God is Responsive to Human Choices

[Silverhair]

Actually, they're not. The scholars you reference are of days gone by (probably because their work is in the public domain). And so they do not have the advantage of the last century or more of linguistic research.



As I said here:

​

We are in the realm of grammar, not theology. Grammatical fact are facts: Subject, verb, etc. That's what we're dealing with here. I'm saying the equivalent of 2+2=4 and you're asking what mathematicians agree with me. Rarely, if ever, will a mathematician write a defense of 2+2=4 because it is so stunningly basic that it should be common knowledge... like subject, verb, direct object....



So, for you, it's the preponderance of evidence? The one with the most published stuff wins? That's just silly.



Actually, you do. You see, English is a translation of the Hebrew. So, the original word is Hebrew and so, therefore, you need a Hebrew lexicon. What you're doing in using an English dictionary is to take the translator(s) as the divinely-inspired author, not the biblical author--Joshua, in this case. What is more, it's as if you're using the handbook of NFL rules to adjudicate an NHL game.



The text here does not say that. The combination of the verbs "took" and "led" and the grammar of each (again, the Qal and the Hiphil) along with what is called the "Vav consecutive." The Vav consecutive carries the force of the first verb through the whole string of verbs. The verbs (along with the subjects) are God speaking, through Joshua, about what He's done. God says: "I took"... "I led"... "I increased" (his offspring)... "I gave" (Issac.)... And, that consecutive of verbs goes on. But the point is that the text is telling us what God did. Abraham or his choice is not at all in view here. Just as Abraham did not give himself Isaac, He did not take himself, nor lead himself. He is responding to God's (imperative) command in Genesis 12. Nothing in this passage discusses Abraham's actions; the discussion is Joshua (under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit) what God has done for Israel.

Now, you might discuss Abraham's willingness or lack thereof from another text, but it can't be this one.

The Archangel

You continue to say I should just trust what you say because you say it and that I should dismiss anyone else. Please get over yourself. The text tells us that God took Abraham across the river and He led him did not force him/cause him. If that was the intent of the text then that is what we would have see in the Jewish bible that I posted and in all the modern bibles that we have available to us. But as you must know that is not what they say.

All I keep hearing from you is do not trust those scholars just trust me. By your logic we could not trust anything that is written because someone could always claim it was wrong.

But enough of this back and forth. You can continue to believe that you are correct and I will just trust the bibles and scholars that do not agree with you, Not because there are more of them but because I trust what they, as acknowledged scholars, are saying more than I trust what you are saying.

 

[Van]

In the book of Jonah, God reveals His desires to people and then takes action based on their response. He makes conditional covenants, i.e. if you repent, then I will relent.

In Genesis 12:1-4 we see that God revealed His desire to Abram, and then Abram submitted to God. So rather than saying God took Abraham from across the river, a better choice in translation would be God led Abraham across the river. See Joshua 24:3.

As lost people, they need to bring themselves to having a faith like Abraham, fully committed, holding nothing back, and trusting fully in the promises of God.

The Gospel message is that when God discerns that faith like Abraham's in a lost person, He credits that faith as righteousness, and transfers than individual into Christ. Thus, everyone believing into Him shall not perish, but have everlasting life.

 

[kyredneck]

In the book of Jonah....

...is an excellent example of Jonah responding to God's choice.

 

[canadyjd]

In the book of Jonah, God reveals His desires to people and then takes action based on their response. He makes conditional covenants, i.e. if you repent, then I will relent.

In Genesis 12:1-4 we see that God revealed His desire to Abram, and then Abram submitted to God. So rather than saying God took Abraham from across the river, a better choice in translation would be God led Abraham across the river. See Joshua 24:3.

As lost people, they need to bring themselves to having a faith like Abraham, fully committed, holding nothing back, and trusting fully in the promises of God.

The Gospel message is that when God discerns that faith like Abraham's in a lost person, He credits that faith as righteousness, and transfers than individual into Christ. Thus, everyone believing into Him shall not perish, but have everlasting life.

You are missing the point entirely. God is revealing Himself to these people FIRST. They are responding to Him. The conditional covenants were repeatedly ignored by the people, and God brought judgment based on His aforementioned revelation of how He would act.

peace to you

 

[Van]

The issue is not that we respond to God's revelation. That has nothing to do with the issue. It is a dodge, a deflection.

The issue is do we respond without God compelling us with irresistible grace. Calvinism falsely claims the lost must be enabled and compelled, but biblical truth proclaims, many of the lost, but not all, can and do respond without needing irresistible grace to spiritual milk, the fundamentals of the gospel.

This is the truth being evaded in post after post.


In the book of Jonah, God reveals His desires to people and then takes action based on their response. He makes conditional covenants, i.e. if you repent, then I will relent.

In Genesis 12:1-4 we see that God revealed His desire to Abram, and then Abram submitted to God. So rather than saying God took Abraham from across the river, a better choice in translation would be God led Abraham across the river. See Joshua 24:3.

As lost people, they need to bring themselves to having a faith like Abraham, fully committed, holding nothing back, and trusting fully in the promises of God.

The Gospel message is that when God discerns that faith like Abraham's in a lost person, He credits that faith as righteousness, and transfers than individual into Christ. Thus, everyone believing into Him shall not perish, but have everlasting life.

 

[canadyjd]

John 10: Jesus disagrees with you.

“My sheep hear My voice, I call them by name and they follow Me”.

They are His sheep BEFORE He calls them. He calls them BY NAME. A specific call to specific people. They follow Him when He calls.

Also John 19: Jesus says “You do not believe BECAUSE you are not of My sheep.”

Jesus does not say they are not His sheep because they don’t believe. He says they don’t believe because they are His sheep.

I understand that completely destroys your beliefs, but I encourage you to accept the words of our Lord Jesus and reject your man made secular philosophy.

No doubt your will start a “let’s change the meaning of this passage” thread concerning John 10

peace to you

 

[David Lamb]

Jesus does not say they are not His sheep because they don’t believe. He says they don’t believe because they are His sheep.

I wouldn't usually point out typos, but this one seems to be saying the opposite of what you meant. I assume you meant, "He says they don’t believe because they are not His sheep."

 

[Van]

LOL, yet another false claim, without any biblical support, to create a diversion from the topic!!

To be "of My sheep" does not mean to be "My sheep." These constant efforts to read into scripture the bogus doctrines of people is not edifying.

To be of My sheep is to be the sort of person who is open to God's word, the sort of people who comprise the fields white for harvest.

In the scripture where Jesus says to some people, you do not believe because you are not "of" My sheep, the idea is they are not open to God's word, because their presuppositions preclude acceptance of God's truth.

 

[canadyjd]

I wouldn't usually point out typos, but this one seems to be saying the opposite of what you meant. I assume you meant, "He says they don’t believe because they are not His sheep."

Yes, thanks for the correction

peace to you

 

[canadyjd]

LOL, yet another false claim, without any biblical support, to create a diversion from the topic!!

To be "of My sheep" does not mean to be "My sheep." These constant efforts to read into scripture the bogus doctrines of people is not edifying.

To be of My sheep is to be the sort of person who is open to God's word, the sort of people who comprise the fields white for harvest.

In the scripture where Jesus says to some people, you do not believe because you are not "of" My sheep, the idea is they are not open to God's word, because their presuppositions preclude acceptance of God's truth.

“Of My sheep” shows belonging to a group.

Once again, you twist the plain meaning of the passage to mean the opposite: focusing on the man instead of focusing on God. Lets rewrite this passage so it fits your beliefs.

Just consider what you are saying. “To be of My sheep is to be the sort of person that is open to God’s word”

These people are better than everyone else. There is something inside them that makes them “open to God’s word”

Just ignore the fact Jesus says He calls them “by name” and they follow Him. They are His sheep before He calls.

According to your logic, God looked out upon mankind, saw those are “open to Hos word” and then calls them.

Your focus is on the man and not God.

peace to you

 

[Van]

“Of My sheep” shows belonging to a group.
SNIP
Just consider what you are saying. “To be of My sheep is to be the sort of person that is open to God’s word”

These people are better than everyone else. There is something inside them that makes them “open to God’s word”
SNIP
peace to you

Of My Sheep is a group, those open to God's word. Duh

To be open to God's word does not make a person more worthy of salvation, that again is an outrageous falsehood. What is inside a person who is open to the truth, a lack of prior acceptance of conflicting falsehoods. Truth sets us free, falsehood locks us into the status quo, blocking our path to righteousness.

 

[Van]

None of humanity is ever worthy of salvation. Nothing we do earns, merits, or deserves salvation. All these claims that if a person hears the gospel and embraces it, makes them special or better than those unable or unwilling to believe or fully commit is nonsense.

Again and for the umpteenth time, God teaches the lost are able to will to be saved and to do works to be saved, but absolutely none of it results in salvation, salvation depends of God alone. Full Stop. Romans 9:16

 

[Van]

What is being systematically denied is the fact that God credits the faith of some individuals, and transfers them spiritually into Christ. This truth from Romans Chapter 4 differs from their presuppositions arising from their indoctrination into Calvinism.

 

[kyredneck]

These constant efforts to read into scripture the bogus doctrines of people is not edifying.

Exactly my opinion of 90% of your threads, which incidentally, should be posted in the Calvinism & Arminianism Debate forum.

 

[kyredneck]

None of humanity is ever worthy of salvation.

11 And into whatsoever city or village ye shall enter, search out who in it is worthy; and there abide till ye go forth. Mt 10

6 Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast your pearls before the swine, lest haply they trample them under their feet, and turn and rend you. Mt 7

 

[Van]

Exactly my opinion of 90% of your threads, which incidentally, should be posted in the Calvinism & Arminianism Debate forum.

Once again this poster ignores the topic, but posts exactly what might come from animosity.

 

[Van]

11 And into whatsoever city or village ye shall enter, search out who in it is worthy; and there abide till ye go forth. Mt 10

6 Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast your pearls before the swine, lest haply they trample them under their feet, and turn and rend you. Mt 7

This post takes no stated position. Yet, gained approval from two other posters.

1) Did anyone see where the claim was made those saved were worthy of salvation? Neither did I.

2) Does Matthew 10:11 indicate those whose house in which they stayed was worthy of salvation? Nope The idea was they were open to God's word and willing to listen.

3) Was the Centurion worthy? See Matthew 8:8

4) Was the Prodigal son worthy? See Luke 15:19

5) Was John the Baptist worthy? See John 1:27

6) When those born anew walk according to their calling, they are considered worthy. Thus only after being washed with His blood might we be considered worthy. The lost are worthy of death.

7) BTW, the Lamb of God is indeed worthy!

 

[David Lamb]

LOL, yet another false claim, without any biblical support, to create a diversion from the topic!!

To be "of My sheep" does not mean to be "My sheep." These constant efforts to read into scripture the bogus doctrines of people is not edifying.

To be of My sheep is to be the sort of person who is open to God's word, the sort of people who comprise the fields white for harvest.

In the scripture where Jesus says to some people, you do not believe because you are not "of" My sheep, the idea is they are not open to God's word, because their presuppositions preclude acceptance of God's truth.

I have never come across the idea that "You are not of my sheep" means anything other than that the "you" were not among Jesus's sheep. I understand that one meaning of the Greek word ek, translated "of" here, is "among", and is translated as such 18 times in the KJV. Commentators seem united in the view that the words mean that the people addressed were not sheep of Jesus. For example, Barnes says: "Are not of my sheep. Are not my people, my followers." Gill wrote: "because ye are not of my sheep; they were not among the sheep given him by his Father, were they, they would have come to him; that is, have believed in him." Indeed, the following 2 verses emphasise what Jesus meant:

“27 "My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me. 28 "And I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; neither shall anyone snatch them out of My hand.” (Joh 10:27-28 NKJV)

 

[Van]

I have never come across the idea that "You are not of my sheep" means anything other than that the "you" were not among Jesus's sheep. I understand that one meaning of the Greek word ek, translated "of" here, is "among", and is translated as such 18 times in the KJV. Commentators seem united in the view that the words mean that the people addressed were not sheep of Jesus. For example, Barnes says: "Are not of my sheep. Are not my people, my followers." Gill wrote: "because ye are not of my sheep; they were not among the sheep given him by his Father, were they, they would have come to him; that is, have believed in him." Indeed, the following 2 verses emphasise what Jesus meant:

“27 "My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me. 28 "And I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; neither shall anyone snatch them out of My hand.” (Joh 10:27-28 NKJV)

Yes, lots of commentators hold bogus views.

Here again is the biblical view:

To be of My sheep is to be the sort of person who is open to God's word, the sort of people who comprise the fields white for harvest.​

The Greek preposition "ek" (G1537) "... ek; a primary preposition denoting origin (the point whence action or motion proceeds),
Thus the actual view being presented is NOT among!!!! The idea is you were not the sort of people from which My sheep come.
"My sheep" come from the fields white for harvest. From people open to God's word.

 

[canadyjd]

Yes, lots of commentators hold bogus views.

Here again is the biblical view:

To be of My sheep is to be the sort of person who is open to God's word, the sort of people who comprise the fields white for harvest.​

The Greek preposition "ek" (G1537) "... ek; a primary preposition denoting origin (the point whence action or motion proceeds),
Thus the actual view being presented is NOT among!!!! The idea is you were not the sort of people from which My sheep come.
"My sheep" come from the fields white for harvest. From people open to God's word.

Who are you quoting as the “biblical view”? Yourself?

Do you really think your view, which runs contrary to scholars throughout history, should be accepted based on your proclamation it is the “biblical view”?

Perhaps you are quoting someone other than yourself.

peace to you