Power to choose

[SovereignGrace]

Here is the part that I read and that is relevant:

First, no man merits his own salvation.
Second, it is stated clearly from Acts 17:26-30, that God has provided a way that man is able to: repent, seek God, and find God. This is not Pelagian teaching; it is the teaching of Scripture.

And yet the bible affirms that no one, of their own volition can and will seek God w/o divine assistance, divine enabling.

“No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them, and I will raise them up at the last day."[Jn. 6:44]


“There is no one righteous, not even one; there is no one who understands; there is no one who seeks God. All have turned away, they have together become worthless; there is no one who does good, not even one.”[Rom. 3:10-12]


The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.” They are corrupt, their deeds are vile; there is no one who does good. The Lord looks down from heaven on all mankind to see if there are any who understand, any who seek God. All have turned away, all have become corrupt; there is no one who does good, not even one.[Psa. 14:1-3]

The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.” They are corrupt, and their ways are vile; there is no one who does good. God looks down from heaven on all mankind to see if there are any who understand, any who seek God. Everyone has turned away, all have become corrupt; there is no one who does good, not even one.[Psa. 53:1-3]

No one can come on their own to the throne of grace, monsieur. It takes God via the Spirit to draw them.

 

[SovereignGrace]

Generally speaking of NT believers this is true. The context of this discussion, as I remember it, is how a person is saved today.

This is a very good and comprehensive definition:

But no one is saved without having the Holy Spirit living within them, mon ami. And no one has the Holy Spirit without the new birth, being born again, being born from above, regenerated, &c.

 

[SovereignGrace]

We are veering off course...my apologies agedman...so let us get back on track with the ability to choose.


The other night...Tuesday...my wife and I were watching "America's Got Talent' on NBC. This duo of two brothers sung a song and they were marvelous. Howie Mandel, one of the judges, stated something that goes along with the OP. He said he felt like he had been to church when he heard that duo sing, but he had never been to church. Yes, it was his choice to not go. But he was choosing that which was most pleasing to him...to not go to church. No one was holding him back from going except Howie Mandel.

You think we are being mean with our 'cruel' doctrine, but if you study humans, you will see what I have been saying is the truth. If God is not drawing them, they will not go to church. Sure, they may go to shut someone up, or go to a funeral of a family member or friend. But to go every week on a routine basis is not their cup of tea. No one is holding them back from going to church but them.

 

[DHK]

And yet the bible affirms that no one, of their own volition can and will seek God w/o divine assistance, divine enabling.

Nowhere does the Bible say or teach that explicitly. It must be read into the scriptures. If one didn't have that pre-conceived idea he wouldn't get it from the Bible by simply reading it.

“No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them, and I will raise them up at the last day."[Jn. 6:44]

This is not teaching that man cannot seek God without God's assistance. Where do you get that from?
Let me quote you a passage from Hunt's book "What Love is This" Ch. 25:

Christ clearly says it is those who actually come to Him whom He will raise up at the last day. Calvinists read into Christ’s words what isn’t there. He actually said:

1. All that the Father giveth me [not all He draws] shall come to me;

2. and him that cometh to me [not everyone the Father draws] I will in no wise cast out.

3. And this is the Father’s will... that of all which he giveth me [not all whom He draws] I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.

4. Every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on Him [not all who are drawn], may have everlasting life; and I will raise him up…

5. No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him [all who come have been drawn—not all who are drawn come]: and I will raise him up at the last day [all who will be raised up have been drawn, but not all who have been drawn will be raised up].

Read the entire text carefully (John 6:35-65). Christ does not say that all whom the Father draws, but all whom He gives to the Son, will come to Him, and He will lose none of them whom the Father gives Him; they will all be raised at the last day. Of whom is Christ speaking? We have seen that the Bible teaches that in God’s foreknowledge He knew who would believe and who would reject the gospel. The former are those whom the Father has given to the Son. There is nothing here about causing a select number to believe unto salvation and choosing not to save the rest of mankind.

Christ says that no one can come to Him unless the Father draws him. But He doesn’t say that everyone whom the Father draws actually comes to the Son and is saved. All Scripture testifies to a genuine desire on God’s part for all to be saved. Salvation has been procured by Christ and is genuinely offered to whosoever will believe—but not everyone believes. God’s sincere desire for all to be saved is stated so often and clearly by prophets, Christ, and His apostles that we dare not see a contrary interpretation in this passage.

“There is no one righteous, not even one; there is no one who understands; there is no one who seeks God. All have turned away, they have together become worthless; there is no one who does good, not even one.”[Rom. 3:10-12]

Let's look at another verse from the same passage.

Rom 3:13 Their throat is an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps is under their lips:
Rom 3:14 Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness:
Rom 3:15 Their feet are swift to shed blood:
Rom 3:16 Destruction and misery are in their ways:

Consider the entirety of this passage carefully.
First:
Rom 3:9 What then? are we better than they? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin;
--That one short bolded statement: "All are under sin," is Paul's premise.

His supporting scripture are all quotations from the Psalms in verses 10-12. They are general statements or descriptions of mankind. Thus when it says: "No man seeks God," it is generally true of mankind, but it is not an absolute statement. Was it true of Enoch, who was translated? He walked with God and was not for God took him.

Verses 13 to 18 are figurative statements that relate to the body and in a figurative way describe the sinfulness of man. But really, have you ever had the poison of snakes beneath your tongue? Or is it descriptive of a time in your life when your speech was ungodly?

The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.” They are corrupt, their deeds are vile; there is no one who does good. The Lord looks down from heaven on all mankind to see if there are any who understand, any who seek God. All have turned away, all have become corrupt; there is no one who does good, not even one.[Psa. 14:1-3]

The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.” They are corrupt, and their ways are vile; there is no one who does good. God looks down from heaven on all mankind to see if there are any who understand, any who seek God. Everyone has turned away, all have become corrupt; there is no one who does good, not even one.[Psa. 53:1-3]

Generally speaking these are the same scriptures that Paul quoted in Romans 3.

No one can come on their own to the throne of grace, monsieur. It takes God via the Spirit to draw them.

Anyone who desires to seek God can find God. Acts 17:27. That is what God inspired Paul to teach the idolatrous Athenians. He then told them that God was near them, not very far away--thus possible, very possible for them to find Him.

Acts 17:27 That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us:

 

[DHK]

But no one is saved without having the Holy Spirit living within them, mon ami. And no one has the Holy Spirit without the new birth, being born again, being born from above, regenerated, &c.

You have to define the borders of your discussion.
The Holy Spirit never indwelt any OT believer. He came upon individuals and left them just as quickly. There was no permanent indwelling of the Holy Spirit in the OT, and thus no regeneration. Regeneration could only take place after the Holy Spirit came at Pentecost.
It doesn't matter how often you repeat the above, it won't make it true. There was no "new birth" in the OT. They were justified by faith, as every individual in the Bible is. You are simply confusing the matter by confusing regeneration with salvation. It cannot be separated with salvation.
Regeneration is by faith as much as justification is by faith.
Go back and read the definition given by Watson.

 

[SovereignGrace]

You have to define the borders of your discussion.
The Holy Spirit never indwelt any OT believer. He came upon individuals and left them just as quickly. There was no permanent indwelling of the Holy Spirit in the OT, and thus no regeneration. Regeneration could only take place after the Holy Spirit came at Pentecost.
It doesn't matter how often you repeat the above, it won't make it true. There was no "new birth" in the OT. They were justified by faith, as every individual in the Bible is. You are simply confusing the matter by confusing regeneration with salvation. It cannot be separated with salvation.
Regeneration is by faith as much as justification is by faith.
Go back and read the definition given by Watson.

Yet David cried out "Do not cast me from your presence or take your Holy Spirit from me."[Psa. 51:11] And then the bible also explicitly states You, however, are not in the realm of the flesh but are in the realm of the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God lives in you. And if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, they do not belong to Christ.[Rom. 8:9]


This goes and covers the OT saints, too. Without the Spirit, we are not His, monsieur.

 

[agedman]

The idea that mere human of their own freedom of choice can seek God is NOT aligned with Scriptures.

Again, looking at the book of John, there is laid out the condition and desires of those who "turn from the light" given to every man.

They HATE the light. (John 3:20)
They do not UNDERSTAND (comprehend) the light. (John 1:5)
They are blinded from seeing the light. (John 9:39-41)
They are of their frame of living and thinking is from their father the devil. (John 8:44,45)
They STUMBLE because they walk in darkness. (John 11:10)

There is an interesting tidbit of information that may help in this discussion of freedom of choice /will and innate ability to choose and the condition of one who turns from the light.

The gardens at Charles Darwin's home are expansive. After the death of Anne (who had tuberculosis) Charles Darwin rejected the light (he turned from following Christ).

What is interesting (to me) is that I have been told that the pages of His wife's Bible are filled with little notes in the margins of practical lessons learned and daily applications to her life.

She would often sit overlooking her husband as he wandered and pondered the earthly while she pondered the heavenly.

The two were a study in contrast. Both given light - one turning from the light.

 

[Van]

The issue of the OP was the claim people have no ability to seek God and trust fully in Christ. That claim has been shown to be mistaken.

a) Christ spoke in parables to preclude some folks hearing and understanding the gospel (Matthew 13).
b) God hardened hearts (Romans 11) to preclude unbelieving Jews from accepting the gospel.
c) Unregenerate men were in the process of entering heaven (Matthew 23:13) and therefore were seeking God effectively.​

Van,

Each of these verses have been dealt with thoroughly in other threads and in this thread.

Citing the unreferenced past is simply a ploy to create an illusion. None have or can be refuted, their meaning is obvious.

"self - generate" is part of the thinking that you espouse when you say that heathen can "seek God and trust fully in Christ."

Talk about circular reasoning. You assume total spiritual inability is true, therefore some fallen people must be regenerated to seek God. Fiddlesticks. No one is claiming regeneration before faith but you. John 1:12 demonstrates faith before even being given the power to become children of God via spiritual rebirth.

There is not a single Scripture that you have produced to show such happening and the ability of such to happen.

More denial, Matthew 23:13 demonstrates some fallen men can seek God effectively.

Here is a short list of the scenes you attempted to use (not in this thread but others, too) to support your scheme:

Call by Joshua to the Israelites
Philippian jailer (which DHk also attempted)
Ethiopian Eunuch (which DHK also attempted)
Thief on the cross (which DHK also attempted)

No quote will be forthcoming, as this claim is both false and absurd.

Here is a bit of a project for you. Prove this passage doesn't really mean what it states.

19 "This is the judgment, that the Light has come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the Light, for their deeds were evil. 20 For everyone who does evil hates the Light, and does not come to the Light for fear that his deeds will be exposed. 21 But he who practices the truth comes to the Light, so that his deeds may be manifested as having been wrought in God.”
​

See that last part? See the progression from practice to salvation?

As I have said, over and over, there is no verse or passage that supports total spiritual inability of all people all of the time. None, zip, nada.

Lets consider John 3:19-21, NASB:

This is the judgment, that the Light has come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the Light, for their deeds were evil. 20 For everyone who does evil hates the Light, and does not come to the Light for fear that his deeds will be exposed. 21 But he who practices the truth comes to the Light, so that his deeds may be manifested as having been wrought in God.”

Contextually, the basis for condemning unbelievers, those that "practice sin" is they reject the Light of the world, Jesus Christ, because they are unwilling to turn away from their acts of wickedness.

Now lets look at the bogus interpretation. It says "and men (people) loved the darkness rather than the Light. Does it say all people all the time? Nope. So that assertion is being read into the text.

Next, "everyone" who practices evil (wickedness) hates the Light. Does this say they are unable to repent? Nope. On the other hand, at some point the practice of wickedness will result the inability to repent, i.e. the first soil of Matthew 13.

Now the person of God, who strives to keep His commands, seeks the Light, Jesus Christ.

Is regeneration and rebirth anywhere in sight? Nope. So again, that claim is being read into the text.

 

[DHK]

The idea that mere human of their own freedom of choice can seek God is NOT aligned with Scriptures.

Again, looking at the book of John, there is laid out the condition and desires of those who "turn from the light" given to every man.

They HATE the light. (John 3:20)

Out of context. What does the verse really say:

Joh 3:20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.
--Does it say all men, as you infer? No.
It says "Every man" or "every man that does evil..." That does not mean "All men..."

They do not UNDERSTAND (comprehend) the light. (John 1:5)

Joh 1:5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.
Again, out of context.
Joh 1:5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.
--This is not even talking about mankind. It is speaking of the creation of the world, when light came into the world.
The nature of light is to dispel the dominion of darkness. There is no mention of mankind.

They are blinded from seeing the light. (John 9:39-41)

Again, context is avoided. You mention a reference but avoid what is being said.
Joh 9:39 And Jesus said, For judgment I am come into this world, that they which see not might see; and that they which see might be made blind.
Joh 9:40 And some of the Pharisees which were with him heard these words, and said unto him, Are we blind also?
Joh 9:41 Jesus said unto them, If ye were blind, ye should have no sin: but now ye say, We see; therefore your sin remaineth.
What happened. It was a miracle that the Pharisees could not contradict--a man born blind, Jesus healed, and he could now see.
--The initial blindness refers to the man that was healed. Thus the Pharisees hear the pun, and ask if they were blind (spiritually) also. In verse 41 Jesus is speaking only to the Pharisees of the day and age. He is not speaking to all mankind. They had asked:
Are we blind also? He answered them. His answer was for them--not for all mankind.

They are of their frame of living and thinking is from their father the devil. (John 8:44,45)

The "you" here is again directed to the Pharisees who at this time were trying to murder Jesus. He told THEM that their father was the devil, in opposition to the fact that they thought that their father was Abraham. It was a point of debate. Their real father was the devil, not Abraham.
There is some truth in this verse, in that unsaved man is born into satan's family and thus must be born again. But most of the passage is applicable to the Pharisees. Take things in their context.

They STUMBLE because they walk in darkness. (John 11:10)

Context: This could be speaking of you. Jesus was speaking to his disciples and only his disciples. They were on their way to the house of Lazarus who had recently died:

Joh 11:9 Jesus answered, Are there not twelve hours in the day? If any man walk in the day, he stumbleth not, because he seeth the light of this world.
Joh 11:10 But if a man walk in the night, he stumbleth, because there is no light in him.
--When one (a believer) lives according the will of God he is safe. He lives outside of the will of God, he is in spiritual darkness and the way that he is taking is not a safe road.

It is astounding how you have taken scripture out of context to try and prove a pre-conceived idea not found in the Word of God

 

[agedman]

Out of context. What does the verse really say:

Joh 3:20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.
--Does it say all men, as you infer? No.
It says "Every man" or "every man that does evil..." That does not mean "All men..."

Did I say "all men?" No, I stated what was IN context - not out of context

I do say that EVERY man who rejects light IS one that does evil and hates the light. EXACTLY what John 3:20 states.

It is not my view that is in conflict with the Scriptures at this point.

Joh 1:5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.
Again, out of context.
Joh 1:5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.
--This is not even talking about mankind. It is speaking of the creation of the world, when light came into the world.
The nature of light is to dispel the dominion of darkness. There is no mention of mankind.

What and who is the focus of John 1?

Christ, the light given to ALL men, not just at the time of Creation. To restate that John 1:5 is limited to creation only is mistaken and not considering what verse 4 states.

Again, context is avoided. You mention a reference but avoid what is being said.
Joh 9:39 And Jesus said, For judgment I am come into this world, that they which see not might see; and that they which see might be made blind.
Joh 9:40 And some of the Pharisees which were with him heard these words, and said unto him, Are we blind also?
Joh 9:41 Jesus said unto them, If ye were blind, ye should have no sin: but now ye say, We see; therefore your sin remaineth.
What happened. It was a miracle that the Pharisees could not contradict--a man born blind, Jesus healed, and he could now see.
--The initial blindness refers to the man that was healed. Thus the Pharisees hear the pun, and ask if they were blind (spiritually) also. In verse 41 Jesus is speaking only to the Pharisees of the day and age. He is not speaking to all mankind. They had asked:
Are we blind also? He answered them. His answer was for them--not for all mankind.

Again, you are attempting to skew the context. When the Pharisees ask the question, certainly they were asking about themselves because they represented all that was held of the religious truth in that land. However, the "THEY" of verse 39 is not limited to the pharisees, rather to the whole of humankind.

You are attempting to single out a direct answer to a group who considered themselves the final authority on all things spiritual and neglecting that if THAT group didn't make the cut, what reasonable possibility existed for those considered lesser.

The "you" here is again directed to the Pharisees who at this time were trying to murder Jesus. He told THEM that their father was the devil, in opposition to the fact that they thought that their father was Abraham. It was a point of debate. Their real father was the devil, not Abraham.
There is some truth in this verse, in that unsaved man is born into satan's family and thus must be born again. But most of the passage is applicable to the Pharisees. Take things in their context.

As I showed above, the broader context is the "THEY" and not just the pharisees.

Context: This could be speaking of you. Jesus was speaking to his disciples and only his disciples. They were on their way to the house of Lazarus who had recently died:

Joh 11:9 Jesus answered, Are there not twelve hours in the day? If any man walk in the day, he stumbleth not, because he seeth the light of this world.
Joh 11:10 But if a man walk in the night, he stumbleth, because there is no light in him.
--When one (a believer) lives according the will of God he is safe. He lives outside of the will of God, he is in spiritual darkness and the way that he is taking is not a safe road.

Here is a problem that is not just in view, it is in what can a believer "be." I find that the balance of Scriptures indicate that a true believer who pursues a life "outside the will of God" meets either with punishment sever enough to tune them into the way, or death.

The Lord Jesus Christ has little tolerance for the wayward child, anymore than any owner of sheep in that day for a wayward lamb.

"Spiritual darkness" is not for the believer, but the unbeliever.

What is the title given to the believer who walks according to the god of this world? "... sons of disobedience." Eph 5:6 Only the saved are called "sons."

Eph. is a marvelous book Paul wrote of encouraging the believers to "do right."

It is astounding how you have taken scripture out of context to try and prove a pre-conceived idea not found in the Word of God

Really?????

I have taken Scriptures out of context?????

DHK, that is a most sad commentary to attempt to place at my doorstep, when (as I showed again and again, above and in other places) that is NOT what I have done.

Others, who oppose what I have written, have a history of what you are attempting to ascribe to me. So much is the sadness of that history to the point that some would deny the very Scriptures themselves to cling to some construct.

I have not.

I have used Scriptures, in context, without regard to some human scheme and showed the OP and subsequent posts, valid.

That you or some other(s) do not recognize that fact and desire to discredit what I have written by assigning some lack on my part is truly poor judgment and discernment.

 

[DHK]

Did I say "all men?" No, I stated what was IN context - not out of context

Here is your original post:

The idea that mere human of their own freedom of choice can seek God is NOT aligned with Scriptures.

Again, looking at the book of John, there is laid out the condition and desires of those who "turn from the light" given to every man.

They HATE the light. (John 3:20)
They do not UNDERSTAND (comprehend) the light. (John 1:5)
They are blinded from seeing the light. (John 9:39-41)
They are of their frame of living and thinking is from their father the devil. (John 8:44,45)
They STUMBLE because they walk in darkness. (John 11:10)

Did you say "all men"? In context, yes.
"Every man hates the light." That includes "all men." It can't be taken any other way. It was one of your supporting verses for your premise, and that without regard for the context.

I do say that EVERY man who rejects light IS one that does evil and hates the light. EXACTLY what John 3:20 states.

It is not my view that is in conflict with the Scriptures at this point.

It does't say that every man or all men hate the light.

It says:
Joh 3:20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.
--Or every man that does evil hates the light. There is a difference.

What and who is the focus of John 1?

The complete focus of John 1:1-5 is the Creation of the world, and Christ as our Creator. There is absolutely no mention of mankind. It is "en arche" or "in the beginning." In that beginning was the Word. This is the time that it is the speaking about. There was not man at that time--Christ but not man.

Christ, the light given to ALL men, not just at the time of Creation. To restate that John 1:5 is limited to creation only is mistaken and not considering what verse 4 states.

Christ is mentioned as our Creator.
Your statement is that "Every man does not comprehend the Light." is absolutely wrong, and a misinterpretation of Scripture. In fact it is eisigesis--reading into Scripture that which is not there. There is no "they."

Again, you are attempting to skew the context. When the Pharisees ask the question, certainly they were asking about themselves because they represented all that was held of the religious truth in that land. However, the "THEY" of verse 39 is not limited to the pharisees, rather to the whole of humankind.

The blind man was surrounded by a large crowd, mostly Pharisees. Look at the context:
Joh 9:38 And he said, Lord, I believe. And he worshipped him.
Joh 9:39 And Jesus said, For judgment I am come into this world, that they which see not might see; and that they which see might be made blind.
--The blind man falls at the feet of Jesus and worships him.
The Jesus says, so that the Pharisees can hear him: ...I am come into this world that they which see not (the blind man) might see, and they that see (the Pharisees) might be made blind.
--The Pharisees understood that they were speaking about them.

Joh 9:40 And some of the Pharisees which were with him heard these words, and said unto him, Are we blind also?
--Thus Jesus replies:
Joh 9:41 Jesus said unto them, If ye were blind, ye should have no sin: but now ye say, We see; therefore your sin remaineth.
--They understood what Jesus was saying. As leaders they were doubly responsible for their sins.

You are attempting to single out a direct answer to a group who considered themselves the final authority on all things spiritual and neglecting that if THAT group didn't make the cut, what reasonable possibility existed for those considered lesser.

They were the group that Jesus was addressing. They asked him: "Are we blind also." His answer was directly to them. One cannot ignore historical context.
There is one interpretation but many applications.

As I showed above, the broader context is the "THEY" and not just the pharisees.

The context of John 8 cannot be ignored.
Again, one interpretation, many applications.

Here is a problem that is not just in view, it is in what can a believer "be." I find that the balance of Scriptures indicate that a true believer who pursues a life "outside the will of God" meets either with punishment sever enough to tune them into the way, or death.

The Lord Jesus Christ has little tolerance for the wayward child, anymore than any owner of sheep in that day for a wayward lamb.

"Spiritual darkness" is not for the believer, but the unbeliever.

Jesus was walking with his disciples to the home of Mary and Martha. That is where this statement was made which you say is applicable to unbelievers. You have a problem. Is Jesus the unbeliever? Peter? John? Who is he applying this to? The context must give the statement meaning. You are ignoring context and just taking the statement your own pre-conceived meaning whether or not it makes sense. It doesn't make sense.

What is the title given to the believer who walks according to the god of this world? "... sons of disobedience." Eph 5:6 Only the saved are called "sons."

Eph. is a marvelous book Paul wrote of encouraging the believers to "do right."

This is a total red herring and has nothing to do with Jesus discourse with his disciples on his way to the house of Mary and Martha where he will soon raise Lazarus from the dead.

Really?????

I have taken Scriptures out of context?????

Yes, absolutely. In each and every case I have found that you have ignored the context of the scriptures you have used.

DHK, that is a most sad commentary to attempt to place at my doorstep, when (as I showed again and again, above and in other places) that is NOT what I have done.

In this post this is exactly what you have done.

Others, who oppose what I have written, have a history of what you are attempting to ascribe to me. So much is the sadness of that history to the point that some would deny the very Scriptures themselves to cling to some construct.

I have not.

I have used Scriptures, in context, without regard to some human scheme and showed the OP and subsequent posts, valid.

That you or some other(s) do not recognize that fact and desire to discredit what I have written by assigning some lack on my part is truly poor judgment and discernment.

You have taken these scriptures out of their contexts as I have demonstrated. What you have done in the past is not my concern. I am speaking of this post. You refer to John 1:4,5 where mankind is not even present and use that as a defense. Absolutely intolerable. Complete eisigesis.
One must apply principles of sound hermeneutics to come to a proper understanding of the Bible.

 

[agedman]

...
One must apply principles of sound hermeneutics to come to a proper understanding of the Bible.

John (also Mark) doesn't begin with his account like Matthew and Luke, but wanted the reader to know the Lord Jesus Christ as God. Therefore, John starts with, "In the beginning..."

However, John does not stay "In the beginning..." as if that is the "context" but moves quickly to one of the major themes and one of the true foundation context's of his writing. The CONTRAST between light and dark, the godly and ungodly, the believer and unbeliever, those given the right (power) and those not given the right(power), ....

Perhaps, as one neglects or relegates context in John's work to an immediate scene, such would oblige a clinging to the facade of an assumed context without grasping the underlying true context that permeates the writing. In almost every case, John is working from the vantage point that God and the Son are one -the life and light in contrast to darkness. As a result, therefore, some also would charge forward into a view that John does not support.

John is extremely careful to let the reader know that (in context of contrasts) ONLY those who do not turn from the light given to ALL humankind are given the right (power) to become believers. That is is the gift of God, not of some work done or hereditary status, expression of human faith, or some mental gymnastics.


John is also very practical to demonstrate, throughout the book, the application of this contrast manifested in people's living. One of those applications happens to be the religious royalty of the day. They represent all that people know of religion, standards, and what is assumed God expects. Again, the context of contrasts is used to demonstrate those who do not turn from the light in comparison to those who do.

Wonderful is the study of contrasts when considering the death and resurrection of Lazarus - especially that focused point in which "Jesus wept."

Another time is the scene of the Cross.

Without keeping this fundamental context of what John is doing throughout the book, it is likely that skewing the actual application in favor of some immediate salve will happen. IMO, John 3 is riddled with misuse because of a lack of understanding the fundamental context of John.

Beginning with the OP, it was my intent that the thread remain in the book of John and a serious look at the lack of freedom of choice/will by those that dwell in the realm of darkness in which the character of hate, repulsion, ... are all manifested in contrast to the absolute total freedom of the believer be explored.