Trying to understand John 8:47

[Jarthur001]

Can you share a verse that shows God as the cause of the blindness?[/quote]



This he said unto the twelve. (I wonder if Judas understood the parables?)

Anyway, the verse does not show God as the cause of the blindness. It only shows that he gave unto some to know the mystery of the kingdom of God. The blindness was already there.

God causes and/or allows all things. God is in FULL control of what He made. Thus He is GOD!

 

[Blammo]

Grace is the doctrine of Paul. This is the doctrine I preach. Why Paul? Paul was a sinner. Why Paul? For by grace are we saved. God MADE Paul take notice of Him.

Let me be clear: I have no problem with Paul, and I have no problem with grace. My problem is with the baby baptizer John Calvin, Paul did not teach infant baptism. John Calvin does not own Paul, and neither do you.

I know what I said, and I know what you said. You can quit telling me.

I would encourage anyone to go back and TRY to find where I questioned the phrase, "Christ came into the world to save sinners". James is the one who questioned it, and when I showed him it came from the Bible, he turned the whole thing upside down, as if I had questioned it.

That is my last comment on this. And, I don't need anymore Sunday School lessons from you, James. Thank you.

 

[Blammo]

God causes and/or allows all things. God is in FULL control of what He made. Thus He is GOD!

:sleep: Did someone say something I don't already know? Oh well, back to sleep.

 

[whatever]

Calvinists,

Let's just set up a hypothetical. I'm clearly a lost person. A free will pastor preaches the gospel (1Cor 15:3-4) and I believe, I RECEIVE, I stand in my belief.

Question:

1) Am I "elect?" How would YOU know? (You can't know, can you?)

Sure we can. Here's how Paul knew that the Thessalonians were elect: "For we know, brothers loved by God, that he has chosen you, because our gospel came to you not only in word, but also in power and in the Holy Spirit and with full conviction."

2) Suppose then that I didn't believe in Calvinism -- said Calvinists were "Sardis" of Rev 3 -- "have a name that liveth but art [largely] dead." "Elect" or not? (You still can't know, can you?) Am I speaking by the Spirit against Calvin or is Calvin speaking in the Spirit against me?

Can you be wrong about election and still be saved? Of course. People speak "in the Spirit" against others on here all the time. Why would this be any different?

3) Suppose the free will preacher was right and my prayer to RECEIVE Christ was the way to salvation. I KNOW I am saved but where would that put you? In fact, I've received faith (evidence of my belief) because I received. What have you received? What's YOUR evidence?

See the answer to #1. If one receives the gospel in power and the Holy Spirit and with full conviction then one was chosen for salvation.

My point is -- and others have made it for me -- that you can't KNOW till you die where God has destined you, whether heaven or hell. Is that the "assurance" you have? Perseverance toward God only knows (literally) what?! Is that what the Bible says?

Or does the Bible say that "whosoever (anybody) believes shall be saved?" You put your idea of "election" ahead of GOD'S promise of whosoever.

skypair

No, we put the blessing of God's having chosen to save unworthy creatures like us along side of God's promise to save all who will believe, and we are grateful to Him for His gift of faith.

Now here's a question for you. To whom are you thankful for your faith?

 

[Jarthur001]

Let me be clear: I have no problem with Paul, and I have no problem with grace. My problem is with the baby baptizer John Calvin, Paul did not teach infant baptism. John Calvin does not own Paul, and neither do you.

I know what I said, and I know what you said. You can quit telling me.

I would encourage anyone to go back and TRY to find where I questioned the phrase, "Christ came into the world to save sinners". James is the one who questioned it, and when I showed him it came from the Bible, he turned the whole thing upside down, as if I had questioned it.

That is my last comment on this. And, I don't need anymore Sunday School lessons from you, James. Thank you.

1st..chill out. You made a claim about damage to my doctrine. I just did not see your reason...and still do not.

Now we move to baby baptizer.....Then its John Calvin.
Why not stick to the subject. The book of John

Still waiting...
http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=844697&postcount=18

John 1..
John 2...
John 3...
John 4...
John 5......
John 6...<<---a big one.
John 7...

All showing context as it relates to the flow of the book.

and..the subject itself..John 8.

Again..post all you want on Paul...for he will agree with grace...not do damage to it.

 

[Blammo]

Again..post all you want on Paul...for he will agree with grace...not do damage to it.

These kind of comments don't help us get back to the subject, do they? Do you really think I don't believe in grace? Don't bother answering these questions, it's not important.

Okay, let's start with John 1

John 1:12-13 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

What comes first, "as many as received him", or "power to become the sons of God"?

 

[reformedbeliever]

These kind of comments don't help us get back to the subject, do they? Do you really think I don't believe in grace? Don't bother answering these questions, it's not important.

Okay, let's start with John 1

John 1:12-13 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

What comes first, "as many as received him", or "power to become the sons of God"?

Hello Blammo. If you are just looking at the sentence then as many as received him comes first. However if you keep reading it says that they were born not of blood, nor the will of the flesh, nor the will of man, but of God. Which were born........ who are the which? As many as received him and even those who believe... they were born of God... not by their will. Grace and peace

 

[Jarthur001]

These kind of comments don't help us get back to the subject, do they? Do you really think I don't believe in grace? Don't bother answering these questions, it's not important.

Okay, let's start with John 1

John 1:12-13 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

What comes first, "as many as received him", or "power to become the sons of God"?

Indeed....now lets look at this in full context.

5And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.

6There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.

7The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe.

8He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light.

9That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.

10He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.

11He came unto his own, and his own received him not.

12But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:<<--the offer stands. The the fact remains, the world did not know Him, nor His own.

Now the key verse....

13Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

NOT BY THE WILL OF MAN. Need we say more?

 

[Blammo]

Hello Blammo. If you are just looking at the sentence then as many as received him comes first. However if you keep reading it says that they were born not of blood, nor the will of the flesh, nor the will of man, but of God. Which were born........ who are the which? As many as received him and even those who believe... they were born of God... not by their will. Grace and peace

The light bulb just went on. You win the prize. I think I see it now.
It's another breakthrough. Thank you, reformed.

:applause:

I'm still far from being a calvinist, (even if I believed the five points, I would never call myself that), but you definately got me on this one.

 

[Jarthur001]

The light bulb just went on. You win the prize. I think I see it now.
It's another breakthrough. Thank you, reformed.

:applause:

I'm still far from being a calvinist, (even if I believed the five points, I would never call myself that), but you definately got me on this one.

Blammo....

Hold out as long as you can..being labeled. Not a joke..I mean it. I use to hate being called a Calvinist. Now I'm just a old Calvinist, because I got tried of fighting with those calling me this. The phrase I like the most is..."Doctrines of Grace". But let this be known....if you share the Doctrines of Grace you will be called a calvinist.

 

[webdog]

Hello Blammo. If you are just looking at the sentence then as many as received him comes first. However if you keep reading it says that they were born not of blood, nor the will of the flesh, nor the will of man, but of God. Which were born........ who are the which? As many as received him and even those who believe... they were born of God... not by their will. Grace and peace

"Nor of the will of man" is simply stating that the act of being born again cannot be something willed, but it is of God. Belief is the cause of being born again, not as a result of it. Once we believe God does indeed give us new birth...there is not one thing man can "will" himself to do in order to be born again. "Nor of the will of man" has nothing to do with having the will to choose to accept God's Gift, but the "will" to become born again on our own willpower.

 

[webdog]

The light bulb just went on. You win the prize. I think I see it now.
It's another breakthrough. Thank you, reformed.

:applause:

I'm still far from being a calvinist, (even if I believed the five points, I would never call myself that), but you definately got me on this one.

Don't be pulled into the logic that has to be in order to make this verse say what the calvinists want it to say. Nor of the will of man, has nothing to do with freedom God has given man to accept or reject Him.

 

[whatever]

Don't be pulled into the logic that has to be in order to make this verse say what the calvinists want it to say. Nor of the will of man, has nothing to do with freedom God has given man to accept or reject Him.

"nor of the will of man" has nothing to do with man excercising his will? Really? Are you sure?

 

[webdog]

"nor of the will of man" has nothing to do with man excercising his will? Really? Are you sure?

Positive. I cannot "will" myself to fly in the same way I cannot "will" myself to become born again apart from faith in Christ, what I believe the text is saying.

 

[whatever]

Positive. I cannot "will" myself to fly in the same way I cannot "will" myself to become born again apart from faith in Christ, what I believe the text is saying.

But before you are born again you can will yourself to believe?

 

[webdog]

But before you are born again you can will yourself to believe?

Not what the text is saying. We were discussing "nor of the will of man" in regards to becoming born again by the will of man. When God says "let us reason together", you better believe we can indeed reason together with Him.

 

[whatever]

Not what the text is saying. We were discussing "nor of the will of man" in regards to becoming born again by the will of man. When God says "let us reason together", you better believe we can indeed reason together with Him.

But it is what you said - "Once we believe God does indeed give us new birth..." - those are your words so I figured that was what you were taking from the text.

And just because God commands something doesn't mean we are able to do it. Jesus can tell Nicodemus "you must be born again" and that doesn't mean that Nicodemus can do anything about it, as you've already said.

 

[webdog]

And just because God commands something doesn't mean we are able to do it.

This is bologna.

Jesus an tell Nicodemus "you must be born again" and that doesn't mean that Nicodemus can do anything about it, as you've already said.

That's eisegeting the text. Jesus told Nicodemus that he must be born again to enter, not that being born again was something done prior to faith in Christ.

 

[Blammo]

Blammo....

Hold out as long as you can..being labeled. Not a joke..I mean it. I use to hate being called a Calvinist. Now I'm just a old Calvinist, because I got tried of fighting with those calling me this. The phrase I like the most is..."Doctrines of Grace". But let this be known....if you share the Doctrines of Grace you will be called a calvinist.

I may one day be called a calvinist, but it will never be by me. I don't have anything against the man, maybe against some of his theology, but, I certainly don't know everything, and I am not nearly as intelligent as he was. But, clearly some of his theology, as well as some of his actions, were wrong. My problem with the label can be summed up by these verses:

1 Corinthians 1:12-13 Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ. Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?

Also, I think it is okay to admit you do not know everything:

1 Corinthians 13:12 For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.

Thus, one of my favorite verses:

1 Corinthians 2:2 For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified.

Maybe we spend too much time trying to understand things that are infinite? It only leads to endless debates, that lead to strife, and ultimately division. However, I do enjoy the discussion, I am still learning (a little at a time), and I think it can remain civil:

2 Timothy 2:14-16 Of these things put them in remembrance, charging them before the Lord that they strive not about words to no profit, but to the subverting of the hearers. Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. But shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness.

James, I am sorry about our misunderstanding on this thread. When I said, "it does damage to your theology", I was not referring to the verse, I was referring to what appeared to be your interpretation of the verse. I now understand that you were stating what you thought may be my interpretation of the verse.

 

[whatever]

This is bologna.

Is not.

That's eisegeting the text. Jesus told Nicodemus that he must be born again to enter, not that being born again was something done prior to faith in Christ.

I wasn't talking about the order, just the ability.