@RationalEnquirer In the Greek there is only one possibility (((Grace, saved, and faith))) are all the gift. Just b/c we are saved THROUGH faith does not mean that the faith we are saved THROUGH is not also a gift.
To gracetruthguy,-1Sam13;13- Hello, If I have a son and he is going to school, i have put him my self on this path to learn,but he is not too smart, he has bad discipline in teaching himself, and i know ,that his ability is not good enough to become the professor at a university, i could anyway tell him that if he would get to the university and be a professor, i would stand behind him and give him all of my money to support him. -Continue...
but since i know my son's ability, i know he will not get to the university and become a professor, so i had already made different plans for him to be a carpenter. And if my wife come to him, after he fails the school after some years, she can tell him that I would support him if he would get to the university and become a professor, and she would not be lying. It would be true, i would support him at university..- continue..
I think the point God said and did in 1sam13;13 is to teach all mankind that God WOULD -,build kingdom there, if Saul or the people were able, but they will fail with out God. Remember it was out of rebelion 1Sam8:20,that they wanted a king over them, and God gave them one Saul, but God knew,Saul is not able, but he wanted to tech the people that only in His time He make things beautiful. Roman
@gracetruthguy - God really would, but the condition stand on Saul's reaction to God's law. God chose Saul to be king, he must have know if Saul will obey or not. Or God dont know the future? God knew that Christ will be killed and how would be killed in details, so he must have also knew that Saul will not obey. But if Saul WOULD obey than God WOULD set up the kingdom. Roman
God knows only the knowable,. The future known by Him is all the knowable future including that which He has planned and therefroe ensures comes about. But that is nto everythign that happens.
Either we are free agents to the limits that exist or we are not free agents at all.
It is in the areas of freedom that God does not know the outcome. Just as He is also free to make new decisions. so we are free within limits.
@gracetruthguy Are you starting that nonsense again? "God knows only the knowable," It is impossible for to ensure anything in the future without knowing/decreeing the future, there are to many variables that could change the future that God could not possibly know. A leaf blowing could have caused David not to be born. What happens when one of these variables mess things up for God, does He rewind the world real quick to fix it, and we just don't know about it?
God is all knowing, and knows everything that is going to happen before it happens, he even knows who will be written in the book of life and who won't. This doesn't mean we don't have free will, its just that God is not caught in the frame of time that we are. He has seen everything; but, knowing everything, isn't the same as making us puppets.
He knows the thoughts we'll have tomorrow, our next step, our next sin. However, knowing this, he still lets us walk free.
Faith is the gift of God, especially in this sense, that no man can have faith apart from the operation of God. This, by definition, means that it is not something we can do on our own. Add to that that this operation is unmerited, and it is evident that faith is a gift.
What those who deny this assertion are counter-asserting, is that faith is possible to the natural man. The Cannons of Orange have stated, that this makes all men, in some measure, believers.
@Paul1T2Day Thank you for your input I have debated gracetruthguy before, I do not trust his ability in "Greek & Hebrew". Unfortunately I am ignorant in them also so I must rely on men like James white.You seem to have a good grasp on Greek are you going to school for it? Also what is the NA27 text?
@1689Baptist NA27 should be the 27th edition of the Nestle-Alan, an edition of the Critical Text family of Manuscripts, if I am correct (I have studied textual transmission a bit, but I don't know Greek).
@gracetruthguy James 2:5- Listen my beloved brethren:did not God choose the poor of this world to be rich in faith and heirs to the kingdom which He promised to those who love him?
Hmmm...did God choose, and give faith here? I think so.
Hearken, my brethren beloved, did not God choose the poor of this world, rich in faith, and heirs of the reign that He promised to those loving Him?
This tells us the poor of the world are those who are rich in faith and that God makes heirs among them of those who love Him; not that all the poor inclusively are saved, but a great many. The passage is about the poor versus the rich and our attitudes to them.
@gracetruthguy again, you try and make salvation meritorious. Is there room for boasting, if I decide to believe in Christ? YEaH! But Eph. says there is NO ROOM for boasting.
@1689Baptist There is a much more in-depth discussion of the use of this pronoun and James White has already dismantled his assertion on this very topic. I will see if I can find the video. Don't be deceived. Anyone can assert just about anything on you tube. It doesn't mean they are accurate.
The demonstrative pronoun (DP) issue is not about its gender i.e. that it is in the neutral and not the preceding words, but that it is in the singular and can only refer to 1 item preceding. Paul uses the DP elsewhere in the plural when wanting to refer to more than 1 item.
See my video "Quick Answers to Calvinists Ephesians 2:8-9 - Jacques More"
@gracetruthguy maybe you can tell me what Romans 12:3 means? For through the grace given to me I say to everyone among you(believers) not to think more highly of himself than he ought to think; but to think so as to have sound judgement, as God has allotted to each a measure of faith. This text alone says faith is given from God. Now, I would like to see you argue genders on this one. LOL.
Please quote me as to making any argument for genders.
The grace Paul was given was to teach and lead as an apostle. The faith given to the believers in Romans 12 is in respect of the abilities God gives and is not about salvation. And yes, it is to existing believers.
@gracetruthguy The point is, the faith was given! Either way, God has given to each a measure of faith! Also, the fruits of the spirit, what are they? Galatians 5:22-Love, joy, peace, long-suffering, kindness, goodness, faith, You do know, that a "fruit", is a product of the vine? Fruit doesnt come about on its own. LOL.
Yes, it is explicit God gives gifts to His children. These are already believers and to them faith is given FOR the purpose of GIFTS/abilities to benefit the Body.
It is NOT faith for salvation. The passage does NOT discuss salvation.
Fruit comes from a fruit bearer. Becoming a fruit bearer is from a willing vessel. Those not willing to bear fruit are cut off and burned Jesus said.
@gracetruthguy Why is it that God must give them faith FOR the purpose of GIFTS/abilities to benefit the Body, but the sinner without God dead in trespasses and sin has the MOST IMPORTANT faith naturally?
@gracetruthguy You may want to check your bible bro. Luke 19:26 says nothing about being able to choose salvation. You are trying to press your idea on the text. I doesnt work. Can you show me from scripture, that "sinning, makes us a sinner"?
@Haukman66 You said, "So that none is so dead as to not be able to choose as Jesus says in Luke 19:26". I say, Luke 19:26 says nothing of the sort! Also, Your video does not prove anything. Bring proof from scripture.
@gracetruthguy Maybe you should read that verse again! but as many as did receive him TO THEM he gave authority to become sons of God -- to those believing in his name. And then the next verse is also hurtful to your idea, verse 13- who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man(this means your freewill), BUT OF GOD.
2Sam. 22:26? God has mercy on whom He will have mercy- Romans 9:15, and those who actually have mercy, are those whom God has given grace!
To as many as crossed the finishing line to them were given medals.
How is TO THEM illustrative of giving something BEFORE they finished the race?
Similarly the rebirth occurs AFTER the authority to become a child of God is released, and just because its occurrence is all of God – just like the giving of medals is not done by the receiver of them – how is it helpful to a belief that all this happens BEFORE the race can even start?
@gracetruthguy Do you even listen to what you are saying? LOL. John 1:9- Jesus is the light of the world. And He is the one, who enlightens men, and that means, all men, know enough about God to be responsible. This is NOT about salvation. It means, that even those who die, never hearing of Jesus, will be responsible. And John 1:13 IS the rebirth, but you still havent acknowledged, it was by the will of God, not of man!
@gracetruthguy Well you give me an answer that is in context on John 1, and I will answer your silly question on 2Sam. 22:26. No, I will just say now, that God will have mercy on whom He will have mercy, as Romans 9 makes it clear. Those who are merciful, are those whom God has bestowed His grace upon, which means "unmerited favor". Now address to me, what John 1 means, when it says, not by the will of man, but of God.
Sure, John 1:13 is all about the rebirth. It does not thereby disqualify what happens BEFORE that birth. It appears you are having a mental/spiritual block on this
To whom did Paul state God said “I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy”?
And how it is IN THAT CONTEXT inconsistent with 2 Sam.22:26?
See my vid:
"Quick Answers to Calvinists Romans 9:14-16 - Jacques More"
@gracetruthguy what happens before the rebirth? Do you will? NO. The text tells us, its NOT by the will of man.
Paul was speaking about Jacob and Esau, but was making the point, that God has mercy on whom HE chooses, not because of what they have done as verse 11 so clearly states.
Again, your videos dont prove anything. Quit trying to point to them as proof.
No, it is not meritorious, if it is God who has caused us to be merciful. Ever read John 15:5? LOL.
Hi Haukman66, Jn1:13 Young “who -- not of blood nor of a will of flesh, nor of a will of man but -- of God were begotten” The will of man is NOT involved in the BIRTHING Bur BEFORE THAT authority TO BECOME a child of God is made V12 And who gets that? Those who do what? Paul was demonstrating God was righteous R9:14 Your version of R9:15 shows Him as un-righteous. If you don’t C the vid, you don’t C the answer. To whom does… God does… Is the very definition of merit!
@gracetruthguy I never said, John 15 was about salvation. Quit trying to put words into my mouth. Its about fruit, and we can not do anything without Christ. So, is being merciful a fruit? Or are men born being merciful?
Men are born free to decide to be merciful or not. If you decide to be merciful then you connect yourself to the vine and God enables you further. This is the whole deal with Luke 19:26 we all have, but what we do with it decides what happens next.
If you decide to deny mercy to another then you cut yourself off from the vine and source of life: your reward is just.
Have you not read how it is people who were in the vine who are cut off from the vine?
@gracetruthguy You do have a poor understanding of the bible. Can you give me a verse that tells us, Men are born free to decide? And you keep using Luke 19:26-I tell you that to everyone who has, more will be given, but from the one who has not, even what he has will be taken away. What does that have to do, with the topic? Please elaborate...
That very verse tells you that all (without exception) ‘have’ and in context of the parable of the ‘talents’ including the eternal destiny mentioned, it is also about salvation.
So that very verse Luke 19:26 tells us we are free to decide and it is that decision that either releases more or causes you to lose that which you were given in the 1st place.
Up until Augustine the universal teaching in the church was of synergism.
@gracetruthguy I am curious, You say that the "universal" teaching prior to Augustine in the church was synergism? OK, specifically "WHO" are those who that you are citing that taught synergism prior to Augustine (spanning the time between the Apostles and Augustine) and how do you conclude such was "universally" taught?
Next question, how do you conclude that Luke 19:26 should applied to salvation? Do you know the varying teachings on that passage of scripture? Just curious.
@gracetruthguy Also, let’s imagine as you have said, “the universal teaching in the church was of synergism.” Does that statement (and that's NOT to affirm that synergism was orthodox teaching) prove the veracity of any doctrine? The church went through “Dark-Ages.” Why were they called "Dark?" We have 400 years of silence between the O.T and N.T. Also In the O.T. there were times when the Word of God was not available to the people (2 Kings 22:8, 13 and 2 Chronicles 34:14). Continued.
@gracetruthguy So I'm saying though false teaching may be wide-spread re: God, Man, Salvation, etc., we must affirm: 1. Heresy existed/exists throughout history & 2. We shouldn’t attempt to justify the veracity of doctrine by "universal acceptance" (which isn't really because no teaching is really universally taught or universally accepted as you can see). I'm reminded that "safety in numbers” doesn’t work. See Prov. 11:21 & 16:5 “…though hand join in hand, he shall not be unpunished.”
The point really is that as Greek was little used by the beginning of the 5th century it was easy for the enemy to come in and begin this new teaching in the Church that "free will is not" which Augustine introduced.
Is it any wonder that there was thereafter a dark ages?
Following the mistranslaiton of the Scripture since Augi.
C this vid:
"Quick Answers to Calvinists The Elect - Jacques More"
At the end of the day it is the original Scripture we build sound doctrine on
@gracetruthguy - I’m not interested in watching anything by Jacques More. I've watched two of his videos. They oppose sound biblical teaching. It would literally take me more than an hour to respond thoughtfully to the false teaching in even one of his videos. I'm not trying to be adversarial or cruel gracetruthguy. I'm telling you the truth as our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ would have us do. Based on what I have heard him say till now, I must conclude that Jacques More is a wolf.
But, if you want to engage in commenting, then expect an appropriate response. I have done that.
Biblical teaching is that one must be 'apt to teach' IF you are a servant of the Lord. I have. If you believe that my teaching differs from Scripture you need to demonstrate that.
You can bring a horse to water, but you can't make them drink.
How about my vid about open theism:
"1 Samuel 13:13 - Proof Positive of Open Theism -- Jacques More"
@gracetruthguy I listened to More's audio on Open Theism. More and you are in eisegesis. For me to deal thoughtfully with such gross mishandling of scripture would take more time than I can commit to here right now. What I can do with my limited time and space is offer scripture disproving the heresies of Open Theism, Synergism etc. as well as supporting Sovereignty, Monergism, etc. (or both).
@gracetruthguy – It was NOT God's will to establish Saul's kingdom over Israel forever. Where is Saul’s kingdom today? When you assert that if I answer “No” it can only mean that I do not believe God’s Word you are, again, incorrect. I affirm Sola Scriptura and I do not question God’s Word. I DO QUESTION your understanding of it.
@gracetruthguy Bummer! I believe the Bible too so it seems we have a quandary. To assert that if I disagree with you that I am in error is not necessarily true. As I said earlier, the dilemma is not the Word of God therefore we have what appear to be 3 possibilities here. They are: 1. I am wrong, 2.You are wrong, or 3. We are both wrong. So where do we go from here? (Continued)
@gracetruthguy Continuation - "for now would the LORD have established thy kingdom upon Israel for ever." does not suggest:
1. That it was God’s sovereign will to establish Saul’s kingdom. Saul’s kingdom was not established forever
2. That Saul had “free-will” in his unregenerate state to interact synergistically
Your conclusions about the verse 1 Samuel 13:13 are not exegetical, nor are they in accordance with the whole of Scripture. Jesus shows us the error of such in Matthew 4:4
@gracetruthguy - What I understand to be contextual in 1 Sam 13:13 is Saul’s failure to obey brings the end of his kingdom. In Israel the kingship itself is under the authority of the word of God. Saul didn’t regard Samuel as God’s providential messenger nor did he listen to/obey God's word. “W-H-Y” he didn't recognize and obey is not addressed in this verse. You want me to conclude that Saul “could have” recognized/obeyed. I don't because such is a hasty assumption imposed upon the text.
@gracetruthguy - You and I know what Samuel said. We come to unlike conclusions. Your citation of 1 Sam 13:13b a “partial scripture verse,” neither makes a doctrine nor suggests that reprobate Saul could have chosen differently apart from God FIRST mercifully intervening (Eze. 11:19 & 20) GIVING MAN A NEW SPIRIT so that he may afterward keep God’s statutes (vs. 20). You're confident in reprobate man’s ability to overcome spiritual death by obedience whereas I am not (Gal 3:24 and Rom 3:20).
@gracetruthguy – I’ve clarified it two posts ago. Your "natural reading" (eisegesis) claims that God's plan's change based on unregenerate man's free-will. Scripture doesn't support it. Psa. 33:11 - "The counsel of the Lord stands forever, The plans of His heart from generation to generation." Man is spiritually dead unless God grants repentance, leading him to the knowledge of the truth. Man comes to his senses & escapes the snare of the devil because of salvation (and not before).
@gracetruthguy (continued) - Question . . . Do you think John 15:16 is universally true of all believers? Jesus said, "You did not choose Me but I chose you, and appointed you that you would go and bear fruit, and that your fruit would remain, so that whatever you ask of the Father in My name He may give to you."
@gracetruthguy – Your assertion that because Samuel said, “…for now the Lord would have established your kingdom over Israel forever” doesn’t mean that Saul could have changed the course of events via his (Saul’s) free will (continued).
@gracetruthguy – Such a misunderstanding reminds me of the conversation that Abraham had with God in Genesis 18:20-33. Abraham asked God to spare Sodom if he, Abraham, found even 10 righteous (down from the original 50 of course). Who was spared? Not even one more? Is this synergism in action? Is it the best that man's free will has to offer? Salvation is of the LORD and NOT by the synergistic free will decision from man (continued).
@gracetruthguy – Might God have said that He would spare Sodom if Abraham had found even 10 righteous have more to do with teaching Abraham the same truth we have presented to us in Prov 3:5-6 and not an imagined inherent willingness found in the heart or mind of any unregenerate individual? Why do so many fail to recognize the "inanimate" nature of death and credit God wholly for salvation? Thus we have wheat, tares, servants & the Householder who will separate both according to “His will.”
@gracetruthguy Well, I have answered your question. I just haven't answered it in the manner that agrees with your dogma. If you feel this insults your intelligence then what is left for me to say? I will say that your issuing ultimatums, "If you cannot say..." and accusations "You believe doctrine that imposes...” isn’t a spiritual answer to the original question, Monergism or Synergism? For what it is worth, I do not question God's plans, just your interpretation of them.
@gracetruthguy You really believe God did not know what Saul was going to do?
Woulda, coulda, shoulda makes no difference when the deed is done, all things being the same Saul would have done the same thing over again, he could not have done differently then he did all things being the same. So this in no way means God had to change His mind b/c Saul did not do what God thought he would do so God had to implement plan B. No, Gods decree came about perfectly. This was a condemnation for Saul.
@gracetruthguy CORRECTION. God DID NOT tell us He had a plan for Saul here. You did by imposing your conclusion upon the text (eisegesis). When Samuel says, God "would have" that SIMPLY DOES NOT INSIST that God had any intent to establish Saul's kingdom forever. God's plans and purposes prevail. A simple "word study" on God's plans and purposes affirms this.
@gracetruthguy No. Again, you err. I HAVE NOT deviated from a straight reply. You, again, accuse me of doing such. Accusations do not make a truth. Anyone may simply read my responses to you to see that I have answered you thoughtfully and accurately. They will also see that because my answer DOES NOT agree with your conclusions, you have resorted to accusations. I suggest that you go back and read what I’ve provided more slowly and thoughtfully this time.
You have not said what 1 Samuel 13:1s says all you have done is repeat it and then said it does not mean a plan. If it is not a plan of any kind at any time in God's Mind then what was it?
Please answer.
If you go on deviating your comment will be deleted. Since you refuse to engage honestly.
@gracetruthguy Well your habitual desire for eisegesis extends beyond scripture (of no surprise). "An observation is an accusation to those who will not face the truth" is another accusation by an accuser.
@gracetruthguy Words have meanings (to some of us anyway). There is a point when conversation becomes unfruitful. We’ve come to that point. Here is my conclusion. I will not continue to respond to your foolishness. When you refuse to correctly understand "would have" in 1 Sam 13:13, there is no need for further conversation. You embrace a heresy exposed long ago and you cling to it. You alone will have to bear the burden of doing such. I will pray that God opens your eyes. Blessings!
God knows all that is knowable. The future is fixed of the things He plans to happen and those He permits to happen.
God made no promise to Saul to be king forever, only that it had been his plan (unstated). David understood this so when he handed his kingdom to Solomon he told him if he rebelled God would reject him, but the diference this time is that God would still find another from David's descendants to reign as He stated it.
@gracetruthguy You said, “Of course God did not know. That is what the Scripture reveals to us.” W-R-O-N-G! You support the “Open Theism” heresy denying God's sovereignty (His Omniscience, Omnipotence, and Omnipresence). Such is blasphemy. Salvation is of the LORD. He doesn’t subject His sovereignty to the unregenerate free-will of man (which is actually held in bondage by Satan). He saves, PERIOD. He also doesn’t share His glory with any man. Too many attempt to teach before they learn!
@gracetruthguy No. The Bible does not teach that God learns. You have a very low view of our Holy God and you make Him to be in the image of a fallen sinful man. Continue to reveal yourself.
@gracetruthguy (Of course God did not know. That is what the Scripture reveals to us.) (He did declare it for David AFTER all of that. & He did that by ensuring Jesus would be born from David's line.) How could that be possible see God does not know the future any prophecy would be a blind stab in the dark. I guess God got lucky. God didn't even know if David would have any children for him to have a line.
If you do not understand another's viewpoint or appreciation of prophesy within that then your comment is no surprise.
A prophecy is part of God's expressed/stated plans.
God did not state beforehand that he had the plan for Saul mentioned in 1 Sam.13:13 so He was not bound to it.
Isaiah 46:10 tells us what the end from the beginning is = the STATED plan of God and they only BECOME so in reality because He ensures they come about:
@MyTreasureThouArt you cry out, "exegesis", but all you've done is eisigetically insert YOUR Calvinism theology into the Scriptures, cry out "exegesis" and you're suppose to be right? No, you have not done ANY exegesis off the Text. Just FYI.
@apollos6640 – What brings you here today? Seeking truth? An argument? Are you a concerned brother or sister in the faith? When you comment in the manner in which you have, you place yourself in the same category as those who: are easily given over to anger, those who stir up strife and those who oppose the truth. The scriptures are clear. They endure. This may cause you discomfort. You may not like it. So with you, which is it? 2 Timothy 2:15 or Proverbs 18:2?
All I see here is you expressing what is in your heart and as apollos mentioned you have yet to exegete 1 Samuel 13:13 to say what is meant by "the Lord would have established Saul's kingdom over Israel forever"
Is this an expression of a plan of God or is it not?
@gracetruthguy If we are to examine ourselves (2 Corinthians 13:5), perhaps the right question to ask is, "Who is levying accusations and ultimatums?" I could use your tactics (i.e., wake up Jacques) but I haven't. I have gone to the scriptures and you and your friend apollos appear to believe otherwise.
The thing, I have answers for all the passages you have cited. You only have to browse the videos I have done: an answer to John 15:16 an answer to Romans 3, an answer to Ephesians 2:1, etcetera
I am not answering them in these comments with you because you have yet to say what you think the words mean in 1 Samuel 13:13
And you are not examining yourself in this regard is the appearance that you give. You appear to deny this and avoid this Scripture.
"Also it is not good for a soul to be without knowledge, and he sins who hastens with his feet." Proverbs 19:2
In your haste with your fingers you display your lack of knowledge.
I trust you're not suggesting 1 Samuel 13:13 is a plan in the mind of a man.
That would really be twisting Scripture.
If Isaiah 46:10 reveals anything it is that it is the DECLARED plans of God that stand. Undeclared ones - like 1 Samuel 13:13 - are real, but show none were for David till after.
1. Yes, the Lord would have established Saul’s kingdom over Israel forever and
2. No, it was not the Lord’s plan to establish Saul’s kingdom over Israel forever.
My straight-forward answer doesn’t make it easier for you to understand. Does it? You see a contradiction in my statements. I see no contradiction. Both statements exist in complete harmony with the whole of scripture. What God “WOULD HAVE” does not indicate what God “HAS” decreed or planned.
@gracetruthguy - 1. I think I still reserve the right to delete my comments as I desire (a YouTube policy). You oppose that too?
2. Agreed, Scripture doesn’t contradict itself. You however, stray from sound biblical teaching.
3. I don’t desire to reciprocate by accusing you of being my enemy (nor would I of any Christian who may only misunderstand what the scripture teach).
You asked, “Anything else?” Certainly! Your YouTube channel reveals error upon error. Surprised?
- We do disagree on what constitutes sound biblical teaching
- Who mentioned Augustine? I am not talking about Augustine. I haven't referred to his writings. Rather than introduce issues that you have with other Christians, let's stay on track by going to the Scriptures (and not Augustine).
- "Anything else is from the enemy." asserts that I am his camp. No you force me to say, “Please don't insult my intelligence.”
@MyTreasureThouArt - Typo Corrections: - "Anything else is from the enemy." asserts that I am in his camp. Now you force me to say, “Please don't insult my intelligence.”
@gracetruthguy - It was N-O-T, repeating N-O-T, God's plan to establish Saul's kingdom forever. You cannot conclude such unless you are IMPOSING your bias on 1 Sam 13:13. You can play your "immature rebuke game" all day long (I'm referring to your mishandling of 1 John 1:5). Perhaps you should ask yourself, "Why is Ken saying that "It was N-O-T God's plan to establish Saul's kingdom forever" before giving yourself another testosterone injection.
@gracetruthguy learn what those to little words "would have" mean and do not mean in context please. You are doing the "two-step shuffle" with "would have." I have only been honest with you throughout our conversation. You assert otherwise and thus play the role of accuser.
"And Samuel saith unto Saul, `Thou hast been foolish; thou hast not kept the command of Jehovah thy God, which He commanded thee, for now had Jehovah established thy kingdom over Israel unto the age; and, now, thy kingdom doth not stand, Jehovah hath sought for Himself a man according to His own heart, and Jehovah chargeth him for leader over His people, for thou hast not kept that which Jehovah commanded thee' " Young's
God had no plan for David hence "sought" (till after Saul's).
@MyTreasureThouArt You don't have to be rude friend. My apologies, but none of the options you mentioned brought me here today. You were in the Wrong, and needed to be informed. Does that offend you? Has your pride driven you to a state of depravity where you now think you cannot POSSIBLY be wrong? Yes the Scriptures ARE clear friend, but you're not really interested in "the Scriptures" are you? Monergistic regeneration is what you're interested in.
@apollos6640 Continue to add insult and accusations to your injurious error. Only one of us has supported our comments with scripture. That person wasn’t you. Certainly I can be wrong and I frequently am. Are you? You say I am not interested in the Scriptures yet I seem to be the only one going to them. I’ve noticed (by way of your Channel page), that when you are not accusing me you appear to be busily accusing other Christians. One of us needs to be informed. On that I will agree.
@gracetruthguy Again, not trying to be adversarial here but you DID NOT answer my questions and I don't look toward Jaques More's eisegesis as having relevance to anything I have said thus far. More's teachings are saturated in his ignorance and his mind and itchy ears held captive by mainstream Arminian and Pelagian heresy. Do you have anything to say that's free from the bondage of Jacques More's folly?
@gracetruthguy Again, Luke 19:26 says nothing of the sort! You are pressing your ideas into the text. And we are not talking about Augustine. We are talking about freewill, which you have yet to prove.
Isaiah 64:6 “all our righteousnesses are like filthy rags”
Context is everything. Who is the ‘our’ here?
Verse 5 also says this to God “You meet him who rejoices and does righteousness, who remembers You in Your ways” thus pointing to the fact that there are also those.
@gracetruthguy Yes, and the context is, you cannot be righteous! Only Christ is righteous. So, either that verse contradicts each other, or you are wrong! Which is it?
Compared to idols of gold and silver God sure does a lot more! Psalm 115:3 is not a proof text that God can make a square circle or anything else you want to make him do!
Paul did give permission.
See my vid:
"Paul's teaching of conditional predestination - Jacques More"
@gracetruthguy That is not the point. Uh, last I checked, there is no such thing as a "square circle", so, that is just a silly straw man. God does what He pleases. Again, you cant deal with that verse, because it contradicts you. And Paul did not give permission, and looking at your video doesnt prove he did. There is nothing in scripture to that effect.
And it is impossible for Him to impose His will on the unwilling: He makes sure which way they have chosen BEFORE He makes use of them or determines their destiny.
God only works all things into good to those who love Him. They love Him and THEN He works all things into good. The predestination is an extention of that working all things into good AFTER He sees love in the heart as per Romans 8:27 AFTER searching the heart
@gracetruthguy Have you not read, We love Him, because HE FIRST loved us!! (Spoken to believers of course) 1John 4:19. There is NO ONE who seeks God, no one who is good, NO NOT ONE! Romans 3:11. You need to get over yourself. Its not about you! Its about HIM!
@gracetruthguy You arent showing me anything. You saying I am out of context, doesnt mean it is so. Like i said, your videos are not proof. Your theology, is heresy!
I am not just saying it is out of context I am pointing you where I demonstrate this is so. If you do not see it, then that is your freedom, but I have answered.
You can believe anything you like, it does not make it so. I provide evidence or point you to it. All you are now giving is invectives.
I thought the servant of the Lord was "apt to teach"
Compared to idols of gold and silver God sure does a lot more! Psalm 115:3 is not a proof text that God can make a square circle or anything else you want to make him do!
Paul did give permission.
See my vid:
"Paul's teaching of conditional predestination - Jacques More"
@gracetruthguy Those who do what? What are you talking about? My version of Romans 9 does not show God as being unrighteous. Maybe you should read verses 19-23, which talks about your argument about God being unjust. Who are you O man, to talk back to God? Its as if Paul knew your argument long ago.
Hi Haukman66, I said: “Jn1:13 Young “who -- not of blood nor of a will of flesh, nor of a will of man but -- of God were begotten” The will of man is NOT involved in the BIRTHING Bur BEFORE THAT authority TO BECOME a child of God is made V12 And who gets that? Those who do what?” You say, “Those who do what? What are you talking about?” What does Verse 12 say? You know, what happens BEFORE the birthing?
@gracetruthguy Those who "receive" Him. The text does not tell you how they received Him, until verse 13! They were born of God! Just as you had no power over your first birth as a baby, you do not have power over your being born again! John 3:8. How does one believe? Phil. 1:29. Or 1Cor. 12:3-No one can say Jesus is Lord, except by the Holy Spirit. Its not your own doing my friend. Its all God.
hey gret video , what is the debate he mentions at the begining?
Scottles293 7 months ago
@RationalEnquirer In the Greek there is only one possibility (((Grace, saved, and faith))) are all the gift. Just b/c we are saved THROUGH faith does not mean that the faith we are saved THROUGH is not also a gift.
1689Baptist 7 months ago
To gracetruthguy,-1Sam13;13- Hello, If I have a son and he is going to school, i have put him my self on this path to learn,but he is not too smart, he has bad discipline in teaching himself, and i know ,that his ability is not good enough to become the professor at a university, i could anyway tell him that if he would get to the university and be a professor, i would stand behind him and give him all of my money to support him. -Continue...
roman959 1 year ago
Comment removed
roman959 1 year ago
Comment removed
roman959 1 year ago
Comment removed
roman959 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
but since i know my son's ability, i know he will not get to the university and become a professor, so i had already made different plans for him to be a carpenter. And if my wife come to him, after he fails the school after some years, she can tell him that I would support him if he would get to the university and become a professor, and she would not be lying. It would be true, i would support him at university..- continue..
roman959 1 year ago
Comment removed
roman959 1 year ago
I think the point God said and did in 1sam13;13 is to teach all mankind that God WOULD -,build kingdom there, if Saul or the people were able, but they will fail with out God. Remember it was out of rebelion 1Sam8:20,that they wanted a king over them, and God gave them one Saul, but God knew,Saul is not able, but he wanted to tech the people that only in His time He make things beautiful. Roman
roman959 1 year ago
Hi roman959,
God says in 1 Samuel 13:13 "He would have" if He knew He would not, then He would not have.
gracetruthguy 1 year ago
@gracetruthguy - God really would, but the condition stand on Saul's reaction to God's law. God chose Saul to be king, he must have know if Saul will obey or not. Or God dont know the future? God knew that Christ will be killed and how would be killed in details, so he must have also knew that Saul will not obey. But if Saul WOULD obey than God WOULD set up the kingdom. Roman
roman959 1 year ago
Hi roman959,
God knows only the knowable,. The future known by Him is all the knowable future including that which He has planned and therefroe ensures comes about. But that is nto everythign that happens.
Either we are free agents to the limits that exist or we are not free agents at all.
It is in the areas of freedom that God does not know the outcome. Just as He is also free to make new decisions. so we are free within limits.
God "would have" means that He did not know...
gracetruthguy 1 year ago
@gracetruthguy Are you starting that nonsense again? "God knows only the knowable," It is impossible for to ensure anything in the future without knowing/decreeing the future, there are to many variables that could change the future that God could not possibly know. A leaf blowing could have caused David not to be born. What happens when one of these variables mess things up for God, does He rewind the world real quick to fix it, and we just don't know about it?
1689Baptist 1 year ago
Hi 1689Baptist,
I am responding to a comment made to me.
God in the bible reveals Himself to us as He is, not as per the doctrine that Augustine began in the 5th centrury.
God tests to know is clear in Scripture "that He might know all that was in his heart" 2 Chronicles 32:31
God either would have established Saul's kingdom over Israel forever or He would not?
1 Samuel 13:13
The Scriputre says He would have.
Calvinism (Augustine dogma) says O no, He woudn't!
gracetruthguy 1 year ago
@gracetruthguy
God is all knowing, and knows everything that is going to happen before it happens, he even knows who will be written in the book of life and who won't. This doesn't mean we don't have free will, its just that God is not caught in the frame of time that we are. He has seen everything; but, knowing everything, isn't the same as making us puppets.
He knows the thoughts we'll have tomorrow, our next step, our next sin. However, knowing this, he still lets us walk free.
Myhopeisinhim 1 year ago
Hi Patiricia,
You're free to believe that.
I don't because I cannot read that in my bible.
Have a look at my video on 1 Samuel 13:13 and you will see why the bible shows us there is a range of things unknown to God until they occur.
The God you're describing is of Greek origin and not of the bible.
gracetruthguy 1 year ago
Comment removed
roman959 1 year ago
Faith is the gift of God, especially in this sense, that no man can have faith apart from the operation of God. This, by definition, means that it is not something we can do on our own. Add to that that this operation is unmerited, and it is evident that faith is a gift.
What those who deny this assertion are counter-asserting, is that faith is possible to the natural man. The Cannons of Orange have stated, that this makes all men, in some measure, believers.
Studier101 1 year ago
@Paul1T2Day Thank you for your input I have debated gracetruthguy before, I do not trust his ability in "Greek & Hebrew". Unfortunately I am ignorant in them also so I must rely on men like James white.You seem to have a good grasp on Greek are you going to school for it? Also what is the NA27 text?
God Bless
1689Baptist 1 year ago
@1689Baptist NA27 should be the 27th edition of the Nestle-Alan, an edition of the Critical Text family of Manuscripts, if I am correct (I have studied textual transmission a bit, but I don't know Greek).
Studier101 1 year ago
Hi Paul1T2Day,
Take a look at the video here with one very good example:
"Quick Answers to Calvinists Ephesians 2:8-9 - Jacques More"
gracetruthguy 1 year ago
Hi Paul1T2Day,
When the grammar of Paul demonstrates a practise which diverges from the explained Grammar of others I submit to the former not the latter.
gracetruthguy 1 year ago
@gracetruthguy James 2:5- Listen my beloved brethren:did not God choose the poor of this world to be rich in faith and heirs to the kingdom which He promised to those who love him?
Hmmm...did God choose, and give faith here? I think so.
Haukman66 1 year ago
Hi Haukman66,
Young’s
Hearken, my brethren beloved, did not God choose the poor of this world, rich in faith, and heirs of the reign that He promised to those loving Him?
This tells us the poor of the world are those who are rich in faith and that God makes heirs among them of those who love Him; not that all the poor inclusively are saved, but a great many. The passage is about the poor versus the rich and our attitudes to them.
Faith is their attribute; not God’s gift.
gracetruthguy 1 year ago
@gracetruthguy again, you try and make salvation meritorious. Is there room for boasting, if I decide to believe in Christ? YEaH! But Eph. says there is NO ROOM for boasting.
Haukman66 1 year ago
@Paul1T2Day
Hmm! Thank you God Bless. Oh, explain this to gracetruthguy who disagrees in the comment above. LOL
1689Baptist 1 year ago
@1689Baptist There is a much more in-depth discussion of the use of this pronoun and James White has already dismantled his assertion on this very topic. I will see if I can find the video. Don't be deceived. Anyone can assert just about anything on you tube. It doesn't mean they are accurate.
TheologicalMatters 1 year ago
@TheologicalMatters If you can find this video I would love to see it. God Bless
1689Baptist 1 year ago
Hi 1689Baptist,
The demonstrative pronoun (DP) issue is not about its gender i.e. that it is in the neutral and not the preceding words, but that it is in the singular and can only refer to 1 item preceding. Paul uses the DP elsewhere in the plural when wanting to refer to more than 1 item.
See my video "Quick Answers to Calvinists Ephesians 2:8-9 - Jacques More"
gracetruthguy 1 year ago
@gracetruthguy
Sorry, I think White knows more about it than you do.
1689Baptist 1 year ago
Hi 1689Baptist,
Well did Jesus say "Wisdom is justified of her children"
You would rather believe what supports your chosen belief than see if the grammar is correct.
I challenge you to ask James why "kai tauta" in 1 Corinthians 6:8 is in the plural and it is not in Ephesians 2:8-9
gracetruthguy 1 year ago
@gracetruthguy "You would rather believe what supports your chosen belief than see if the grammar is correct." Let the attacks begin! LOL
TheologicalMatters 1 year ago
@gracetruthguy maybe you can tell me what Romans 12:3 means? For through the grace given to me I say to everyone among you(believers) not to think more highly of himself than he ought to think; but to think so as to have sound judgement, as God has allotted to each a measure of faith. This text alone says faith is given from God. Now, I would like to see you argue genders on this one. LOL.
Haukman66 1 year ago
@Haukman66
Hey, God Bless. I am sending this from my phone. Cool huh!
1689Baptist 1 year ago
@1689Baptist yes, pretty cool. Look at you with the high technology!! LOL.
Haukman66 1 year ago
Hi Haukman66,
Please quote me as to making any argument for genders.
The grace Paul was given was to teach and lead as an apostle. The faith given to the believers in Romans 12 is in respect of the abilities God gives and is not about salvation. And yes, it is to existing believers.
gracetruthguy 1 year ago
@gracetruthguy it has to do with faith! The word is FAITH. And it has been given to them, as well as the gifts. Nice try, trying to dance around it.
Haukman66 1 year ago
Hi Haukman66,
The point is faith for what?
The passage is about faith for gifts not faith for salvation:
“Having then gifts differing according to the grace that is given to us” Romans 12:6
There is nothing in the passage about salvation. Period.
gracetruthguy 1 year ago
@gracetruthguy The point is, the faith was given! Either way, God has given to each a measure of faith! Also, the fruits of the spirit, what are they? Galatians 5:22-Love, joy, peace, long-suffering, kindness, goodness, faith, You do know, that a "fruit", is a product of the vine? Fruit doesnt come about on its own. LOL.
Haukman66 1 year ago
Hi Haukman66,
Yes, it is explicit God gives gifts to His children. These are already believers and to them faith is given FOR the purpose of GIFTS/abilities to benefit the Body.
It is NOT faith for salvation. The passage does NOT discuss salvation.
Fruit comes from a fruit bearer. Becoming a fruit bearer is from a willing vessel. Those not willing to bear fruit are cut off and burned Jesus said.
gracetruthguy 1 year ago
@gracetruthguy Why is it that God must give them faith FOR the purpose of GIFTS/abilities to benefit the Body, but the sinner without God dead in trespasses and sin has the MOST IMPORTANT faith naturally?
1689Baptist 1 year ago
Hi Haukman66,
God is a giver. He gives life to all. He gives gifts to all. No one has any ability except given from Him.
More so His children. They get gifts to do stuff!
No sinner is dead without sinning. The Greek is clear that it is the sin that makes us the sinner: sinning divides us from God: separates = death.
See my vid:
"Quick Answers to Calvinists Ephesians 2:1 - Jacques More"
So that none is so dead as to not be able to choose as Jesus says in Luke 19:26
gracetruthguy 1 year ago
@gracetruthguy You may want to check your bible bro. Luke 19:26 says nothing about being able to choose salvation. You are trying to press your idea on the text. I doesnt work. Can you show me from scripture, that "sinning, makes us a sinner"?
Haukman66 1 year ago
Hi Haukman66,
I recall pointing you to my video on Ephesians 2:1
Please explain where it does not reply to the question?
Can you see it already says sinning makes you dead? If not, why not?
gracetruthguy 1 year ago
@Haukman66 You said, "So that none is so dead as to not be able to choose as Jesus says in Luke 19:26". I say, Luke 19:26 says nothing of the sort! Also, Your video does not prove anything. Bring proof from scripture.
Haukman66 1 year ago
Hi Haukman66,
I’m glad you brought that up. It is explicit salvation is a free gift.
“it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast.” Ephesians 2:8-9
But it is obtained through faith is also explicit.
And faith is a choice: As many as received him He - THEN - gave the right to become children of God. John 1:12
And choice at that stage is not a work.
But as to meritorious:
"With the merciful You will show Yourself merciful" 2 Samuel 22:26
What is that?
gracetruthguy 1 year ago
@gracetruthguy Maybe you should read that verse again! but as many as did receive him TO THEM he gave authority to become sons of God -- to those believing in his name. And then the next verse is also hurtful to your idea, verse 13- who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man(this means your freewill), BUT OF GOD.
2Sam. 22:26? God has mercy on whom He will have mercy- Romans 9:15, and those who actually have mercy, are those whom God has given grace!
Haukman66 1 year ago
Hi Haukman66,
To as many as crossed the finishing line to them were given medals.
How is TO THEM illustrative of giving something BEFORE they finished the race?
Similarly the rebirth occurs AFTER the authority to become a child of God is released, and just because its occurrence is all of God – just like the giving of medals is not done by the receiver of them – how is it helpful to a belief that all this happens BEFORE the race can even start?
gracetruthguy 1 year ago
@gracetruthguy John 3 teaches the new birth comes first.
1689Baptist 1 year ago
Hi Haukman66,
Yes, new birth comes before one can see or enter into the kingdom of God.
But before birth there is conception and gestation.
John 1:9 and 1:12 speak about the gestation time.
John 1:13 the rebirth.
Then – AFTER ALL THAT – one can come to Jesus consciously knowing Him by name as the saviour of the world and Lord.
It is in the forming of the spirit (as per a womb) that receiving releases the authority to BECOME children of God – See Zechariah12:1
gracetruthguy 1 year ago
@gracetruthguy Do you even listen to what you are saying? LOL. John 1:9- Jesus is the light of the world. And He is the one, who enlightens men, and that means, all men, know enough about God to be responsible. This is NOT about salvation. It means, that even those who die, never hearing of Jesus, will be responsible. And John 1:13 IS the rebirth, but you still havent acknowledged, it was by the will of God, not of man!
Haukman66 1 year ago
Hi Haukman66,
To the contrary you persist in not reading me. Or, indeed replying honestly.
I recall you not replying to my question.
You had said “you try and make salvation meritorious”
And I replied:
But as to meritorious:
“With the merciful You will show Yourself merciful” 2 Samuel 22:26
What is that?
gracetruthguy 1 year ago
@gracetruthguy Well you give me an answer that is in context on John 1, and I will answer your silly question on 2Sam. 22:26. No, I will just say now, that God will have mercy on whom He will have mercy, as Romans 9 makes it clear. Those who are merciful, are those whom God has bestowed His grace upon, which means "unmerited favor". Now address to me, what John 1 means, when it says, not by the will of man, but of God.
Haukman66 1 year ago
Hi Haukman66,
Sure, John 1:13 is all about the rebirth. It does not thereby disqualify what happens BEFORE that birth. It appears you are having a mental/spiritual block on this
To whom did Paul state God said “I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy”?
And how it is IN THAT CONTEXT inconsistent with 2 Sam.22:26?
See my vid:
"Quick Answers to Calvinists Romans 9:14-16 - Jacques More"
So is it meritorious in Samuel or not?
gracetruthguy 1 year ago
@gracetruthguy what happens before the rebirth? Do you will? NO. The text tells us, its NOT by the will of man.
Paul was speaking about Jacob and Esau, but was making the point, that God has mercy on whom HE chooses, not because of what they have done as verse 11 so clearly states.
Again, your videos dont prove anything. Quit trying to point to them as proof.
No, it is not meritorious, if it is God who has caused us to be merciful. Ever read John 15:5? LOL.
Haukman66 1 year ago
gracetruthguy 1 year ago
John 15 like Romans 12 is not about salvation.
gracetruthguy 1 year ago
@gracetruthguy I never said, John 15 was about salvation. Quit trying to put words into my mouth. Its about fruit, and we can not do anything without Christ. So, is being merciful a fruit? Or are men born being merciful?
Haukman66 1 year ago
Hi Haukman66,
Men are born free to decide to be merciful or not. If you decide to be merciful then you connect yourself to the vine and God enables you further. This is the whole deal with Luke 19:26 we all have, but what we do with it decides what happens next.
If you decide to deny mercy to another then you cut yourself off from the vine and source of life: your reward is just.
Have you not read how it is people who were in the vine who are cut off from the vine?
gracetruthguy 1 year ago
@gracetruthguy You do have a poor understanding of the bible. Can you give me a verse that tells us, Men are born free to decide? And you keep using Luke 19:26-I tell you that to everyone who has, more will be given, but from the one who has not, even what he has will be taken away. What does that have to do, with the topic? Please elaborate...
Haukman66 1 year ago
Hi Haukman66,
That very verse tells you that all (without exception) ‘have’ and in context of the parable of the ‘talents’ including the eternal destiny mentioned, it is also about salvation.
So that very verse Luke 19:26 tells us we are free to decide and it is that decision that either releases more or causes you to lose that which you were given in the 1st place.
Up until Augustine the universal teaching in the church was of synergism.
gracetruthguy 1 year ago
@gracetruthguy I am curious, You say that the "universal" teaching prior to Augustine in the church was synergism? OK, specifically "WHO" are those who that you are citing that taught synergism prior to Augustine (spanning the time between the Apostles and Augustine) and how do you conclude such was "universally" taught?
Next question, how do you conclude that Luke 19:26 should applied to salvation? Do you know the varying teachings on that passage of scripture? Just curious.
MyTreasureThouArt 1 year ago
Hi Ken – MTTA,
Have a look at my vid:
"Augustine began 'Calvinism' - Jacques More"
And look for the quote from Prof Fisher
Now, if the story Jesus gives is a parallel to his own rule and return, then his words here are about eternal death:
“bring here those enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, and slay them before me.” V.27
gracetruthguy 1 year ago
@gracetruthguy ???
MyTreasureThouArt 1 year ago
Hi Ken,
Please clarify what it is you need help with.
That is, if you want to understand my position.
gracetruthguy 1 year ago
@gracetruthguy Also, let’s imagine as you have said, “the universal teaching in the church was of synergism.” Does that statement (and that's NOT to affirm that synergism was orthodox teaching) prove the veracity of any doctrine? The church went through “Dark-Ages.” Why were they called "Dark?" We have 400 years of silence between the O.T and N.T. Also In the O.T. there were times when the Word of God was not available to the people (2 Kings 22:8, 13 and 2 Chronicles 34:14). Continued.
MyTreasureThouArt 1 year ago
@gracetruthguy So I'm saying though false teaching may be wide-spread re: God, Man, Salvation, etc., we must affirm: 1. Heresy existed/exists throughout history & 2. We shouldn’t attempt to justify the veracity of doctrine by "universal acceptance" (which isn't really because no teaching is really universally taught or universally accepted as you can see). I'm reminded that "safety in numbers” doesn’t work. See Prov. 11:21 & 16:5 “…though hand join in hand, he shall not be unpunished.”
MyTreasureThouArt 1 year ago
Hi Ken,
The point really is that as Greek was little used by the beginning of the 5th century it was easy for the enemy to come in and begin this new teaching in the Church that "free will is not" which Augustine introduced.
Is it any wonder that there was thereafter a dark ages?
Following the mistranslaiton of the Scripture since Augi.
C this vid:
"Quick Answers to Calvinists The Elect - Jacques More"
At the end of the day it is the original Scripture we build sound doctrine on
gracetruthguy 1 year ago
@gracetruthguy - I’m not interested in watching anything by Jacques More. I've watched two of his videos. They oppose sound biblical teaching. It would literally take me more than an hour to respond thoughtfully to the false teaching in even one of his videos. I'm not trying to be adversarial or cruel gracetruthguy. I'm telling you the truth as our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ would have us do. Based on what I have heard him say till now, I must conclude that Jacques More is a wolf.
MyTreasureThouArt 1 year ago
Hi Ken,
You are free to do what you will.
But, if you want to engage in commenting, then expect an appropriate response. I have done that.
Biblical teaching is that one must be 'apt to teach' IF you are a servant of the Lord. I have. If you believe that my teaching differs from Scripture you need to demonstrate that.
You can bring a horse to water, but you can't make them drink.
How about my vid about open theism:
"1 Samuel 13:13 - Proof Positive of Open Theism -- Jacques More"
gracetruthguy 1 year ago
@gracetruthguy I listened to More's audio on Open Theism. More and you are in eisegesis. For me to deal thoughtfully with such gross mishandling of scripture would take more time than I can commit to here right now. What I can do with my limited time and space is offer scripture disproving the heresies of Open Theism, Synergism etc. as well as supporting Sovereignty, Monergism, etc. (or both).
MyTreasureThouArt 1 year ago
@MyTreasureThouArt "are engaging in eisegesis" that is.
MyTreasureThouArt 1 year ago
Hi Ken,
I understood (but disagree)
:0)
gracetruthguy 1 year ago
Hi Ken,
So tell us, Do you believe that God:
Would have established Saul’s kingdom over Israel forever?
If yes, then you can throw monergism out of the window with the Plato like thinking Augustine introduced in the Church.
If no, then do you really believe the bible?
gracetruthguy 1 year ago
@gracetruthguy – It was NOT God's will to establish Saul's kingdom over Israel forever. Where is Saul’s kingdom today? When you assert that if I answer “No” it can only mean that I do not believe God’s Word you are, again, incorrect. I affirm Sola Scriptura and I do not question God’s Word. I DO QUESTION your understanding of it.
MyTreasureThouArt 1 year ago
Hi MyTreasureThouArt,
Samuel says:
"the LORD would have established your kingdom over Israel forever" 1 Samuel 13:13
You say:
"It was NOT God's will to establish Saul's kingdom over Israel forever"
Which is true?
I believe the Bible
gracetruthguy 1 year ago
@gracetruthguy Bummer! I believe the Bible too so it seems we have a quandary. To assert that if I disagree with you that I am in error is not necessarily true. As I said earlier, the dilemma is not the Word of God therefore we have what appear to be 3 possibilities here. They are: 1. I am wrong, 2.You are wrong, or 3. We are both wrong. So where do we go from here? (Continued)
MyTreasureThouArt 1 year ago
@gracetruthguy Continuation - "for now would the LORD have established thy kingdom upon Israel for ever." does not suggest:
1. That it was God’s sovereign will to establish Saul’s kingdom. Saul’s kingdom was not established forever
2. That Saul had “free-will” in his unregenerate state to interact synergistically
Your conclusions about the verse 1 Samuel 13:13 are not exegetical, nor are they in accordance with the whole of Scripture. Jesus shows us the error of such in Matthew 4:4
MyTreasureThouArt 1 year ago
Hi MyTreasureThouArt,
Let me get this straight
1 - The Bible, God's Word tells us the Lord would have established Saul's kingdom over Israel forever
And you are saying:
2 - This was never God's will in any way or form.
Am I right so far?
Please correct whichever portion.
gracetruthguy 1 year ago
@gracetruthguy - What I understand to be contextual in 1 Sam 13:13 is Saul’s failure to obey brings the end of his kingdom. In Israel the kingship itself is under the authority of the word of God. Saul didn’t regard Samuel as God’s providential messenger nor did he listen to/obey God's word. “W-H-Y” he didn't recognize and obey is not addressed in this verse. You want me to conclude that Saul “could have” recognized/obeyed. I don't because such is a hasty assumption imposed upon the text.
MyTreasureThouArt 1 year ago
Hi MyTreasureThouArt,
Please don't beat about the bush or deceive yourself.
Please answer the question:
Is, the Lord would have established Saul's kingdom forever a will of God in any way or at any time?
Yes or no?
gracetruthguy 1 year ago
@gracetruthguy - You and I know what Samuel said. We come to unlike conclusions. Your citation of 1 Sam 13:13b a “partial scripture verse,” neither makes a doctrine nor suggests that reprobate Saul could have chosen differently apart from God FIRST mercifully intervening (Eze. 11:19 & 20) GIVING MAN A NEW SPIRIT so that he may afterward keep God’s statutes (vs. 20). You're confident in reprobate man’s ability to overcome spiritual death by obedience whereas I am not (Gal 3:24 and Rom 3:20).
MyTreasureThouArt 1 year ago
Hi MyTreasureThouArt,
I know what "the Lord would have etablished your kingdom over Israel forever" says, yes.
It says in my natural reading that God had a plan for king Saul to remain king and his descendants.
Please clarify what you think it says?
gracetruthguy 1 year ago
@gracetruthguy – I’ve clarified it two posts ago. Your "natural reading" (eisegesis) claims that God's plan's change based on unregenerate man's free-will. Scripture doesn't support it. Psa. 33:11 - "The counsel of the Lord stands forever, The plans of His heart from generation to generation." Man is spiritually dead unless God grants repentance, leading him to the knowledge of the truth. Man comes to his senses & escapes the snare of the devil because of salvation (and not before).
MyTreasureThouArt 1 year ago
@gracetruthguy (continued) - Question . . . Do you think John 15:16 is universally true of all believers? Jesus said, "You did not choose Me but I chose you, and appointed you that you would go and bear fruit, and that your fruit would remain, so that whatever you ask of the Father in My name He may give to you."
MyTreasureThouArt 1 year ago
@gracetruthguy – Your assertion that because Samuel said, “…for now the Lord would have established your kingdom over Israel forever” doesn’t mean that Saul could have changed the course of events via his (Saul’s) free will (continued).
MyTreasureThouArt 1 year ago
@gracetruthguy – Such a misunderstanding reminds me of the conversation that Abraham had with God in Genesis 18:20-33. Abraham asked God to spare Sodom if he, Abraham, found even 10 righteous (down from the original 50 of course). Who was spared? Not even one more? Is this synergism in action? Is it the best that man's free will has to offer? Salvation is of the LORD and NOT by the synergistic free will decision from man (continued).
MyTreasureThouArt 1 year ago
@gracetruthguy – Might God have said that He would spare Sodom if Abraham had found even 10 righteous have more to do with teaching Abraham the same truth we have presented to us in Prov 3:5-6 and not an imagined inherent willingness found in the heart or mind of any unregenerate individual? Why do so many fail to recognize the "inanimate" nature of death and credit God wholly for salvation? Thus we have wheat, tares, servants & the Householder who will separate both according to “His will.”
MyTreasureThouArt 1 year ago
Dear Ken,
Please don’t insult my intelligence.
You are deliberately avoiding to answer the very basic question what 1 Samuel 13:13 says.
It is not about Saul and his ability.
It is about God and a plan He had.
If you cannot say this then you are deceived and deceiving yourself that you might perhaps believe in sola scriptura
Because you do not.
You believe doctrine that imposes upon you to filter the Scripture by it.
As Jesus said wisdom is justified of her children
gracetruthguy 1 year ago
@gracetruthguy Well, I have answered your question. I just haven't answered it in the manner that agrees with your dogma. If you feel this insults your intelligence then what is left for me to say? I will say that your issuing ultimatums, "If you cannot say..." and accusations "You believe doctrine that imposes...” isn’t a spiritual answer to the original question, Monergism or Synergism? For what it is worth, I do not question God's plans, just your interpretation of them.
MyTreasureThouArt 1 year ago
Hi MyTreasureThouArt,
No that is not the truth.
The truth is I have asked you to say what this says:
"The Lord would have established your kingdom over Israel forever"
Please tell us.
You have not answered the question.
gracetruthguy 1 year ago
@gracetruthguy You really believe God did not know what Saul was going to do?
Woulda, coulda, shoulda makes no difference when the deed is done, all things being the same Saul would have done the same thing over again, he could not have done differently then he did all things being the same. So this in no way means God had to change His mind b/c Saul did not do what God thought he would do so God had to implement plan B. No, Gods decree came about perfectly. This was a condemnation for Saul.
1689Baptist 1 year ago
Hi 1689Baptist,
Of course God did not know. That is what the Scripture reveals to us.
God tells us He had a plan for Saul.
God tells us He will not carry that plan out.
Why?
Because Saul rebelled to such an extent God could not follow through on that plan without dishonouring His name.
But note! God did not declare B4 that He would make Saul's dynasty to last. He did declare it for David AFTER all of that.
& He did that by ensuring Jesus would be born from David's line.
gracetruthguy 1 year ago
@gracetruthguy CORRECTION. God DID NOT tell us He had a plan for Saul here. You did by imposing your conclusion upon the text (eisegesis). When Samuel says, God "would have" that SIMPLY DOES NOT INSIST that God had any intent to establish Saul's kingdom forever. God's plans and purposes prevail. A simple "word study" on God's plans and purposes affirms this.
MyTreasureThouArt 1 year ago
Hi Ken,
"the LORD would have established your kingdom over Israel forever" reads like a planned intent, does it not?
I have asked you to say what this says.
You have deviated from a straight reply.
gracetruthguy 1 year ago
@gracetruthguy No. Again, you err. I HAVE NOT deviated from a straight reply. You, again, accuse me of doing such. Accusations do not make a truth. Anyone may simply read my responses to you to see that I have answered you thoughtfully and accurately. They will also see that because my answer DOES NOT agree with your conclusions, you have resorted to accusations. I suggest that you go back and read what I’ve provided more slowly and thoughtfully this time.
MyTreasureThouArt 1 year ago
Hi Ken,
You have not said what 1 Samuel 13:1s says all you have done is repeat it and then said it does not mean a plan. If it is not a plan of any kind at any time in God's Mind then what was it?
Please answer.
If you go on deviating your comment will be deleted. Since you refuse to engage honestly.
gracetruthguy 1 year ago
@gracetruthguy - "...Since you refuse to engage honestly." Another accusation. Who is the accuser of the brethren?
MyTreasureThouArt 1 year ago
Hi Ken,
If you were honest you would say what 1 Samuel 13:13 says.
An observation is an accusation to those who will not face the truth
gracetruthguy 1 year ago
@gracetruthguy Well your habitual desire for eisegesis extends beyond scripture (of no surprise). "An observation is an accusation to those who will not face the truth" is another accusation by an accuser.
MyTreasureThouArt 1 year ago
Hi Ken,
Since you do not know me or the tone in which I say things how can you tell if what I say is not an observation?
gracetruthguy 1 year ago
@gracetruthguy Words have meanings (to some of us anyway). There is a point when conversation becomes unfruitful. We’ve come to that point. Here is my conclusion. I will not continue to respond to your foolishness. When you refuse to correctly understand "would have" in 1 Sam 13:13, there is no need for further conversation. You embrace a heresy exposed long ago and you cling to it. You alone will have to bear the burden of doing such. I will pray that God opens your eyes. Blessings!
MyTreasureThouArt 1 year ago
Hi Ken,
You are free to do what you will as am I.
But it does not mean they are honest or the truth because we are doing them.
Deception is believing something is of God or true when it is not.
When you cannot face a text in its simple language then to not question your doctrine which differs is ground for re-examining what you believe.
"Now I know", "that He might know", and a stated plan that is now no longer possible all point to a truth you are not facing.
gracetruthguy 1 year ago
@gracetruthguy Again, how could God keep the promise to Saul when He does not know the future.
1689Baptist 1 year ago
Hi 1689Baptist,
God knows all that is knowable. The future is fixed of the things He plans to happen and those He permits to happen.
God made no promise to Saul to be king forever, only that it had been his plan (unstated). David understood this so when he handed his kingdom to Solomon he told him if he rebelled God would reject him, but the diference this time is that God would still find another from David's descendants to reign as He stated it.
gracetruthguy 1 year ago
Comment removed
roman959 1 year ago
Comment removed
roman959 1 year ago
Comment removed
roman959 1 year ago
@gracetruthguy You said, “Of course God did not know. That is what the Scripture reveals to us.” W-R-O-N-G! You support the “Open Theism” heresy denying God's sovereignty (His Omniscience, Omnipotence, and Omnipresence). Such is blasphemy. Salvation is of the LORD. He doesn’t subject His sovereignty to the unregenerate free-will of man (which is actually held in bondage by Satan). He saves, PERIOD. He also doesn’t share His glory with any man. Too many attempt to teach before they learn!
MyTreasureThouArt 1 year ago
Hi Ken,
The Bible shows us that God learns.
You cannot see this because your Scripture is not the bible but a doctrine imposed on the bible.
1 Samuel 13:13 shows us a plan of God. You deny it. You deny the bible.
An observation
". . . God withdrew from him, in order to test him, that He might know all that was in his heart.
2 Chronicles 32:31
Who wants to know Ken?
What does the text actually say?
gracetruthguy 1 year ago
@gracetruthguy No. The Bible does not teach that God learns. You have a very low view of our Holy God and you make Him to be in the image of a fallen sinful man. Continue to reveal yourself.
MyTreasureThouArt 1 year ago
Hi MyTreasureThouArt,
"that He might know" 2 Chronicles 32:31
gracetruthguy 1 year ago
@gracetruthguy (Of course God did not know. That is what the Scripture reveals to us.) (He did declare it for David AFTER all of that. & He did that by ensuring Jesus would be born from David's line.) How could that be possible see God does not know the future any prophecy would be a blind stab in the dark. I guess God got lucky. God didn't even know if David would have any children for him to have a line.
1689Baptist 1 year ago
Hi 1689Baptist,
If you do not understand another's viewpoint or appreciation of prophesy within that then your comment is no surprise.
A prophecy is part of God's expressed/stated plans.
God did not state beforehand that he had the plan for Saul mentioned in 1 Sam.13:13 so He was not bound to it.
Isaiah 46:10 tells us what the end from the beginning is = the STATED plan of God and they only BECOME so in reality because He ensures they come about:
V.11
I will also bring it to pass
gracetruthguy 1 year ago
@MyTreasureThouArt you cry out, "exegesis", but all you've done is eisigetically insert YOUR Calvinism theology into the Scriptures, cry out "exegesis" and you're suppose to be right? No, you have not done ANY exegesis off the Text. Just FYI.
apollos6640 1 year ago
@apollos6640 – What brings you here today? Seeking truth? An argument? Are you a concerned brother or sister in the faith? When you comment in the manner in which you have, you place yourself in the same category as those who: are easily given over to anger, those who stir up strife and those who oppose the truth. The scriptures are clear. They endure. This may cause you discomfort. You may not like it. So with you, which is it? 2 Timothy 2:15 or Proverbs 18:2?
MyTreasureThouArt 1 year ago
Hi MyTreasureThouArt,
All I see here is you expressing what is in your heart and as apollos mentioned you have yet to exegete 1 Samuel 13:13 to say what is meant by "the Lord would have established Saul's kingdom over Israel forever"
Is this an expression of a plan of God or is it not?
Who is expressing his own heart here?
Wake up Ken!
gracetruthguy 1 year ago
@gracetruthguy If we are to examine ourselves (2 Corinthians 13:5), perhaps the right question to ask is, "Who is levying accusations and ultimatums?" I could use your tactics (i.e., wake up Jacques) but I haven't. I have gone to the scriptures and you and your friend apollos appear to believe otherwise.
MyTreasureThouArt 1 year ago
Hi MyTreasureThouArt,
The thing, I have answers for all the passages you have cited. You only have to browse the videos I have done: an answer to John 15:16 an answer to Romans 3, an answer to Ephesians 2:1, etcetera
I am not answering them in these comments with you because you have yet to say what you think the words mean in 1 Samuel 13:13
And you are not examining yourself in this regard is the appearance that you give. You appear to deny this and avoid this Scripture.
gracetruthguy 1 year ago
Comment removed
MyTreasureThouArt 1 year ago
Hi Ken,
"Also it is not good for a soul to be without knowledge, and he sins who hastens with his feet." Proverbs 19:2
In your haste with your fingers you display your lack of knowledge.
I trust you're not suggesting 1 Samuel 13:13 is a plan in the mind of a man.
That would really be twisting Scripture.
If Isaiah 46:10 reveals anything it is that it is the DECLARED plans of God that stand. Undeclared ones - like 1 Samuel 13:13 - are real, but show none were for David till after.
gracetruthguy 1 year ago
Comment removed
MyTreasureThouArt 1 year ago
Comment removed
MyTreasureThouArt 1 year ago
@gracetruthguy
1. Yes, the Lord would have established Saul’s kingdom over Israel forever and
2. No, it was not the Lord’s plan to establish Saul’s kingdom over Israel forever.
My straight-forward answer doesn’t make it easier for you to understand. Does it? You see a contradiction in my statements. I see no contradiction. Both statements exist in complete harmony with the whole of scripture. What God “WOULD HAVE” does not indicate what God “HAS” decreed or planned.
MyTreasureThouArt 1 year ago
Hi Ken,
U deleted commments B4 I could reply.
With this one you show the confusion the enemy is into.
Scripture does not contradict itself.
God reveals a plan he had for Saul in saying "He would have established Saul's kingdom over Israel forever"
It is imposssivle for Him to decree something else as you say in contradiction to a plan he declares he had.
He either had a plan for it or He did not.
That is the God of the Bible.
Anything else is from the enemy.
gracetruthguy 1 year ago
@gracetruthguy - 1. I think I still reserve the right to delete my comments as I desire (a YouTube policy). You oppose that too?
2. Agreed, Scripture doesn’t contradict itself. You however, stray from sound biblical teaching.
3. I don’t desire to reciprocate by accusing you of being my enemy (nor would I of any Christian who may only misunderstand what the scripture teach).
You asked, “Anything else?” Certainly! Your YouTube channel reveals error upon error. Surprised?
MyTreasureThouArt 1 year ago
Hi Ken,
I just made an observation that you deleted (I did not judge).
2. Good to C we agree, but I would say you stray from sound biblical teaching.
Or, the doctrine you hold which Augustine inroduced in opposition to previous teaching.
3. I did not call you my enemy, but speak of the Devil as our enemy and the one who teaches false doctrine (1 Timothy 4:1).
So, what does 1 Samuel 13:13 say please?
gracetruthguy 1 year ago
@gracetruthguy -
- Your quote/unquote observation has an agenda
- We do disagree on what constitutes sound biblical teaching
- Who mentioned Augustine? I am not talking about Augustine. I haven't referred to his writings. Rather than introduce issues that you have with other Christians, let's stay on track by going to the Scriptures (and not Augustine).
- "Anything else is from the enemy." asserts that I am his camp. No you force me to say, “Please don't insult my intelligence.”
MyTreasureThouArt 1 year ago
@MyTreasureThouArt - Typo Corrections: - "Anything else is from the enemy." asserts that I am in his camp. Now you force me to say, “Please don't insult my intelligence.”
MyTreasureThouArt 1 year ago
Hi Ken,
No, no agenda, a simple honest observation.
I am sticking to Scripture in that I am asking you to reply to mention what 1 Samuel 13:13 means and you deviate persistently.
Either God had a plan of He did not is THE context of my saying "Anything else is from the enemy" that is an observation of fact.
It is either one or the other: not both.
Both is from the enemy. period.
God is not light and in him is some darkness! (1 John 1:5)
gracetruthguy 1 year ago
@gracetruthguy - It was N-O-T, repeating N-O-T, God's plan to establish Saul's kingdom forever. You cannot conclude such unless you are IMPOSING your bias on 1 Sam 13:13. You can play your "immature rebuke game" all day long (I'm referring to your mishandling of 1 John 1:5). Perhaps you should ask yourself, "Why is Ken saying that "It was N-O-T God's plan to establish Saul's kingdom forever" before giving yourself another testosterone injection.
MyTreasureThouArt 1 year ago
Hi Ken,
What bias is there in the simple reading that God says He would have established Saul's kingdom over Israel forever?
Which you deny?
How can you say it's true, and then say it is not at the same time?
Please choose and be honest.
gracetruthguy 1 year ago
@gracetruthguy learn what those to little words "would have" mean and do not mean in context please. You are doing the "two-step shuffle" with "would have." I have only been honest with you throughout our conversation. You assert otherwise and thus play the role of accuser.
MyTreasureThouArt 1 year ago
Hi Ken,
"And Samuel saith unto Saul, `Thou hast been foolish; thou hast not kept the command of Jehovah thy God, which He commanded thee, for now had Jehovah established thy kingdom over Israel unto the age; and, now, thy kingdom doth not stand, Jehovah hath sought for Himself a man according to His own heart, and Jehovah chargeth him for leader over His people, for thou hast not kept that which Jehovah commanded thee' " Young's
God had no plan for David hence "sought" (till after Saul's).
gracetruthguy 1 year ago
@gracetruthguy It is hard not to get angry when we see what you all do to the Attributes of God.
1689Baptist 1 year ago
@MyTreasureThouArt You don't have to be rude friend. My apologies, but none of the options you mentioned brought me here today. You were in the Wrong, and needed to be informed. Does that offend you? Has your pride driven you to a state of depravity where you now think you cannot POSSIBLY be wrong? Yes the Scriptures ARE clear friend, but you're not really interested in "the Scriptures" are you? Monergistic regeneration is what you're interested in.
apollos6640 1 year ago
@apollos6640 Monergism is not wrong, it is God and God Alone, Scripture is clear.
1689Baptist 1 year ago
@apollos6640 Continue to add insult and accusations to your injurious error. Only one of us has supported our comments with scripture. That person wasn’t you. Certainly I can be wrong and I frequently am. Are you? You say I am not interested in the Scriptures yet I seem to be the only one going to them. I’ve noticed (by way of your Channel page), that when you are not accusing me you appear to be busily accusing other Christians. One of us needs to be informed. On that I will agree.
MyTreasureThouArt 1 year ago
@gracetruthguy Again, not trying to be adversarial here but you DID NOT answer my questions and I don't look toward Jaques More's eisegesis as having relevance to anything I have said thus far. More's teachings are saturated in his ignorance and his mind and itchy ears held captive by mainstream Arminian and Pelagian heresy. Do you have anything to say that's free from the bondage of Jacques More's folly?
MyTreasureThouArt 1 year ago
Hi Ken,
Looking again I read your questions as answered.
How about 1 at a time? Ask again and I'll demonstrate.
gracetruthguy 1 year ago
@gracetruthguy Again, Luke 19:26 says nothing of the sort! You are pressing your ideas into the text. And we are not talking about Augustine. We are talking about freewill, which you have yet to prove.
Haukman66 1 year ago
Hi Haukman66,
Since Jesus tells us that the ruler says the wicked servant could have, then is that so or not?
gracetruthguy 1 year ago
@gracetruthguy You are really reaching on this one dude. Sorry, but you picked the wrong parable, to "try" and prove your point. Epic Fail.
Haukman66 1 year ago
Hi Haukman66,
So is that a yes or a no?
Could the wicked servant have done good or not?
I read the ruler says he could!
gracetruthguy 1 year ago
@gracetruthguy no, he couldnt! Even our most righteous deeds are filthy rags! Isaiah 64:6. Refuted!
Haukman66 1 year ago
Hi Haukman66,
Isaiah 64:6 “all our righteousnesses are like filthy rags”
Context is everything. Who is the ‘our’ here?
Verse 5 also says this to God “You meet him who rejoices and does righteousness, who remembers You in Your ways” thus pointing to the fact that there are also those.
A text out of context is a pretext
gracetruthguy 1 year ago
@gracetruthguy Yes, and the context is, you cannot be righteous! Only Christ is righteous. So, either that verse contradicts each other, or you are wrong! Which is it?
Haukman66 1 year ago
Hi Haukman66,
Not the text says "our" and the context limits it by pointing to the fact that not all are like that.
So yes, your reading of that text is inaccurate.
Have you not read:
"One man among a thousand I have found, but a woman among all these I have not found. Truly, this only I have found:
That God made man upright, but they have sought out many schemes" Ecc.7:28-29
In context: during observation of life it is noted that GOD MADE MAN UPRIGHT, but they go on to sin soon.
gracetruthguy 1 year ago
Hi Haukman66,
Compared to idols of gold and silver God sure does a lot more! Psalm 115:3 is not a proof text that God can make a square circle or anything else you want to make him do!
Paul did give permission.
See my vid:
"Paul's teaching of conditional predestination - Jacques More"
gracetruthguy 1 year ago
@gracetruthguy That is not the point. Uh, last I checked, there is no such thing as a "square circle", so, that is just a silly straw man. God does what He pleases. Again, you cant deal with that verse, because it contradicts you. And Paul did not give permission, and looking at your video doesnt prove he did. There is nothing in scripture to that effect.
Haukman66 1 year ago
Hi Haukman66,
No. God will not do anything against His nature.
And it is impossible for Him to impose His will on the unwilling: He makes sure which way they have chosen BEFORE He makes use of them or determines their destiny.
God only works all things into good to those who love Him. They love Him and THEN He works all things into good. The predestination is an extention of that working all things into good AFTER He sees love in the heart as per Romans 8:27 AFTER searching the heart
gracetruthguy 1 year ago
@gracetruthguy Have you not read, We love Him, because HE FIRST loved us!! (Spoken to believers of course) 1John 4:19. There is NO ONE who seeks God, no one who is good, NO NOT ONE! Romans 3:11. You need to get over yourself. Its not about you! Its about HIM!
Haukman66 1 year ago
Hi Haukman66,
Of course He first loved us, He created us.
As for Romans 3 I recommend my vid:
"Quick Answers to Calvinists Romans 3 - Jacques More"
Again you quote out of context!
gracetruthguy 1 year ago
@gracetruthguy You arent showing me anything. You saying I am out of context, doesnt mean it is so. Like i said, your videos are not proof. Your theology, is heresy!
Haukman66 1 year ago
Hi Haukman66,
I am not just saying it is out of context I am pointing you where I demonstrate this is so. If you do not see it, then that is your freedom, but I have answered.
You can believe anything you like, it does not make it so. I provide evidence or point you to it. All you are now giving is invectives.
I thought the servant of the Lord was "apt to teach"
I certainly am.
gracetruthguy 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Hi Haukman66,
Compared to idols of gold and silver God sure does a lot more! Psalm 115:3 is not a proof text that God can make a square circle or anything else you want to make him do!
Paul did give permission.
See my vid:
"Paul's teaching of conditional predestination - Jacques More"
gracetruthguy 1 year ago
@gracetruthguy Those who do what? What are you talking about? My version of Romans 9 does not show God as being unrighteous. Maybe you should read verses 19-23, which talks about your argument about God being unjust. Who are you O man, to talk back to God? Its as if Paul knew your argument long ago.
Haukman66 1 year ago
gracetruthguy 1 year ago
@gracetruthguy Those who "receive" Him. The text does not tell you how they received Him, until verse 13! They were born of God! Just as you had no power over your first birth as a baby, you do not have power over your being born again! John 3:8. How does one believe? Phil. 1:29. Or 1Cor. 12:3-No one can say Jesus is Lord, except by the Holy Spirit. Its not your own doing my friend. Its all God.
Haukman66 1 year ago
Hi Haukman66,
You cannot have the rebirth occur before the authority to become children of God is released.
And the authority to become children of God is released AFTER the reception mentioned.
All embrios ‘eat’ and embibe the nourishment to become fully formed in the womb before birth.
The spirit of man is formed by God (Zec.12:1) as we make good decisions (Ezek. 18:31; Rom.8:26-28) to release Him to transform us B4 rebirth…
gracetruthguy 1 year ago