Jesus said, “And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all unto me.” ~ John 12:32

[MB]

Completely relevant. God used the Greek word to express what He does. You seem to believe you can ignore what God said and rewrite whatever you wish.

You accuse of what you your self are guilty of. Is your conscience bothering you ?
MB

 

[Particular]

You accuse of what you your self are guilty of. Is your conscience bothering you ?
MB

I'm guilty of not letting the greek word mean what it means?
Do you have an instance?

 

[Scott Downey]

Obsoleted, but not passed away yet, Matthew 5:18, Revelation 20:11.

The OC way of the relationship that God has with man has passed away.
God demonstrated that to all even physically with the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem.
Any temple rebuilding, God has not allowed, God has not allowed the Jews to reinstate temple sacrifices.
If any such temple is rebuilt, then the antichirst devil will sit in it declaring himself to be God, and it will be an evil place. I would definitely not want to be anywhere near it.

 

[37818]

So why tell me this again I remembered you're not a Calvinist. Did you forget that you have already told me this. Maybe you just want to make sure I understand it
MB

I guess I could assume no one else is going to read my post defending Calvinism having a belived Biblical basis. Romans 1:11; Ephesians 1:4; John 10:14-15; John 6:44; John 10:27-28.

 

[ivdavid]

I asked you to show proof of election for Gentiles. How is it that Col. 2:13 proves election of Gentiles

Now you're making me run around in circles. When you raised the same question in the other thread, I did give you Scriptural reference to show how the epistle by Paul addressed to the Colossians had Paul himself making reference to the Colossians as the elect of God. You never responded directly to that. I assumed you were reconsidering your position. But then here you continued insisting for proof that these were gentiles and i provided that. Now you're back to asking where it mentions they are elect?

I'll try laying it out all together one last time -

Col 1:1 Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, and Timotheus our brother,
Col 1:2 To the saints and faithful brethren in Christ which are at Colosse: Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.
Col 2:13 And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses;
Col 3:12 Put on therefore, as the elect of God, holy and beloved, bowels of mercies, kindness, humbleness of mind, meekness, longsuffering;

Paul. Addresses the uncircumcised at Colosse. As the elect of God. All from Scripture.

Even if you have some alternate reinterpretations (I pray not) of what's so directly clear, the onus is now on you to prove this must definitely never be read this way. And if you find yourself unable to show these words exist as they do, you might as well concede that there is at least some grounds for the common interpretation and stop declaring it as heresy.

 

[Van]

You stand alone on an island built for one by your own sculpting.

Yet another you, you, you post devoid of any on topic content.

 

[Particular]

Yet another you, you, you post devoid of any on topic content.

Not devoid. You fall back on your one concept of faith being innate in all humans and energized by human choice. Despite the multiple threads presenting your false concept to you, you still persist in the theory anyhow.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

O.K.....cool, so the Calvinists have now turned their entire Ordo-Salutis on its head inasmuch as Jesus clearly forces the patently unwilling to follow him.
Gone are the halcyon days of God supernaturally regenerating a non-believing person so that they willingly respond in faith, enter the days of a rapacious lover who forces those who do not love or want God in the slightest to obey him through brute force....

Got it.
We now have a new brand of Calvinism....or, rather John Donne was being quite literal with this Holy Sonnet.
Holy Sonnets: Batter my heart, three-person'd God… | Poetry Foundation

 

[ivdavid]

So the bogus view is to equate "come to Me" in verse 5:40 with verse 6:37.

But that's how language works. When the same author uses the same phrase within a page apart without distinctly introducing a change in usage of the phrase, then it is absolutely consistent to equate phrase meanings. Why do you see this differently? What is your basis for new semantic rules?

In context,5:40 refers to our action to believe the gospel, and in 6:37 God's action to accept that belief and transfer the person into Christ.

What denotes the change of context - I still see the context being one's faith or believing in Christ and God's response to that. Are you saying that's changed?
One can't simply assert that the context has changed and accordingly alter usage of words. This is not even theology we're discussing here - it's simple grammar.

Joh 5:40 And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life.
Joh 6:35 And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.
Joh 6:37 All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.

The phrases in bold have the actor as man and not God in each of those cases. It's the same words used in both English and Greek. I don't mind entertaining your alternate definitions of "arriving" instead of "coming" as long as it has the same meaning ie "arriving at Christ in faith", "coming to Christ in faith". And this has to be consistently applied to either all or none of the verses - what rule dictates that we can selectively apply definitions as we please? This is the part where I don't see how you view things.

 

[ivdavid]

Come into Me is an action by God in verse 6:37, not an action by an individual. Remember the result of this action is to be located in Christ where they will not be cast out. No one saves themselves and puts themselves in Christ.

Do you have a basis for slipping in "Coming to Christ" as "Coming into Christ" as then "Coming in Christ" - isn't there a huge difference in the preposition used by you vs what's used in John 6?

Anyway, I disagree with you stating the "coming to Christ" in v.37 is an action of God. If I called your name and you turned, my action has caused your action but the turning is still your action, your response. Similarly where God says when He gives, man will come - the coming is still man's action and his response though definitely caused by God. Why are we even debating this - I thought these are basic enough to be taken for granted as foundational self-evident first premises.

 

[Van]

Not devoid. You fall back on your one concept of faith being innate in all humans and energized by human choice. Despite the multiple threads presenting your false concept to you, you still persist in the theory anyhow.

Besides attacking their opponents personally (Van is an anti-Christ) they also misrepresent the views of their opponents. Note, no quote for "innate faith" because it is a fabrication.

Pay no attention to these diversion posts.

 

[Particular]

Besides attacking their opponents personally (Van is an anti-Christ) they also misrepresent the views of their opponents. Note, no quote for "innate faith" because it is a fabrication.

Pay no attention to these diversion posts.

Who do you imagine you are talking to, Van? Just talk to the person you are addressing. It's not like there is a large posse of people living on the edge of what they believe.
If I misrepresent your position, tell me exactly what you believe about faith and how it is expressed.
Here's how I currently understand your position on faith:

1. Faith is in all humans from the moment they are born.
2. Faith lies, untapped, until a person hears the gospel.
3. Upon hearing the gospel a person will either accept it or reject it.
4. If a person accepts the gospel their untapped faith becomes active faith.
5. If a person rejects the gospel their untapped faith remains untapped.
6. Active faith can be hindered and emptied through willful sin.
7. Untapped faith can be activated by willful choice to believe.

Correct where I misunderstand your position.

 

[Van]

But that's how language works. When the same author uses the same phrase within a page apart without distinctly introducing a change in usage of the phrase, then it is absolutely consistent to equate phrase meanings. Why do you see this differently? What is your basis for new semantic rules? [In the example, two very different phrases in Greek were rendered as the same phrase in English. Thus the poor translation which obliterated the distinction is used to promote false teachings. In John 5:40 the person will not of his own accord, come to (believe in) Christ. However, in John 6:37 we have the Father "giving" the person, then we have the same English "come to " but different in Greek "shall be arriving" which tells us the result of the Father's action. Then the second come to Me again refers to the Father's action, which results in the person being transferred from not in Christ, to being in Christ where they will not be cast out.]




What denotes the change of context - I still see the context being one's faith or believing in Christ and God's response to that. Are you saying that's changed?
One can't simply assert that the context has changed and accordingly alter usage of words. This is not even theology we're discussing here - it's simple grammar.

Joh 5:40 And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life.
Joh 6:35 And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.
Joh 6:37 All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.

The phrases in bold have the actor as man and not God in each of those cases. It's the same words used in both English and Greek. I don't mind entertaining your alternate definitions of "arriving" instead of "coming" as long as it has the same meaning ie "arriving at Christ in faith", "coming to Christ in faith". And this has to be consistently applied to either all or none of the verses - what rule dictates that we can selectively apply definitions as we please? This is the part where I don't see how you view things.

Your post still has not explained how the person got to be "in Christ" where he will not be cast out. You have not addressed the different Greek words, or the different voice (the second "come to" in John 6:37 is in the middle/pas voice indicating the Father is putting the person in Christ.

 

[MB]

Now you're making me run around in circles. When you raised the same question in the other thread, I did give you Scriptural reference to show how the epistle by Paul addressed to the Colossians had Paul himself making reference to the Colossians as the elect of God. You never responded directly to that. I assumed you were reconsidering your position. But then here you continued insisting for proof that these were gentiles and i provided that. Now you're back to asking where it mentions they are elect?

I'll try laying it out all together one last time -

Col 1:1 Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, and Timotheus our brother,
Col 1:2 To the saints and faithful brethren in Christ which are at Colosse: Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.
Col 2:13 And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses;
Col 3:12 Put on therefore, as the elect of God, holy and beloved, bowels of mercies, kindness, humbleness of mind, meekness, longsuffering;

Paul. Addresses the uncircumcised at Colosse. As the elect of God. All from Scripture.

Even if you have some alternate reinterpretations (I pray not) of what's so directly clear, the onus is now on you to prove this must definitely never be read this way. And if you find yourself unable to show these words exist as they do, you might as well concede that there is at least some grounds for the common interpretation and stop declaring it as heresy.

"Paul says put on as the elect." This means to do as the elect do. Paul is not saying they are elect.. a good Example is we put on Christ yet we are not Christ. This means to imitate the elect to do as they do
I can see you have misinterpreted this verse. I know it's hard to contemplate I still have to call people on it because there are no elect Gentiles We need to be truthful about what scripture actually says. Being elect is not a requirement for Salvation. A few examples;

Rom_13:14 But put ye on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make not provision for the flesh, to fulfil the lusts thereof.

Does this mean we are Christ? Of course not It means to do as Christ did.Another is;

Gal_3:27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.
MB

 

[Van]

Who do you imagine you are talking to, Van? Just talk to the person you are addressing. It's not like there is a large posse of people living on the edge of what they believe.
If I misrepresent your position, tell me exactly what you believe about faith and how it is expressed.
Here's how I currently understand your position on faith:

1. Faith is in all humans from the moment they are born. [False, but the ability to put trust or not in information received is a human characteristic. Eve for example listened to Satan)
2. Faith lies, untapped, until a person hears the gospel. [False - even the ability to trust in the gospel can be lost as in soil #1 of Matthew 13]
3. Upon hearing the gospel a person will either accept it or reject it.[ Yes, assuming they are of My sheep, otherwise they will reject it out of hand.]
4. If a person accepts the gospel their untapped faith becomes active faith. [utter nonsense]
5. If a person rejects the gospel their untapped faith remains untapped. [utter nonsense]
6. Active faith can be hindered and emptied through willful sin. [False, OSAS]
7. Untapped faith can be activated by willful choice to believe.[utter nonsense, innate faith, untapped faith are fictions fabricated to change the subject ]

Correct where I misunderstand your position.

And note folks, no quote was provided to support the fiction innate faith was my view.

 

[Particular]

"Paul says put on as the elect."

Rom_13:14 But put ye on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make not provision for the flesh, to fulfil the lusts thereof.

Gal_3:27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.
MB

Are these the verses where you claim that Paul says "put on as the elect"?

 

[Van]

Do you have a basis for slipping in "Coming to Christ" as "Coming into Christ" as then "Coming in Christ" - isn't there a huge difference in the preposition used by you vs what's used in John 6?

Anyway, I disagree with you stating the "coming to Christ" in v.37 is an action of God. If I called your name and you turned, my action has caused your action but the turning is still your action, your response. Similarly where God says when He gives, man will come - the coming is still man's action and his response though definitely caused by God. Why are we even debating this - I thought these are basic enough to be taken for granted as foundational self-evident first premises.

Yes, ask yourself how does a person not in Christ come to be in Christ. The person must be placed "into" Christ. Think about these verses:
John 3:16, everyone believing "into" Him shall not perish but have eternal life. The preposition is "eis" and its primary meaning is to move into something, from outside to inside. If we simply believe superficially, would God credit that faith as righteousness and put us into Christ?

1 Peter 2:9 and the idea of being "called out of darkness and into His marvelous light." Same preposition.

Colossians 1:13 being transferred out of the realm of darkness and to [into] the kingdom of His Son. Same preposition.

Romans 6:3 being baptized into Christ, same preposition.

Gal 3:27
For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ.

As far as John 6:37, how did the person get into Christ such that he would not be cast out. Still no response. But your observation that John 6:37 does not say "into" but "toward" is a valid criticism. OTOH, the logical necessity of the person being put "into" Christ remains as he will not be cast out.

 

[MB]

I guess I could assume no one else is going to read my post defending Calvinism having a belived Biblical basis. Romans 1:11; Ephesians 1:4; John 10:14-15; John 6:44; John 10:27-28.

If I read your post others are reading your post too.
MB

 

[Particular]

And note folks, no quote was provided to support the fiction innate faith was my view.

Here's your response to my points:
1. Faith is in all humans from the moment they are born. [False, but the ability to put trust or not in information received is a human characteristic. Eve for example listened to Satan)
2. Faith lies, untapped, until a person hears the gospel. [False - even the ability to trust in the gospel can be lost as in soil #1 of Matthew 13]
3. Upon hearing the gospel a person will either accept it or reject it. [ Yes, assuming they are of My sheep, otherwise they will reject it out of hand.]
4. If a person accepts the gospel their untapped faith becomes active faith. [utter nonsense]
5. If a person rejects the gospel their untapped faith remains untapped. [utter nonsense]
6. Active faith can be hindered and emptied through willful sin. [False, OSAS]
7. Untapped faith can be activated by willful choice to believe. [utter nonsense, innate faith, untapped faith are fictions fabricated to change the subject ]

Here's what I receive:
1. Faith is not innate but, ability to put trust or not in information received is a human characteristic.

2. The ability to trust in the gospel can be lost.

Question: How is trust and faith different?

3. The sheep will accept the gospel. The goats will reject the gospel.

Question: How is this different from Calvinist soteriology on this point?

4. You provide no actual argument.

Question: How is trust and faith different?

5. You provide no actual argument.

Question: How is trust and faith different?

6. Once Saved, Always Saved

Question: How does salvation happen? Does God elect or does man choose?

7. There is no innate faith.

Question: Where does faith come from? Does faith come before or after salvation?

 

[Van]

Here's your response to my points:
1. Faith is in all humans from the moment they are born. [False, but the ability to put trust or not in information received is a human characteristic. Eve for example listened to Satan)
2. Faith lies, untapped, until a person hears the gospel. [False - even the ability to trust in the gospel can be lost as in soil #1 of Matthew 13]
3. Upon hearing the gospel a person will either accept it or reject it. [ Yes, assuming they are of My sheep, otherwise they will reject it out of hand.]
4. If a person accepts the gospel their untapped faith becomes active faith. [utter nonsense]
5. If a person rejects the gospel their untapped faith remains untapped. [utter nonsense]
6. Active faith can be hindered and emptied through willful sin. [False, OSAS]
7. Untapped faith can be activated by willful choice to believe. [utter nonsense, innate faith, untapped faith are fictions fabricated to change the subject ]

Here's what I receive:
1. Faith is not innate but, ability to put trust or not in information received is a human characteristic.[valid]

2. The ability to trust in the gospel can be lost.[valid]

Question: How is trust and faith different? [putting our faith, trust, belief in information, a verb has the same meaning]

3. The sheep will accept the gospel. The goats will reject the gospel. [No, once again no quote will be forthcoming, so a deliberate effort to distort and misrepresent my view. People who are "of My sheep" might not will, accept the gospel. People not "of My sheep" will reject the gospel.]

Question: How is this different from Calvinist soteriology on this point? [ your bogus misrepresentation presents Calvinist soteriology, my correct presents scripture.]

4. You provide no actual argument. [you provide no actual argument.]
[SNIP]

6. Once Saved, Always Saved [valid]

Question: How does salvation happen? Does God elect or does man choose? [Yet another change the subject deflection]

7. There is no innate faith.[valid]

Question: Where does faith come from? Does faith come before or after salvation? [Faith in the truth comes before election for salvation as I have posted more than 100 times, 2 Thessalonians 2:13]