Free will or no free will?

[unred typo]

MarkT wrote:

They were drawn in the flesh to see him but they were not drawn by his words. In fact they were repelled by them. So Jesus was not talking about them. He was talking to them; so that his words would fall on everyone, the good and the bad, like the rain falls on everyone. I agree they were there by the will of God; that is God directed their steps to be there. But first you say they were chosen to be there and then you say everyone chooses to be where they are. Did they choose to not see with their heart, to fulfill the prophecy, 'He has blinded their eyes and hardened their heart, lest they should see with their eyes and perceive with their heart, and turn to me to heal them.'? No. God blinded them.

It is certainly true that there were those who came for the show, and the free meal but Jesus himself even commented on the faith of several of those he healed. Without the faith of the people, Jesus did few or no miracles. His physical appearance was not impressive since it says that there was “no beauty or comeliness that we should desire him†but instead that the “common people received his word gladly.†It was his message that inspired the faith of those who came to hear him. Never a man spoke as he did, with the authority of his position as the Word of God, only begotten Son.

As for who chose what when who, it’s not an either/or situation. God chose from among those who wanted to follow the law of Moses, who had a desire to do God‘s will and who had faith in the one true God of Israel. It was those people who had an honest and sincere heart to know God that he called to be disciples, or for healing or to hear the gospel message and understand it. By gospel message, I mean the various parables and words Jesus spoke about turning the other cheek, forgiveness, mercy, humility, purity and love for one another. Even those who were chosen to listen were not ready to hear much of what he taught. Thank God for his loving patience with every one of us.

When God moves people to do a specific task to accomplish some objective, it is no different than when you force your child to clean his room. If you sovereignly force him to do your will because you have the authority and the power to do so, does that mean your child has no free will to obey(or disobey) you of his own volition? God may force some people to do his will to accomplish certain tasks for him, but that does not negate their own ability to make a zillion other choices on their own for which they will be held accountable for.

 

[MarkT]

It is certainly true that there were those who came for the show, and the free meal but Jesus himself even commented on the faith of several of those he healed. Without the faith of the people, Jesus did few or no miracles. His physical appearance was not impressive since it says that there was “no beauty or comeliness that we should desire him†but instead that the “common people received his word gladly.†It was his message that inspired the faith of those who came to hear him. Never a man spoke as he did, with the authority of his position as the Word of God, only begotten Son.

That's right. There was the Canaanite woman who believed Jesus could heal her daughter and her faith was rewarded. And the centurion who believed Jesus could heal his servant and his faith was rewarded. Many came out to see him because they heard that he healed the sick and the lame and he made the blind see. And it's true Jesus did it for them as they believed.

But they were not chosen to be his disciples. The elect are chosen. Actually, I think 'elect' means 'chosen'. Remember Jesus said, "For many are called, but few are chosen." Mt. 22:14 The elect have obtained a level of faith equal to the Apostles. I'd say you have a pretty good understanding and I don't know why you don't know that you are chosen but since you don't believe any are chosen, I don't know what to make of it. Perhaps in time, when you receive a greater understanding, you will know that you are chosen. It's a fact that those who know they are chosen have a better understanding but it's not always true. The sons of the kingdom are the ones who preach the word of the kingdom and teachers are judged with greater strictness. That's why James said, 'let not many of you become teachers'. James 3:1 You might be a son of the kingdom, that is, the word of the kingdom might come from you but if the truth isn't in you, then you will be cast out. There will be many sons of the kingdom who are cast out into the outer darkness. As it is, if you know you are chosen, then you have a pretty good idea of what your level of faith is.

As for who chose what when who, it’s not an either/or situation. God chose from among those who wanted to follow the law of Moses, who had a desire to do God‘s will and who had faith in the one true God of Israel. It was those people who had an honest and sincere heart to know God that he called to be disciples, or for healing or to hear the gospel message and understand it. By gospel message, I mean the various parables and words Jesus spoke about turning the other cheek, forgiveness, mercy, humility, purity and love for one another. Even those who were chosen to listen were not ready to hear much of what he taught. Thank God for his loving patience with every one of us.

When God moves people to do a specific task to accomplish some objective, it is no different than when you force your child to clean his room. If you sovereignly force him to do your will because you have the authority and the power to do so, does that mean your child has no free will to obey(or disobey) you of his own volition? God may force some people to do his will to accomplish certain tasks for him, but that does not negate their own ability to make a zillion other choices on their own for which they will be held accountable for.

Well then aren't you saying you are forcing yourself, if it is by your will that you do it? I mean you're saying you are forcing yourself to believe in Jesus Christ. I don't think you can force yourself to hear the gospel and I don't think you can force yourself to understand the word of the kingdom.

God doesn't force anyone to do his will as if anyone is some sort of outside arbiter of God. If someone forces you, then he is your enemy. But what God does is he sends the gospel. He says, 'My son. Here I am.' Who are you? You're just dust with his breath in you. He lets you live or he strikes you dead. The fact that you decided you have a will is interesting but irrelevant. God allows that man can plan his way but he directs our steps. So man makes decisions, I agree, but God's will is done.

We do his will because our spirit is united with his Spirit. As Paul said, "But he who is united to the Lord becomes one spirit with him." 1 Co. 6:17, and we know his will is done because, "It is the Spirit himself bearing witness with our spirit that we are children of God." Romans 8:16 See, God made us a kingdom for his Son without your permission. He didn't consult you. You didn't advise him.

 

[unred typo]

MarkT wrote:

That's right. There was the Canaanite woman who believed Jesus could heal her daughter and her faith was rewarded. And the centurion who believed Jesus could heal his servant and his faith was rewarded. Many came out to see him because they heard that he healed the sick and the lame and he made the blind see. And it's true Jesus did it for them as they believed.
But they were not chosen to be his disciples. The elect are chosen. Actually, I think 'elect' means 'chosen'. Remember Jesus said, "For many are called, but few are chosen." Mt. 22:14 The elect have obtained a level of faith equal to the Apostles. I'd say you have a pretty good understanding and I don't know why you don't know that you are chosen but since you don't believe any are chosen, I don't know what to make of it. Perhaps in time, when you receive a greater understanding, you will know that you are chosen. It's a fact that those who know they are chosen have a better understanding but it's not always true. The sons of the kingdom are the ones who preach the word of the kingdom and teachers are judged with greater strictness. That's why James said, 'let not many of you become teachers'. James 3:1 You might be a son of the kingdom, that is, the word of the kingdom might come from you but if the truth isn't in you, then you will be cast out. There will be many sons of the kingdom who are cast out into the outer darkness. As it is, if you know you are chosen, then you have a pretty good idea of what your level of faith is.

I didn’t say “not any are chosen.†None are chosen specifically for eternal life. Eternal life is the reward of those he judges worthy to receive it after they have finished the earthy race set before them. Being chosen is not about eternal life but about a special position or mission or even a dirty deed to be done here on earth. Judas was chosen. Paul was chosen. Sampson was chosen. The disciples were chosen. The Israelites were a chosen nation. Not all who are chosen live up to the task they were chosen to do.

Your problem is you are the victim of some pretty sloppy theology. Just as Science has been perverted toward Evolution by some wrong conclusions regarding the reading of the physical evidence, many theologians have been lead into error regarding the reading of the Bible. I guess I have been elected as the evil messenger to tell you that there is no Santa Claus and you won’t be waking up to free gifts that are showered on you just because you are "chosen to be children of the king." My election to this task is not particularly welcomed and not always faithfully executed, and I apologize for my lack in this area.



MarkT wrote:

Well then aren't you saying you are forcing yourself, if it is by your will that you do it? I mean you're saying you are forcing yourself to believe in Jesus Christ. I don't think you can force yourself to hear the gospel and I don't think you can force yourself to understand the word of the kingdom.

God doesn't force anyone to do his will as if anyone is some sort of outside arbiter of God. If someone forces you, then he is your enemy. But what God does is he sends the gospel. He says, 'My son. Here I am.' Who are you? You're just dust with his breath in you. He lets you live or he strikes you dead. The fact that you decided you have a will is interesting but irrelevant. God allows that man can plan his way but he directs our steps. So man makes decisions, I agree, but God's will is done.

Yes, I suppose you could say I am forcing myself to do God’s will. I am not forcing myself to believe any more, since I have given up trying to make the Bible say what my tickled ears wanted to hear (such as the OSAS doctrines that I once embraced). I believe the fight to suppress and conquer my lazy, prideful, self-centered, stubborn flesh is the ‘good fight’ that Paul admonishes us to wage.

God says to all, “Here I am, follow me.†Some heed the call, others suppress it. The usual state is a half way obedience these days, where people try to keep one foot in the world and one on the path to heaven. Because they are neither hot nor cold, God says he will spew them out of his mouth.

If you are a child of God, it is because you have chosen to follow Christ and do what he taught when he preached on earth. If you are completely committed to this way of life, God will make you an adopted son. As long as you walk in his ways, you remain in his will and in his presence and you enjoy the fellowship promised to the saints within his kingdom. If you decide to go with the world, you will find yourself rubbing elbows with the swine. People like to say the prodigal was never a pig, but if he hadn’t come back to the Father, he would have died of starvation in the pigpen and been thrown into the ever burning rubbish pile outside the city gates.



MarkT wrote:

We do his will because our spirit is united with his Spirit. As Paul said, "But he who is united to the Lord becomes one spirit with him." 1 Co. 6:17, and we know his will is done because, "It is the Spirit himself bearing witness with our spirit that we are children of God." Romans 8:16 See, God made us a kingdom for his Son without your permission. He didn't consult you. You didn't advise him.

I would suggest that you read all of Romans 8 and not just one verse that you pluck out. As you read, answer this: What happens to those who live according to the sinful nature? I would say that when we do his will, we are united with his spirit. 1 John 4:12 says IF we love one another, God dwells in us. We are only part of the kingdom because we obey the king. One day he will send out his angels and remove all those who offend the king and don’t keep his commands. If you live like a follower of Satan, when they come to cast you out, you can explain that you thought you were a chosen child of God and you were just working for rewards, not salvation. They will tell you that God is able to raise up children from the stones on the ground and the reward is eternal life. What he expects from his children is obedience, honor and love. Those who have claimed to have ‘made him Lord of their life’, yet do not do what he said, have only been lying to themselves and the truth is not in them.

 

[mondar]

When Jesus said all the Father had given him would come to him, he was talking about those people who God had chosen to be part of the crowd following him and those who were the fulfillment of messianic prophesies during his short ministry on earth. They were those privileged to be ‘listening ears’ and ‘seeing eyes’ during Jesus’ teaching and miracle working for the time of his earthly appearance. It was not even given to all the elect nation of Israel, but only a selected few who were more faith filled and God-believing were chosen to receive healing and understanding.

The comments above are not taken from the text and are isogetical in nature. Unred seems to be saying is that people were given by the Father to be a part of the crowd that heard Jesus speak. The phrase and concept of "coming to me" is first found in John 6:35.
35 Jesus said unto them. I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall not hunger, and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.
This is a parallelism in which:
come to me = believeth on me
not hunger = shall never thirst

Notice that come to me is a parallel statement that means the same thing as "believeth on me." Those who come to Christ are not merely the ones in the crowd, but they are all those of faith (IE the elect).

The context continues with the faith issue in verse 36.
36 But I said unto you, that ye have seen me, and yet believe not

Verse 36 makes it clear that the ones who see Christ in his earthly ministry are not the elect. In fact, these listeners are marked as those who do not believe. So at the beginning of the context the question is coming up why do many see Christ, and not believe. In the context at the beginning of John 6 the crowd saw the great miracle of the feeding of the 5000.

After the feeding of the 5000 the crowd had it in mind to take Jesus and make him king by force.
15 Jesus therefore perceiving that they were about to come and take him by force, to make him king, withdrew again into the mountain himself alone.

They were not doing this because they believed in Jesus Messiahship, but because they wanted him to feed them. Following Jesus would be a lot easier then going back to the farm and working. Jesus later mentions their motive in wanting to make him king (it was not faith- but lack of faith).

26 Jesus answered them and said, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Ye seek me, not because ye saw signs, but because ye ate of the loaves, and were filled.

Jesus was calling them to faith, but they could not respond in faith.
29 Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.
30 They said therefore unto him, What then doest thou for a sign, that we may see, and believe thee? what workest thou?
They had seen the signs, but did not respond in faith, they asked for more signs (more food).

So then, this crowd following Jesus was not a believing crowd, but an unbelieving crowd. Verse 36 make it very clear.
36 But I said unto you, that ye have seen me, and yet believe not.

So then, the phrase "come to me" does not speak of the crowd and some sort of concept of an elect within an elect. Rather, it is simply speaking of those who come to Christ in faith (see verse 35).

What the context is actually speaking of is not why men believe, but why me are unable to believe. To believe (come to Christ) two things must happen.
1---In verse 37 the peson who comes to Christ (believes)
----- must have been first given by the Father.
2---In verse 44 the person who comes to Christ (believes)
----- must be drawn by the Father.

The context of John 6:35-45 is about unbelief. The context explains why the presentation of the ministries of Christ did not bring faith to Israel. The problem is the innability of man (44- No man can come to me). This inability of man can only be overcome by the two sovereign ministries of the Father (give me, drawn).

I hope it is clear that looking at the context as a giving of some elect to be followers of Jesus is isogetical statements that violates the context. The context is not about people that believe and follow, but about people that do not believe.

Besides the disciples, there were a few thousand that believed in him in spite of his humble form. Not all recognized him for who he was even though they all should have. Some cities were upbraided for their lack of faith, in fact. As you say, false teaching was one of the reasons for this. After the resurrection, however, the invitation was widened to include not only all the nation of Israel, but ‘whosoever would’ could come. The kingdom of God can be within you. God poured out his spirit on all flesh and everyone is taught of God, though most continue to be dull of hearing by their own choice to this very day.

 

[MarkT]

I didn’t say “not any are chosen.†None are chosen specifically for eternal life. Eternal life is the reward of those he judges worthy to receive it after they have finished the earthy race set before them. Being chosen is not about eternal life but about a special position or mission or even a dirty deed to be done here on earth. Judas was chosen. Paul was chosen. Sampson was chosen. The disciples were chosen. The Israelites were a chosen nation. Not all who are chosen live up to the task they were chosen to do.

But didn't you say earlier that the crowd was destined? So whether, in your opinion, they lived up to their task or not, they were there according to the will of God as the prophets prophesied. The crowd fulfilled the prophesy that people would hear him and see him and not understand. As Jesus said, 'With them indeed is fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah' Mt. 13:14

But being chosen, however, is being chosen to receive the higher gifts of the Spirit and it is God who gives the man to his Son. I agree that not everyone who says they are a son of God is of God. There are many false prophets and teachers. You have to discern the Spirit whether it is of God.

Your problem is you are the victim of some pretty sloppy theology. Just as Science has been perverted toward Evolution by some wrong conclusions regarding the reading of the physical evidence, many theologians have been lead into error regarding the reading of the Bible. I guess I have been elected as the evil messenger to tell you that there is no Santa Claus and you won’t be waking up to free gifts that are showered on you just because you are "chosen to be children of the king." My election to this task is not particularly welcomed and not always faithfully executed, and I apologize for my lack in this area.

But my understanding doesn't come from any theological source. It doesn't come from the theologians or science. It comes from above. I don't listen to the Bible scholars. I have the gifts you say I won't be waking up to; the gifts of the Spirit.

MarkT wrote: Quote:
Well then aren't you saying you are forcing yourself, if it is by your will that you do it? I mean you're saying you are forcing yourself to believe in Jesus Christ. I don't think you can force yourself to hear the gospel and I don't think you can force yourself to understand the word of the kingdom.

God doesn't force anyone to do his will as if anyone is some sort of outside arbiter of God. If someone forces you, then he is your enemy. But what God does is he sends the gospel. He says, 'My son. Here I am.' Who are you? You're just dust with his breath in you. He lets you live or he strikes you dead. The fact that you decided you have a will is interesting but irrelevant. God allows that man can plan his way but he directs our steps. So man makes decisions, I agree, but God's will is done.

Yes, I suppose you could say I am forcing myself to do God’s will. I am not forcing myself to believe any more, since I have given up trying to make the Bible say what my tickled ears wanted to hear (such as the OSAS doctrines that I once embraced). I believe the fight to suppress and conquer my lazy, prideful, self-centered, stubborn flesh is the ‘good fight’ that Paul admonishes us to wage.

Then you're trying to do it yourself, relying on will power and your own spirit instead of letting the Holy Spirit lead you to the knowledge of God. I agree we should resist the devil and practice self control but it is by submitting ourselves to God and letting the Holy Spirit lead us to the truth that we worship God in spirit and truth. As for the good fight, Paul said, 'the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from the faith by giving heed to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons' and again he says, 'they will turn away from listening to the truth and wander into myths'. But I agree that to fight the good fight, we should keep ourselves from falling into temptation and aim at righteousness and godliness.

God says to all, “Here I am, follow me.†Some heed the call, others suppress it. The usual state is a half way obedience these days, where people try to keep one foot in the world and one on the path to heaven. Because they are neither hot nor cold, God says he will spew them out of his mouth.

Do you mean suppress as in suppress the truth? I agree. That's one of the ways we know who the sons of the evil one are.

If you are a child of God, it is because you have chosen to follow Christ and do what he taught when he preached on earth. If you are completely committed to this way of life, God will make you an adopted son. As long as you walk in his ways, you remain in his will and in his presence and you enjoy the fellowship promised to the saints within his kingdom. If you decide to go with the world, you will find yourself rubbing elbows with the swine. People like to say the prodigal was never a pig, but if he hadn’t come back to the Father, he would have died of starvation in the pigpen and been thrown into the ever burning rubbish pile outside the city gates.

You can't decide to be your Father's son. It's not a decision to be made. It's a revelation, an awakening. It's like finding a rare jewel. You want to tell people. But as far as choosing by your own spirit, I don't think this is a doctrine that comes from God, not that I don't believe people can choose to commit themselves to a way of life but as doctrine it isn't true. I think you can choose to live a quite godly life and be a Christian but teachers are held to a higher standard. Look at what the Lord GOD said about the prophets of Israel, 'Thus says the Lord GOD, Woe to the foolish prophets who follow their own spirit and have seen nothing.' Eze. 13:3 Choosing by your will or spirit is like being blown about by the wind; the danger there is that you don't know what way to go.

I'm not a Calvinist as you are thinking unred. It's not as if I think the Calvinist has any more truth than the Catholic, for example.

MarkT wrote: Quote:
We do his will because our spirit is united with his Spirit. As Paul said, "But he who is united to the Lord becomes one spirit with him." 1 Co. 6:17, and we know his will is done because, "It is the Spirit himself bearing witness with our spirit that we are children of God." Romans 8:16 See, God made us a kingdom for his Son without your permission. He didn't consult you. You didn't advise him.

I would suggest that you read all of Romans 8 and not just one verse that you pluck out. As you read, answer this: What happens to those who live according to the sinful nature? I would say that when we do his will, we are united with his spirit.

But we are no longer natural men but spiritual men.

When the word of the kingdom falls on good soil, we are born again of water and the Spirit. The inside of the cup is washed clean, ready for God to pour his Spirit into it. There it unites with our spirit. You can't unite with his Spirit without the washing taking place first; the washing of water with the word. Eph. 5:26 Jesus said, 'No one puts new wine into an old wine skin.' So the new wine skin must be created first. The nature of the new wineskin is not like the nature of your sinful flesh. The nature of the wineskin that is planted by God is to obey God. Then the Holy Spirit fills the wineskin.

1 John 4:12 says IF we love one another, God dwells in us. We are only part of the kingdom because we obey the king. One day he will send out his angels and remove all those who offend the king and don’t keep his commands. If you live like a follower of Satan, when they come to cast you out, you can explain that you thought you were a chosen child of God and you were just working for rewards, not salvation. They will tell you that God is able to raise up children from the stones on the ground and the reward is eternal life. What he expects from his children is obedience, honor and love. Those who have claimed to have ‘made him Lord of their life’, yet do not do what he said, have only been lying to themselves and the truth is not in them.

John said we ought to love one another if God so loved us and if we love one another, God abides in us and his love is perfected in us. By this we know that we abide in him and he in us, because he has given us of his own Spirit.' John 4:13 So we know we abide in him because he has given us his Spirit.

 

[unred typo]

The comments above are not taken from the text and are isogetical in nature. Unred seems to be saying is that people were given by the Father to be a part of the crowd that heard Jesus speak. The phrase and concept of "coming to me" is first found in John 6:35. 35 Jesus said unto them. I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall not hunger, and he that believeth on me shall never thirst. This is a parallelism in which:
come to me = believeth on me
not hunger = shall never thirst

Notice that come to me is a parallel statement that means the same thing as "believeth on me." Those who come to Christ are not merely the ones in the crowd, but they are all those of faith (IE the elect).
The context continues with the faith issue in verse 36.
36 But I said unto you, that ye have seen me, and yet believe not
Verse 36 makes it clear that the ones who see Christ in his earthly ministry are not the elect. In fact, these listeners are marked as those who do not believe. So at the beginning of the context the question is coming up why do many see Christ, and not believe. In the context at the beginning of John 6 the crowd saw the great miracle of the feeding of the 5000.
After the feeding of the 5000 the crowd had it in mind to take Jesus and make him king by force.15 Jesus therefore perceiving that they were about to come and take him by force, to make him king, withdrew again into the mountain himself alone.
They were not doing this because they believed in Jesus Messiahship, but because they wanted him to feed them. Following Jesus would be a lot easier then going back to the farm and working. Jesus later mentions their motive in wanting to make him king (it was not faith- but lack of faith).
26 Jesus answered them and said, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Ye seek me, not because ye saw signs, but because ye ate of the loaves, and were filled.
Jesus was calling them to faith, but they could not respond in faith.
29 Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.
30 They said therefore unto him, What then doest thou for a sign, that we may see, and believe thee? what workest thou?
They had seen the signs, but did not respond in faith, they asked for more signs (more food).

So then, this crowd following Jesus was not a believing crowd, but an unbelieving crowd. Verse 36 make it very clear.
36 But I said unto you, that ye have seen me, and yet believe not.
So then, the phrase "come to me" does not speak of the crowd and some sort of concept of an elect within an elect. Rather, it is simply speaking of those who come to Christ in faith (see verse 35).

First of all, unred doesn’t know what ‘isogetical’ means but it must be something bad wrong because you used it twice. I pretty much agree with what you say about the crowds not being all those of great faith at this point in time. They were chosen to be those privileged to see Jesus and hear Jesus firsthand. This is an example of the crowds who are later awakened to the preaching of the disciples in Acts who are obviously blinded during his ministry, as were his own disciples most of the time.

And not every person who was chosen to hear Jesus preach had faith or even eventually came to faith in him. You have some kind of mental barrier that doesn’t allow you to hear the words ‘chosen’ or ‘elect’ without attaching the definition ‘saved for eternity’ to them in your mind. Many are called and few are chosen and not all chosen are chosen for the same position or the same honor or dishonor or task to accomplish. Even some of the chosen are disqualified by their behavior. They are not all Israel, which are of Israel, Paul tells us plainly in Romans 9:6 .

Until you can realize that because God chose people to do his will, that doesn’t mean they do not have their own free will whenever God releases them to do whatever they were doing before he used them for his purposes, you will make this error in reading.

What the context is actually speaking of is not why men believe, but why me are unable to believe. To believe (come to Christ) two things must happen.
1---In verse 37 the peson who comes to Christ (believes)
----- must have been first given by the Father.
2---In verse 44 the person who comes to Christ (believes)
----- must be drawn by the Father.

The context of John 6:35-45 is about unbelief. The context explains why the presentation of the ministries of Christ did not bring faith to Israel. The problem is the innability of man (44- No man can come to me). This inability of man can only be overcome by the two sovereign ministries of the Father (give me, drawn).

I hope it is clear that looking at the context as a giving of some elect to be followers of Jesus is isogetical statements that violates the context. The context is not about people that believe and follow, but about people that do not believe.

Now here you have just gone haywire. Men in general love the pleasures of sin and live in denial of the truth of God’s law over their lives, which Jesus called ‘living in darkness.’ In John 3:21 he says ‘But he that does truth comes to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.’ Acknowledging that God’s ways are best and making every effort to follow them is ‘doing truth.’ The Bible is full of those who worked out their lives in God‘s truth. Jesus embodied that truth in his message and his life.

This passage is both about those seeing the Son and believing in the Son, and those who don’t. Among the crowd and among the disciples were those who had faith and worked their lives in God’s truth. Jesus is saying none of these will be lost who believe in the light he preaches, who take in his words and live by them. In verse 40 we read: “And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which sees the Son, and believes on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.†But it is not just these here that will be saved but all who live by God’s ways. It is not the Father’s will that any should perish but that all should come to repentance.

 

[hybrid]

.

we have freewill and we have no choice about it.


.

 

[unred typo]

But didn't you say earlier that the crowd was destined? So whether, in your opinion, they lived up to their task or not, they were there according to the will of God as the prophets prophesied. The crowd fulfilled the prophesy that people would hear him and see him and not understand. As Jesus said, 'With them indeed is fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah' Mt. 13:14

But being chosen, however, is being chosen to receive the higher gifts of the Spirit and it is God who gives the man to his Son. I agree that not everyone who says they are a son of God is of God. There are many false prophets and teachers. You have to discern the Spirit whether it is of God. ………….

“Chosen†does not equate to “chosen for salvationâ€Â. The disciples were chosen, but Judas was chosen to be the friend who betrayed Christ. He wasn’t chosen to be condemned for eternity. He could have repented and gone on to live for God instead of his money bag. (He may have repented before he killed himself, who knows but God? It still would have been better for him had he never been born for the shame he would endure.) The crowds were chosen to be present and yet be blinded to his parables. It was not for eternity, but for the time before his death when it was not given to them as a whole to understand. The nice thing about a parable is you remember it even if you don’t understand it. Later, the Spirit could reveal it’s meaning to those who were of a heart to understand.

You can't decide to be your Father's son. It's not a decision to be made. It's a revelation, an awakening. It's like finding a rare jewel. You want to tell people. But as far as choosing by your own spirit, I don't think this is a doctrine that comes from God, not that I don't believe people can choose to commit themselves to a way of life but as doctrine it isn't true. I think you can choose to live a quite godly life and be a Christian but teachers are held to a higher standard. Look at what the Lord GOD said about the prophets of Israel, 'Thus says the Lord GOD, Woe to the foolish prophets who follow their own spirit and have seen nothing.' Eze. 13:3 Choosing by your will or spirit is like being blown about by the wind; the danger there is that you don't know what way to go.

That’s right. You don’t choose when and if you will be born as God’s son. You can only do good and live according to his ways and devote yourself to following those things which Jesus taught. It is by the will of God that anyone is born of the Spirit, not our will. We can only choose to be unprofitable servants doing whatever he commands us to do. He has promised to make us into his adopted sons when we choose to consistently do those things that are pleasing in his sight.

Luke 6:35 But love you your enemies, and do good, and lend, hoping for nothing again; and your reward shall be great, and you shall be the children of the Highest: for he is kind unto the unthankful and to the evil.

Matthew 5:9 Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.

John 1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:

Romans 8:14 For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.

Galatians 3:26 For you are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.

 

[unred typo]

.

we have freewill and we have no choice about it.


.

:-D exactly!

 

[mondar]

You have some kind of mental barrier that doesn’t allow you to hear the words ‘chosen’ or ‘elect’ without attaching the definition ‘saved for eternity’ to them in your mind.

2 Thes 2:13 But we are bound to give thanks to God always for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, for that God chose you from the beginning unto salvation in sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth:

John 6:39 And this is the will of him that sent me, that of all that which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up at the last day.

You are definately correct in that I see the elect as 100% absolutely and completely saved by the Grace of God. The 2 Thes 2:13 reference ties in the concept of salvation with election. In the John 6:39 reference the elect are the ones given by the Father to the Son. Does the verse say that Christ will loose a few? Maybe he will only loose one or two, that would not be many. Right? Actually the text says that he lost nothing! All the elect will be saved.

 

[unred typo]

2 Thes 2:13 But we are bound to give thanks to God always for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, for that God chose you from the beginning unto salvation in sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth:

John 6:39 And this is the will of him that sent me, that of all that which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up at the last day.

You are definately correct in that I see the elect as 100% absolutely and completely saved by the Grace of God. The 2 Thes 2:13 reference ties in the concept of salvation with election. In the John 6:39 reference the elect are the ones given by the Father to the Son. Does the verse say that Christ will loose a few? Maybe he will only loose one or two, that would not be many. Right? Actually the text says that he lost nothing! All the elect will be saved.

John 6:39 is talking about the disciples that God gave to Jesus, one of which was not expected to believe unto everlasting life. He is saying that he has kept them with him and none of the twelve had deserted him but continue to follow. He has every confidence that they will remain in the doctrines of love, humility, forgiveness and mercy that he taught them and go on after his death to obtain eternal life. The word ‘elect’ is not even used in this context of salvation.

Notice in 2 Thessalonians 2:13 that the salvation is in connection with being set apart from the beginning of Christ’s ministry by the Spirit because of their belief of the truth. These are the ones that heard his word gladly but were unable to understand the parables until the appointed time after his resurrection. They were chosen, sealed and set apart to hear the gospel unto salvation when the Holy Spirit was poured out on all flesh, beginning with the Jews. This is consistent with the rest of scripture that repeatedly shows God rewarding those who are faithful to his word in their godly lives.

 

[Drew]

Here is 2 Thess 2:13 as rendered in the NASB, which I understant to be one of the more "accurate" translations:

But we should always give thanks to God for you, brethren beloved by the Lord, because God has chosen you from the beginning for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and faith in the truth.

Is the meaning of this text clear based solely only on its contents? I think that the answer is "no". I see this text as entirely consistent with both of the following interpretations:

1. At the beginning of time, God selects a set of persons and will grant these people salvation. The criteria for such selection do not involve any consideration of free will actions. So to be chosen means to have your salvation ensured and the choice has nothing to do with our "free" actions.

2. At the beginning of time, God selects a set of persons who meet the following criteria: they are known, in virtue of God's foreknowledge, to have accepted (freely) the gift of salvation. This set of persons is guaranteed salvation.

I think that option 2 is a legitimate reading. God chooses a set of person to be granted salvation. His choice is made on the following grounds - he chooses those who he knows will accept the gift and then "walk the walk".

I suggest that a "Calvinist" reading of this text is based at bringing a possibly sub-consciously held pre-supposition to the text - namely that God's choosing is not based on what he foreknows about the person's free will decisions.

When I "choose mangoes unto later eating" in the grocery store, I choose them based on what I know about how they will taste. I do not choose rock hard mangoes since they are not ripe. Now, of course, mangoes do not recommend themselves to my choosing through free will actions on their part, but I trust that the analogy is clear.

Another way of saying this: the Calvinist seems to be assuming that "choice unto salvation" is not in any way contingent on "free will" actions of the persons involved (known to God by virtue of his foreknowledge). Now I suspect that the Calvinist will respond with certain texts that will be claimed to show that God's election of someone is not based on "anything meritorious" about that person. I will wait for such objections before addressing them.

My challenge: explain to us why interpretation 2 is invalid, either based on the content of the text itself or based on other texts.

 

[unred typo]

This is my personal favorite:
3. At the beginning of Jesus’ earthly ministry, God had selected these beloved brethren, to whom Paul is writing, by virtue of their previous godly life, because of which they have been set apart by the Holy Spirit, and by virtue of their faith in the truth to obtain salvation by their continued walk in the truth.

 

[mondar]

2. At the beginning of time, God selects a set of persons who meet the following criteria: they are known, in virtue of God's foreknowledge, to have accepted (freely) the gift of salvation. This set of persons is guaranteed salvation.

I think that option 2 is a legitimate reading. God chooses a set of person to be granted salvation. His choice is made on the following grounds - he chooses those who he knows will accept the gift and then "walk the walk".

I suggest that a "Calvinist" reading of this text is based at bringing a possibly sub-consciously held pre-supposition to the text - namely that God's choosing is not based on what he foreknows about the person's free will decisions.

I dont have time to reply to the entire post ATM. I want to say that #2 is a mis reading of what foreknowledge is. Foreknowledge is not mere preknowledge of an event, but it is the deep intimate knowledge of a person, like when Adam knew Eve.

God does preknow events and decisions, otherwise we could not have prophecy, but that is different from foreknowledge. Foreknowledge is not about God foreknowing an event or decision, it is about God forknowing a person.

There are two texts 1 Peter 1:2 and Romans 8. Neither context suggest that God chooses those who have faith. In fact the opposite is true, we have faith because God chooses us (Eph 2:8).

Gotta go

 

[unred typo]

I dont have time to reply to the entire post ATM. I want to say that #2 is a mis reading of what foreknowledge is. Foreknowledge is not mere preknowledge of an event, but it is the deep intimate knowledge of a person, like when Adam knew Eve.

God does preknow events and decisions, otherwise we could not have prophecy, but that is different from foreknowledge. Foreknowledge is not about God foreknowing an event or decision, it is about God forknowing a person.

There are two texts 1 Peter 1:2 and Romans 8. Neither context suggest that God chooses those who have faith. In fact the opposite is true, we have faith because God chooses us (Eph 2:8).

Gotta go

It’s that big question…who did he know and when did he know them?

I believe you are going back too far when you go to the foundation of the world to answer all questions dealing with foreknowledge. Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot: ….verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, 1 Peter 1:19 - 20, but where do you find believers foreordained except as part of the body of Christ?

When we are in Christ, we are accepted in the beloved and made joint heirs with Christ. When we walk according to the love and godliness that he preached, we are foreordained to glory and eternal life. If we turn back into the world to follow Satan and earthly lusts, we lose our standing in Christ and must repent and return from whence we have fallen (Revelation 2:5) or lose the reward of those who are faithful, which is only secure for those in Christ. He that hath the Son hath life but he that hath not the Son hath not life.

I am assuming your Romans reference is to 8:28 -30 And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose.
For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.
Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.

Sort it out. I agree with your estimation of foreknowledge being an intimate knowledge of a person. Who did God foreknow? Those that love God are those whom he knew. When did he come to intimately know them? When they loved him. He so loved the world, but not all the world is going to return that love. Those that love him because he first loved us are those that he calls to be conformed to the image of his son. It was his plan to make of Abraham a family from all nations, who like their spiritual father Abraham, loved God and would willingly choose his ways. Without free will, you are missing the whole point.

 

[Drew]

I want to say that #2 is a mis reading of what foreknowledge is. Foreknowledge is not mere preknowledge of an event, but it is the deep intimate knowledge of a person, like when Adam knew Eve.

God does preknow events and decisions, otherwise we could not have prophecy, but that is different from foreknowledge. Foreknowledge is not about God foreknowing an event or decision, it is about God forknowing a person.

I do not see how this is an objection to what I have written. I can agree entirely with what you have written and this does no damage to my proposal. The text can still be read to the effect that knowledge of something about we will do informs God's choice.

Here are the first 2 verses of 1 Peter 1:

Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who reside as aliens, scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, who are chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, by the sanctifying work of the Spirit, to obey Jesus Christ and be sprinkled with His blood.

This text, as a statement unto itself, is entirely consistent with the notion that God's choice is informed by the "faith" exhibited by those he chooses. The fact that this is not explicitly declared to be grounds for selection is not an argument that such grounds are not present. I can state that I "choose mangoes according to my foreknowledge" without adding "...about how they will taste".

The absence of an explicit statement about "our faith as grounds" is no more damaging to my position on this text than is the absence of a clear declaration of some grounds not related to our faith is to yours.

Are you going to argue that the reference to the "sanctitfying work of the Spirit" is a grounds for God's choice that rules out an element of faith on our part. I would be willing to challenge such an interpretation.

As for Ephesians 2:8

For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God

A reading that this text rules out an act of free will acceptance is not, in my view, really supported by this text. If a bedridden man cries out for help from a burning building, we would still agree that he is saved by the acts of the neighbour who risks life and limb by entering the house and carrying the man to safety, even though the man indeed cried out for help and would have died if he had not. Similarly, I do not think that the Eph 2:8 can really be used to rule out a free will element in the process of salvation. One would have to adopt a hyper-literalistic stance to read the text this way - and I do not think that this is how we generally interpret statements rendered in a natural language. When we say that the man is saved by the acts of the neighbour, we mean it was substantially the acts of the neighbour. We would not intend to suggest that the victim played absolutley no part at all.

Now I am familiar with the counterarguments to this analogy, but I will let you make them and then respond.

For now, I will not comment on Romans 8 - no time.

 

[mondar]

I do not see how this is an objection to what I have written. I can agree entirely with what you have written and this does no damage to my proposal. The text can still be read to the effect that knowledge of something about we will do informs God's choice.

Here are the first 2 verses of 1 Peter 1:

Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who reside as aliens, scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, who are chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, by the sanctifying work of the Spirit, to obey Jesus Christ and be sprinkled with His blood.

This text, as a statement unto itself, is entirely consistent with the notion that God's choice is informed by the "faith" exhibited by those he chooses. The fact that this is not explicitly declared to be grounds for selection is not an argument that such grounds are not present. I can state that I "choose mangoes according to my foreknowledge" without adding "...about how they will taste".

The absence of an explicit statement about "our faith as grounds" is no more damaging to my position on this text than is the absence of a clear declaration of some grounds not related to our faith is to yours.

I still think that there is a difference. When God foreknows man, he is not looking at mans faith, therefore, while election has to do with those whom he foreknew, election is not based upon faith.

Gods foreknowledge speaks of his love, like Adam knew Eve.

Are you going to argue that the reference to the "sanctitfying work of the Spirit" is a grounds for God's choice that rules out an element of faith on our part. I would be willing to challenge such an interpretation.

As for Ephesians 2:8

For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God

A reading that this text rules out an act of free will acceptance is not, in my view, really supported by this text. If a bedridden man cries out for help from a burning building, we would still agree that he is saved by the acts of the neighbour who risks life and limb by entering the house and carrying the man to safety, even though the man indeed cried out for help and would have died if he had not. Similarly, I do not think that the Eph 2:8 can really be used to rule out a free will element in the process of salvation. One would have to adopt a hyper-literalistic stance to read the text this way - and I do not think that this is how we generally interpret statements rendered in a natural language. When we say that the man is saved by the acts of the neighbour, we mean it was substantially the acts of the neighbour. We would not intend to suggest that the victim played absolutley no part at all.

Now I am familiar with the counterarguments to this analogy, but I will let you make them and then respond.

For now, I will not comment on Romans 8 - no time.

Yes, I would read Ephesians 2:8 to be inclusive of faith as one part of the gift of God. I see that text as grammatically impossible to read in any other way.

Unfortunately, the only way to explain why I believe this is to refer to Koine Greek. If you dont get the process of this argument, just skip to the bottom where the conclusion is made.

Eph 2:8 τῇ γὰρ χάριτί ἐστε σεσῳσμένοι διὰ πίστεως· καὶ τοῦτο οὐκ ἐξ ὑμῶν,
Θεοῦ τὸ δῶρον·
for by grace have ye been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves,
it is the gift of God;

To understand the argument, it is necessary first to recognize that nouns and participles must have an antecedent that agrees in gender and number. The issue is that the word of "that" (τοῦτο), and the word for gift (δῶρον) are both neuter in gender. However, there is no neuter antecedent preceding these nouns that agree in gender. The word grace (χάριτι) and faith (πίστεως) are both feminine, and the participle salvation (σεσῳσμένοι) is masculine. Now I remember reading grammar books and articles that I dont have with me ATM. In cases where there is no neutral antecedent, a phrase with mixed genders can be used as the antecedent. So them, the word "that" and "gift" are referring to the entire phrase "by grace you have been saved through faith."

CONCLUSION
The proper grammatical conclusion is then that faith is not the gift of God, but it is part of the gift. The gift is "by grace you have been saved through faith." While faith is not the whole gift, it is one part of the package given to us by God. The arminian reading of the text that faith is not any part of the gift is not grammatically possible.

 

[Vic C.]

This sort of agrees with you, mondar. I could certainly agree that the verse points to the whole phrase, but many Christians will put the emphesis on faith when the verse in context (verses 1-9) points to salvation. It is a salvation chapter.

From my nephew in seminary, translating the Greek: "I did my study of the Greek of Ephesians 2. It's quite interesting. I'll try to explain it as best as I can. Make sure that you have Ephesians 2 open while you read this. It will help. The demonstrative pronoun ("that") in Ephesians 2:8 actually has a neuter gender in Greek. In Greek, pronouns must match with their antecedents in gender (masculine, feminine, neuter) and number (singular, plural). Both words "grace" and 'faith' are feminine in Greek, so it is rather impossible to say that the 'that' is pointing to either of them specifically. Rather, often times in Greek when a writer wants to refer to a whole idea he will use the neuter gender. So the antecedent of the demonstrative pronoun 'that' in this passage is actually pointing to the whole idea 'For by grace are you saved through faith.' "

"I brought this up with one of my Greek professors and pointed out that we probably should not use this passage to point to exclusively as faith as being the gift. He agreed with me. But notice that this does not disregard our faith as a gift of God. By using the 'that' to point to the whole idea that "by grace are we saved through faith" Paul is saying more. Our whole status of being children of God is "not of ourselves, it is a gift of God, not of works."

http://poptop.hypermart.net/eph28.html

... and then there's this:

From a cursory reading of this verse, it appears that the relative pronoun that (v 8b) has faith (v 8a) as its grammatical antecedent. However, in its Greek construction that is a demonstrative pronoun with adverbial force used in an explanatory phrase. This particular construction uses a fixed neuter singular pronoun (that) which refers neither to faith, which is feminine in Greek, nor to any immediate word which follows. (See Blass, Debrunner, Funk, 132, 2.) What all this means is that the little phrase and that (kai touto in Greek) explains that salvation is of God's grace and not of human effort. Understood accordingly, Ephesians 2:8 could well be translated: "For by grace you have been saved through faith, that is to say, not of yourselves, it is the gift of God."

Moreover, there is a parallelism between not of yourselves in v 8b and not of works in v 9. This parallelism serves as a commentary to v 8a ("For by grace you have been saved through faith") which speaks of salvation in its entirety. It is difficult to see how faith, if it is the gift of God, harmonizes with not of works of v 9. We must conclude, then, that in Ephesians 2:8 salvation is the gift of God....

... To conclude, it is inaccurate to suggest that God gives men a special gift of faith so that they may be saved and subsequently sanctified. Instead, God has sent His Holy Spirit into the world to convict men of sin and to enlighten darkened and depraved minds to the saving truths contained in Scripture (John 16:8; Rom 10:17; Eph 3:9). When one is regenerated, it is yieldedness to the filling ministry of the Holy Spirit, not infused faith, that results in good works. From Ephesians 2:8 and the collective whole of NT data, God is presented as the gracious initiator who, through His Holy Spirit, woos and wins men to Himself. Man is depicted as the responder who, in his spiritually destitute state, is convicted and enlightened by the Holy Spirit, and answers in simple faith to the promises of the Gospel. In view of such exquisite grace, it is only fitting to contend that salvation is a superlative expression of divine favor, yea, even a gift of God!

http://www.faithalone.org/news/y1989/89july1.html

So it IS grammatically possible depending on;

1)presupposition

2) Who's Greek commentary one chooses to accept.

 

[Vic C.]

This is my conclusion (in bold):

CONCLUSION:

It seems then that the adverbial usage is most common occurring in between four and eight Pauline usages. From this information, we must then draw a conclusion and formulate a working rule that can account for all Pauline usages.

This rule is as follows: Pauline occurrences of kai’ tou~to, unless clearly substantival, should be translated with an adverbial force.

Applying this rule to the verse in question, we receive the following translation: For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that [act of being saved is] not of yourselves, it is the gift of God;â€Â

If this translation/interpretation is accepted, then we can see clearly the process of salvation is what is “not of yourselves.†The verse does not clearly identify the gift as either grace or faith. It is therefore best to conclude that neither Calvinists nor Arminians should use Ephesians 2:8 to debate the classification of faith as a work.

Examples and an analysis of the word kai’ tou~to are here: http://www.geocities.com/apokrinomai/sc ... vation.htm

 

[mondar]

It’s that big question…who did he know and when did he know them?

I believe you are going back too far when you go to the foundation of the world to answer all questions dealing with foreknowledge. Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot: ….verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, 1 Peter 1:19 - 20, but where do you find believers foreordained except as part of the body of Christ?

If God chose those whom he foreknew, and election is before the foundation of the world, then foreknowledge is before the foundation of the world.
Eph 1:4 even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blemish before him in love:

When we are in Christ, we are accepted in the beloved and made joint heirs with Christ. When we walk according to the love and godliness that he preached, we are foreordained to glory and eternal life. If we turn back into the world to follow Satan and earthly lusts, we lose our standing in Christ and must repent and return from whence we have fallen (Revelation 2:5) or lose the reward of those who are faithful, which is only secure for those in Christ. He that hath the Son hath life but he that hath not the Son hath not life.

I am assuming your Romans reference is to 8:28 -30 And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose.
For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.
Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.

Sort it out. I agree with your estimation of foreknowledge being an intimate knowledge of a person. Who did God foreknow? Those that love God are those whom he knew. When did he come to intimately know them? When they loved him. He so loved the world, but not all the world is going to return that love. Those that love him because he first loved us are those that he calls to be conformed to the image of his son. It was his plan to make of Abraham a family from all nations, who like their spiritual father Abraham, loved God and would willingly choose his ways. Without free will, you are missing the whole point.

You have it reversed. God did not love us because we loved him. Rather, we loved him because he first loved us.

1Jo 4:10 Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins.
1Jo 4:19 We love, because he first loved us.

Salvation is not based upon our righteousness, but rather on the imputed righteousness of Christ. If we can loose our salvation by our own sin, then Christ is unable to actually save. The Christ I know saved me to the uttermost. jgridline makes a good point, if we are justified, how can we be unjustified. Romans 8:31-39 is a passage that asks who will unjustify. If God bangs his gavel and declares us acquitted of all charges of sin. Who will make the charge of sin against Gods elect. Would the very God who justified us make the charge of sin (Romans 8:31)? Would Christ make the accusation of sin who died and payed the price (Romans 8:34)? Who shall lay anything to the charge of God's elect? It is God that justifieth;(Romans 8:33). Would the God who justifies unjustify? May it never be. For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord. (Romans 8:38-39).

If maintaining your salvation depends upon your righteousness, you are lost, and there is no salvation. You have fallen far short of the glory of God.