"given" is inclusive of "draw" in John 6

[The Biblicist]

The nice thing is, we don't have to speculate what is true or not, we have the scriptures to tell us God's truth. And God's truth tells us men are able to do good.

Mat 7:11 If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your Father which is in heaven give good things to them that ask him?

Jesus himself said evil men know how to do good. They can give good gifts to their children. Not everything men do is evil as Biblicist would like to falsely teach.

If Biblicist had his way, he would interpret this verse to say the exact opposite of what it is plainly saying.

This is real simple, do you believe what the word of God says, or do you believe someone who is trying to tell you this scripture does not mean what it plainly says?

Make your choice.

1. It is talking about good "THINGS" - it does not say people are good.

2. It is speaking from the human perspective of "good" things as from the human perspective some things are regarded as "good" and some are regarded as "bad."

3. Even the worst of humans know "how" to give "good" things and do give "good" things to their own children.

This text does not support your view at all.

 

[The Biblicist]

Your view regards the "deed" as "good" considered only a VISIBLE CONFIRMATION to the law. However, God does not define a "deed" as good soley by VISIBLE CONFIRMATION to the law just as God does not define a person as good solely by VISIBLE CONFIRMATION to the law. One can be by visible confirmation a WHITE SEPLECHURE or a WHITE CUP while inwardly stinking. God does not separate the VISIBLE ACT from the motive and condition of the heart. The fruit is only regarded as "good" by God IF the tree is regarded as "good" by God. God looks on the heart to judge the deed as good or evil!

What God considers in the heart to judge the deed good or evil is the MOTIVE behind the deed. If the MOTIVE is not for the "glory of God" (I Cor. 10:31) God judges the deed as sinful becuase the motive "comes short of the glory of God."

What is your response?

 

[convicted1]

Quite peanut-gallery!
'fore I throw my nanner at you!!!!!

That's were I ever lurk...with a loaded nanner gun!!! Bwaaahaaaaha!!!!

 

[Winman]

1. It is talking about good "THINGS" - it does not say people are good.

Told you he would make this bogus argument. "Things" cannot be good or evil, it is the human motive behind them that makes them good or evil.

I bet Biblicist would be one of the first to hold up a sign saying, "Guns don't shoot people, people shoot people". Biblicist knows very well that "things" are neither good nor evil.

Jesus said evil men know how to give "good" things to their children, showing their motive was good and not evil.

2. It is speaking from the human perspective of "good" things as from the human perspective some things are regarded as "good" and some are regarded as "bad."

Told you he would make this argument too. Problem is, Jesus Christ who is God is the person who said evil men can do good.

3. Even the worst of humans know "how" to give "good" things and do give "good" things to their own children.

No kidding.

This text does not support your view at all.

No, this scripture completely refutes your view that evil or unregenerate men are unable to do good. And what is more, this verse is repeated in Luke, and there Jesus shows that evil men can ask God for the Holy Spirit and be regenerated.

Luk 11:13 If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children: how much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him?

Biblicist is not big on scripture, but even he will admit a man without the indwelling Spirit is not regenerated. Well, Luke 11:13 shows men without the Spirit can ask for the Holy Spirit and receive it and be regenerated.

 

[The Biblicist]

Told you he would make this bogus argument. "Things" cannot be good or evil, it is the human motive behind them that makes them good or evil.

That is simply not true. Evil men can give good things and that does not make them "good" people. Notice the present tense "BEING evil" and yet you are claiming Christ is denying exactly that very description because they give good "THINGS." If what you said was true that giving good thngs make them good then Christ is deceived as says they are "EVIL" when they give good "things." So if giving good things make them "good" then Christ should not be describing them in the present tense when giving good things as "BEING EVIL."

Jesus said evil men know how to give "good" things to their children, showing their motive was good and not evil.

He described them in the present tense "BEING evil" and therefore they do not have a "good" motive. Evil men can give good THINGS but that does not make them "good" as Jesus describes them as "BEING EVIL." They are "EVIL" but the "THINGS" they give are "good" in the eyes of the receiver.

Told you he would make this argument too. Problem is, Jesus Christ who is God is the person who said evil men can do good.

He said no such thing. He did not say "evil men can DO good." The word "do" is not found in the text so why insert it? I will tell you why, because you cannot be honest with the text. Jesus says when giving good things they are still "EVIL" while you claim the are "good." I will take the Lord's word over your INSERTED word.

 

[Luke2427]

You are the one who brought up the man-eating gar fish story Luke. That didn't happen up north. And I sincerely doubt it happened at all, I think you like to embellish a bit.

And I am just as southern as you, I was born in N. Carolina but spent most of my youth in northern Florida. That's where the southern folks live. And it's even further south than Mississippi.

But I get a distinct impression from you that you are slightly ashamed of being southern, you are always trying to prove how intelligent and educated you are.

Never let your opponent know where your goat is tied up Luke.

Unless you are not a Christian and are really an evil vindictive villain of a man, why should I worry that you know where I live?

Are you villainous? Are you as evil as your theology is bad? Are you as dangerous as your hermeneutics?

If not why should I not let you know where I live? What kind of "opponent" of mine do you consider yourself to be?

 

[Luke2427]

Pure falsehood. I have NEVER said man can come to God without God's grace preceding. Men come in RESPONSE to God, ALWAYS. You have never heard me say otherwise.

But I do believe men can come in response to God just as they are, and do not need to be regenerated to come in faith. I believe all men have the God-given ability to believe if they choose to do so.

Note I said "God-given" Luke.

You are such a poor writer and communicator that it is hard to tell what you are saying, so forgive me. You might notice that people are ALWAYS requiring clarification from you.

Anyway, the point is that you misused those passages which I think is quite clear to any remotely objective person.

 

[Luke2427]

Told you he would make this bogus argument. "Things" cannot be good or evil, it is the human motive behind them that makes them good or evil.

We are constantly having to show you INCREDIBLY simple things that you should already know.

Honestly, now I'm being serious here... HONESTLY, what person with a fifth grade education does not know what "good" means there in that context?

"GOOD gifts" what FIFTH GRADER does not know that that means "good" in the sense of- NOT MORAL GOOD (for heaven's sake!!)- but "pleasant good."

Example (it is TRULY a SHAME.... I mean a REAL SHAME that I have to give you an example, but it is quite clear that you require one... so here goes):

"That was a very good present you gave me for Christmas when you gave me that fishing rod."


Now, seriously... what MORON on earth thinks that that means MORAL GOOD?!?!

Evil people CAN GIVE GOOD (PLEASANT/PLEASING) gifts!!!!!

But evil people can NOT do moral GOOD!!

For you to say that that Scripture teaches that evil people can do moral good is ABSOLUTELY ATROCIOUS handling of the Scripture. You might even be right (you're not, BTW) that evil people can do moral good... but here's the thing.... AND THIS IS WHAT IS MOST IMPORTANT HERE... for you to say that THAT Scripture supports your point is proof of your PHENOMENALLY deficient lack of Scripture handling skills.

Good HEAVENS!!!

GOOD HEAVENS!!!!

I cannot BELIEVE I have to tell you this!!!!!

Your handling of the Scripture is absolutely the WORST I have EVER SEEN!!!!!

BAR NONE!!!

You are not even at a fifth grade Sunday School class level. And I am not trying to be mean. I know you think I am. But I am really trying to get you to see how HORRIBLY inept you are at handling the Scripture.

You with a Bible in your hand before terribly ignorant people are more dangerous than a five year old with anthrax in his hand before that same group.

And that is not hyperbole. I mean that. I really do.

 

[Winman]

There you go folks, a classic Calvinist argument. Luke cannot deny that Jesus plainly said evil men can give "good" gifts. And we know that a "thing" cannot be good or bad in itself, but it is only the motive of the giver that makes a gift good or evil.

So what does the Calvinist have left? They must redefine the word "good" until it means "evil". This is what Calvinists do with scripture that contradicts Calvinism, they redefine the terms.

Sometimes I think God foresaw Calvinism and gave us scripture to recognize it.

Isa 5:20 Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!

Does not this scripture describe Calvinism perfectly? Calvinism constantly redefines words to mean the exact opposite of what they plainly say. So we have Luke and Biblicist trying to redefine the word "good" in Mat 7:11 and Luke 11:13 to mean evil. They will tell you Jesus was really saying men can only do evil. And of course, the word "all" means only "some", the word "world" means "the elect only" and so forth. Calvinism is constantly redefining words.

Luke wants to tell us that unsaved men cannot do moral good, but Jesus said evil men can give good gifts. Evil men can ask God for the Holy Spirit. Evil men can love and do good (Luk 6:32-33)

Now, I happen to believe that Jesus understands proper doctrine even better than Biblicist and Luke, although I am sure they both would disagree. If Jesus wanted to tell us that evil men cannot do good, he could have easily said so. But Jesus plainly said evil men can do good. I really don't need these fellows to come along and tell me the word "good" really means "evil".

So, who do you believe? Self-appointed experts like Luke and Biblicist, or the word of God?

 

[The Biblicist]

That is simply not true. Evil men can give good things and that does not make them "good" people. Notice the present tense "BEING evil" and yet you are claiming Christ is denying exactly that very description because they give good "THINGS." If what you said was true that giving good thngs make them good then Christ is deceived as says they are "EVIL" when they give good "things." So if giving good things make them "good" then Christ should not be describing them in the present tense when giving good things as "BEING EVIL."





He described them in the present tense "BEING evil" and therefore they do not have a "good" motive. Evil men can give good THINGS but that does not make them "good" as Jesus describes them as "BEING EVIL." They are "EVIL" but the "THINGS" they give are "good" in the eyes of the receiver.





He said no such thing. He did not say "evil men can DO good." The word "do" is not found in the text so why insert it? I will tell you why, because you cannot be honest with the text. Jesus says when giving good things they are still "EVIL" while you claim the are "good." I will take the Lord's word over your INSERTED word.

Your reasoning is completing irrational insomuch you have to INSERT the word "do" into the text to justify your interpretation. You are flatly contradicting Christ present tense characterization of "BEING EVIL" when giving good "things." Christ claims they are "EVIL" when giving such good "things" while you are claiming they are "GOOD" when giving such good "things." We will take Christ's word over yours.

 

[Luke2427]

There you go folks, a classic Calvinist argument. Luke cannot deny that Jesus plainly said evil men can give "good" gifts. And we know that a "thing" cannot be good or bad in itself, but it is only the motive of the giver that makes a gift good or evil.

NOT MORAL GOOD (for heaven's sake!!)- but "pleasant good."

Example (it is TRULY a SHAME.... I mean a REAL SHAME that I have to give you an example, but it is quite clear that you require one... so here goes):

"That was a very good present you gave me for Christmas when you gave me that fishing rod."


If you can't see that you are HOPELESSLY ignorant.

Even the definition of the word means excellent not morally good (though you shouldn't need the definition if you have the sens of a 10 year old).



of good constitution or nature

useful, salutary

good, pleasant, agreeable, joyful, happy

excellent, distinguished

upright, honourable


http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/Lexicon/Lexicon.cfm?strongs=G18&t=KJV

 

[Winman]

NOT MORAL GOOD (for heaven's sake!!)- but "pleasant good."

Example (it is TRULY a SHAME.... I mean a REAL SHAME that I have to give you an example, but it is quite clear that you require one... so here goes):

"That was a very good present you gave me for Christmas when you gave me that fishing rod."


If you can't see that you are HOPELESSLY ignorant.

Baloney Luke, the word "good" in Mat 7:11 and Luk 11:13 is ἀγαθός (agathos) and is interpreted to mean morally good dozens of times in scripture. Here are just a few examples.

Mat 7:17 Even so every good G18 tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.

This verse is speaking of doing moral good, not a pleasant gift.

Mat 19:17 And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? G18 there is none good G18 but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.

This is Jesus himself using the same word to describe God's moral character.

So, your explanation is easily shown to be nothing but pure BALONEY. And I am being nice.

 

[Luke2427]

Baloney Luke, the word "good" in Mat 7:11 and Luk 11:13 is ἀγαθός (agathos) and is interpreted to mean morally good dozens of times in scripture. Here are just a few examples.

Mat 7:17 Even so every good G18 tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.

This verse is speaking of doing moral good, not a pleasant gift.

Mat 19:17 And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? G18 there is none good G18 but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.

This is Jesus himself using the same word to describe God's moral character.

So, your explanation is easily shown to be nothing but pure BALONEY. And I am being nice.

And as I just said it means:



of good constitution or nature

useful, salutary

good, pleasant, agreeable, joyful, happy

excellent, distinguished

upright, honourable

http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/Lexicon/Lexicon.cfm?strongs=G18&t=KJV

 

[Winman]

And as I just said it means:



of good constitution or nature

useful, salutary

good, pleasant, agreeable, joyful, happy

excellent, distinguished

upright, honourable

http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/Lexicon/Lexicon.cfm?strongs=G18&t=KJV

You are full of it and you know it Luke. Look up it's usage. It is used to show moral good dozens of times.

Things can neither be good or evil and you know it. It is the motive of the giver that makes a gift good or evil. Thus, if someone asked for bread, and was given a stone, that would be evil. Or if a person asked for a fish, and was given a serpent, that would be evil. But to give the person what they truly needed would be to give with a good motive or intent.

This is the context in which Jesus spoke of good gifts, so it is obvious he is speaking of giving morally good things, giving with a good intent or motive.

Luk 11:11 If a son shall ask bread of any of you that is a father, will he give him a stone? or if he ask a fish, will he for a fish give him a serpent?
12 Or if he shall ask an egg, will he offer him a scorpion?
13 If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children: how much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him?

Again, you are doing nothing but trying to redefine scripture. The use of the word good here means morally good.

 

[Luke2427]

You are full of it and you know it Luke. Look up it's usage. It is used to show moral good dozens of times.

I just showed you what it means, Winman. It means useful in that context.

That is both in the definition of the Greek word and in the context there.

Evil people can give useful, helpful things to their children

That's what it means.

A first grader can see that.

Again- it is one of the definitions of the Greek word and it is the clear contextual meaning of its use in the context.

No amount of bloviating on your part is going to change those facts.

The very fact that we have to tell you that means you don't understand the Bible well enough to talk about it.

You are a child in a nursing home with a hair-trigger M-60 in your hands.

 

[Winman]

I just showed you what it means, Winman. It means useful in that context.

That is both in the definition of the Greek word and in the context there.

Evil people can give useful, helpful things to their children

That's what it means.

A first grader can see that.

Again- it is one of the definitions of the Greek word and it is the clear contextual meaning of its use in the context.

No amount of bloviating on your part is going to change those facts.

The very fact that we have to tell you that means you don't understand the Bible well enough to talk about it.

You are a child in a nursing home with a hair-trigger M-60 in your hands.

Luke, you are being completely dishonest and you know it. In context, Jesus is comparing our heavenly Father with our earthly father. Jesus is showing that our heavenly Father is even better and more loving than our earthly father.

If we can trust our earthly father to give us bread when we ask and not a stone, if we can trust him to give us a fish when we ask and not a serpent, if we can trust him to give us an egg when we ask and not a scorpion, how much more loving and trustworthy is our heavenly Father? This is the point Jesus is making. He is showing that God our Father is even more morally good than our earthly fathers who love us and treat us well.

And you know that what I am saying is perfectly true.

Man up and admit the truth for once.

 

[Luke2427]

Luke, you are being completely dishonest and you know it. In context, Jesus is comparing our heavenly Father with our earthly father. Jesus is showing that our heavenly Father is even better and more loving than our earthly father.

No, Winman. I am not being dishonest. I am trying desperately to knock you off of this high horse with truth and common sense where you have your head in the clouds and absolutely cannot see the Bible to save your life.

Our Heavenly Father gives us good gifts- useful, helpful gifts. Yes. That is what our Father gives us. The food you ate tonight was not MORALLY good, Winman. It was useful, helpful. That's what my Heavenly Father gave you. He did not give you MORAL vegetables for heaven's sake!

The word means useful, helpful, excellent, etc...

That is what the context CLEARLY means as well.

 

[Winman]

No, Winman. I am not being dishonest. I am trying desperately to knock you off of this high horse with truth and common sense where you have your head in the clouds and absolutely cannot see the Bible to save your life.

Our heavenly father gives us good gifts- useful, helpful gifts. Yes. That is what our father gives us. The food you ate tonight was not MORALLY good, Winman. It was useful, helpful. That's what my heavenly father gave you. He did not give you MORAL vegetables for heaven's sake!

The word means useful, helpful, excellent, etc...

That is what the context CLEARLY means as well.

Baloney Luke, and you know it.

You know, though we are polar opposites on theology, I had respect for you because you have the guts to stand up for what you believe, even if you are a total freak hyper-Calvinist.

But I no longer have respect for you. Go play your weenie little boy games with others, I don't play with little boys.

 

[Luke2427]

Baloney Luke, and you know it.

You know, though we are polar opposites on theology, I had respect for you because you have the guts to stand up for what you believe, even if you are a total freak hyper-Calvinist.

But I no longer have respect for you. Go play your weenie little boy games with others, I don't play with little boys.

Continually saying "baloney" will not change the fact that the food you ate tonight that your Heavenly Father gave is not MORALLY good.

It is good in the sense that it is useful and helpful.

That is the IDENTICAL way that Jesus uses the word "good" in that context.

Period.

 

[convicted1]

The gift may be good but the gifter isn't...