Most difficult Scripture?

[KingsGambit]

I am saddened that you find comfort in the deception that we do not have a part in the introduction of lost people to Jesus. The JOY we get from leading somebody to Christ is almost like getting saved all over again!

1 Corinthians 3:6 acknowledges that people play roles in bringing people to Jesus, while not neglecting to mention that it's ultimately God that does the work. I don't think anybody would ever get the idea that it's otherwise without different theological concepts forcing them to view it a different way, but that's what happens.

[Teallaura]

I am applying this scripture specifically to the persevering part. For example, there are many I have prayed for for years to be saved after sharing the Gospel with them in various ways. These verses free me from continuing to persevere.

Why? Scripture is replete with examples and admonishments to persevere.

For me, I find it a mistake to assume I'm going to see the fruition of every prayer. Thing is, we don't always (or even often) know which role we are playing. Am I the plowman, or the reaper? (Or my case, the ox or the donkey ) Did I sow the seed or just bust up some dirt? Even if I'm helping with the harvest, I may not see that particular stalk come in to the barn.

It's harder on the analogy, but I think we're the tools the Holy Spirit chooses to employ - or not. He alone knows whether it's time for the plowshare or the scythe. My job is to just hack at whatever He's aiming for - and let Him do the real work where only He can.

[Cow Poke]

1 Corinthians 3:6 acknowledges that people play roles in bringing people to Jesus, while not neglecting to mention that it's ultimately God that does the work. I don't think anybody would ever get the idea that it's otherwise without different theological concepts forcing them to view it a different way, but that's what happens.

And there's no promise that the person we are praying for to receive Salvation will ever actually receive Salvation, or they COULD, but we might never know it til we see them in Glory.

One of the real blessings of Facebook (yes, it has its good points) is when somebody from my ministry nearly FIFTY YEARS AGO hunts me down on Facebook to tell me they're now living for Jesus, and a Pastor or Missionary, or otherwise serving the Lord or living the Christian life.

Fact is, we're told to be witnesses, so we should do it faithfully whether we think it works or not.

[NorrinRadd]

Yet OT people were saved in the same way we are, by faith, Abraham is the very example of salvation by faith in the New Covenant.

And I note again the passive (on our part) analogies of salvation in Scripture, why would Jesus say "You must be born again" if he was speaking of ultimately, a free choice on Nicodemus' part? Yes, we have a choice to make in salvation, but behind that choice is the choice of God.

In terms of just the wording of the English translations, this is surely an "eye of the beholder" situation. My eye sees the Nicodemus dialogue much differently. To me, your view turns it into the cruelest of taunts: "You must be born from above to enter Heaven. Will you, Nicodemus, be one of the ones God chooses to beget? Maybe, maybe not. Sucks to be you if you're not, but it's out of your hands."

Going beyond just the wording of the English translations, there is the matter of the cultural background, in which the concept of becoming "as newborn children" was already tied to the ritual baptism applied to converts to Judaism. I usually copy and paste several paragraphs from my IVP Bible Background Commentary, but this time I'll just link here.

FTR, I have the same perspective on John 1. The "It's all God" side emphasizes v. 13, and especially the "human decision" or "will of man" portions of most translations, especially the more "literal" ones; that side also, IMO, distorts v. 12, claiming it refers to something separate from v. 13. The synergist side emphasizes v. 12, seeing that we "believe" and "receive" BEFORE we "become (His) children" (= are "born of God").

[Esther]

P.S. Though I would say to Esther that we need not give up praying for people, God works through our prayers to carry out his will.

Thank you for input. It would be good if you could please provide me with scriptural references that support that God works through our prayers to carry out His will. Specifically with regards to the salvation of others. I am at a place where no matter what my effort or lack thereof, God's Will will ultimately be done and this gives me a strange peace.

[Esther]

Why? Scripture is replete with examples and admonishments to persevere.

For me, I find it a mistake to assume I'm going to see the fruition of every prayer. Thing is, we don't always (or even often) know which role we are playing. Am I the plowman, or the reaper? (Or my case, the ox or the donkey ) Did I sow the seed or just bust up some dirt? Even if I'm helping with the harvest, I may not see that particular stalk come in to the barn.

It's harder on the analogy, but I think we're the tools the Holy Spirit chooses to employ - or not. He alone knows whether it's time for the plowshare or the scythe. My job is to just hack at whatever He's aiming for - and let Him do the real work where only He can.

Thank you a very interesting perspective.

[Esther]

And there's no promise that the person we are praying for to receive Salvation will ever actually receive Salvation, or they COULD, but we might never know it til we see them in Glory.

Fact is, we're told to be witnesses, so we should do it faithfully whether we think it works or not.

Thank you this gives me pause for thought.

[Esther]

1 Corinthians 3:6 acknowledges that people play roles in bringing people to Jesus, while not neglecting to mention that it's ultimately God that does the work. I don't think anybody would ever get the idea that it's otherwise without different theological concepts forcing them to view it a different way, but that's what happens.

Thank you this is very nicely put.

[lee_merrill]

Correct, but the NT faith requires a confession that Jesus is the Christ.

Agreed!

"Ye must be born again" is the condition by which one is saved. He was not ordering Nicodemus to be born again, He was passionately making it plain that it was a requirement for Salvation.

Yes, but the analogy is passive on Nicodemus' part, thus the question "how can this be?"

But this doesn't fit passive analogies, where the person is completely passive in salvation.

To me, your view turns it into the cruelest of taunts: "You must be born from above to enter Heaven. Will you, Nicodemus, be one of the ones God chooses to beget? Maybe, maybe not. Sucks to be you if you're not, but it's out of your hands."

God in his mercy chooses people for salvation, this is not a taunt--and I believe Scripture give us reason to believe that God will choose everyone.

"For God has bound everyone over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all." (Ro 11:32)

I have the same perspective on John 1. The "It's all God" side emphasizes v. 13, and especially the "human decision" or "will of man" portions of most translations, especially the more "literal" ones; that side also, IMO, distorts v. 12, claiming it refers to something separate from v. 13. The synergist side emphasizes v. 12, seeing that we "believe" and "receive" BEFORE we "become (His) children" (= are "born of God").

[lee_merrill]

Thank you for input. It would be good if you could please provide me with scriptural references that support that God works through our prayers to carry out His will. Specifically with regards to the salvation of others. I am at a place where no matter what my effort or lack thereof, God's Will will ultimately be done and this gives me a strange peace.

not

[Esther]

not

Very good thank you.

[Esther]

"For God has bound everyone over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all." (Ro 11:32)

This is the best scripture as a response to God's mercy. Clearly on all then.

[NorrinRadd]

...

Yes, but the analogy is passive on Nicodemus' part, thus the question "how can this be?"...

You didn't bother to look at the link I posted, did you?

God in his mercy chooses people for salvation, this is not a taunt--and I believe Scripture give us reason to believe that God will choose everyone.

"For God has bound everyone over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all." (Ro 11:32)

That's a nice thought. What do we do about the many passages that teach that some will be consigned to everlasting torment and destruction?

And yes, of course I know YOU don't see it as a taunt. But *I* am really not able to see it any other way, if indeed Nicodemus is entirely "passive" in the matter.

Well, we receive before we become God's children, but I believe this reception is more acknowledgement of Jesus, not a saving belief in him. We do not believe before becoming God's children, according to John, and indeed, salvation is "not from human decision", as Paul concurs.

Yes, I already acknowledged that monergists see John 1 that way, and I am unable to do so. In my eyes, that requires a dishonest reading of v. 12. And I suspect that in your eyes, my view requires a dishonest reading of v. 13. (I see v. 13 as talking about who takes the initiative, not about unilateral action.)

Here I will quote at some length Keener's notes from the IVP Bible Background Commentary

[lee_merrill]

You didn't bother to look at the link I posted, did you?

Well, arguing by link is taboo. But I find Keener's belief that people are born again after believing to be unscriptural, regeneration has to precede faith.

What do we do about the many passages that teach that some will be consigned to everlasting torment and destruction?

We teach them too, and let God sort out what will happen and when, I believe eternity will be unlike anyone expects--as in the cross, which no one predicted.

And yes, of course I know YOU don't see it as a taunt. But *I* am really not able to see it any other way, if indeed Nicodemus is entirely "passive" in the matter.

But the question at hand is whether salvation is passive, not whether this is a taunt. How is life from the dead not passive, how is being born not passive, how is a new creation not passive on our part?

I see v. 13 as talking about who takes the initiative, not about unilateral action.

And I see "not of human decision" as saying our decision is secondary, dependent on God's decision.

"He chose to give us birth through the word of truth, that we might be a kind of firstfruits of all he created." (Jas 1:18)


I don't think this fits with anyone's theology, people start out in the book, and are blotted out when they sin egregiously? Or if they do not overcome (Rev. 3:5)? But I think God's choice is primary here, too:

"All who dwell on the earth will worship him, everyone whose name has not been written from the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb who has been slain." (Re 13:8)


"Yet to this day the LORD has not given you a heart to know, nor eyes to see, nor ears to hear." (Dt. 29:4)

God's choice in salvation.

"Oh that they had such a heart in them, that they would fear Me and keep all My commandments always, that it may be well with them and with their sons forever!" (Dt. 5:29)

God's desire for their salvation, not such a good text for human responsibility.


But where is foreknown faith in Scripture?

Blessings,
Lee

[NorrinRadd]

Well, arguing by link is taboo.

But I find Keener's belief that people are born again after believing to be unscriptural, regeneration has to precede faith.

This is a theological presupposition not automatically evident in Scripture itself. IOW, *I* find *your* (and Calvinists' and other "RPF" adherents') belief to be "unscriptural."

We teach them too, and let God sort out what will happen and when, I believe eternity will be unlike anyone expects--as in the cross, which no one predicted.

So everyone will be saved except those that aren't. And everyone will be damned except those that aren't. And who knows what will happen to the other 100%.

But the question at hand is whether salvation is passive, not whether this is a taunt.

Right. If it's a taunt, that goes to the character of God, and whether He is even worthy of worship, but that's a separate topic.

How is life from the dead not passive, how is being born not passive, how is a new creation not passive on our part?

Because receiving life (= being reborn) is conditional on our choosing to believe and receive, or at the very least on our choosing to not resist. For us, being reborn means much *more* than it did to the original audience (meaning those thinking in terms of Jewish proselyte baptism), but it's unlikely it means something *contrary*. For them, becoming as newborn children *followed* the choice to convert and be baptized in water, and was metaphorical (and to some extent legal); for us, it *follows* believing and receiving, and being baptized in the Spirit, and is literal (but not physical).

And I see "not of human decision" as saying our decision is secondary, dependent on God's decision.

"He chose to give us birth through the word of truth, that we might be a kind of firstfruits of all he created." (Jas 1:18)

Or in Peter's words, we "have been born anew, not from perishable but from imperishable seed, through the living and enduring word of God." But this does not just "happen." We "begin with the Spirit" when we "receive the Spirit," which is the result of "believing what [we] heard" -- Gal. 3:2-3. We are saved through faith (Eph. 2, inter alia), and faith comes from hearing the word of Christ (Rom. 10:17). We hear, we trust (or do not), we are born again (or are not).

I don't think this fits with anyone's theology, people start out in the book, and are blotted out when they sin egregiously? Or if they do not overcome (Rev. 3:5)? But I think God's choice is primary here, too:

"All who dwell on the earth will worship him, everyone whose name has not been written from the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb who has been slain." (Re 13:8)

That Rev. citation doesn't show "choice" any more than it shows foreknowledge.

As for the first part of your comment, how do you figure it doesn't "fit with anyone's theology"? Many of us believe it is possible to apostatize. Someone who did so would be in the Book of Life, and then erased. Conceptually, Rev. 3:5 does not sound too unlike Matt. 10:32-33.

"Yet to this day the LORD has not given you a heart to know, nor eyes to see, nor ears to hear." (Dt. 29:4)

God's choice in salvation.

"Oh that they had such a heart in them, that they would fear Me and keep all My commandments always, that it may be well with them and with their sons forever!" (Dt. 5:29)

God's desire for their salvation, not such a good text for human responsibility.

If you have shown anything, it is tension (read: inconsistency) in Scripture, within a single book. In ch. 5, as quoted by Moses, I AM is wishing that His people would have proper hearts, and the tone of His words is that He is uncertain it will be so. In ch. 29, Moses is placing the ability to assure proper hearts clearly in the power of I AM.

Well, predestination is certainly not arbitrary, ...

I understand that monergists do not believe it is arbitrary. Many of us are unable to perceive your view as anything BUT arbitrary.


"One vessel" is an illustration, a metaphor. And pressing too far on the "no one resists His will," IMO, invites the idea that God Himself is the ultimate author of evil.

But where is foreknown faith in Scripture?

If you mean where is it *explicitly* taught, the answer is, "The same place as 'regeneration precedes faith,'" i.e nowhere.

You excised the portion where Keener explained that the recipients of the letter understood election in corporate terms. Jews believed they were chosen automatically by virtue of ethnic descent from Abraham. Paul is saying people are chosen because of being (not "to be") in Christ; and of course the only way to be "in Christ" is by faith.