-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Jesus said, “And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all unto me.” ~ John 12:32
- Thread starter Scott Downey
- Start date
- Status
Try reading the previous post of
ivdavid addressed to me
then you might understand what I was writing about.
MB
Particular
Well-Known Member
Sorry I cannot read it to you. You'll either have to have some one read it or do it your self
mb
Particular
Well-Known Member
You went through to Rom and Gal to quote usages of "put on.." ? We've got one in the same passage -
Col 3:9 Lie not one to another, seeing that ye have put off the old man with his deeds;
Col 3:10 And have put on the new man, which is renewed in knowledge after the image of him that created him:
1. Are you saying we have put on the new man but are not new men (2Cor 5:17)?
(On a side note, putting on Christ is to put on His nature/spirit where He is formed in you and you are conformed to His image so that ye will be gods.)
Amusing.
Col 3:12 Put on therefore, as the elect of God, holy and beloved, bowels of mercies, kindness, humbleness of mind, meekness, longsuffering;
The Imperative is to Put on bowels of mercies, kindness...etc. And the grounds for it is provided in your identity seen in the adjectives - elect, holy, beloved. Similar language is used to provide grounds seen in each instance of "As it is written...", especially in the NT. But you make it a comparison that does not reflect their real identity.
2. So we must read this as meaning they should do as the holy do, but Paul isn't saying they are holy? We must read this as meaning they should do as the beloved do, but Paul isn't saying they are beloved?
3. Preempting your possible argument that the "as" applies to only the "elect" adjective, the grammar in both English and Greek applies it to all three adjectives. Can you prove otherwise?
This is progress. From saying you never saw a verse in all of Scripture, you at least acknowledge there is a verse that is according to you being misinterpreted.
And that's why we debate here - Prove the misinterpretation. I've given my reasons above as to why I believe you're wrong. You're the one who calls anyone holding any other interpretation as a heresy - back that claim by proving why our interpretation is wrong. It's not sufficient for you to explain how you see it - Prove why the way we're seeing it is absolutely invalid in any sense of language or logic.
4. Is there Proof, not assertions or possibilities or alternate interpretations? Can you point out slam dunk contradictions in our reading word meanings from Colossians?
Well I understand how it is with you. You'd rather believe what you want rather than the truth. All I can do is show you the truth. I can't make you believe it.
I suppose we will just have to agree that we disagree and leave it at that.
MB
Just so we're on the same page, these are what I'm differing on in your reading of John 6:37.
Back up a bit. It was your post on John 6:37 that introduced this concept of "arriving in Christ positionally" and that this is God's action. I've always read this as a simple "arriving/coming to Christ (in faith)" where the words "arrive" and "come" carry the same meaning and are always man's action. I try to understand your position better and then raise concerns on your interpretation of your "in Christ transferring", pointing out the language inconsistencies between chapters 5 and 6. But you now ask me how I explain the "in Christ transferring", when I've never read it that way in the first place?
Again, I do not think the translations have done any damage to the phrases by using the word "come" in place of "arrive". My observation is that you're unnecessarily stuck on the "arrive to me" part, reading in a whole lot more that what it directly conveys.
Joh 6:37 All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; ......
Act 28:23 And when they had appointed him a day, there came many to him into his lodging;......
1. Do you read Acts 28:23 as many people arriving in Paul positionally? I don't - so why can't I then simply read it the same grammatical and semantic way in John 6:37?
Also, to the other point I raised -
2. Considering "All that I call out loud by name shall turn their heads to me", Is the turning of heads my action or the listener's action?
As I've mentioned in my earlier posts too, the words "arrive" (hēkō) and "come" (erchomai) denote the exact same and simple meaning to me, consistent across all usages over various chapters. I've addressed the reason why I don't read the word "arrive" as you do from Acts 28:23 above.
Concerning the middle voice, you seem to have a gross misunderstanding over its usage - it's used when the subject of a verb is both the doer and the recipient of the action, having a reflexive quality. So as per your interpretation of a transitive verb acted by God as the subject - we should read it as God transferring Himself to Christ. If read as an intransitive verb - it becomes God coming to Christ. It's only when you hold man as the subject does it become man coming to Christ - which fits perfectly with the commonly held simple direct interpretation.
To further illustrate,
Joh 1:29 The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.
Was Jesus transferred into John as a result of God's action here? Same phrase, same voice.
Joh 1:47 Jesus saw Nathanael coming to him, and saith of him, Behold an Israelite indeed, in whom is no guile!
God's action of transferring Nathaniel in Jesus or simply man's action of approaching Christ for something?
3. Given that the middle voice forbids the Doer of an action being different from the Recipient of the same action, who according to you is the doer and recipient of the action "coming"(erchomai) in the second part of v.37?
As I said, we are done, your view ignores the person arriving in Christ and then not being cast out. Your view has the person putting themselves in Christ. Your view provided the "middle voice" view but ignored the passive voice view. I could go on but it would be pointless.
And this is precisely the point I raised in my last post. When you claim I'm ignoring something in Scriptures, you must first prove it exists in Scriptures for me then to have ignored. To which I further quoted Acts 28:23 and asked you if your view ignores people arriving in Paul. You're yet to respond. If you'd responded No, I would've further shown the inconsistency of your interpretation of Acts. If you'd responded Yes, then you'd have refuted your original question yourself and that would've been the justification for why my view need not uphold this "arriving in" position. To take this discussion forward, you need to respond and engage with the implications - not simply make repetitive assertions.
That's overreaching. As I've stated before, I do believe it's a work of God alone that anyone is in Christ - I just don't see it mentioned specifically in words in John 6:37. I get that from John 3 new birth of the spirit and Rom 6 baptized into Christ and Rom 8 being in the spirit and not in the flesh and so many other passages but not here.
The words shedding of Christ's blood doesn't occur in v.37 either - does that mean your view is ignoring this truth? For without the shedding of blood, there is no remission of sins and therefore they will die in their sins and be cast out - so where does your view show in v.37 that Christ has shed His blood so that they will not be cast out? See the absurdity? We get this truth from John 6:53 and elsewhere, but not in v.37 itself. Which is why you need to go back and respond to my questions on the validity of your interpretation from Acts 28:23 etc. to establish if the meaning of positional "arriving in Christ" is even stated in v.37.
I don't understand - how can there be a passive voice for an intransitive deponent verb? It's only the transitive verbs that could possibly take a passive form, never an intransitive verb like "come" - these are always middle voice. For eg: take the transitive verb "cut". If I wanted to say "he cut his own hair", that's middle voice. If I wanted to say "he has his hair cut by a friend", that's passive voice. In English, both could be translated "he cut his hair". But what is the passive form of an intransitive verb? "He comes" can only mean "He makes himself come" (middle voice) - there is no passive possible here. Show me any other examples of a passive form for intransitive deponent verbs so I can engage further.
As my own contribution on this topic, here's an excerpt from pressbooks -
"That said, to a native speaker of Greek, the action of some intransitive verbs made sense ONLY in the MIDDLE VOICE. For example, some verbs that mean come and go in Greek occur only in the MIDDLE VOICE. A subject is inevitably participating in the action of coming or going, so it just seemed natural that some of these verb should be in the MIDDLE VOICE."
You did? Where before? I thought the discussion was going along fine with each of us sharing our own persuasions. Again, I'm not here to score debate points - but simply to patiently raise concerns over others' beliefs and be challenged myself on the truth so that each of us are refined to a better knowledge of God.
There is absolutely no harm in coming up against a contradiction in our own views - we could simply acknowledge that we'd need more time to dig deeper or reconsider our beliefs but why must we get so self-defensive as if we are in competition against each other. Of course, it's well within your right to withdraw from a discussion at any time of your choosing, but why make it seem as if it's because of my non-cooperation in the discussion?
I just find this an unfair implication. You're implying that I'm not worth discussing with because I do not engage in the discussion to move it forward while ignoring your points. But I have replied to each of your points, raised valid objections to your views and even numbered them in questions to highlight the contradictions - the least you could do before writing me off is to engage these questions yourself, right?
It is pointless only when all that's to be discussed has been discussed and the other person is intentionally stalling with no further contribution of points. For instance, you raised a point about the voice of the verb, and I replied about the middle voice - then you call it pointless because I have not engaged with the passive voice? I didn't even know you could possibly hold such a view - and now that I do, I've raised more questions above. This is me contributing and moving the discussion forward - how is this pointless?
Scott Downey
Well-Known Member
Yes, saved gentiles are also the elect of God.
Paul ministers to gentiles and he calls some elect who have not yet obtained the salvation.
Paul recognizes only God's foreknown elect will be obedient to the message of Christ and be sprinkled with His blood, same thing 1 Peter1 teaches.
Paul labors not for unbelievers who will never believe in Christ, those are the reprobates, types of Cain, who are of the devil.
Those kinds of persons will never believe, Paul only labors for the elect of God.
Here is another supporting verse from Paul
2 Timothy 2:7-10 New King James Version (NKJV)
7 Consider what I say, and [a]may the Lord give you understanding in all things.
8 Remember that Jesus Christ, of the seed of David, was raised from the dead according to my gospel, 9 for which I suffer trouble as an evildoer, even to the point of chains; but the word of God is not chained.
10 Therefore I endure all things for the sake of the elect, that they also may obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory.
Paul is not speaking of the Gentiles here it seems your imagination is at work in defining what Paul is saying. When Paul refers to the elect he is always speaking of his brother Jews. As Paul say in other places that his heart's desire is that the Jews would come to the knowledge of truth.
MB
This, I suppose, is in response to my question 4) of Post #146 - that you don't have any contradictions to point out in my interpretation.
Can you likewise show "the truth" by replying to the other 3 questions too there, the ones meant to challenge your interpretation on the same?
When two people agree to disagree, it's when they've reached an impasse, a stalemate, or when they both believe it's not worth continuing. That wasn't where we were. Anyway, when someone is actively debating but then wants to suddenly call a stalemate right when conclusive contradictions against their position are raised, I sincerely hold back wishing they'd reconsider their position. But you come right back restarting the exact same cycle as if nothing ever happened.
This is a debate forum - so kindly debate it to its conclusion. I've raised my points earlier to challenge your premise. You need to prove that Paul always refers to the jews as the elect. I challenged this with the verses from Colossians where he refers to the gentiles as the elect. What is your response? Kindly engage or refrain from bandying this about as a proven premise.
1) You raised no point concerning how a person must be "in Christ" in order to not be cast out.
2) You introduced yet another verse (Act 28:23) where the word is used to indicate a change of mind, coming to believe. But these examples are non-germane. It is the old, this is like that, and that is like this, therefore cats are dogs bogus argument.
3) Lets say the word means "coming toward Me" but refers to those given by the Father. Thus the possibility that the person's faith, as credited by God, provided the basis for being given. But no one enters Christ on his or her own, God puts them in Christ.
4) You still "don't see" how not being cast out requires being put into Christ. Nonsense. No one said the specific words were there, so deflection.
5) The aside about the shedding of blood is non germane, those placed in Christ receive washing of regeneration. So more deflection.
Let's return to the verse, John 6:37, all that are given to Me shall arrive at Me, and those coming toward Me will not be cast out. Again, a person must be in Christ in order to be cast out of Christ, so to claim the meaning is coming to believe must be bogus.
Last edited:
I'm going to micro-focus on just this first since this would clarify many of the other points.
Why do you say this word is used to denote "coming to believe" in Acts but say this exact same word in John 6:37 All that the Father giveth me shall come to me;... is to denote "arriving in" ?
Same word in Acts = Same word in John. So, cats = cats from me, right?
This means you're saying "coming to believe" in Acts = "arrive in" in John. So, cats = dogs from you, right?
Kindly provide an alternate explanation to proceed.
Else, do you see why I don't see the term "arriving in" in John but just the same "coming to believe" that you rightly pointed out in Acts?
I'm now considering the possibility that you really are unaware of the calvinist position on this. As per the calvinist/lutheran position, regeneration and rebirth precede faith - so when I read a person coming to believe in Christ, that therein is evidence that they have been given a new heart and mind and if elect, have been birthed in the spirit. Even if you do not agree with this, it still follows that these things inevitably accompany faith.
So let's say the calvinists are wrong about this and that faith precedes rebirth. It still follows that whosoever believes in Christ will definitely receive the forgiveness of sins, the adoption/placing in Christ and the Holy Spirit. So either way, coming to believe in Christ implies they are placed in Christ, from which they cannot be cast out, right?
Was your whole argument around just this? Is there some way you interpret believing does not follow/result in adoption or placing in Christ?
Why must the person's faith be the basis for being given? God's sovereign individual election alone is the basis for the giving, as per the calvinist position. You can't enforce your corporate election interpretation to prove a contradiction in a position that does not hold the same, right?
Excuse me I have no idea what you are talking about. Your upset about what I wrote to someone else.? Did I mention your name,? I posted to Scot Downey. Not you. That is unless for some reason you are both people.?
I decided to end the conversation with you because you don't seem to understand simple English. As far as your election it is a proven premise that only Jews are elect and you have not proven other wise.
MB
John 6:37, all that are given to Me shall be arriving at Me, and those coming toward Me will not be cast out
1) How did the person get to be inside Christ, such that he will not be cast out?
2) I was mistaken in what I said about Acts 28:23, I misremembered the verse.
3) The Greek word G2240 hēkō has a range of meanings, including (in the Future tense) shall be arriving.
Yet another change of subject, why not stick with John 6:37?
Close. I disagree with the passive form you use for "be arriving" - it is future active indicative, an action done by the person being given to Christ.
John 6:37 Anyone who the Father gives to Me will arrive at Me, and he coming to(ward) Me I could no never cast out.
This is the closest literal translation i could get to. Do you find any problems with this?
I can't do much if my answering your question gets read as me changing the subject. I was explaining how my interpretation of v.37 finds a person in Christ simply by his "coming to believe in Christ".
When I read a person coming to believe in Christ, it carries with it the implication that He is found in Christ. There is never a scenario where one happens and the other doesn't.
The same way I know a person coming to believe in Christ also has his sins forgiven and receives the Holy Spirit and so on...There is never a scenario where one happens and the other doesn't.
Rebirth in Christ <=> Faith in Christ <=> Forgiveness of sins <=> Adoption as children <=> sealed with the Holy Spirit etc.
You give me any one element in this chain in no particular order and that carries with it all the others occurring too.
So, when I read in v.37 as per my direct interpretation of Man coming to Christ in faith, that therein is where He is found in Christ. I don't know what your stumbling over this is - you seem to somehow think that coming to believe in Christ somehow does not imply they are in Christ?
No worries. But what are the range of meanings apart from "arrive" and "come" - and aren't these synonymous?
Arrive:
1. VERB
When a person or vehicle arrives at a place, they come to it at the end of a journey.
- Status