain a thing to happen of his own deliberate will, he can maybe allow a thing to happen - the idea of God removing his hand (God gave then over to their wicked hearts), but if he does not want a thing to happen, I can’t see it happening.

The hard thing to understand is whether foreknowledge is the same as foreordained.

Deism is the slippery slope unfortunately is what most people believe.

Foreknowledge is not the same as Foreordained.

It is “Foreordained” that God will do the very best thing that can be done in every situation, but God does not “Foreordain” what man will do in every situation, yet knows what man “did” (and will do) in every situation. If there is a time prior to God deciding to make a free will individual, he knows how He will act (it is foreordained) what God will do, but God would not know prior to knowing the person will exist what the person’s free will choices were.

 

[Brightfame52]

Do you listen to the words of Jesus, who was God? How does He say it happens. Calvinism speaks of God's choosing, but it is clear, who, and how He chooses. I quote it again:

But the Bible shows us who Jesus' sheep are, and to whom does the Father draw? How does He call?​

Joh 14:21-24 He who has My commandments and keeps them, it is he who loves Me. And he who loves Me will be loved by My Father, and I will love him and manifest Myself to him." Judas (not Iscariot) said to Him, "Lord, how is it that You will manifest Yourself to us, and not to the world?" Jesus answered and said to him, "If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our home with him. He who does not love Me does not keep My words; and the word which you hear is not Mine but the Father's who sent Me.​

Obedience, and receiving the light that God gives leads to the Fathers "choosing". To whom does God give light?​

John 1:9 That was the true Light which gives light to every man coming into the world.
​

You say I teach "conditional salvation", so too did Jesus. Look at Judas words:

"Lord, how is it that You will manifest Yourself to us, and not to the world?"
​

He is asking "who" God blinds, and to whom He reveals himself. Notice the order of the passage:

1. He who has my commandments and keeps them, he loves me
2. He will be loved by the Father
3. The Father will manifest Himself to them

Your doctrine says:

1. Man can not keep God's commands
2. So God chooses some random people to save
3. He reveals Himself to them

Heresy.

You still basing Salvation on man and what he does. Far from the Romans 9 Narrative which shows that God is a Sovereign Potter, determining mens destiny before they exist.

 

[FutureAndAHope]

You still basing Salvation on man and what he does. Far from the Romans 9 Narrative which shows that God is a Sovereign Potter, determining mens destiny before they exist.

Well, we are going to have to differ. I would rather believe Jesus' words, that our response to Him and His commands are what counts.

Joh 14:21-24 He who has My commandments and keeps them, it is he who loves Me. And he who loves Me will be loved by My Father, and I will love him and manifest Myself to him." Judas (not Iscariot) said to Him, "Lord, how is it that You will manifest Yourself to us, and not to the world?" Jesus answered and said to him, "If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our home with him. He who does not love Me does not keep My words; and the word which you hear is not Mine but the Father's who sent Me.​

Seeing the idea of accountability and freedom of will is also strongly supported by the Earliest Church Fathers, I would rather believe in it, than have a harsh view of the way God operates.

Justin Martyr [110 - 165] - First Apology - Ch 1-25
Chap. X. — How God Is to Be Served.​

But we have received by tradition that God does not need the material offerings which men can give, seeing, indeed, that He Himself is the provider of all things. And we have been taught, and are convinced, and do believe, that He accepts those only who imitate the excellences which reside in Him, temperance, and justice, and philanthropy, and as many virtues as are peculiar to a God who is called by no proper name. And we have been taught that He in the beginning did of His goodness, for man’s sake, create all things out of unformed matter; and if men by their works show themselves worthy of this His design, they are deemed worthy, and so we have received — of reigning in company with Him, being delivered from corruption and suffering. For as in the beginning He created us when we were not, so do we consider that, in like manner, those who choose what is pleasing to Him are, on account of their choice, deemed worthy of incorruption and of fellowship with Him. For the coming into being at first was not in our own power; and in order that we may follow those things which please Him, choosing them by means of the rational faculties He has Himself endowed us with, He both persuades us and leads us to faith.​

Ch 56-50
Chap. XLIII — Responsibility Asserted.​

But lest some suppose, from what has been said by us, that we say that whatever happens, happens by a fatal necessity, because it is foretold as known beforehand, this too we explain. We have learned from the prophets, and we hold it to be true, that punishments, and chastisements, and good rewards, are rendered according to the merit of each man’s actions. Since if it be not so, but all things happen by fate, neither is anything at all in our own power. For if it be fated that this man, e.g., be good, and this other evil, neither is the former meritorious nor the latter to be blamed. And again, unless the human race have the power of avoiding evil and choosing good by free choice, they are not accountable for their actions, of whatever kind they be. But that it is by free choice they both walk uprightly and stumble, we thus demonstrate. We see the same man making a transition to opposite things. Now, if it had been fated that he were to be either good or bad, he could never have been capable of both the opposites, nor of so many transitions. But not even would some be good and others bad, since we thus make fate the cause of evil, and exhibit her as acting in opposition to herself; or that which has been already stated would seem to be true, that neither virtue nor vice is anything, but that things are only reckoned good or evil by opinion; which, as the true word shows, is the greatest impiety and wickedness. But this we assert is inevitable fate, that they who choose the good have worthy rewards, and they who choose the opposite have their merited awards. For not like other things, as trees and quadrupeds, which cannot act by choice, did God make man: for neither would he be worthy of reward or praise did he not of himself choose the good, but were created for this end;52 nor, if he were evil, would he be worthy of punishment, not being evil of himself, but being able to be nothing else than what he was made.​

 

[Brightfame52]

Well, we are going to have to differ. I would rather believe Jesus' words, that our response to Him and His commands are what counts.

Joh 14:21-24 He who has My commandments and keeps them, it is he who loves Me. And he who loves Me will be loved by My Father, and I will love him and manifest Myself to him." Judas (not Iscariot) said to Him, "Lord, how is it that You will manifest Yourself to us, and not to the world?" Jesus answered and said to him, "If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our home with him. He who does not love Me does not keep My words; and the word which you hear is not Mine but the Father's who sent Me.​

Seeing the idea of accountability and freedom of will is also strongly supported by the Earliest Church Fathers, I would rather believe in it, than have a harsh view of the way God operates.

Justin Martyr [110 - 165] - First Apology - Ch 1-25
Chap. X. — How God Is to Be Served.​

But we have received by tradition that God does not need the material offerings which men can give, seeing, indeed, that He Himself is the provider of all things. And we have been taught, and are convinced, and do believe, that He accepts those only who imitate the excellences which reside in Him, temperance, and justice, and philanthropy, and as many virtues as are peculiar to a God who is called by no proper name. And we have been taught that He in the beginning did of His goodness, for man’s sake, create all things out of unformed matter; and if men by their works show themselves worthy of this His design, they are deemed worthy, and so we have received — of reigning in company with Him, being delivered from corruption and suffering. For as in the beginning He created us when we were not, so do we consider that, in like manner, those who choose what is pleasing to Him are, on account of their choice, deemed worthy of incorruption and of fellowship with Him. For the coming into being at first was not in our own power; and in order that we may follow those things which please Him, choosing them by means of the rational faculties He has Himself endowed us with, He both persuades us and leads us to faith.​

Ch 56-50
Chap. XLIII — Responsibility Asserted.​

But lest some suppose, from what has been said by us, that we say that whatever happens, happens by a fatal necessity, because it is foretold as known beforehand, this too we explain. We have learned from the prophets, and we hold it to be true, that punishments, and chastisements, and good rewards, are rendered according to the merit of each man’s actions. Since if it be not so, but all things happen by fate, neither is anything at all in our own power. For if it be fated that this man, e.g., be good, and this other evil, neither is the former meritorious nor the latter to be blamed. And again, unless the human race have the power of avoiding evil and choosing good by free choice, they are not accountable for their actions, of whatever kind they be. But that it is by free choice they both walk uprightly and stumble, we thus demonstrate. We see the same man making a transition to opposite things. Now, if it had been fated that he were to be either good or bad, he could never have been capable of both the opposites, nor of so many transitions. But not even would some be good and others bad, since we thus make fate the cause of evil, and exhibit her as acting in opposition to herself; or that which has been already stated would seem to be true, that neither virtue nor vice is anything, but that things are only reckoned good or evil by opinion; which, as the true word shows, is the greatest impiety and wickedness. But this we assert is inevitable fate, that they who choose the good have worthy rewards, and they who choose the opposite have their merited awards. For not like other things, as trees and quadrupeds, which cannot act by choice, did God make man: for neither would he be worthy of reward or praise did he not of himself choose the good, but were created for this end;52 nor, if he were evil, would he be worthy of punishment, not being evil of himself, but being able to be nothing else than what he was made.​

God is Sovereign and determines who will go to hell for their sins and face His Wrath, and who will obtain mercy for their sins, and enjoy His Glorious Presence forever. Rom 9:15,18

For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.

Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.

 

[5thKingdom]

It is my belief that man has free will, that we are not fated by God to be either saved, or unsaved, but rather the action of salvation is a mixture of God's enlightening and our acting.

----------

Of course, the problem with your theory is that it contradicts Scripture.
The Bible is very clear that some men were NEVER MEANT to have their sins forgiven.
That is a direct contradiction to your theories - and to the opinions you cited.


First some context: Jesus taught [Mat 13] the Christian "Kingdom of Heaven" (the church)
consists of relatively few saved "wheat/sheep" (sown by God) and many unsaved "tares/goats"
(sown by Satan). The Bible also teaches those OUTSIDE the church are also "children of Satan".


Mar 4:10-12
And when he was alone, they that were about him with the twelve asked of him the parable.
And he said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God:
but unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables:


Jesus teaches that Biblical understanding of the "mystery" of the "Kingdom of God"
is given to the saved "wheat/sheep"... but not the unsaved "tares/goats" or those
OUTSIDE of the church.


Mar 4:12
That seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear,
and not understand; LEST AT ANY TIME they should be converted,
and their sins should be forgiven them.


Jesus clearly explained (to His disciples) the Biblical "mystery" that some men
were NEVER MEANT to "perceive" the Gospel, they were NEVER MEANT to "understand"
the Gospel, they were NEVER MEANT to "be converted" and it was NEVER MEANT
that "their sins should be forgiven them".


So your theory is contradicted by Jesus.
The Bible teaches some men were never meant that "their sins should be forgiven".
It is really as simple as that - if we dare to allow the Bible to be our only authority.


BTW... the implication that some men were never meant to have their sins forgiven...
is that Jesus NEVER PAID for the sins of those men (their sins were NOT forgiven).
Try to wrap your false doctrines around that "mystery" for a while.


And remember, while Jesus is the Savior of "the world" (Jew + Gentile = "the world"),
clearly Jesus is not the Savior of every person. So, the context of "the world" is important.
You cannot hope to discern the MEANING of any passage... without understanding the CONTEXT.


Jim

 

[FutureAndAHope]

----------

Of course, the problem with your theory is that it contradicts Scripture.
The Bible is very clear that some men were NEVER MEANT to have their sins forgiven.
That is a direct contradiction to your theories - and to the opinions you cited.


First some context: Jesus taught [Mat 13] the Christian "Kingdom of Heaven" (the church)
consists of relatively few saved "wheat/sheep" (sown by God) and many unsaved "tares/goats"
(sown by Satan). The Bible also teaches those OUTSIDE the church are also "children of Satan".


Mar 4:10-12
And when he was alone, they that were about him with the twelve asked of him the parable.
And he said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God:
but unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables:


Jesus teaches that Biblical understanding of the "mystery" of the "Kingdom of God"
is given to the saved "wheat/sheep"... but not the unsaved "tares/goats" or those
OUTSIDE of the church.


Mar 4:12
That seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear,
and not understand; LEST AT ANY TIME they should be converted,
and their sins should be forgiven them.


Jesus clearly explained (to His disciples) the Biblical "mystery" that some men
were NEVER MEANT to "perceive" the Gospel, they were NEVER MEANT to "understand"
the Gospel, they were NEVER MEANT to "be converted" and it was NEVER MEANT
that "their sins should be forgiven them".


So your theory is contradicted by Jesus.
The Bible teaches some men were never meant that "their sins should be forgiven".
It is really as simple as that - if we dare to allow the Bible to be our only authority.


BTW... the implication that some men were never meant to have their sins forgiven...
is that Jesus NEVER PAID for the sins of those men (their sins were NOT forgiven).
Try to wrap your false doctrines around that "mystery" for a while.


And remember, while Jesus is the Savior of "the world" (Jew + Gentile = "the world"),
clearly Jesus is not the Savior of every person. So, the context of "the world" is important.
You cannot hope to discern the MEANING of any passage... without understanding the CONTEXT.


Jim

For a start, Jesus says who will be saved, in the following statement. You speak of blinding, but this passage tells us how that occurs. It is not God who keeps people from the truth, it is people keep themselves from God.

John 14:21-24 He who has My commandments and keeps them, it is he who loves Me. And he who loves Me will be loved by My Father, and I will love him and manifest Myself to him." Judas (not Iscariot) said to Him, "Lord, how is it that You will manifest Yourself to us, and not to the world?" Jesus answered and said to him, "If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our home with him. He who does not love Me does not keep My words; and the word which you hear is not Mine but the Father's who sent Me.​

Note the order:

Seeing:

1. A person keeps Jesus' words
2. God loves the person
3. God reveals Himself to them

Blind

1. Does not keep Jesus' words
2. Is not given the Spirit

As Jesus said the “condemnation” is “light has come”, but some love the darkness. Others receive the light.

John 3:19-21 And this is the condemnation, that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For everyone practicing evil hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed. But he who does the truth comes to the light, that his deeds may be clearly seen, that they have been done in God."​

To whom is the light or cross given to all:

John 1:9 That was the true Light which gives light to every man coming into the world.​

Joh 12:32-36 And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all peoples to Myself." …Then Jesus said to them, "A little while longer the light is with you. Walk while you have the light, lest darkness overtake you; he who walks in darkness does not know where he is going. While you have the light, believe in the light, that you may become sons of light."​

To become a son of God, one must receive the light while they have it.

As the cross is given to all, to cover their sins from the day they are born to the day they die.

Heb 9:27-28 And as it is appointed for men to die once, but after this the judgment, so Christ was offered once to bear the sins of many.​

 

[Brightfame52]

futureandhope

As Jesus said the “condemnation” is “light has come”, but some love the darkness. Others receive the light.

It doesnt say some men love darkness, but men love darkness Jn 3:19

19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.

Now thats all men by nature, only the proud will deny this.

 

[5thKingdom]

For a start, Jesus says who will be saved, in the following statement. You speak of blinding, but this passage tells us how that occurs. It is not God who keeps people from the truth, it is people keep themselves from God.

John 14:21-24 He who has My commandments and keeps them, it is he who loves Me. And he who loves Me will be loved by My Father, and I will love him and manifest Myself to him." Judas (not Iscariot) said to Him, "Lord, how is it that You will manifest Yourself to us, and not to the world?" Jesus answered and said to him, "If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our home with him. He who does not love Me does not keep My words; and the word which you hear is not Mine but the Father's who sent Me.​

Again, you completely ignore the CONTEXT of the passage.
I will explain to you again


Jesus taught [Mat 13] the church consists of
(1) relatively few saved "wheat/sheep" in the church (sown by God)
(2) many unsaved "tares/goats" in the church (sown by Satan).


Some verses will have a context EXCLUSIVE to #1
Some verses have a context exclusive to #2
Some verse have a context of BOTH #1 and #2
The reader must discern WHO is the context of a verse.


When we read a passage (like the one you quoted) you cannot even PRETEND
to understand the MEANING of the passage unless you can define the CONTEXT.
Here... I will take YOUR verse and show you how this works.
Then you will have no excuse for false doctrines.


John 14:21-24

He who has My commandments and keeps them, it is he who loves Me. [#1 "wheat/sheep"]
And he who loves Me will be loved by My Father, [#1 "wheat/sheep"] and I will love him and
manifest Myself to him." [#1 the "wheat/sheep"]

Judas (not Iscariot) said to Him, "Lord, how is it that You will manifest Yourself to us,
[us = the "wheat/sheep"] and not to the world?" Jesus answered and said to him,
"If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and We will
come to him and make Our home with him. [all these apply to #1 the "sheep/wheat"]
He who does not love Me does not keep My words; [all of #2, the "tares/goats"]
and the word which you hear is not Mine but the Father's who sent Me.


If you cannot (or will not) understand the CONTEXT of each passage will be exclusive to
#1 or #2 then you can not hope to understand the "milk" of the Gospel, much less the "meat".


I bet you have read John 14:21-24 dozens of times... yet you NEVER understood that some
verses were exclusive to the "wheat/sheep" while ONE verse was exclusive to the unsaved
"tares/goats" sown by Satan.


When you do correctly discern the context of the passage above, you find there is
a distinction made between which group are #1 "wheat/sheep" and #2 "tares/goats".
AND you find all the promises of salvation are EXCLUSIVE to the "wheat/sheep"...
the "tares/goats" were sown by Satan - and destined to the same fire [Mat 25:41]


You have assumed (for no Biblical reason) that passages promising eternal life apply to
BOTH "wheat/sheep" sown by God AND "tares/goats" sown by Satan. When you do not
understand the DIFFERENCE between these two separate and distinct groups then you
have no hope of understanding the True (monergistic) Gospel of Grace.


Jim