Quick Answers to Calvinists Ephesians 2:8-9 - Jacques More

[ronathanedwards]

Wallace - ," τοῦτο REGULARLY takes a CONCEPTUAL antecedent."

You are arguing against a basic use of the word, and totally ignoring the fact that 1 Cor 6:8 uses the singular to refer to plural events (concept). Also grace points TO the participle and faith points back AND is the immediate antecedent to touto. Why are you ignoring Wallace's statement? It's a basic factual statement concerning exactly what we are talking about.

[gracetruthguy]

Hi Ron,

Why are you ignoring KAI TAUTA elsewhere?

1 Timothy 5:7 "And these things command" refers to numerous commands

John 16:3 "And these things they will do to you" multiple types of persecutions

[ronathanedwards]

@gracetruthguy Still ignoring Wallace are we? I think he knows more about the Greek than you do.

You're argument is non sequitur. If plural pronouns refer to pluralities THEREFORE singular MUST always refer to singulars. You don't understand the language or it's uses. Plurals to refer to plurals, I've already told you that, I haven't ignored it at all. You are only deflecting, a sign of a failed argument. So, what about Wallace? What about 1 Cor. 6:8?

[gracetruthguy]

Hi Ron

I'm sure he does know more Gk than me

But since I believe in sola sciptura I defer to the Word where it differs from others

1 Cor.6:8 appears with a difference in regards to transmission so - as u know - I have pointed to other undisputed examples which thereby show the argument stands

You cannot base a doctrine on a point of grammar that shows even just 1 example in the opposite directtion

[ronathanedwards]

@gracetruthguy Wallace believes in sola scriptura also, sorry not a good answer. You haven't shown an example in opposition, that's your problem, you don't understand. That's why you should take Greek 101 and stop pretending that you know what you are talking about.

[gracetruthguy]

Hi Ron,

I haven't forgotten you.

[ronathanedwards]

@gracetruthguy great!

I haven't forgotten you either.

[ronathanedwards]

Romans 12:20 is one of the MANY verses I can give you. Paul uses the singular neuter touto to refer to what? Feeding or giving him something to drink? It can't be both, right? Phil 1:19, "THIS will turn out for my deliverance": their prayers, or the help of Jesus? THIS is singular... so it can only refer to the prayers or the help of Jesus... so... what is it?

[gracetruthguy]

Hi Ron

R12:20 TOUTO refers to "not avenge yourselves" the overall reaction

Phil.1:19 TOUTO refers to "affliction" V.16 the 'persecution' would turn out for Paul's good - his deliverance/salvation - as it made the saints pray and release Jesus' Spirit

[ronathanedwards]

@gracetruthguy Rom 12:20, so, by "not doing nothing" you heap coals on their heads.... I don't think so, it is the ACTION of feeding and giving them drink that causes them to have "coals heaped on their head" not a passive non-action which does not require a reaction.

The persecution would turn out for Paul's... what? "good"?... Pride is amazing. The word is DELIVERANCE. The persecution isn't what delivered Paul! LOL Replace "this" with "imprisonment" and read it. Prayer, Spirit delivers

[gracetruthguy]

Hi Ron,

Do you realise the confusion you display?

"not doing nothing" is doing something

THIS refers to the overall ACT of NOT exacting revenge AND instead doing the opposite

Read the context

Don't you know that deceiving spirits teach out of context all the time and then string these up to make you and all saints believe false dogma?

[ronathanedwards]

@gracetruthguy Sorry, again not dealing with the obvious. Even read any commentary and see what they refer to, also, I'm getting a hoot out of you not touching PHil 1:19 ! I guess if I ever want to be delivered, I'll get imprisoned since it is the ACT of imprisonment that delivers ! Pride makes people look so silly sometimes.

[gracetruthguy]

Hi Ron,

I haven't forgotten you.

[gracetruthguy]

Hi Ron,

I trust you are well.

U "You are . . . ignoring the fact that 1 Cor 6:8 uses the singular to refer to plural events"

It is KAI TAUTA in 1 Cor.6:8 the plural

Since this is fact, KAI TOUTO Paul wants seen as referring to 1 thing only.

Are you prepared to suggest that salvation is not a gift?

[ronathanedwards]

@gracetruthguy We went over this before, the much more reliable texts have the singular touto in 1 Cor 6.8. You are only using the weakest, minuscule evidence not because it is the best (because it is faulty) but because it scratches your itching ears.

Paul refers to the whole concept in Eph. 2:8-9. Grace, Salvation and Faith. You don't have ONE leg to stand on grammatically, sorry bud....

[gracetruthguy]

Hi Ron,

Happy New Year to you.

As I recall I also gave you a number of other biblical examples and since this one exists among equals, even if only in very few Greek manuscripts, then as far as you are concerned, its value continues and its truth stands.

[ronathanedwards]

@gracetruthguy And as I stated before, your other examples do not apply to the Ephesians account. Therefore, they do not lend anything to the argument. The "very few" manuscripts do not hold they are not the "truth" the reliable evidence shows that what you are using for "truth" is unreliable text. The overwhelming evidence is that Paul used the singular to represent the CONCEPT (which is singular) which involves a plurality of ideas. This is represented in Ephesians and 1 Cor.

[gracetruthguy]

Hi Ron,

Here is what I previously wrote:

'So, just to simplify things look up KAI TAUTA in less disputed passages and see that it refers to multiple things THUS - point is made - KAI TOUTO is for single referencing:

1 Timothy 5:7 "And these things command" refers to numerous commands

John 16:3 "And these things they will do to you" multiple types of persecutions'

Thus singular for singular and plural for plural.

A grammar rule that contradicts the Scriptrure shows it is invalid

[patriotsfan1379]

this makes no sense if salvation is the gift than faith must be a work because believing GOD its hard it is not easy it cannot be done by human strength it would fail like we all do this is easy to see unless you are a pridefull humanist ewho insist on thinking that you can maintain faith of your own and even if it was a response it could not have happened unless GOD started it first by showing grace in any case GOD is first cause this guy is a humanist

[gracetruthguy]

Hi patriotsfan1379, James says synergism is involved "Draw near to God and He will draw near to you" 4:8 Ezekiel clarifies "The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not bear the guilt of the father" 18:20 No one is guilty because of their parent Paul: "death spread to all men, because all sinned" Rom.5:12 Adam began to sin, but it is our own sin that renders us guilty "the free will is not" dogma began with Augi cf: my vid "Augustine began 'Calvinism' - Jacques More"

[patriotsfan1379]

@gracetruthguy freewill began with the bible 'rom;8;6,7,8 ' the mind set on the flesh its hostile to the things of GOD it cannot subject itslf to the law all the verses you point out to are for believers and to believers only not to pagans there is no free will common sense can tell you that pride will hide it from you thought the creature can never be autonomous from its creator and sustainer in HIM we move and have our being

[gracetruthguy]

Hi patriotsfan1379,

"'Come now, and let us reason together,' Says the LORD,

'Though your sins are like scarlet, they shall be as white as snow' " Isaiah 1:18

Only applicable to believing Jews?

Did not Paul write ALL Scripture is profitable for doctrine?

Have you read

"God made man upright, but they have sought out many schemes" Ecclesiastes 7:29

We are born upright

The elect don't exist

C my Vid "Quick Answers to Calvinists The Elect - Jacques More"

[patriotsfan1379]

@gracetruthguy GOD is talking to Israel through HIS prophet Isaiah we are to learn from the jews and through the HOLY SPIRTS empowerment not make the same mistakes in that sense it profitable but why is it that they sought many schemes? because sin decieves us into thinking that the choice we are about to make its the right choice we are slaves to sin rom; ch;9 so that GOD election according to HIS purpose might stand not according to works jacob I loved not Esau

[gracetruthguy]

Hi patriotsfan1379,

Paul also quoted "The older shall serve the younger" Romans 9:12

I challenge you to quote where Esau at any time served Jacob

The nation of Edom (from Esau) served Israel (from Jacob); Esau did not serve Jacob.

Paul's "Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated" is from Malachi ABOUT the 2 nations

R9:13

Will you answer the challenge?

C "Quick Answers to Calvinists Romans 9:11-13 - Jacques More"

[patriotsfan1379]

@gracetruthguy are you calling GOD a lier? are you saying that what GOD said in scripture did not happened ?just because scripture does not tell us every single detail on every mans life are we to assume therefore GOD lied ?scripture tells us as much as we need to know about whomever it is talking about!!!!! from the begining of ch;9 paul is talking about individuals not nations isaac was elected not ishmael even tho they were both sons jacob not esau it is talking about a spiritual decendants

[gracetruthguy]

Hi patriotsfan1379,

God is not a liar

But, are you denying the nation is in view in Malachi?

Election of the nation of Israel is in view in having Isaac over Ishmael & Jacob over Esau

And there is no inference that either Ishmael or Esau are lost

Children of promise involves salvation of individuals too, but that is by adoption not unconditional election.

Both the elect nation and children of promise are mentioned in R9

The elect nation is in view from the START of R9!

[patriotsfan1379]

@gracetruthguy even tho malachi is talking about 2 nations its not the intended use in rom;;9 because than verses 19 throgh 24 would make no sense these vessels were prepared for destruction not mercy from the begining of ch;9 its talking about election towards mercy hebrews 12 says esau was unholy and immoral that being said he was not saved sorry no dice your points make no sense

[gracetruthguy]

Hi patriotsfan1379,

If you read me carefully you would note that I stated BOTH the election of the nation and chidlren of promise are in R9

So verses 19-24 do make sense

I agree, though Esau's salvation is not directly inferred (as lost) in R9, it points him out as one without faith elsewhere.

The point remains that NO ONE IS - AFORE PREPARED [1 Greek verb] - for destruction.

"Fitted for destruction" as Young's Literal better puts it: they become that way

[patriotsfan1379]

@gracetruthguy no no no you and young twist scripture GOD is the potter HE molds not they become that way you are totally out of context your though its foreign to what its being said otherwise the question its useless why does HE still find fault?will what its molded say to its molder 'why have you made me like this? again you argument does not stand you keep bringing all these greek verbs but in the way you are using them the paragraph would make no sense no no no no

[gracetruthguy]

Hi patriotsfan1379,

If you would care to read me carefully you would see this is not so.

1st no one is aforeprepared for destruction.

2nd those who persist in wickedness are THEN moulded into vessels for destruction for God's purposes in the nations. C R9:17

God chooses delusions AFTER they show themselves with unbelief:

"God will send them strong delusion . . . who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness." 2 Thess.2:11-12

FITTED not AFORE PREPARED

[patriotsfan1379]

@gracetruthguy through issac who would be saved according to GODS puspouse in election you find that unfair? the bible also makes it clear that out of 1 lump GOD has made vessels for wrath and some for mercy ephesians ch ;1;1.13 also talks about election rom 8;28,29 those whom HE foreknew HE also predestined and only those none other

[gracetruthguy]

Hi patriotsfan1379,

Paul clarifies his lump of clay illustration by using 2 SEPARATE GREEK VERBS "vessels of wrath PREPARED for destruction" and "vessels of mercy, which He had PREPARED BEFOREHAND for glory" R9:22-23

i.e. NO ONE is AFORE PREPARED for destruction.

Eph.1 by the use of "US, WE" speaks about election of the group

Romans 8:26-30 is Paul's teaching of conditional predestination

C my vid

"Paul's teaching of conditional predestination - Jacques More"

[patriotsfan1379]

@gracetruthguy again 1 lump 2 different vessels the potter has dominion over bouth 1 for destruction otherwise the question is useless """why have you made me like this? but who are you oh man to argue with the maker also who can ressist HIS will implicates GODS will can be forced upon us in other words NO FREEWILL

[gracetruthguy]

Hi patriotsfan1379,

If you want to read into the text what it does not give, yes, sure I could agree

But, that is contrary to God's Modus Operandi and the context

The illustration of lump and clay do not clarify HOW or WHEN these things happen.

Pauls' use of 2 verbs next does.

And his preceding remark that God spoke TO MOSES "I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy" to demontrate that HE acts in rightreousess as per R9:14

His MO is to be merciful to those who are 2 Sam.22:26

[patriotsfan1379]

@gracetruthguy taking verses out of context to make your thought pattern fit does not impress me those things happen before we are born thats common sense the finished product would be after they are molded to fitt whatever design and end GOD has in mind for each vessel if you think that GOD is mercyfull towards you cause there is something in you that atrcts HIM than good luck with that one cause its not biblical like the rest of your theology

[gracetruthguy]

Hi patriotsfan1379,

I have demonstrated that Calvinism takes verses out of context, but you appear not to have seen the evidence I've presented or offered.

Since all we have is given by God in the 1st place (except sin which is our own choosing), then it is not a 'work', but a God given ability to decide for God: faith is a choice.

And ALL have the opportunity as John tells us:

"He is the light that gives light to every man who comes into the world" John 1:9

[patriotsfan1379]

@gracetruthguy all you have demonstrated is how you have totally taken verses out of context and tried to make them fit to your twisted humanist reasoning if all we have is given by GOD how can you say faith its a choice? as far as jhon 1;9 why did you not keep reading?born not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will OF MAN BUT OF GOD talking about taking verses out of context you really messed up here hahahahahaah really if i was you i would be shamed to respond

[gracetruthguy]

Hi patriotsfan1379,

Do you think you're the 1st person to suggest John 1:13 helps Calvinism?

All it says is the birthing is God's doing.

But the conception prior to that is man's doing since ONLY those who receive Him He THEN gave the right to become children of God. Or have you not read Vese 12?

Do you not realise that this is proof positive that the right to become a child of God does not happen before someone's lifetime? Since it happens AFTER a reception has been made.

[patriotsfan1379]

@gracetruthguy no am done with you i see thaty you are not a christian but just an enlighted HUMANIST who no matter what wants man to have glory that the bible ascribes only to GOD salvation is of the LORD the bible teaches but you say it begins with man naaa am done with you THE NATURAL MAN CANNOT UNDERSTAND THE THINGS OF GOD FOR TO HIM THEY ARE FOOLISHNESS and you are the perfect example of that only GOD can save you from your deception enlighted humanist

[gracetruthguy]

Hi patriotsfan1379,

So, as is regularly the fruit of those who cannot reply intelligently to arguments you resort to insults?

The spiritual man is able to discern and thereby teach

For Paul also said the servant of the Lord must be apt to teach.

It is in public view that this is my practise in my comments and referred videos.

[patriotsfan1379]

@gracetruthguy wow i have never seen any one twist scripture like that even after it says not of mans will but of the will of GOD if mans will its not involved than he cannot recieve WOW TOTALLY AMAZING THE WAY YOU TWIST SCRIPTURRE ENLIGHTED HUMANIST YOU LOST DUDE IT IS ONLY PRIDE THAT DECIEVES YOU

[gracetruthguy]

Hi patriotsfan1379,

For one who has already said "no am done with you", you do not hold true to your word.

It is in publice view that you appear to be so full of what you want to believe that you have not objectively looked at my responese nor to have referred to the videos I recommended.

And that, sadly, are fruits of someone who is deceived.

Did you know that the one who is deceived does not believe he is?

So look at the fruits and C if u can ask the Lord to help you C this..

[patriotsfan1379]

@gracetruthguy MAN youare twisted conditional predestination???? hahhahhahahahahhahha eph 1 yea election of a group but not all humanity only those being elected were predestined before the foundation of the world none other your points again are weak

[gracetruthguy]

Hi patriotsfan1379,

What is weak is to argue from what appears to be a pre-recorded mode and not information presented.

Have you even looked at the recommended videos?

I challenge you to look at my video on Paul's teaching of condtional pedestination and you tell me where you've read of that before.

Did U C the video on Augustine & Calvinism?

The elect?

C this one too:

"Quick Answers to Calvinists Ephesians 1 - Jacques More"

[patriotsfan1379]

@gracetruthguy if you got rom;9 wrong why would i want to see those vds i used to think like you but now i know i hated reformed theology and i cant say i like it now but it is what it is if you want to believe that way thats you i know for a fact i have no freewill even when i try to do what i want to do i find that GOD either restraintsme against my will or frustrates my plans or changes my desires but i know its not me if you want to rely on your own goodness than so be it

[gracetruthguy]

Hi patriotsfan1379,

If Draw near to God and He will draw near to you means anything then it means I need God daily and every moment to help me do right, but I need to ask.

This is the synergism taught in the bible.

If you read me in full then you could see there is another way through the Scripture.

Do you really think God contradicts the fact that it is on the merciful He has mercy?

2 Sam.2:26

Did Jesus get it wrong?

Blessed are the merciful for THEY shall inherit mercy

[patriotsfan1379]

@gracetruthguy so you are saying than that without mercy it is impossible to reach GOD but the bible teaches it is faith and at that GOD given faith not human also people can be mercyfull for the wrong reasons oh but yea i forgot you don't think sin or satan or the world can decieve you cause you have freewill huh? now thats something to laugh about hahahahah

[gracetruthguy]

Hi patriotsfan1379,

"With the merciful You will show Yourself merciful" 2 Samuel 22:26

"All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine" 2 Timothy 3:16

"Do not be deceived, God is not mocked; for whatever a man sows, that he will also reap" Galatians 6:7

"God, who 'will render to each one according to his deeds' eternal life to those who by patient continuance in doing good seek for glory, honor, and immortality" Romans 2:5-7

Faith inside = good fruit

[patriotsfan1379]

@gracetruthguy there is none righteous no not one none who understan none who does good all have turned away they have all become useless there IS NONE WHO SEEK AFTER GOD NO NOT ONE but this is not you you are pridefull if you think you are good of your own

[gracetruthguy]

Hi patriotsfan1379,

Take a good look at this video and see that you are not reading Paul in context:

"Quick Answers to Calvinists Romans 3 - Jacques More"

[ronathanedwards]

If Paul were referring to Salvation he would have used the masculine pronoun. When speaking of the GIFT (single) If He referred to "these" He would have then said "gifts". But it is quite normal to use a singular for many things within one phrase. If I gave you a gift basket of fruits and chocolates in a basket, I would say THIS is a gift not THESE are a gift. The neuter is your problem since salvation is masculine, it doesn't work. The neuter refers to all three.

[gracetruthguy]

Hi Ron,

I agree that in English you can say "this is a gift" as well as "these are a gift" when referring to many things given: whichever is the normal use of the person saying it.

You offer no scripture examples for your argument of the gender in regards to "And this".

The neuter is no problem to Paul as I demonstrate from the Scripture in 1 Corinthians 6:8 referring to preceding verbs as he does in Ephesians 2 where the single verb "to save" is in view.

[ronathanedwards]

@gracetruthguy 1 Co 6:8 ONLY HAS VERBS in it. It is non-sequitur to say: because Paul refers ONLY to verbs in 1 Cor. that He is only talking about the verb in Eph. I can give you hundreds of examples where Paul uses a dem. pronoun to refer to a noun. Does it follow then that Paul is only referring to just the nouns then Eph 2? R U saying Paul didn't refer to GRACE not being a gift?The CONSTRUCT is parallel in 1 Cor. THATS the point. Paul uses a singular to refer to a group as a whole,that's all

[ElasticGiraffe]

@ronathanedwards Of course the demonstrative pronoun refers to a noun, either an explicit noun or an implicit noun(what else would it be referring to?). In this particular case it references an implicit noun, namely the path of salvation the antecedent clause describes. Grace is a gift BY DEFINITION. The clause is not a collective set of ingredients, one of which is faith (this would appear to justify the use of τοῦτο); the clause is a process which God has established for us and apart from us.

[ronathanedwards]

@ElasticGiraffe Yes, and the process is a gift.Everything IN the process is a gift, as I mentioned before. It is a collective. You have to prove otherwise. If I gave you money, took that money and got gas, gave you a car, put the gas in the car, then hired a driver, then had him put you in the car and take you to my house, then when you got there you said "Thanks for the gift". What part in that process WASN'T accomplished by me? FROM Him and through him and to him are ALL THINGS including faith

[ElasticGiraffe]

@ronathanedwards Calvinist ecclesiology is a pitiful afterthought when, throughout Christian history until Reformed theology it seems, ecclesiology was considered essentially tied to and inseparable from soteriology.

"FROM Him and through him and to him are ALL THINGS including faith"

Including sin and death, as well? Or do you want to make those an exception because you're reasoning is so plainly inconsistent? Way to completely disregard the context and butcher the meaning of Romans 11:36.

[ronathanedwards]

@ElasticGiraffe What part of "ALL THINGS" can't you understand?

[ElasticGiraffe]

@ronathanedwards Paul is NOT saying, however, that the aforementioned faith, which is a response to grace, originates with God. It does not. This would imply that faith itself IS grace, but this is not true. Faith is the means that God has determined we appropriate His grace = unconditional election of the body of Christ; conditional election of individuals within that body. The minority interpretation that faith is a distinct gift is unintuitive, forced, and the product of Calvinist eisegesis.

[ronathanedwards]

@ElasticGiraffe Faith is not a "response" to grace, it is a "product" of it. God gives faith to man, it was bought by Christ, this is the new Covenant promise, that God will give man a new heart IN ORDER that He might obey God's commands (which the gospel is a command). God didn't elect an impersonal object put He is PERSONAL. He elects individuals. Sorry, that is your eisegesis. You can't even see that a pronoun refers to each individual word... basic Greek.. tradition blinds.

[ElasticGiraffe]

@ronathanedwards Faith IS a human response to grace -- the grace of the call of the gospel. Of course, God enables all people to have faith through what has been labeled prevenient grace. It only by God's grace that we continue to exist at all, so it is only by God's grace that we can freely receive our salvation. The saints of ancient Israel responded in faith, most notably Abraham. So is that supposed to be some kind of retroactive application of Christ's atoning grace in your Calvinist view?

[ElasticGiraffe]

@ronathanedwards God's election is of corporate nature AND a personal nature. God did not elect a bunch of individual Hebrews. He elected the nation of Israel through Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. God did not arbitrarily elect a bunch of random people to be members of his church. He elected a church. Christians have our elect IN CHRIST because HE is the chosen one of Israel (Isaiah 42:1). We are NOT elect apart from Christ by some extrabiblical hidden decree, but by our union with him as his BRIDE.

[ronathanedwards]

@ElasticGiraffe "extra-biblical" ? Um... We are corporately elected? God elects a "what" or a "whom"? You tell me. What is the DIRECT object God chose US? or Christ? ... Christ is the indirect object, sorry. Extra-biblical? Where is prevenient grace mentioned in the Bible? LOL ... Yeah, the Sheep choose the Shepard, the baby chooses to be born to a certain father before it's a fetus, yeah, the dead chose to be alive, blind can see, deaf decide to hear... yeah, talk about extra- biblical.

[ElasticGiraffe]

@ronathanedwards No Calvinist has a right to accuse another believer of eisegesis or abusing the Greek, when 1. Augustine's theology is radically different from every other more ancient church father, and the good bishop of Hippo didn't even READ the New Testament in Greek; and 2. Reformed doctrines such as double-predestination and limited atonement are SO alien to all other Christian schools of theology, including Calvinism's closest cousin, Lutheranism. You guys are theologically isolated.

[ElasticGiraffe]

@ronathanedwards Don't talk to me about how my interpretation of the text is due to the fact that I'm blinded by "tradition," when most Calvinists refuse to so much as read non-Calvinist theology. Sproul, Piper, Spurgeon, Gill, Packer, Carson, Macarthur, Grudem, Augustine, the deeply disturbed Puritans, and occasionally Luther are the only theological writers worth reading, I suppose. Maybe they should try reading the foremost biblical theologian in the world, N.T. Wright, to get some balance.

[ronathanedwards]

@ElasticGiraffe I have much of his work Elastic, who's presuming now. I respect N.T. but disagree with Him quite a bit also. He's got a "genitve" problem... lol ...

I get a kick out of people giving labels like "foremost biblical theologian in the world" titles... lol , Yet NO ONE will touch (including N.T. ) Pipers book on Romans 9... it stands un-refuted.

If you call the Puritans disturbed, I KNOW you haven't read much of their works, it's a shame. Better than the

[gracetruthguy]

Hi Ron,l

I think you miss the point made.

Pauls uses the plural demonstrative pronoun when referring to more than one thing in Corinthians, thus proving the singular use of it is NOT a reference to many things but one only in Ephesians.

[ronathanedwards]

@gracetruthguy The point wasn't made. You are ignoring the construct used in Corinthians and misunderstanding how it is used in Ephesians. You can't break the rules of grammar for your tradition. Your point is an unsubstantiated assertion at the expense of basic rules of grammar.

[gracetruthguy]

Hi Ron,

"1 Corinthians 6:8 . . .

Here we see Paul using ‘and this - kai touto’ but in the plural ‘KAI TAUTA’ "

quoting video

Point made that the plural is required for more than 1 item to be referred to.

Period.

That is, in simple Greek grammar exemplified by Paul's own use.

It is proof positive that anyone can check that thereby the singular use of "KAI TOUTO" in Ephesians 2:8-9 refers onlny to 1 thing:

Salvation as a free gift

Point made.

[ronathanedwards]

@gracetruthguy First of all the MASSIVE Majority of the manuscripts uses TOUTO in 6:8 which destroys your main argument and supports mine, the xlation is "you do THIS even" Paul groups the acts together which he does many times elsewhere. In Ephesians, if He wanted to refer to salvation he would have used the masculine. But then that would not be consistent with Grace being a gift also. Faith is a gift- Phil 1:29. Therefore he used a neuter to refer to the whole process. Grammar rules!

[gracetruthguy]

Hi ronathanedwards,

The argument is held (by some) that TOUTO is used to cover a range of items referred to.

The very existence of 1 TAUTA is proof positive - when multiple possible references are present - that the Greek grammar is for TOUTO only to refer to 1 item.

The neuter of the demonstrative is also used in ref to a feminine noun (& other genders):

"to you of salvation, and that from God" Philippians 1:28

Neuter THAT referring to Feminine SALVATION

Point made.

[ronathanedwards]

@gracetruthguy TOUTO IS used to cover "a RANGE" of items"within the clause when there are different genders used"!That's my point! Thank you! That's Paul's intention! That's the secondary MAIN reason for the NEUTER!

The existence of 1 Tauta doesn't prove anything except that men make scribal errors. You don't base a doctrinal foundation on a scribal error!The neuter ref to any gender "WHEN THERE ISN'T another differing gender or neuter IN THE CLAUSE"! Phil 1:28 doesn't have differing referents!

[gracetruthguy]

Hi Ron,

You said "if He wanted to refer to salvation he would have used the masculine"

Philippians 1:28 Paul refers to salvation and uses the feminine.

And how many things is he using TOUTO to refer to?

Only ONE

So as you rightly say "Grammar rules!"

Only 1 use TOUTO

More than one use TAUTA

Its not about how many examples there are of the plural use.

It is the FACT that there is one at all that blows out of the water the idea that a singular TOUTO refers to many.

[ronathanedwards]

@gracetruthguy You desperately need to take a Greek 101 class, you are so confused. The participle "saved" in Eph. is a masculine. In Phil. it is the verb which is feminine. You didn't read my last post,Soteria is the ONLY referent, therefore Paul could have used the neuter or the feminine, it wouldn't have mattered. In 1 Cor. Paul uses the SINGULAR to refer to BOTH verbs,Paul does this more than once in his writings. He also does it in Ephesians. If He wanted to single out a word he would have.

[gracetruthguy]

Hi Ron,

Good monring to you.

Say, what is your view of the KJV and the Received Text?

You do realsie that is what KAI TAUTA comes from?

[ronathanedwards]

@gracetruthguy Unless you know the manuscript history, "especially" when it comes to minute variants as this, I wouldn't venture into this. ALL the translators "Erasmus, Scrivener, Stephen, Elzevir" including the Byzantine textform used a VERY late manuscript with VERY, VERY little manuscript tradition to back up the plural use. The manuscripts that back up the singular use are VERY OLD and there are TONS of manuscripts in the tradition. The received text (and you) got this one VERY wrong.

[gracetruthguy]

Hi Ron,

I'm amazed not only at what lengths you go to, to try and avoid a basic grammatical use of KAI TAUTA, but also how you avoid answering straight questions

So, just to simplify things look up KAI TAUTA in less disputed passages and see that it refers to multiple things THUS - point is made - KAI TOUTO is for single referencing:

1 Timothy 5:7 "And these things command" refers to numerous commands

John 16:3 "And these things they will do to you" multiple types of persecutions

[ronathanedwards]

@gracetruthguy I'm not avoiding the grammatical use at all, I understand it. But you are ignoring that Paul uses it different ways. 1 Cor. 6:8 is a prime example, that passage isn't even disputed, the fact is it uses the singular and the same author does the same in Eph. to identify the whole clause as a singular CONCEPT that which is being referred.

Wallace - ," τοῦτο REGULARLY takes a CONCEPTUAL antecedent." Faith is a gift - stop trying to give glory to man for what God has done. Phil 1:29

[gracetruthguy]

Hi Ron,

Ok, "IF" Paul uses the singular - TOUTO - BOTH for many things AND single things referred to, then you cannot use it as an argument either way

Since there are clear uses of KAI TAUTA to refer to many things, I believe any KAI TOUTO claim to a 'many' reference is un-warranted for doctrinal purposes, but the opposite for single references.

Period

Phil.1:29 is as much a mention of faith is a gift to all believers as it is INCLUSIVELY all to particularly suffer for Him

i.e. Nope

[ronathanedwards]

@gracetruthguy Incorrect. You really need learn Greek Syntax. I'm exhausted in trying to teach you very basic rules. I would take the time to take Greek for at least two years before you start posting videos about things which you know little.

You CAN use the argument BOTH ways, like I've been saying many times over, that is the power of the NEUTER, that's what you should be focused on, not the number. Also the genders of the referents in the CLAUSE, THAT is what determines the referent.

[gracetruthguy]

Hi Ron,

Indisputable:

KAI TAUTA is numerously used to denote more than one thing.

Therefore KAI TOUTO cannot be used as proof positive that more than one thing is referred to.

Period.

[ronathanedwards]

You fail since the faith is still a GIFT. It's a simple indicative, it's a fact. All who have faith will suffer for Him to some extent, Jesus promised it 2 Tim 3:12. The application Paul is giving is for every follower of Christ. Our faith is GRANTED to us as much as we are to take his other admonitions from the context. We all are to stand firm, side by side not being afraid of our opponents. I guess that is only for the ones that had their faith "granted" to them..... I don't think so.

[ElasticGiraffe]

@ronathanedwards If Paul were calling πίστεως the gift not of ourselves, the demonstrative pronoun, τοῦτο, would have taken the feminine gender rather than the neuter. I find it ironic that you attempt to discredit the non-Calvinist interpretation by pointing out that σεσῳσμένοι is masculine instead of neuter, yet you did not even consider the fact that πίστεως is feminine instead of neuter! Double-standard, much? τοῦτο refers to the entire clause: τῇ γὰρ χάριτι ἐστε σεσῳσμένοι διὰ πίστεως.

[ronathanedwards]

@ElasticGiraffe That is my argument! It DOES refer to the whole clause. Everything IN the clause is a gift. The Faith, the act of saving, and the grace. Gender agreement is Greek 101. I truly believe you didn't even understand my argument. I KNOW pistews is feminine I KNOW "being saved" is MASCULINE (not feminine which you incorrectly stated) and grace is fem. FAITH is a gift of God, it's not of your OWN DOING like saving and grace.Thanks for the Greek, I read it by sight.

[ElasticGiraffe]

@ronathanedwards Incidentally, if you would like to look up and copy words or verses in Hebrew, Greek, or even the Latin Vulgate rather than transliterating them (which can be kind of clumsy), I suggest using Biblos.

[ronathanedwards]

@ElasticGiraffe I transliterate, like I say "salvation" instead of using the participle because when knowing the verse discussed, just saying the word is enough. Being saved is referring to "salvation". Grammatically Paul is being proper to speak of BEING SAVED as a part of the gift. Biblos... not thanks... I've got Bibleworks 8 and Logos Scholars Platinum, so I'm good.

[ElasticGiraffe]

@ronathanedwards That is why the pronoun takes the neuter gender. It is not referring specifically to the word, σεσῳσμένοι (meaning "saved," not salvation; "salvation" is actually the feminine σωτηρία, so you were incorrect about that, as well), or else it would be the masculine οὗτος.

[ronathanedwards]

@ElasticGiraffe You don't know Greek. σεσωσμενοι is the perfect passive participle of σωζω which is MASCULINE. It is not from σωτηρία.The point of the neuter is to refer to another neuter;or if there is only ONE antecedent(which there are 3 in this verse,so that can't be it);or there is more than one antecedent that are ALL neuter or differing genders in which it refers to all antecedents(which is the case here).THIS is neuter/singular to refer to the whole clause, which is taken as a singular.

[ElasticGiraffe]

@ronathanedwards I do know the Greek. Stop being so damned presumptuous. YOU seemed to be saying it referred to "salvation," which in Koine is σωτηρία, when you replied to gracetruthguy, but now I see you were referring to the entire clause as "salvation," not σεσωσμενοι. If Paul were saying, "Grace and faith and salvation are the gifts of God," then he would have said so. Rather he said that the path of salvation, grace through faith in Christ, is an undeserved gift. He has established the way.

[ronathanedwards]

@ElasticGiraffe Paul did "SAY SO".If He wanted to just say grace and faith was a gift, he would have used the feminine for the pronoun,if he wanted to say that salvation (being saved) was the gift, he would have use the masculine. If he wanted to refer one feminine and the masculine He would have explicitly recited the two words in which he wanted to refer.It's quite simple."Path of salvation" isn't in the verse. Even in your definition,faith is a gift.It also doesn't say He established the way.

[ElasticGiraffe]

@ronathanedwards The "path of salvation" (salvation is attained only by grace through faith) is precisely what the verse describes as the gift of God, not a salvific "list of ingredients" (grace + faith), as you suggested to gracetruthguy with your "gift basket" analogy. I don't have to "prove otherwise" This is not a bizarre or unprecedented interpretation; synergism is historically orthodox, especially in the Eastern church which was uncorrupted by the ill-informed innovations of Augustine.

[mcfallb]

Hello gracetruthguy,

I disagree with your take on Jo. 1:13 and since my posts are being delayed by your previewing them I'm not gonna waste anymore of my time. Case in point, you haven't answered my take on the scriptures to satisfaction.

Especially Ro.11:35 and 2Ti. 1:5-6

However :)

In reviewing Ro. 9:29 and 11:5-6 it is possible that only the "remnant" is chosen by God, those who follow the faith of this remnant, although not elect, may still be saved.

[gracetruthguy]

Hi MB,

There has never been a delay my end in your posts. I do not review them 1st. They are public instantly.

[mcfallb]

Hello once more gracetruthguy.

Ro.9:8 teaches the children of the promise are regarded as descendants.

v. 30 instructs on the righteousness BY faith.

Ro. 4:16, it is by faith so it is by grace in order that the promise may be certain to all the descendants.

Ro.4:16 mentions faith, grace, promise and descendants all in once verse.

Eph 2:8 teaches faith as the gift of God, not of ourselves because Ro.4:16 states it is by faith so that it's by grace.

[gracetruthguy]

Hi MB,

Rom.9:8 mentions the children of promise, yes

R9:30 mentions righteousness by faith, yes

R4:16 is is by faith as opposed to the law, yes

R4:16 the promise is by grace, yes and yes

R4:16 the seed is mentioned, yes (but note here is says not only the seed but also...)

Eph.2:8 mentions faith, yes

And none of them mention faith as a gift or by grace:

The promise (of a son) and salvation they are the gift and they are by grace.

[mcfallb]

Hello gracetruthguy.

Reading Ro.9:30-32 teaches how the gentiles attained righteousness that is "by faith" and "Israel" as a whole, did not, vs 32 instructs because they persued the law of righteousness not "by faith" but by works, and stumbled.

Ro.9:8-10 explains who the "real" descendants are and sets examples of God calling them.

vs 11 teaches His purpose according to His choice stands because He calls. vs 24 teaches "even us"

[gracetruthguy]

Hi MB.

Yes, faith is mentioned in R9 but it is not mentioned or assumed as a gift.

See my vids on R9 to appreciate the nations calling in a person's life as opposed to the calling of individuals for salvation.

Mentioning R9 here is pointless without seeing my take on it.

[mcfallb]

Good day gracetruthguy,

Faith is mentioned in R9, but not as a gift? I think your taking each chapter and isolating it, your not letting Pauls teachings on faith in other chapters bear on this chapter? Why?

Ro. 4:16 "For this is the reason it is by faith, that it might be in accordance with grace"

How does Paul teach that if it's by faith then it's by grace?

Then see Eph. 2:8, Ga. 3:9

Too me, Ro.4:16 proves faith is the gift, Eph.2:8 speaks of.

[gracetruthguy]

Hi MB,

In Romans 4 Paul is saying trusting in the law is not the way but by having faith. So that is what he means by grace in the sense of God freely gives salvation to all who have faith. It is the promise that is by grace not the faith.

Then there is NOT Eph. 2:8 since I show the opposite in this video.

Gal.3:9 mentions people of faith just like Abraham. No mention of it being a gift whatsoever.

[mcfallb]

Hello gracetruthguy,

It is the promise that is by grace not the faith. See here I think you "rape" the text and turn the order to your liking.

I'm sorry but "it is by faith so that it is by grace" in that specific order.

but that faith is not of ourselves per Eph 2:8. You cannot trump me here, you simply believe "and that not of yourselves " applies to grace where I believe it applies to faith and possibly faith AND grace. Jo. 1:13 and 2Ti. 1:6 justify this interpretation

[gracetruthguy]

Hi MB,

A text out of context is a pretext

Faith as opposed to THE WORKS OF THE LAW is there to SHOW THINGS ARE BY GRACE: salvation is not gained through the works of the law.

And again you are not honest in engaging for this vid here gives you the proof Eph.2:8 is NOT about faith as a gift but SALVATION alone.

Jn1:13 only shows us the birthing. And this was 'conceived 'in existence by a prior RECEIVING as per Jn1:12

U repeat 2 Ti.1:6 again and I'll delete:

U have ur answers this

[mcfallb]

Hello gracetruthguy.

Ok salvation is claimed in the video to be the SINGULAR object Paul teaches to be "not of ourselves"

The word "saved" is between "grace" and "faith" so how do you know Paul was addressing saved with the word That?

Phil. 1:29 states that our belief (faith) has been granted.

Faith is the result of God's call per Ro.9:8,11,24,30-32

See Ro.9:11, 2Ti. 1:5,6, 9 and Phil 1:29

Again I remind you and myself that how this works is a mystery per Ro.11:25

[gracetruthguy]

Hi MB,

Phil 1.29 is descriptive not prescriptive as also seen by the Gk. verb charidzomai from which we get "freely given" "forgiven" "graciously granted" It is about suffering that Paul is referring to in context: those who believe will also suffer (descriptive), not each of you are [solidly] given faith and each of you are [solidly] given suffering (prescriptive).

God's call in R9 follows Paul's preceding explanation of it for the individual in R8: its conditional: See my vid on R8

[mcfallb]

Hello gracetruthguy.

True, in their case they were granted to suffer also.....also. To us it is granted to believe, this is God's gift to distinguish us from the children of Satan.

He.11:6, you MUST believe that He is. some, like Esau, don't believe.

Like I have stated, it is a mystery but I believe it has something to do with the Nephilim of Ge.6 who came down and bred, mixing with humanity. Humanity that is eternal in Christ will be delivered, the humanity added by Satan won't be.

[gracetruthguy]

Hi MB,

To be free to believe means we are also to expect persecution (also freely).

Neither are specifically given to anyone without the person's involvement. As Paul also said "All who desire to live godly in Christ Jesus will suffer persecution" 2 Tim.3:12

As for those who do not believe, it is a choice made too.

It is explicit that we are all born free from evil:

"God made man upright, but they have sought out many schemes"

Ecclesiastes 7:29

[mcfallb]

Hi gracetruthguy, you stated,

"God's call in R9 follows Paul's preceding explanation of it for the individual in R8: its conditional:"

I don't think that's right according to Ro.9:11. To be fair, lets isolate this call for national purposes ONLY, although I don't agree per Ro.9: 20 - 24. It happened before either did good or evil, so it was not conditional. That would be of works.

[gracetruthguy]

Hi MB,

In my statement I'm referring to the call of salvation in. R9:24

R9:6 only salvation

R9:7+ only the nations

Yes, R9:11 the nations (and B4 good or evil)

R9:20-24 both topics are in view.

Both are mentioned, but carefully, if you see the use of different Greek verbs

e.g. as per R9:22-23

i.e. no one is afore prepared for destruction as per 2 different Greek verbs in use.

It is never of works to use the gift (all have been given) for good: i.e. free -will

[mcfallb]

Hello gracetruthguy...

you charged...

"Nothing. It is solid evidence and as it is explicit in the Greek text, it is Paul's construction of the Greek not mine. "

You REALLY should be careful here friend, in light of your devoting so much weight to the greek construction of Ro. 8:28 only for it to be brought to naught by 2Ti. 1:9

Now all we need to know is if Paul meant grace or faith, with his singular use of that? I've given my position there.

[gracetruthguy]

Hi MB,

2 Ti.1:9 makes no mention of faith.

Again, grace is not claimed in the video as the gift, but SALVATION.

When will you read others and the Scripture as they are and not with the spectacles (the tinted glasses) of the doctrine you already hold?

Though, if you tested it, as is evident to me by your practise, it hold you; you do not hold it. as per Jesus words:

"wisdom is justified of her children"

[mcfallb]

Hello gracetruthguy.

2Ti. 1:9 addresses God calling according to His purpose. 2Ti. 1:5-6 mentions sincere faith. Gal. 3:9 teaches that those who are "of faith" that is sincere faith, are the blessed ones along with Abraham the believer.

Phil 1:29 teaches "For to you it has been granted for Christ's sake, NOT ONLY to believe in Him, but ALSO to suffer for His sake."

Do not try to twist this to mean JUST suffereing...scripture declares NOT ONLY to believe in Him, but ALSO.

[gracetruthguy]

Hi MB,

2 Ti.1:9 reads that the group is called according to God's purpose and grace in Christ. If you are not in Christ you do not benefit with that group.

Remember Paul is specific for the individual in R8 that this call follows a search of the heart of the individual. See R8:26-27 and my vid on this.

2 Ti.1:5-6 mentions faith, but not that it was given. Same in Gal. 3:9

For Phil 1.29 read my reply to your next comment.

[mcfallb]

2Ti 1:5-6 mentions sincere faith that was "in" Timothy. It doesn't say it was given? But calls it a gift of God? How does one get the gift without it being given? It's IMPLIED then, that it was given.

[gracetruthguy]

Hi MB,

"I thank God . . . when I call to remembrance the genuine faith that is in you, which dwelt first in your grandmother Lois and your mother Eunice, and I am persuaded is in you also. Therefore I remind you to stir up the gift of God which is in you through the laying on of my hands." 2 Tim.5-6

No reference there to the faith being called a gift, but something else was which Paul prayed for over Timothy.

It is neither implied nor explicit that Timothy's faith was a gift.

[mcfallb]

Hello gracetruthguy,

I watched the video and it's a treatise on YOUR construction of the greek.

Interesting, but thin.

[gracetruthguy]

Hi MB,

What is thin about Paul clearly using the plural of the demonstrative pronoun in 1 Cor.6:8 to point to more than 1 thing mentioned in the preceding words and thereby only pointing to 1 thing among the preceding words when using that same demonstrative pronoun in the singular in Eph.2:8-9?

Answer:

Nothing. It is solid evidence and as it is explicit in the Greek text, it is Paul's construction of the Greek not mine.

Please read my note about causing mischief in my other comment.

[mcfallb]

Hello gracetruthguy.

The problem with Eph. 2:8 is that I may agree yes, "that" means singular so Paul must mean faith. Where you think "that" means grace.

that not of yourselves means faith to me because of other scriptures that bear on the importance of faith. Not grace.

Case in point, consider Ga.3:9 "..those who are of faith are blessed with Abraham, the believer" Not those who are of grace, but of faith.

Eph.2:8 compliments Ga.3:9 if we understand "that" to mean faith.

[mcfallb]

Obviously "that" should mean both, because our faith is the instrument God uses to accomplish His purpose.

It is impossible to please God without faith (Heb. 11:6), so grace and faith are basically a single topic.

[gracetruthguy]

Hi MB,

See above.

[gracetruthguy]

Hi MB,

Again you have shown yourself disrespectful and wanting to see what you want to see and not what is there.

It is explicit in the video that grace is NOT the gift but SALVATION. period.

Are you suggesting salvation is not given?

Watch again.

[mcfallb]

Hello gracetruthguy.

No, I'm not being disrespectful. I believe you are by the mere title of your videos.

My point has been that Calvin has a legitimate position from scripture, you argue he does not and attack with your titles "answers for Calvanist" like they are asking you questions.

I have asked you before to respect the calvanist position by changing the title to your videos.

[gracetruthguy]

Hi MB,

The titles are there to give recognition to these videos as answers to the Calvinist arguments made from the passages in question.

As such these are perfectly reasonable titles. They are not inferred as a response requested by Calvinists, but they are a response to their arguments nevertheless.

So, no direspect there.

Forgive me if I forget, but I have no recollection of a request to change the titles and in view of the above do not think they need changing.

[mcfallb]

Hi gracetruthguy,

A response to their arguments. Correct, you still admit they are a target. You have accused their position as "heresy". I feel that's way out of line. We really don't know if it is or isn't.

It's just a different opinion, that's all.

[gracetruthguy]

Hi MB,

Yes, all my brothers and sisters in Christ being deceived by the enemy are a target of my love and care in sharing the truth as we are told to do.

Gal.6:1, 2 Tim.2:24-25, Jas5:19-20

Heresy is defined as "opinion contrary to the orthodox doctrine of the Christian Church, or to the accepted doctrine on any subject"

That's exactly what Calvninsm is - we do know it as heresy - as it was non-existent for 4 centuries see my video:

"Augustine began 'Calvinism' - Jacques More"

[mcfallb]

Hi Gracetruthguy.

You know this is a BIG argument your making here on "heresy".

I don't think discussing Paul's writings and what they mean, in the absence of bona fide authority is heresy.

Do you have bona fide authority? Are you inspired? I take a no, and no your not.

I haven't seen one commentary quote or anything like that from you. Cultish.

Do you think the Eastern Orthodox Church is heresy? Because if we're not in it, we're heretical. Point made?

[gracetruthguy]

Hi MB,

If you've not read a commentary note its because you are not honest in your engagement with me here. I referred you to a vid "Augustine began Calvinism" that quotes:

In harmony with the foregoing views as to human freedom and responsibility, conditional predestination is the doctrine inculcated by the Greek Fathers.

History of Christian Doctrine p. 165 George Park Fisher DD LLD. T&T Clark

Prof. Ecclesiastical History Yale Uni. Inculcated: urged or impressed

Persistently

[mcfallb]

I'd argue Ro. 9 and others began Calvinism

[gracetruthguy]

Hi MB,

Then, you'd have a hard time explaining why for 4 centuries that was never read into Romans 9.

[mcfallb]

But the same logic can apply to the Trinity

[gracetruthguy]

Hi MB,

Not really, as the trinity was outworked step by step.

"Free will is not" arose with Augustine suddenly: after a host of prior writers affirming free will: it was the common view universally in the Church and the natural reading in Scripture.

[mcfallb]

Did the "host of prior writers" affirm free will CONSISTENT with God's will?

Salvation however, according to Ro.9:24 depends upon He who calls.

You agreed that Ro.9:24 applies to salvation correct?

Ro.11:7 states those who were chosen obtained it. The chapter goes on to discuss a hardening has occured for the gentiles to acheive faith, implying, God chooses the gentiles also as per 9:24

This is a mystery, but there is no doubt God choses. Ro.11:5-7

[gracetruthguy]

Hi MB,

U "host..."

Yes, since they consistently taught synergism: God and man co-operate.

U "... He who calls"

Until U get Ur head around the conditional predestination Paul teaches in R8:24-30 including 'the calling' U cannot see the calling in R9:24 as one with synergism in play.

U "R11:7...[up to] ... 5-7"

Remember context, this involves folk whose synergim involved not bowing the knee (R11:4)...

C my vid

"Paul's Conditional Predestination Explained - Jacques More"

[mcfallb]

Hello gracetruthguy.

What exactly are you stating about Ro 8:24-30?

"He that searches the heart" refers to God searching the heart of the SAINTS to understand what it is they should be praying.

Now what "conditional" predestination does Paul teach at Ro. 8:24-30?

You also need to get your head around the fact that God calls for many purposes as demonstrated in Ro.9

Even Jesus called the 12 but one of them was a devil, appearantly He had another purpose for that one.

[gracetruthguy]

Hi MB,

Yes, you are right it is the saints in view, but it is saints who do not realise they are saints since they have not been called yet. It is this knowledge following the search of the heart (from then on described as foreknoweldge) which makes God works all things into good: predestine to a call...

R9 calls 4 different purposes: I agree

I agree Judas was called whist a 'devil' and remaining 'one' throughout.

I've checked the setttings and all are on automatic commenting: so???!

[mcfallb]

Hi gracetruthguy.

I'm replying to this post which I couldn't see at your video page so obviously something is going on. I had to switch to view all messages to see where I'm at. I don't see my "last" response on the video page yet.

Now I'll reply to your answer in the next message since I lost a lot of text space sharing my concern on posts.

[gracetruthguy]

Hi MB,

Yes, I don't know what's going on:

With these comments being not visible when all the settings are that they should be showing publicly automatically.

?

:0|

[mcfallb]

Hello gracetruthguy.

So you think the spirit searches the saints who do not realize they are saints ALSO?

You could be right, could be, although I've seen no commentary supporting this view. I'll give you the benefit of a doubt here.

Then you must notice that salvation is nowhere mentioned in Ro.8 24-30. The spirit searches the heart but it doesn't read that it's for salvation does it. What's it searching for?

[gracetruthguy]

Hi MB,

I do not believe the Lord meant the bible to only be understood by the use of commentaries.

He makes it plain that He is our teacher and can do so effectively: James 1:5, Psalm 32:8 et al.

As you read that those he foreknows (in this preceding manner - i.e. the context) are then predestined to a call, you then also read that these are then justified = salvation.

V.30

In R8:28 you can see that the love of God is what is seen in the heart:

That is the purpose in view.

[mcfallb]

What do you think of what the Lord meant at Matt 23:2,3?

Very good. FOREKNOW being key. This is what I believe is meant by predestination. God knows those that are His, before we are "manifested" or "born" in flesh. This is what I believe Jo. 1:13 is teaching.

[mcfallb]

Our receiving of the gospel is the result of this foreknowledge, see Lu. 8:15

Satan on the other hand sowed "weeds" per Matt 13:37-43 God does not "know" these per Lu.13:27,28 with Matt 3:7,9 because Jesus did not sow weeds but an enemy did.

[mcfallb]

I need to include 2Ti. 1:9 in here with Jo. 1:13

2Ti 1:9 states according to His purpose...which was granted us in Christ Jesus from ALL ETERNITY. This is before the world was made and hence before we were "born" in the flesh.

[gracetruthguy]

Hi MB,

Jesus expands and explains what he meant in Mat.23:2-3 by saying "For..." and going on in Verses 4-14...

I'm not sure what you're asking?

Please note I wrote "those he foreknows IN THIS PRECEDING MANNER" The context shows us it is WITHIN THE LIFETIME OF THE INDIVIDUAL whose heart has been searched.

John 1:12 precedes John 1:13. V.13 is about the birthing, the decision to be birthed given after the reception mentioned in John 1:12

Just as with R8:24-30 cause and effect

[mcfallb]

I believe 2Ti. 1:5-6 clearly teaches that sincere faith is a gift of God. And it is through this gift that men find grace and salvation.

Ro. 11:35 asks "who has first given to Him that it might be paid back to Him again?"

Eph. 2:8 clearly teaches faith is gift so that no one may boast. This agrees with 2Ti. 1:5-6.

Ro. 3:24 teaches that being justified (through faith in Christ) as a gift

Ro.3:27 asks "where then is boasting?"

Ro.11:20 teaches not to be conceited, but to fear.

[gracetruthguy]

Hi MB,

So you haven't seen this video yet?

[mcfallb]

Hello gracetruthguy,

Oh boy, I better watch the video that ignores Ro. 9:11,16, 11:5-6,35 and 2Ti 1:5,6,9

:)

Should I watch and learn how I might someday say "I shall draw water from this rock"??

Nothing like establishing your own righteousness then boasting about it eh

[gracetruthguy]

Hi MB,

If you looked at this video before making a false comment earlier and now also since I have done clearly separate videos on R9, let alone ad infinitum responded to your objections with R11 and 2 Tim. It appears you are not here to learn or to teach in sincerity, but to cause mischief.

Anymore of such posts therefore and they will be deleted.

If this be so, but later you change your heart and wish to interact honestly, email me and I will gladly permit you again.

[mcfallb]

I speak the truth now I'm your enemy.

I thought we agreed Ro 11 meant that Gods calling applied to nations AND individuals?

2Ti. 1:9 you charged that it applies to a group, I charged that it applied to individuals otherwise there would be no personal relationship with Christ.

The parable of the lost sheep teaches this. The good shepherd leaves the flock to retrieve ONE sheep. The calling applies to INDIVIDUALS, not a group imo

[windbag1980]

This is a blessing. Thank you for sharing of your teaching. Well taught, clear and beautiful.

[gracetruthguy]

Hi windbag1980,

Thank you. You're welcome.

[edwardpf123]

Amen and amen

[gracetruthguy]

Thank you solarisgalrocks

[solarisgalrocks]

Thanks for posting this! God is a graceful God who accepts ALL those who loves Him. Glory to God for being so merciful.