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

[Benjamin]

You have proved one of my main points for me perfectly:

And yet, the basis for your entire argument is essentially that if God's "nature" compels him to act in a certain way, than, man's "nature" MUST similarly compel him to act in certain ways.

Man's "will" is no different in capacity than God's "will".

That is the assumption you have to make, but it also traps you when men do that which is right.

Because God has no capacity to deliberate between right and wrong, and yet man does....
thus, at minimum, man's will, and subsequently, his capacity for "choice" and "choosing" is by default, inherently distinct from God's...

However, you are also forced to suggest that all "choices" are simply causally necessitated by that pre-existing nature. Which defines how God's will works in your schema.

Your arguments are self-defeating.

That's funny! I saw the same thing (Biblicist not seeming to understand the differences in nature between God and man) and came on to point out how ridiculous his arguments was, but you practically took the words out of mouth with that post.

Get a clue why you are messed with that argument up Biblicist:

Aseity and The Doctrine of Divine Simplicity – What of the Creature?
09-22-2013, 11:01 PM
Aseity:

A character of God that is not fully navigable to our minds. Before the beginning of our creation or time God was. Unlike creation, God is self-existent, uncaused, and independent.

The term aseity comes from the Latin phrase meaning “from or by oneself.” In the theological literature, the term designates a divine attribute by which God is “whatever he is by his own self or of his own self.”

God does not owe his existence to anything or anyone outside himself, nor does he need anything beyond himself to maintain his existence.

The term aseity expresses being self-contained, self-existent, self-sufficient, and independent.

God’s attributes are not abstract qualities that God happens to exemplify they are identical to God himself.

Aseity is the property by which a being exists of and from itself. A Christian understands that these properties can belong only to God. God has within Himself His own reason of existence, Who is for Himself His own exemplary and final cause.

The Doctrine of Divine Simplicity (DDS):
“In theology, the doctrine of divine simplicity says that God is without parts. The general idea of divine simplicity can be stated in this way: the being of God is identical to the "attributes" of God. In other words, such characteristics as omnipresence, goodness, truth, eternity, etc. are identical to God's being, not qualities that make up that being, nor abstract entities inhering in God as in a substance.” ~ Wiki

In Christian theism (to be accurate "Classical theism"), God is simple, not composite, not made up of thing upon thing. In other words, the characteristics of God are not parts of God that together make up God. Because God is simple, God is those characteristics; for example, God does not have goodness, but simply is goodness. For typical Christian theologians, divine simplicity does not entail that the attributes of God are indistinguishable to thought. It is no contradiction of the doctrine to say, for example, that God is both just and merciful. Thomas Aquinas, for instance, in whose system of thought the idea of divine simplicity is central, wrote in Summa Theologica that because God is infinitely simple, God can only appear to the finite mind as infinitely complex. ~Wiki

“God is what he has. As identical to each of his attributes, God is identical to his nature. And since his nature or essence is identical to his existence, God is identical to his existence. This is the doctrine of divine simplicity (DDS). It is represented not only in classical Christian theology, but also in Jewish, Greek, and Islamic thought. It is to be understood as an affirmation of God's absolute transcendence of creatures. God is not only radically non-anthropomorphic, but radically non-creaturomorphic, not only in respect of the properties he possesses, but in his manner of possessing them. God, we could say, differs in his very ontology from any and all created beings.”

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, William F. Vallicella

God is His own cause of being. His attributes are His own. His being of wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness, love, and truth are concrete, personal and describe the whole Nature of God and He is Unchanging. Nothing that is in Him did not come from Him and He is “simply” the complete cause of who He is.

The Creature:

OTOH, God caused creation to be and in doing so He divinely designed creatures who were made in His likeness and image which were placed into time and space. We have certain attributes that we were designed with which we cannot change either but we also have other attributes or parts of us which obviously do change, our bodies, minds and even spirit may change. And because of our disobedience though the attribute we were given, we gained knowledge and because of that went from life to death and are dependent upon our Creator to make us His adopted children through being reborn in the Spirit of Christ or to be separated from our Creator forever.

Since our nature is subject to change and will die all men in creation are commanded by their Creator to repent of their ways, believe in Christ and to follow Him so that they may live. Our cause was not Aseity but an Unchanging Loving God and by being created by Him we have parts and are subject to change.

You might say that man would have to fit into a Doctrine of Humanistic Complexity.


http://www.baptistsymposium.com/for...e-of-divine-simplicity-–-what-of-the-creature

 

[The Biblicist]

You have proved one of my main points for me perfectly:

And yet, the basis for your entire argument is essentially that if God's "nature" compels him to act in a certain way, than, man's "nature" MUST similarly compel him to act in certain ways.

Man's "will" is no different in capacity than God's "will".

That is the assumption you have to make, but it also traps you when men do that which is right.

No, it does not trap me because MOTIVE is essential to the nature of God as it is to the nature of man. MOTIVE determines the moral character of God's nature just as it defines and determines the moral character of God's nature. The difference is that God's nature is IMMUTABLE rather than a difference in the nature of the will.

[Because God has no capacity to deliberate between right and wrong, and yet man does....
thus, at minimum, man's will, and subsequently, his capacity for "choice" and "choosing" is by default, inherently distinct from God's...

FALLEN man nature does not have the capacity to choose good from a right motive which is for the glory of God. So the fallen nature of man is just as immutable in unholiness as the nature of God is immutable in holiness. The fly in your ointment is that you are presuming your own position into this argument, which is that you believe fallen man is capable of choosing good and thus doing good. However, that is the very point we are debating and yet you assume it to be a basis for your argument in proving my position wrong.

[However, you are also forced to suggest that all "choices" are simply causally necessitated by that pre-existing nature. Which defines how God's will works in your schema.
Your arguments are self-defeating.

It is only self-defeating IF I take YOUR position in this argumentation. You make your own position the basis of your argument to prove that man can choose good and thus do good. However, that is the very issue we are debating and which you must first prove to be true.

However, there can be no debate that mankind are FALLEN and are SINNERS and thus they are not by nature holy or immutably holy and yet that is the position you must defend in order to claim they can choose and do good as even Jesus says that figs cannot come from a thorn bush and the fruit only reveals the nature of the tree and thus good fruits cannot come from a tree evil by nature.

So your whole argumentation is circular reasoning, assuming the truth of your own position in the very arguments you make.

 

[The Biblicist]

That's funny! I saw the same thing (Biblicist not seeming to understand the differences in nature between God and man) and came on to point out how ridiculous his arguments was, but you practically took the words out of mouth with that post.

Get a clue why you are messed with that argument up Biblicist:

Gentlemen, I have to get ready for church services this morning, so please excuse me from this argument until tomorrow. I will be more than happy to take your arguments in the morning.

 

[Winman]

FALLEN man nature does not have the capacity to choose good from a right motive which is for the glory of God. So the fallen nature of man is just as immutable in unholiness as the nature of God is immutable in holiness. The fly in your ointment is that you are presuming your own position into this argument, which is that you believe fallen man is capable of choosing good and thus doing good. However, that is the very point we are debating and yet you assume it to be a basis for your argument in proving my position wrong.

Here is where Biblicist goes off the tracks. He argues his point of view is fact when much scripture easily refutes his view and proves it cannot be fact.

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 can give good gifts, utterly refuting Biblicist's view. Now, Biblicist will make the ridiculous argument that "things" can be good, but that is nonsense. "Things" can neither be good or bad, it is the motive behind them that makes them good or evil. Thus, this scripture proves evil men have the ability to give things with good motives.

Now, he will try to make another argument that these things are good among men, but not to God, but it was Jesus himself who said these things are good, again refuting Biblicist's view.

So, Biblicist starts with error and deviates from truth from that point on.

 

[psalms109:31]

Praise

The pharisees did many thing, most of the things they did was good.

It was good motivated by self. To get praise by men, so people will see how good they are.

They did it for a temporary prize, when we do what we do for God and God alone, it is eternal.

When we do things for self and it isn't for Jesus Christ to get the praise and glory no matter how good it is it is nothing if it doesn't bring praise to Jesus. It is dirty rags.

Matthew 6:
Fasting

16 “When you fast, do not look somber as the hypocrites do, for they disfigure their faces to show others they are fasting. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full. 17 But when you fast, put oil on your head and wash your face, 18 so that it will not be obvious to others that you are fasting, but only to your Father, who is unseen; and your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.

Treasures in Heaven

19 “Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moths and vermin destroy, and where thieves break in and steal. 20 But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where moths and vermin do not destroy, and where thieves do not break in and steal. 21 For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.


Luke 11:42
“Woe to you Pharisees, because you give God a tenth of your mint, rue and all other kinds of garden herbs, but you neglect justice and the love of God. You should have practiced the latter without leaving the former undone.

No one has been given to Jesus by the Father who do not listen and learn.

When I came to Jesus I am saved past, present, and future. I have been saved before the foundation of the world the day I came to Jesus when He first called me.

It is hard for me to fathom and explain because I am not God and can't see as He does being eternal with no beginning or end.

 

[Winman]

The pharisees did many thing, most of the things they did was good.

It was good motivated by self. To get praise by men, so people will see how good they are.

They did it for a temporary prize, when we do what we do for God and God alone, it is eternal.

When we do things for self and it isn't for Jesus Christ to get the praise and glory no matter how good it is it is nothing if it doesn't bring praise to Jesus. It is dirty rags.

Matthew 6:
Fasting

16 “When you fast, do not look somber as the hypocrites do, for they disfigure their faces to show others they are fasting. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full. 17 But when you fast, put oil on your head and wash your face, 18 so that it will not be obvious to others that you are fasting, but only to your Father, who is unseen; and your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.

Treasures in Heaven

19 “Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moths and vermin destroy, and where thieves break in and steal. 20 But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where moths and vermin do not destroy, and where thieves do not break in and steal. 21 For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.


Luke 11:42
“Woe to you Pharisees, because you give God a tenth of your mint, rue and all other kinds of garden herbs, but you neglect justice and the love of God. You should have practiced the latter without leaving the former undone.

No one has been given to Jesus by the Father who do not listen and learn.

When I came to Jesus I am saved past, present, and future. I have been saved before the foundation of the world the day I came to Jesus when He first called me.

It is hard for me to fathom and explain because I am not God and can't see as He does being eternal with no beginning or end.

Yes, it is possible to do good things for wrong motives such as to receive the praise of men, but Jesus was not teaching that every good thing every man does was done with wrong motives and evil. In fact, Jesus is telling people how they can do good things with good motives. This is not teaching inability, but ability.

Calvinism will take the wrong things the Pharisees were doing and apply it to all men at all times, not what the scriptures were saying at all.

 

[psalms109:31]

If we are not doing good for the praise and glory of Jesus is it not doing it with the wrong motives?

 

[Inspector Javert]

Even sinners can do "good" or "right".

The confusion comes from mistaking the fact that because God doesn't count their right deeds as worthy or meritorious next to God's perfection and infinite Holiness and requirement for sinless-ness that that means it's evil.

But that doesn't mean it's sin or evil. It just means that their "good-ness" isn't good enough, and never will be.

Men often do the right thing, and for no reason other than their consciences and their society their parents etc... tell them that this is the right or good thing to do, and they genuinely want to do that which is right. They have no evil motives or wicked intent.

Decidedly, our own "righteousness" is (by comparison) as filthy rags.....but it's still "righteousness" not sin nor evil. The Scriptures aren't teaching us that doing good is "evil" just because an un-saved person is doing it.

It is an issue of how a perfect Holy God compares it to meriting his glory.

If Winman throws a touchdown in a back-yard football game...it's still a touchdown and a "good" play. Now, compared to Peyton Manning, his touchdown pass was as "filthy-rags"... and no one is offering him a $150m dollar contract, but, that's because you are comparing it to Peyton Manning.
But just because it wasn't a Peyton Manning caliber pass, that doesn't mean it was therefore an interception.

The error expressed by some here, is thinking that just because God isn't impressed with the right deeds of sinful man, then therefore their right decisions and good deeds are subsequently EVIL. That is not right thinking. It isn't evil....it's still good.
It's just not a goodness which God is impressed with, and it's not a goodness which will earn you a place in heaven.

 

[The Biblicist]

Even sinners can do "good" or "right".

The confusion comes from mistaking the fact that because God doesn't count their right deeds as worthy or meritorious next to God's perfection and infinite Holiness and requirement for sinless-ness that that means it's evil.

Your statement above demonstrates you have a very superficial understanding of sin and righteousness. So let's begin with the basics.

1. Sin is the trangression of the law - 1 Jn. 2:4
2. The wages of sin is death - Rom. 3:23

QUESTION: Do you believe that such a violation can be regarded as "good" or do you believe it must be regarded as "evil" before God? Before men, do you believe it could be regarded relatively "good" in comparison with some other kind of violation (lying versus adultery)???

3. Transgression of one point in the law equally violates all other points of the law - James 2:10-12

Supposing you answer that violation of one point of God's law (e.g. lying) is regarded by God as "evil", is it possible according to James that you only violate "one point" (e.g. "lying") without violating every other point of the Law(9 other commandments) and thus are "counted" by God as "evil" in regard to every point? Thus to be a “sinner” in one point is regarded by God to be a “sinner” of every point of God’s Law. When you violate “thou shalt not lie” in God’s sight you have violated all other nine commandments. Since, the Ten Commandments cover your WHOLE LIFE at any given point in time, then to violate one point at any given point in time makes you a violater in God’s sight of the WHOLE LAW at that given point. Therefore, to be regarded as “good” at any given point in time you must keep ALL THE POINTS or the WHOLE LAW in that given point of time. To come short of keeping the whole Law at ANY GIVEN POINT IN TIME makes you a “sinner” of the whole Law in that given point of time.

Thus it is impossible for a person to do a “right” deed in God’s sight without also keeping all other points of the law in that moment of time as they are inseparable in God’s sight.

This means that the whole law is inseparably undergirded by one underlying common principle, which is violated whenever one point of the law is violated. That one underlying principle is love and thus love for God is required to keep one point and is the necessary motive in choosing any thought, word or action for it to be “good” in God’s sight. This requries a "good" heart as from the heart all thoughts, words and actions are derived (Mt. 15). No sinner has a "good" heart and thus no sinner IS "good" or can "DO" good just as scriptures says (Rom. 3:9-20; Rom. 8:7).

QUESTION: Is there any given point of time in your whole life that you have KEPT THE WHOLE LAW without violating a single point? Do you know of any human being, except Christ, who at any given point of time kept the whole law?

 

[Inspector Javert]

Your statement above demonstrates you have a very superficial understanding of sin and righteousness.

No, I don't.
I understand your thinking, and why you say that.
And I understand there is so much MORE to sin than simply what you do or don't do, Biblicist......WAY MORE.....

In fact, I understand well enough to know that where you are actually going wrong is that you have so delved into contemplating the depths of what sin is or isn't.... that you have forgotten the very BASICS....

Your posts reveal, not that you understand the depths of what sin is, and how it is as much a cancer as it is a verb about what people do and don't do and that I don't, but that you have so over-emphasized certain facets of sin, that you've forgotten the fundamentals.

It's not that my understanding is too superficial....yours has caused you to forget the very fundamentals.

So let's begin with the basics.

Take your Classically Calvinist arrogance and shove it where it stinks.

 

[The Biblicist]

Take your Classically Calvinist arrogance and shove it where it stinks.

Why must you lower the conversation to this level? I claimed that your understanding of sin and righteous is superficial and then I presented the evidence to support that claim. You ignored the evidence that supported my claim! You offered nothing but accusations and wild assertions in return.

Please go back to my post and respond to the evidence. I had not finished updating my post when you responded. Go back and read it carefully and provide a substantive response.

 

[Inspector Javert]

We're not on the same sheet of music right now....

Perhaps we can pick this conversation up later.
Hope yesterday's services were a blessing!

 

[convicted1]

We're not on the same sheet of music right now....

I'd venture to say not even in the same songbook. :laugh:

 

[The Biblicist]

We're not on the same sheet of music right now....

Perhaps we can pick this conversation up later.
Hope yesterday's services were a blessing!

Ok Inspector! Yes, servcies were a blessing yesterday.

 

[Inspector Javert]

O.K. Biblicist....

QUESTION: Do you believe that such a violation can be regarded as "good" or do you believe it must be regarded as "evil" before God?

Violations are evil....

But I wasn't talking about any "violations". I was talking about any given single scenario or circumstance wherein someone DOESN'T VIOLATE!!!

Now, due to that failure to communicate, everything else will become utterly irrelevant:

Before men, do you believe it could be regarded relatively "good" in comparison with some other kind of violation (lying versus adultery)???

"Before men"...of course it's different...
"Before God"....I happen to know they are equally damning and blameworthy.

PLEASE don't tell me that that is one of those "basics" you think that I don't understand???

CURTAIN RAISES:

Biblicist: (with loving Christ-like concern): "You are a sinner in God's eyes and must repent of your sin or be damned forever."

I.J. (defensively): "But...I just told a 'little white lie', that's not really a sin is it??? I mean I speed every now and again, but I haven't killed anyone in a drunk-driving incident!!! I haven't committed ADULTERY or anything!!! I only lust every now and again....but that's not adultery!!!"

Biblicist: (professorially) "Actually, I.J....God's standards are entirely different than man's and God views all sin as equally odious in his sight and similarly damnable. In fact, did you know that Jesus said that even if you look after a woman to lust after her than you have already committed ADULTERY in your heart?"

I.J. (confounded): "No way Mr. Biblicist!!! You mean God reckons and accounts all sin as equally horrific!....Like even MURDER AND SHOP-LIFTING!!!!

Biblicist: "Yes, I.J., even murder vs. shop-lifting.......I see you don't understand the fundamentals and I have to come back to the basics with you..."

Dim lights
5-second pause

Raise lights
New scene with I.J. on his knees repenting of sin before God, Biblicist lovingly standing with his left hand on his shoulder and right hand raised (clutching a Bible) to God in silent prayer.

Dim lights and qeue "I am resolved" (in background)

CLOSE CURTAIN

Supposing you answer that violation of one point of God's law (e.g. lying) is regarded by God as "evil", is it possible according to James that you only violate "one point" (e.g. "lying") without violating every other point of the Law(9 other commandments) and thus are "counted" by God as "evil" in regard to every point?

Of course....
but, I was talking about a scenario where one DOESN'T violate, not one wherein one does.

If violating one point

Not the scenario I was speaking to.

Don't worry, I'm not a good "listener" as it were either......I'm atrocious actually,
Me-thinks, you might suffer from that problem too somewhat.

If violating one point violates all other points, then does not that demand for any person or any deed performed to be regarded as "good" it must not violate any other point of God's Law and thus be "perfect" by definition that all points of the law are kept or else it is "sin"???

This is where you are confusing the very BASICS....
A PERSON is not "good" or "righteous" since even if they keep one point but fail in others they are condemned...that's God's standard.

But the DEED ITSELF is now being confused by you as being INHERENTLY EVIL even though it was following God's law, and not breaking it...
The PERSON isn't "good" (they aren't perfect)
But, at any given time, you are confusing the point that since the PERSON isn't "good" that any given time they OBEY God, you want to call it evil.

In other words, God's definition of "good" demands obedience to ALL POINTS

God's definition of a PERSON who is "good" demands obedience to all points. And everyone on B.B. knows that there are no good persons....Because EVERYONE has violated at least one of those points at some time or other.

whereas God's definition of "evil" is coming short of obedience to ALL POINTS.

Right....and evil PERSON is coming short of obedience to ALL POINTS.
But that doesn't render any one time someone OBEYS GOD'S LAW as sinning for doing it....

Does not your view demand that a deed can be regarded as "right" before God and yet that man "come short" in every other point of the Law?

Absolutely....
And I'm dead-on right for it.

Because I don't confuse any individual "deed" done as the "person" (who is a sinner) doing it.
They are two distinct things...the person and the individual deed.

 

[Inspector Javert]

Ok Inspector! Yes, servcies were a blessing yesterday.

YAY!!!! Ours were good too!

 

[Inspector Javert]

I'd venture to say not even in the same songbook. :laugh:

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

 

[The Biblicist]

This is where you are confusing the very BASICS....
A PERSON is not "good" or "righteous" since even if they keep one point but fail in others they are condemned...that's God's standard.

This is the point! James is denying they are keeping that one point unless all points are kept. This means the whole law is inseparably connected by one underlying principle and thus if one point is violated every point is violated and if one point is kept then every point is kept. That one underlying principle is love for God - that is the principle motive which is necessarily involved to regard any point as kept in God's sight - 1 Cor. 10:31. It is the NECESSARY HEART MOTIVE that reverses Matthew 15:19

19 For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies:

Notice, the first item is "evil thoughts" which necessarily demands that the heart is "evil". If the fallen man's heart was not "evil" there would be no need for God to give a "new" heart. If the "heart" is evil then the fruits are evil. The heart is evil BECAUSE it operates according to the "law of sin" instead of love for God or "the glory of God."

 

[The Biblicist]

But the DEED ITSELF is now being confused by you as being INHERENTLY EVIL even though it was following God's law, and not breaking it...
The PERSON isn't "good" (they aren't perfect)
But, at any given time, you are confusing the point that since the PERSON isn't "good" that any given time they OBEY God, you want to call it evil.

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."

 

[Winman]

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.