John 1:11-13 Is Flowers correct?

[prophecy70]

Born of God: Getting John 1:11-13 Right!


Instead, it is quite obvious from this context that the three points the apostle John lists here are in reference to the misconceptions of what Israelites perceived as their given covenantal “RIGHTS”[4]as direct descendants of Abraham:

• not of blood = being a descendant or blood relative of Abraham (Rom. 9:7)
• nor of the will of the flesh = being one who “pursued” or “ran after” the law so as to merit righteousness (Rom. 9:31)
• nor of the will of man [husband’s will] = being married or in anyway connected to the patriarchal head.

 

[SovereignGrace]

Poor ole Leighton still at it...making the bible say what he wants it to say, not what it actually says...


He came to his own, and his own people did not receive him.[John 1:11] Right here we can see that this is referencing to Jews, God's chosen ppl in the OT economy. The Law was not fulfilled until after the Christ was resurrected from the tomb. Jesus had plainly stated in another place "I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel."[/][Matthew 15:24] But His ministry was not solely there, and there were many Gentiles that were saved during His earthly ministry.

But to all who did receive him, he gave them the right to be children of God, to those who believe in his name,[John 1:12]

As was articulated in that article in the OP, Brother Samson was correct in that verse 13 qualifies verse 12...

Now, who are the ones who did receive Him? Who are the ones who believe in His name?

who were born, not of natural descent, or of the will of the flesh, or of the will of man, but of God.[John 1:13]

Was it those who were born a Jew(natural descent? No

Was it those who willed themselves saved via the flesh? No

Was it those who men willed to be saved? No

Was it those who were born of God? YES!!!!

That passage could not be any clearer if John tried.

 

[prophecy70]

Poor ole Leighton still at it...making the bible say what he wants it to say, not what it actually says...


He came to his own, and his own people did not receive him.[John 1:11] Right here we can see that this is referencing to Jews, God's chosen ppl in the OT economy. The Law was not fulfilled until after the Christ was resurrected from the tomb. Jesus had plainly stated in another place "I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel."[/][Matthew 15:24] But His ministry was not solely there, and there were many Gentiles that were saved during His earthly ministry.

But to all who did receive him, he gave them the right to be children of God, to those who believe in his name,[John 1:12]

As was articulated in that article in the OP, Brother Samson was correct in that verse 13 qualifies verse 12...

Now, who are the ones who did receive Him? Who are the ones who believe in His name?

who were born, not of natural descent, or of the will of the flesh, or of the will of man, but of God.[John 1:13]

Was it those who were born a Jew(natural descent? No

Was it those who willed themselves saved via the flesh? No

Was it those who men willed to be saved? No

Was it those who were born of God? YES!!!!

That passage could not be any clearer if John tried.

Thank you someone keeps presenting me with his articles on FB. Im new at reformed theology so I can't answer everything quickly.

 

[SovereignGrace]

Thank you someone keeps presenting me with his articles on FB. Im new at reformed theology so I can't answer everything quickly.

So, have you come to believe in reformed theology? I take it you have, but I don't want to jump to concussions...err...conclusions...

 

[SovereignGrace]

Thank you someone keeps presenting me with his articles on FB. Im new at reformed theology so I can't answer everything quickly.

Oh, and BTW, you're welcome.

 

[prophecy70]

So, have you come to believe in reformed theology? I take it you have, but I don't want to jump to concussions...err...conclusions...

Oh yes, after listening to so many debates and actually taking time to read the passages for my self. But still questions linger on some things. Such as why did Israel need hardening, if man is born "hardened"

I used to just believe God looked down time and seen what we would choose, because thats only what I was taught.

 

[SovereignGrace]

Oh yes, after listening to so many debates and actually taking time to read the passages for my self. But still questions linger on some things. Such as why did Israel need hardening, if man is born "hardened"

I used to just believe God looked down time and seen what we would choose, because thats only what I was taught.

Dr. Leighton Flowers and Dr. James White had a debate on Romans 9 that I watched. Dr. White exegeted Romans 9 and Flowers was scattered all over the bible, scattering verses like a farmer scatters corn while feeding his chickens...

 

[prophecy70]

Dr. Leighton Flowers and Dr. James White had a debate on Romans 9 that I watched. Dr. White exegeted Romans 9 and Flowers was scattered all over the bible, scattering verses like a farmer scatters corn while feeding his chickens...

Yes the only thing Flowers came up with in the conclusion was a paraphrase of Pauls objector in Romans 9

 

[Revmitchell]

White was rude and constantly attacked Flowers rather than exegete very much. Flowers used the foundation of other scripture to better understand Romans 9. You know, since Romans 9 refers to other scripture.

 

[Covenanter]

Born of God: Getting John 1:11-13 Right!

Instead, it is quite obvious from this context that the three points the apostle John lists here are in reference to the misconceptions of what Israelites perceived as their given covenantal “RIGHTS” as direct descendants of Abraham:

• not of blood = being a descendant or blood relative of Abraham (Rom. 9:7)
• nor of the will of the flesh = being one who “pursued” or “ran after” the law so as to merit righteousness (Rom. 9:31)
• nor of the will of man [husband’s will] = being married or in anyway connected to the patriarchal head.

"Not of blood" probably is a reference to circumcision

Oh yes, after listening to so many debates and actually taking time to read the passages for my self. But still questions linger on some things. Such as why did Israel need hardening, if man is born "hardened"

I used to just believe God looked down time and seen what we would choose, because thats only what I was taught.

The argument can soon degenerate into carnal logic rather than Scriptural - on both sides.

My major objection to the Reformers is their acceptance of infant baptism, & therefore the acceptance in principle of unconverted Christians, or the tacit assumption that if people attend church & lead upright lives they are Christians. And even if they are godless, they may be elect believers not yet converted or backsliding. And are saved because of tuliP. OSAS is a doctrine that should be handles with care.

I suggest "hardened" refers to those who saw Jesus & his miracles, heard his warnings, heard the Apostolic Gospel call, & rejected every entreaty. Hebrews includes such warnings. When a person has been given every opportunity to respond & deliberately rejects Christ, they become hardened. It happened to Pharoah, Israel at various times in the OT & before AD 70.

 

[SovereignGrace]

Dr. White was rude and attacked Dr. Flowers????

That's rich. If that's what is referred to as dismantling someone's ideologies, he was extremely rude and attacking.

Dr. White was the one who exegeted Romans 9. Dr. Flowers didn't really address it at all. He went pretty much everywhere but the book of Romans. But I will have to re-watch it and take notes and add them to this thread. Rude and attacking???


Boy, that's rich.

 

[Revmitchell]

That post says more about you than it does me.

 

[SovereignGrace]

Dr. White destroyed Dr. Flowers. It wasn’t even close.

 

[prophecy70]

I agree, Flowers didn't really say much other then what Pauls objector says.

 

[Rockson]

Dr. White was rude and attacked Dr. Flowers????

That's rich. If that's what is referred to as dismantling someone's ideologies, he was extremely rude and attacking.

Dr. White was the one who exegeted Romans 9. Dr. Flowers didn't really address it at all. He went pretty much everywhere but the book of Romans. But I will have to re-watch it and take notes and add them to this thread. Rude and attacking???


Boy, that's rich.

Come on SG! How about you return a few of these green laughing things. There's only two left and other people should have the right to use a few! I stopped counting at 50 you used! Enough is enough! Talk about being selfish!

 

[Rockson]

Dr. White destroyed Dr. Flowers. It wasn’t even close.

I doubt it.

 

[SovereignGrace]

I agree, Flowers didn't really say much other then what Pauls objector says.

Went back and watch over 2 hours of their debate. Dr. White started at Romans 8:28 and then carried over into Romans 9. Dr. Flowers preached all over the place and then would touch on Romans 9 hither and yon. Their opening remarks were for 22 minutes, iirc, and Dr. Flowers stayed in Romans 9 for less than 5 minutes of Romans 9.

Dr. Flowers was conflating being born dead in Adam with judicial hardening. They’re not the same thing.

As Dr. White stated, it was a debate on Romans 9, and only one exegeted that chapter. Even when Dr. Flowers cross-examined Dr. White, his questions had nary a thing to do with Romans 9.

 

[TCassidy]

I doubt it.

Watch the whole video. It will erase all doubt.

 

[kyredneck]

….verse 13 qualifies verse 12.Now, who are the ones who did receive Him? Who are the ones who believe in His name?....Was it those who were born of God? YES!!!!

Born of God = born from above = born of the Spirit = child of Zion

13 who -- not of blood nor of a will of flesh, nor of a will of man but -- of God were begotten. Jn 1 YLT

3 Jesus answered and said to him, `Verily, verily, I say to thee, If any one may not be born from above, he is not able to see the reign of God;`
7 `Thou mayest not wonder that I said to thee, It behoveth you to be born from above;
8 the Spirit where he willeth doth blow, and his voice thou dost hear, but thou hast not known whence he cometh, and whither he goeth; thus is every one who hath been born of the Spirit.` Jn 3 YLT

26 and the Jerusalem above is the free-woman, which is mother of us all, Gal 4 YLT

2 Jehovah loveth the gates of Zion More than all the dwellings of Jacob.
3 Glorious things are spoken of thee, O city of God. Selah
4 I will make mention of Rahab and Babylon as among them that know me: Behold, Philistia, and Tyre, with Ethiopia: This one was born there.
5 Yea, of Zion it shall be said, This one and that one was born in her; And the Most High himself will establish her.
6 Jehovah will count, when he writeth up the peoples, This one was born there. Selah Ps 87

 

[kyredneck]

the three points the apostle John lists

"Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary
13. Which were born—a sonship therefore not of mere title and privilege, but of nature, the soul being made conscious of the vital capacities, perceptions, and emotions of a child of God, before unknown.
not of blood, &c.—not of superior human descent, not of human generation at all, not of man in any manner of way. By this elaborate threefold denial of the human source of this sonship, immense force is given to what follows,

but of God—Right royal gift, and He who confers must be absolutely divine. For who would not worship Him who can bring him into the family, and evoke within him the very life, of the sons of God?"
John 1:13 Commentaries: who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.

Just as we are totally passive in our physical birth, so are we in our spiritual birth.