God Can Do Whatever He Wants To Do With Whoever He Wants To Do It

[kyredneck]

..... Nothing in the text states the magi were regenerated or were truly seeking after God......

"...we saw his star in the east, and are come to worship him."


????

 

[InTheLight]

They are the same thing.

I don't accept that seeking God and being drawn by God are the same thing. How can they be? Seeking is an action that humans do; drawing is an action that God does. They are different things.

The Word of God is clear- none seek after God.

I've got an entirely different opinion on that than reformed theology. The proof verse is from Psalm 14. Now in this context, about 1,000 BC, it is true that no one outside of Israel seeked God, that is, the one true, monotheistic God. Pagans didn't seek Yahweh. And it was true in the early to mid-first century, when Paul quoted Psalm 14. But it's no longer true today! Just look around at all the religions and belief systems in place. They are all seeking God (or a god.)

So how do we reconcile this paradox?

There is no paradox. Seeking is not the same as being drawn.

None seek until they are regenerated.

False. Take Unitarians. I'd say they are not regenerated. Yet they seek God.

None come until they are drawn.

Agreed.

The natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God.

True, the natural man lacks the Holy Spirit so he cannot understand the things of God.

This natural man does NOT seek God.

Not true. People all over the world seek God.

John said in John 1 that man does not come to the light because he loves darkness rather than light and does not want his deeds reproved by the light.

Coming to God is not the same as seeking God.

 

[webdog]

"...we saw his star in the east, and are come to worship him."


????

You mean like Herod said?

Where does the text state they knew the child was the Christ?

 

[InTheLight]

....Wise-men from the east came to Jerusalem, saying, Where is he that is born King of the Jews? for we saw his star in the east, and are come to worship him. Mt 2:1,2

Are you implying that their pagan religion of astrology had informed them of 'He that is born King of the Jews'? And that this King would have a star to announce His arrival? And that this 'King of the Jews' would be worthy of their worship?

Nope, I suppose they had access to the prophecies of the Old Testament. They were seers, astrologers, fortune tellers. They would use any method they had at their disposal to try to predict the future.

 

[slave 4 Christ]

Also I can't find in the Bible where regeneration precedes belief.

Does Christ commit Himself to all who believe in HIS name?

No, in John 2:23-25 Jesus rejects the belief (will) of these people. (BTW the word believe in vs. 23 same word in John 3:16.) they displayed belief, but it was rejected by JESUS. (ESV) 23 Now when he was in Jerusalem at the Passover Feast, many believed in his name when they saw the signs that he was doing. 24 But Jesus on his part did not entrust himself to them, because he knew all people 25 and needed no one to bear witness about man, for he himself knew what was in man.

One then should, and rightly so, ask the question what belief/or faith is accepted by Christ and when does He accept faith.

Enter John 3. Jesus converses with a learned teacher of Israel, Nicodemus. This Teacher explains his position, ie. belief in Jesus, "we know(statement of belief) that you are a teacher come from God". Nicodemus is by sheer human reasoning deducing this knowledge. If then faith precedes regeneration then Jesus should have congratulated this wise teacher.

But notice the response of Jesus to Nicodemus' knowledge.
3 Jesus answered him, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again(can also be rendered born from above) he cannot see the kingdom of God."

Jesus says to Nicodemus no matter how much human reasoning you apply to your soul's salvation the first thing that must happen, you must be born from above.

Now Nic did not understand.
Jesus explains, That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. This is two distinct births. First birth is only flesh. The second or new birth is spirit from The Spirit. The ability of The Spirit in contrast to the flesh, in spiritual matters, is detailed by Paul in 1 Corinthians 2:13,14

13 And we impart this in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit, interpreting spiritual truths to those who are spiritual.

14 The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned.

Now notice the knowledge of those who experience this New Birth or birth from above.
Jesus uses the illustration of the wind.

Do not marvel that I said to you, 'You must be born again.' 8 The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear its sound, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit."

What a tremendous truth, you do not know you are born again until after you are born again.
This requires then that regeneration (new birth) precede faith.

Why?

Because if the opposite were true then faith would demand "the wind" or The Spirit to blow or work right here. This would violate the unknown work of The Spirit that Jesus clearly sets forth to Nicodemus and us in John 3:1-8.

BTW after the unknown work of The Spirit is begun through the new birth faith can be placed, hence Jesus further explaination to Nicodemus in John 3:10-21.

 

[Luke2427]

You have to in order to maintain your position.. but when one holds to a biblical one.. it matters. No she did not deserve it, but she HAD to go willingly. God does not save by grace alone because if it not by faith, it can not be by grace.

Not true, Allan. It is another faulty presupposition of yours.

And to say that God does not save by grace alone is terrible!

We are not talking about common grace but salvic grace.. You of all people aught to the know difference. ALL grace is given .. but one is given irregardless of choice.. the other can not be fully bestowed without person accepting it, otherwise it is rejected.

It does not matter if it is common or salvific grace- NO grace requires something on the part of the other to be grace.

Even Arminians know this.

They did choose it. Just because they don't like what their rejection entails does not mean they didn't choose it.. Or are you now rejecting the reformed doctrine that man in general has made his choice to be separated from God.

???

You REALLY need to at least stay on track with my position if you are going to attempt to rebut it. Yes God is in control of all that, in conjunction with our choices and all other mankind as well. YET, they can still choose to leave. Maybe not under the most ideal circumstances they would like but they can. The fact is.. many 'stay' where they don't want to live, and many 'stay' at a job they don't like. It isn't they the "Can't" leave, it is that they have chosen not to.

You don't have a theology to stay on track with. That is the problem with people who are not Calvinists and will not claim to be Arminians- they ahve no theology that you can pin down.

The fact of the matter is that many do NOT stay where they are; they are forced to. That fact alone is enough to undermine this notion that God NEVER forces anybody to do anything against their will.

 

[Luke2427]

Then I question your ability to study scripture to any reasonable degree.

This kind of inflammatory language is what causes me to be over agressive on here.

I did not question your ability to understand Scripture though I do admit internally thinking that you are VERY elementary in it. I did not say it because it is insulting and I am trying not to be insulting.

To tell an educated pastor who has been preaching for 15 years that he does not understand Scripture is very inflammatory.

Rom 13 epitomizes this very thing is how it describe what Love does. Love is an action and an action and that action is one you choose.

Show how it does, Allan, and I will show you where your hermeneutic is off.

We are not smitten with love at the mere site of something or someone because they are appealing to our sences.. that is bibilically described as lust.
Love is choice and something you do.

It is not lust if what strikes you is wholesome beauty not sex appeal.

The Grand Canyon smites most in such a way that they become willing to do what they would not usually be desirous to do- stand there in the sun and stare at a giant hole.

It was not that the one stricken wanted the canyon to have his children. He was smitten by the beauty of it.

No, the way SCRIPTURE defines love. Love in scripture is NEVER an event that has happened to someone. It is something that they chose to do.

This is not true.

I stand completely amazed that the complete lack of your understanding here

Statements like this are inflammatory and disrespectful. They do not further the argument nor address the subject.

They are designed to insult and demean.

This is the kind of stuff that drives me to be so aggressive in these debates.

Of course He loves the Father, His very nature is Love and He can not deny Himself thus He 'would not' and not, 'can not', not love the Father. However we are not talking about God the Father and Jesus who are one and always have been.

However we are talking about people and love and how it relates to us.

No. We are talking about love and you said love is a choice. You are clearly wrong and having been shown such are now narrowing the parameters of your definition.

I love my son. I do not have the power of contrary choice. I would die for him.

Something happened to me when I first saw his tiny face.

Is that not love?

To DISPLAY love is a choice- to love is not always so.

You are partly right and this is what keeps you from getting it.

Love CAN BE a choice- but it does not have to be nor is it ALWAYS.

You can and should choose to love at times- but there are times when love overcomes you and you have NOTHING to do with it.

Interesting, you build your own house of cards (made up of complete fallacies) and then pretend you are knocking it down. Quite amusing if it wasn't so sad.

Allan, this is the kind of crud that turns healthy debates south.

It is such an insult that I do not think you would say it to my face. Why don't you keep silly crud like this out of the debate and stick to the subject.

First, are you using reformed's definition of 'Libertarian free-will', thinking it is the definition, or are you using the non-reformed definition?

I am using the theological definition.

Secondly, the view of limited choice (which I use) is in fact established in scripture and through out it. Limited choice (my view and many other non-cals) states that no man has any choice unless God gives it to them, and if God gives it to them both option are valid and the person able to choose between them.

Saying that it is there doesn't make it so. Prove it.

Actually it is the bible that contradicts your emphatically.
Scripture never once says that love just happens to someone and they are in love forever. No, even regarding our salvation, we love him because He first loved us (as just one example). It is a conscience choice. It does not state we love Him because loved happened us.

That is exactly what it says, isn't it?

Love happened to us- that is why we love him.

We are told to love one another.. it is a choice and always has been just as it always will be. Love is patient, it is kind, it does not exalt itself above another, ect.. all of these are actions performed do to a choice to love another.

Agreed.

Sadly, that is where you are wrong again because scripture speaks to this as well in multiple places. The majority of the reformed view just chooses to ignore them, or redefine terms to make more to their liking.

Saying it is so doesn't make it so. Prove it. But I will save you the trouble- you can't.

I agree.. it is called "Lust".

Smitten by beauty is far different than being aroused sexually, Allan.

I didn't say it had nothing to do with anything.. I said it was what was already being looked for and once found (that is why she was attractive) he chose to focus his love on her.

So her beauty had NO POWER over your will whatsoever, right?

Of course he does.. it is called salvation.
Look at Duet 30:15-20
Note that life and death not ONLY represent physical but also spiritual and God is telling them to choose.
but note specifically what 19 and 20 states about what happens once one chooses life..

You presuppose that God telling them to choose means that they could.

God tells men to do all kinds of things knowing that they cannot do them.

Take the law of God. God knows man CANNOT keep it but he commands them to anyway.

Why?

That sin might appear exceeding sinful for by the law is the knowledge of sin.

God tells men to do what they cannot do to show them what they really are.

Choose life SO THAT YOU MAY (so these things will come to pass).. 1) live; 2) love God; 3) obey God and be faithful; 4) have His promises

Note what 17 and 18states about those who do not choose life:

Note that not choosing life, these things will come to pass.. 1) will not/no longer hear; 2) drawn away toward other gods and serve them; 3) not receive the promises offered; 4) not live but perish!

This is but one example of many showing choice and that the choice has the chance of going 1 of 2 ways and it was their choice to make.

No it is not.

Yes, again it is called LUST.. not love.

I have never desired to make love to a rose, Allan. Your idea that being smitten by the beauty of something is lust is... well I will not yet sink to your level.

I'll try one or two more posts to remain civil.

Pretty story

Thanks. I thought so. :thumbs:

but yes, you need to be realistic and grasp the biblical understanding of love. You already knew what you were looking for, you had already determined in heart that if you ever found such a one you wanted her.

This is not true. We do not decide what we think we will find beautiful and then go out, look at it and be smitten by it.

You don't find the Grand Canyon beautiful because you sat at home before you took the trip and mind up your mind what beauty is.

You have already determined what you desired. The fact she exceeded these does not negate the fact you were already looking for those aspects in ANY woman. But when you found the one that matched it best.. you CHOSE to place your love toward her.

Nope. The reason you can't get this is because you are partially right. You do decide somethings about what you will like. But not everything and I argue not most things.

MOST things you find beautiful had little to do with any decisions you previously made.

Agreed, but He didn't and thus established that grace pertaining to salvation is not forced upon anyone because it is intimately intertwined with faith.

Doesn't matter, Allan. You said grace requires faith. It does not.

You said it is not grace because there is no faith. Faith on the part of the one receiving the favor of God has absolutely NOTHING to do with grace. Grace is grace based on the one giving and has NOTHING to do with the one receiving it.

Grace regarding general goodness I would agree with you on. God does something regardless of how your react to it.
However Grace regarding salvation (something offered) can be rejected.

Not if God intends to save. Whoever he calls he justifies. Romans 8.

Your reaction to what God is doing is the basis for what He does next.
Thus we have the multitudes of scripture which speak to God saving or condemning people after they have chosen to believe or reject those truths God Himself has revealed to them via His Spirit.
John 3:36 / Duet 30:15-20 / Prov 1:23-33 Rom 1:18-32 / 2 Thes 2:10-12 - just to give a few of the many examples

So?

You are doing a poor job

Unnecessary. And I am not, BTW. I nailed it.

 

[Amy.G]

Lots of people seek God. That's why there are so many false religions. Look at Oprah Winfrey. The problem is they refuse to submit to the only true God.

 

[InTheLight]

Lots of people seek God. That's why there are so many false religions. Look at Oprah Winfrey. The problem is they refuse to submit to the only true God.

Precisely. That's what Psalm 14 says. That's what Paul repeated in Romans 3. People in that time did not seek the one, true God of Israel. However, nowadays, the evidence of people seeking God (the Judeo-Christian God as well as other gods) is all around us.

 

[Luke2427]

I don't accept that seeking God and being drawn by God are the same thing. How can they be? Seeking is an action that humans do; drawing is an action that God does. They are different things.

He also says there that there is none that doeth good. That all righteousness of man is a filthy rags.

No man seeks after God. This statement is one Paul employs to prove the need for salvation by faith in Christ. His argument culminates in the conclusion "All have sinned and come short of the glory of God."

Now, when you undermine the phrase "none seeketh after God" you undermine Paul's entire argument in this chapter for the need to be saved.

I've got an entirely different opinion on that than reformed theology. The proof verse is from Psalm 14. Now in this context, about 1,000 BC, it is true that no one outside of Israel seeked God, that is, the one true, monotheistic God. Pagans didn't seek Yahweh. And it was true in the early to mid-first century, when Paul quoted Psalm 14. But it's no longer true today! Just look around at all the religions and belief systems in place. They are all seeking God (or a god.)

No, a thousand times, no. Paul is using this phrase to conclude all under sin and to prove that ALL need to be saved by Jesus Christ.

NO unregenerate person is seeking after the true God.

If the goal of seeking God is to find God then one must come to God if he is to find him.

Jesus said, "Man does not come to the light."

Well, man must come to the light if he is to truly seek God.

But man CANNOT come unless the father draws him.

What do we thus conclude? That no man seeks God because no man comes to the light.

There is no paradox. Seeking is not the same as being drawn.

You are not truly seeking for something if you are not trying to come to it. Men DO NOT come to the light because they love darkness rather than light.

False. Take Unitarians. I'd say they are not regenerated. Yet they seek God.

No, they do not- not the one true God.

True, the natural man lacks the Holy Spirit so he cannot understand the things of God.

Then how can he be saved?

Not true. People all over the world seek God.

Not the one true God. The Bible is clear that men love darkness rather than light and WILL NOT come to the light lest their deeds be reproved.

You cannot seek for something if you WILL NOT come to it.

If you will not come to it then you are not TRULY seeking after it.

Coming to God is not the same as seeking God.

It is not the same but seeking something requires coming to it.

If you are seeking a gold coin and I say to you- it is over here in this fire, and you will NOT go to that fire- then you are no longer seeking that coin. You may be walking around aimlessly with the appearance of seeking that gold coin, but the fact of the matter is that if you are TRULY seeking it you will come to where it is.

You cannot TRULY seek for something if you are TOTALLY unwilling to come to where it may be.

 

[idonthavetimeforthis]

Precisely. That's what Psalm 14 says. That's what Paul repeated in Romans 3. People in that time did not seek the one, true God of Israel. However, nowadays, the evidence of people seeking God (the Judeo-Christian God as well as other gods) is all around us.

People have always been religious, even when Psalm 14 was written. The Old Testament is filled with false religion, false gods, & false worship. Just because someone is religious does not mean that they are "seeking" the one, true God. Paul repeated a truth that began in Genesis & still continues to this day - man does not seek after God. They may be seeking after fulfillment or religion or meaning or whatever you want to call it, but that is not the same as "seeking" after God.

 

[slave 4 Christ]

I don't accept that seeking God and being drawn by God are the same thing. How can they be? Seeking is an action that humans do; drawing is an action that God does. They are different things.




I've got an entirely different opinion on that than reformed theology. The proof verse is from Psalm 14. Now in this context, about 1,000 BC, it is true that no one outside of Israel seeked God, that is, the one true, monotheistic God. Pagans didn't seek Yahweh. And it was true in the early to mid-first century, when Paul quoted Psalm 14. But it's no longer true today! Just look around at all the religions and belief systems in place. They are all seeking God (or a god.)



There is no paradox. Seeking is not the same as being drawn.



False. Take Unitarians. I'd say they are not regenerated. Yet they seek God.



Agreed.



True, the natural man lacks the Holy Spirit so he cannot understand the things of God.



Not true. People all over the world seek God.




Coming to God is not the same as seeking God.

Are you contending that all religions are a viable means of salvation?

If not, be advised it sounds like you are.

Seeking a religion and having the ability to come to Christ are two different things.
Paul is writing to Jews in Romans 3:9-18 who believed they had sought and found God. Paul tells them what they thought they were doing was absolutely useless.
9What then? Are we Jews[a] any better off? No, not at all. For we have already charged that all, both(N) Jews and(O) Greeks, are(P) under sin, 10as it is written:

(Q) "None is righteous, no, not one;
11no one understands;
no one seeks for God.
12All have turned aside; together they have become worthless;
no one does good,
not even one."
13(R) "Their throat is(S) an open grave;
they use their tongues to deceive."
(T) "The venom of asps is under their lips."
14(U) "Their mouth is full of curses and bitterness."
15(V) "Their feet are swift to shed blood;
16in their paths are ruin and misery,
17and(W) the way of peace they have not known."
18(X) "There is no fear of God before their eyes."

 

[InTheLight]

People have always been religious, even when Psalm 14 was written. The Old Testament is filled with false religion, false gods, & false worship. Just because someone is religious does not mean that they are "seeking" the one, true God. Paul repeated a truth that began in Genesis & still continues to this day - man does not seek after God. They may be seeking after fulfillment or religion or meaning or whatever you want to call it, but that is not the same as "seeking" after God.

Are unregenerate Catholics seeking the one true God?
Are unregenerate Lutherans seeking one true God?

Don't they affirm that Jesus is God's son?

 

[preacher4truth]

Does Christ commit Himself to all who believe in HIS name?

No, in John 2:23-25 Jesus rejects the belief (will) of these people. (BTW the word believe in vs. 23 same word in John 3:16.) they displayed belief, but it was rejected by JESUS. (ESV) 23 Now when he was in Jerusalem at the Passover Feast, many believed in his name when they saw the signs that he was doing. 24 But Jesus on his part did not entrust himself to them, because he knew all people 25 and needed no one to bear witness about man, for he himself knew what was in man.

One then should, and rightly so, ask the question what belief/or faith is accepted by Christ and when does He accept faith.

Enter John 3. Jesus converses with a learned teacher of Israel, Nicodemus. This Teacher explains his position, ie. belief in Jesus, "we know(statement of belief) that you are a teacher come from God". Nicodemus is by sheer human reasoning deducing this knowledge. If then faith precedes regeneration then Jesus should have congratulated this wise teacher.

But notice the response of Jesus to Nicodemus' knowledge.
3 Jesus answered him, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again(can also be rendered born from above) he cannot see the kingdom of God."

Jesus says to Nicodemus no matter how much human reasoning you apply to your soul's salvation the first thing that must happen, you must be born from above.

Now Nic did not understand.
Jesus explains, That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. This is two distinct births. First birth is only flesh. The second or new birth is spirit from The Spirit. The ability of The Spirit in contrast to the flesh, in spiritual matters, is detailed by Paul in 1 Corinthians 2:13,14

13 And we impart this in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit, interpreting spiritual truths to those who are spiritual.

14 The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned.

Now notice the knowledge of those who experience this New Birth or birth from above.
Jesus uses the illustration of the wind.

Do not marvel that I said to you, 'You must be born again.' 8 The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear its sound, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit."

What a tremendous truth, you do not know you are born again until after you are born again.
This requires then that regeneration (new birth) precede faith.

Why?

Because if the opposite were true then faith would demand "the wind" or The Spirit to blow or work right here. This would violate the unknown work of The Spirit that Jesus clearly sets forth to Nicodemus and us in John 3:1-8.

BTW after the unknown work of The Spirit is begun through the new birth faith can be placed, hence Jesus further explaination to Nicodemus in John 3:10-21.

Do you believe those in John 2 who believed in Him were believing on Him for born-again salvation from sin, and He rejected them for this?

Or, was it that they were believing in Him for some ulterior motive, such as the text seems to suggest. He knows what is in man, true. We are all sinners, including them. Their believing on Him could not have been for salvation from sin. All that come to Him, He saves, and they come to Him because they are drawn to Him to be saved, realizing also why they need to be saved.

I don't think this text can say what I think you are trying to make it say: In that some come to Him to be born again, and are thus rejected. I believe other Scriptures teach this to be impossible.

Jesus says in John 10:10 "But you do not believe because you are not of My sheep."

I don't believe Jesus rejects anyone for salvation, when they come to Him for this. I believe you are suggesting otherwise. You never elaborated on what type of faith saves, nor what type of faith was represented in John 2. If you did, it was rather unclear.

 

[Luke2427]

Lots of people seek God. That's why there are so many false religions. Look at Oprah Winfrey. The problem is they refuse to submit to the only true God.

They do not seek the one true God.

Let me illustrate.

I am 6'3" tall.

I am over 300 pounds.

Now someone may SAY they are seeking for Luke2427 but if they are REALLY looking for someone who is 5'3" 150 pounds then they are not REALLY seeking luke2427. They are looking for a version of luke2427 that they find more appealing.

NO unregenerate person is seeking for the REAL God.

 

[InTheLight]

Are you contending that all religions are a viable means of salvation?

No, of course not.

Seeking a religion and having the ability to come to Christ are two different things.

Exactly. Seeking Christ and having the ability to come to Christ are two different things.

I'm saying that people can seek Christ, but unless he draws them they won't get saved.

 

[InTheLight]

NO unregenerate person is seeking for the REAL God.

So Lutherans and Catholics are not seeking the real God?

 

[Luke2427]

j

Are unregenerate Catholics seeking the one true God?
Are unregenerate Lutherans seeking one true God?

Don't they affirm that Jesus is God's son?

No, they are not.

They are seeking a false god.

Most people's seeking is little more than mental idol carving. Men are actually looking for a god that suits their fancy.

That pursuit cannot rightly be called "seeking after the one true God".

 

[Amy.G]

NO unregenerate person is seeking for the REAL God.

Well, I did.

 

[InTheLight]

No, they are not.

They are seeking a false god.

Most people's seeking is little more than mental idol carving. Men are actually looking for a god that suits their fancy.

That pursuit cannot rightly be called "seeking after the one true God".

OK, please point out the error in this:

I believe in God, the Father Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth.
And in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord,
who was conceived by the Holy Spirit,
and born of the virgin Mary,
suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died and was buried.
He descended into hell.
On the third day He rose again from the dead.
He ascended into heaven
and sits at the right hand of God the Father Almighty.
From thence He will come to judge the living and the dead.

I believe in the Holy Spirit,
the holy Christian church,
the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and the life everlasting. Amen