" I never knew you " --- Literal or Figurative

[smaller]

I can see nothing has changed with the way you carry on conversations.

Thanks but no thanks. I prefer to have a two way conversation where the one guy does not feel it is necessary to attempt to belittle me.

Yes, must not look too closely at the reality of peoples presentations.

I tend to read the 'fine print' to see how I might get ripped off.

 

[smaller]

Re: " I never knew you " --- Literal or Figurative

Originally Posted by mlqurgw
The only logical conclusion to such a view is that man actually saves himself with God's help.



No, God saves man only upon man's help. This "turning to God" is in effect a gift from God, since we cannot do it alone - but we certainly do contribute.

Otherwise, there would be no requirement for man to repent of his sin...

Regards

It takes very little of ones 'brain' to understand this above. Your post is so right! And Small's postings of personal attacks? That reminds me of one of two powers? Eph. 6:12
--Elijah

​

The world is FILLED TO THE BRIM with people BLINDED BY THE DEVIL.

And believers pat themselves on the back for their works.

Yes, BELIEVERS will HEAR THE WORDS OF JESUS in the title of this thread and it will be directed to the DEVIL who has blinded them.

Their "DO" was turned into "did"

s

 

[savedbygrace57]

francis:

Unbelief = rejection, not ignorance.

Its both according to paul 1 tim 1:


12And I thank Christ Jesus our Lord, who hath enabled me, for that he counted me faithful, putting me into the ministry;

13Who was before a blasphemer, and a persecutor, and injurious: but I obtained mercy, because I did it ignorantly in unbelief.

 

[savedbygrace57]

The word knew, means intimacy, Jesus never intimately knew theses people, He never Loved them.

You see if Jesus Loved someone He loved them intimately. He died for them, He took their sins upon Himself, to prove His deep Love for them. He took their iniquities upon Himself.

 

[Drew]

The only logical conclusion to such a view is that man actually saves himself with God's help.

No. The view that man in some sense "co-operates" in attaining salvation should not be deformed into an assertion that man therefore deserves substantial "credit" for the end result of salvation (as in your misleading characterization that "man saves himself with God's help").

It is not fair argument to take a statement like this:

"My salvation would not come about if I did not freely do a certain action"

.....and morph it into this assertion:

"I deserve substantial credit for my salvation"

Analogy: Suppose a baseball fan reaches over the fence and catches a flyball that otherwise would have been caught by a Chicago Cub player, resulting in the Cubs winning the World Series. But the fan did interfere, and the Red Sox go on to win the World Series. Would the Red Sox have won if the fan had not interfered? Admitedly no.

But does the fan, in any reasonable sense, deserve any credit at all for the Red Sox winning the Series? No, that fan does not deserve credit. The real credit goes to the players on the Red Sox. At most, a miniscule amount of credit properly goes to the fan.

Yet some in the Calvinist camp will play a similar bait and switch game, instilling in the mind of the reader the idea that if I play any kind of determining role in my salvation, I therefore deserve substantial credit for the end result. This is simply not a valid line of reasoning.

 

[francisdesales]

Re: " I never knew you " --- Literal or Figurative

Originally Posted by mlqurgw
The only logical conclusion to such a view is that man actually saves himself with God's help.



No, God saves man only upon man's help. This "turning to God" is in effect a gift from God, since we cannot do it alone - but we certainly do contribute.

Otherwise, there would be no requirement for man to repent of his sin...

Regards

It takes very little of ones 'brain' to understand this above. Your post is so right! And Small's postings of personal attacks? That reminds me of one of two powers? Eph. 6:12
--Elijah
​

Thanks, and on the last comment, it is too bad on the personal attacks, they don't make such threads enjoyable or a learning experience, since all they do is get people defensive and bristle up.

Regards

​

 

[francisdesales]

francis:

Unbelief = rejection, not ignorance.

Its both according to paul 1 tim 1:

12And I thank Christ Jesus our Lord, who hath enabled me, for that he counted me faithful, putting me into the ministry;

13Who was before a blasphemer, and a persecutor, and injurious: but I obtained mercy, because I did it ignorantly in unbelief.

Paul was not ignorant in the manner that you claim. Even to a Jew, murder is wrong, and he was guilty of those crimes. His fault was the misplaced zealous acts - he was ignorant of Christ and the TRUE teachings of the law that Paul was claiming to uphold during his pre-Christian days. Since God condemns evil acts, Paul stood condemned under the law as one who had broken it. (remember the commandments?) Paul was not given a mandate from God to seek out and kill followers of the Way.

Regards

 

[mondar]

One of the things about Matthew 7:23 that interests me is the choice of terms. The term "knew" is the 2nd aorist active of gnosko-- to know intimately. In Romans 8:29 the same root word is found prosgnosko (foreknew).

Matthew 7:23 is not the only place the root gnosko is found in this context. If you look in Matthew 7:16 a word with the same root occurs (epignosko). By their fruits you shall "know them." Then we are told how we will "know" false prophets, it will be by their fruits (see verses 17-20).

Verse 21 does not bring up a completely new topic, but continues the same topic of false teachers and false prophets. False prophets will at times say things in the name of the Lord. In verse 22 these false prophets make the claim that they prophecied in the name of the Lord, but the Lord never knew them.

Interesting play on the word "know." We know false prophets and false teachers by their fruits, but from eternity past Christ never knew these false teachers. I think Christ knew all about them, but he never intimately knew them with a loving, intimate, knowledge. Like Adam knew Eve, God knows his children. But these false teachers are not his children, and so God never knew them with that intimate loving knowledge.

 

[savedbygrace57]

francis:

Unbelief = rejection, not ignorance.

scripture and pauls own testimony:

1 tim 1:

12And I thank Christ Jesus our Lord, who hath enabled me, for that he counted me faithful, putting me into the ministry;

13Who was before a blasphemer, and a persecutor, and injurious: but I obtained mercy, because I did it ignorantly in unbelief.

 

[francisdesales]

The word knew, means intimacy, Jesus never intimately knew theses people, He never Loved them..

OK, I have a problem with this - that "God never loved them" - if you take it literally and not metaphorically.

Perhaps you can clarify for me something about your view of God and how He "randomly" chooses whom to love and who not, KNOWING FULL WELL it cannot be based upon anything they did or would do - as that would imply winning salvation based upon merit.

With that in mind, how exactly does God pick and choose to love some and condemn others - ALL THE WHILE, claiming that God is Love and God is Just??? How does such an apologist ignore the contradictions inherent in the idea??? Being Just, by definition, does not allow such an idea. Being Love, by definition, does not allow such an idea. It would be an anthropomorphic idea of the "national god", where "god" only loves us and hates all of our enemies, smiting them at "his" whim... This "picking and choosing" is merely a return to such pagan concepts that clearly cannot see God as eternal and totally transcendant, beyond such human concepts of "God only loves us" nonsense.

Now, since the Lamb of God died for the sin of the world - and God IS Just and God IS Love, we cannot claim that God loves only some men and condemns others (without any cause of reprobation other than their miserable existence that God Himself brought into being...)

God loves all men and desires that ALL men be saved. Sadly, as Jesus wept at Jerusalem (and Psalm 81 reflects upon the Jews in the desert), they wouldn't have it...

Regards

 

[francisdesales]

One of the things about Matthew 7:23 that interests me is the choice of terms. The term "knew" is the 2nd aorist active of gnosko-- to know intimately. In Romans 8:29 the same root word is found prosgnosko (foreknew).

Matthew 7:23 is not the only place the root gnosko is found in this context. If you look in Matthew 7:16 a word with the same root occurs (epignosko). By their fruits you shall "know them." Then we are told how we will "know" false prophets, it will be by their fruits (see verses 17-20).

Verse 21 does not bring up a completely new topic, but continues the same topic of false teachers and false prophets. False prophets will at times say things in the name of the Lord. In verse 22 these false prophets make the claim that they prophecied in the name of the Lord, but the Lord never knew them.

Agreed - and because the subject is about false prophets (if one looks to the immediately preceeding verses), one should not develop a theology that extends to all humankind.

Such as "God only loves the elect" sort of thing.

Regards

 

[savedbygrace57]

francis:

OK, I have a problem with this - that "God never loved them"

He didnt, If He did, then Christ could not have said I never knew you.

Because Jesus said:

jn 17:10

And all mine are thine, and thine are mine; and I am glorified in them.

Christ Loved His own Jn 13:

1Now before the feast of the passover, when Jesus knew that his hour was come that he should depart out of this world unto the Father, having loved his own which were in the world, he loved them unto the end

 

[francisdesales]

ignore double post

 

[francisdesales]

francis:



scripture and pauls own testimony:

1 tim 1:

12And I thank Christ Jesus our Lord, who hath enabled me, for that he counted me faithful, putting me into the ministry;

13Who was before a blasphemer, and a persecutor, and injurious: but I obtained mercy, because I did it ignorantly in unbelief.

What did he do in ignorantly in unbelief? Did He blaspheme and cause injury out of ignorance of the Mosaic Law???

 

[savedbygrace57]

francis:

God loves all men and desires that ALL men be saved

He gave Christ that responsibility, to do His Pleasure and save those whom He wants to be saved, so if they are not saved, it would be Christ Fault !

Lk 19:

10For the Son of man is come to seek and to save that which was lost.

 

[francisdesales]

francis:



He didnt, If He did, then Christ could not have said I never knew you.

Because Jesus said:

jn 17:10

And all mine are thine, and thine are mine; and I am glorified in them.

Christ Loved His own Jn 13:

1Now before the feast of the passover, when Jesus knew that his hour was come that he should depart out of this world unto the Father, having loved his own which were in the world, he loved them unto the end

Again, you misapply Scriptures. Jesus is speaking about the Apostles and those who would follow Him - AND NOT SAYING that "ONLY THOSE THE FATHER GIVES ME, I WILL/DO LOVE".

He loves ALL in the world, but an especial love to His followers.

 

[savedbygrace57]

francis:

What did he do in ignorantly in unbelief?

A lot of things, try reading the bible about him.

 

[savedbygrace57]

francis:

He loves ALL in the world

He loved His own in the world Jn 13:1

Now before the feast of the passover, when Jesus knew that his hour was come that he should depart out of this world unto the Father, having loved his own which were in the world, he loved them unto the end.

 

[Sinthesis]

francis:



He loved His own in the world Jn 13:1

Now before the feast of the passover, when Jesus knew that his hour was come that he should depart out of this world unto the Father, having loved his own which were in the world, he loved them unto the end.

Wow! Classic prooftexting! Why is Jesus' love in the past tense? Because, this passage is only talking about the disciples and the particular events that followed. However, that Jesus loved these twelve men does not mean He doesn't love everyone else.

Do you believe Jesus washed Judas Iscariot's feet?

By the way, you were not in the world at that time, and if you 'are' in the world,,,well,,, He only loved those which 'were' in the world,,,and if you 'were' in the world, why aren't you now? :rolling

 

[francisdesales]

francis:



A lot of things, try reading the bible about him.

Translation:

Savedbygrace hasn't a clue...