Scriptural Election?

[Old-Pilgrim]

 

Your understanding of metanoeo is correct, however you're glossing over the "fruits worthy of" portion and making an preconceived assumption. The word "worthy" (axios),  can mean something along the lines of "deserving," but in the context of Luke 3 in which John is rebuking the people who were coming forth to be baptized out of feigned repentance rather than true repentance, it better means "befitting" or "in congruence with" or "corresponding to." 

This passage does not say anything about people being granted repentance, but is rather a rebuke on the ones claiming repentance and then behaving otherwise, indicating their "change of mind" is only superficial and thus inadequate for salvation. On this, I think your underlying premise "repentance = the gift of God given sight" fails. Since it is this premise that the rest of your argument rests, I believe it fails as a whole as well.

​

 

​Hello Mat

>>>The word "worthy" (axios),  can mean something along the lines of "deserving,"<<< So you agree that it could mean what I am saying it means, but you think the context would suggests a different in interpretation, I disagree, Looking at Isaiah where Luke is quoting, Johns message clearly comes before the Message of Jesus Christ, Johns Baptism is a diffrent Baptism a different mesage. Ac 19:3 And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism.
Ac 19:4 Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.
Ac 19:5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

[TheSword]

Hello Matt. On Sanctification

>>>sanctification of the Spirit (which is a salvation-specific event)<<<<  surly sanctification is a process and not an event, its purpose is to accomplish Salvation, Spirit, and hopefully soul and Body while here on earth, What I am proposing is that there is scriptural evidence that this Sanctification starts before conversion, probably starts as soon as we come into the world, and starts working on our heart, if we respond 'learn' we shall be led to the faith, if not we will remain under condemnation.

***Joh 6:44-45 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him  …It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me.

​That's a valid suggestion, and I do believe sanctification is both an event and a process. However, John 6:44-45 is talking about learning from the universal calling rather than sanctification. The literal translation of hagiasmos, from which we get sanctification, is "holy-izing," or rather "consecration/purification." It is not a cognitive process as described in John 6:44-45. Consider the following, which parallels 1 Peter 1:1-2 as outlined above:

2 Thess 2:13 - But we are bound to give thanks always to God for you, bretheren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth:

Here again, salvation is an effect of sanctification which is the process by which God has chosen. Additionally, before the argument is made, let me point out that the "chosen" here is not the aforementioned eklektos that is always used to reference the elect, but is haireo, which speaks more of "claiming" or "preferring" or "electing to an office" which revolves around an attribute-based decision rather than it does the taking of a specified group as in eklektos.

Either way you slice it, we now have two verses that concretely put election after salvation and initial sanctification.

**Note: even though we're talking about sequencing here, I don't want to get wrapped around the axles about the time aspect. I believe all of these events are instantaneous upon one coming to saving faith and calling on Jesus for salvation, even if they do have an order of occurance."

Edited June 16, 2015 by TheSword
type

[TheSword]

​

Hello Matt.

You said>>>The Law was never a means of justification and salvation, but rather provided a means showing the sinner that he is a sinner and was never a means of justification (Rom 3:19-20). The ceremonial aspects of the Law were put in place to provide the Israelites with a means to maintain fellowship with God.<<<

I agree with you there. I did state clearly that the only way a sinner can be saved is by faith in Jesus Christ. Believe/receive. That is what I believe.

Youu said>>>Additionally, the Old Covenant only ever applied the Israelites beginning at the Exodus. Only by becoming a Jew would one ever have been subject to the Old Covenant Law in its totality. The Old Covenant cannot now apply to every non-Christian because it was never meant to apply to anyone except Jews during a particular span of time in history, but is now void by the advent of the New Covenant (Heb 8).<<<

I should have said that all are under The Law, not in the Old Covenant,
Ro 2:12-16
I think all mankind is in bondage due to sin under the elemental principles of the creative forces or Laws, I think that is the Law, (Ro 7:5 For when we were in the flesh, the motions of sins, which were by the law, did work in our members to bring forth fruit unto death.) but once saved we are enlawed 1Co 9:21 to Christ and are in the New Covenant law which works differently not in conjunction with the old Law, One is the Law of the first creation, and one is the law of the second. I think learning to walk in the spirit of life is like trying to walk on water., doesn’t come naturally

1Co 9:21 To them that are without law, as without law, (being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ,) that I might gain them that are without law.

Greek is 'enlawed'  not the same as;

Ro 6:14 For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace.

Rab.

​I see what you're saying, and I don't want to give unjust focus to the minutia, but I do want to clarify my current understanding. The Law has never been, and will never be, binding upon those outside of the Old Covenant. It's purpose was to distinguish Israel from it's surrounding neighbors by requiring adherence to standards of living and behavior set forth by God. In essence, the Law was only over an written expression of God's mind on right and wrong and how to maintain fellowship with Him.

[TheSword]

​Hello Mat

>>>The word "worthy" (axios),  can mean something along the lines of "deserving,"<<< So you agree that it could mean what I am saying it means, but you think the context would suggests a different in interpretation, I disagree, Looking at Isaiah where Luke is quoting, Johns message clearly comes before the Message of Jesus Christ, Johns Baptism is a diffrent Baptism a different mesage. Ac 19:3 And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism.
Ac 19:4 Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.
Ac 19:5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

​The "fruits worthy of repentance" comes after the completed quote in Isaiah and thus contextually stands on its own. The Isaiah reference (59:1-5) is intended to show how far the people were from God due to their sin. It was a reference Jesus apparently used regularly as well (see Matt 3:7, 12:34, 23:33). The "fruits worthy of repentance", therefore, stands as a contrastive explanation to show that their behavior showed that they had not truly repented in their hearts.

Additionally, I think your Acts 19:3-5 is an invalid insertion on this point. The audience in Luke 3 are Jews in Judea whereas those in Acts 19 are diaspora Jews in Ephesus some 20 years later; so the audience comparison is invalid. The purpose of the statement in Luke 3 is about the truth of their repentance whereas the purpose of the statement in Acts 19 is about the comprehension of the complete Gospel message of Jesus rather than the simplified gospel of repentance preached by John; so I believe the purpose of comparing the two passages in this case is invalid as well. Therefore, the context of "fruits worthy..." still stands on its own, and therefore I believe the context demands the definition of axios be "befitting" or "in congruence with."

[heartstrings]

​Hello 'H'S' I know that there are different  people, angels all Elect for different purposes, 'election' was a word before it became a theological term, so yes just like the words 'saved', 'grace', 'damned', 'condemned' 'Repent', and most every 'theological' term has different meanings in different contexts I am talking here about those who are Elect by Grace for golry.

But I think you are barking up the wrong tree there, you seem to be redefining words or something, if not what ??Scripture?? would you say teach what you are asserting? >>Election concerns your purpose or service. It has nothing to do with salvation<<

Joh 15:19 If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you.

Mr 13:20 And except that the Lord had shortened those days, no flesh should be saved: but for the elect's sake, whom he hath chosen, he hath shortened the days.
Mr 13:22 For false Christs and false prophets shall rise, and shall shew signs and wonders, to seduce, if it were possible, even the elect.
Ro 11:5 Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace.
Col 3:12 Put on therefore, as the elect of God, holy and beloved, bowels of mercies, kindness, humbleness of mind, meekness, longsuffering;

No I think in order not to wrest the Scripture we need to acknowledge that the elect of God are the Christians who were chosen by Him unto salvation in its fullest sense reconciliation to God, the question then as far as I can honestly see is not What is Election, why were the Elect Chosen by God when we know that he is not a respector of persons, and he is Just.

 

​2 Peter 1 King James Version (KJV)

1 Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ:

² Grace and peace be multiplied unto you through the knowledge of God, and of Jesus our Lord,

³ According as his divine power hath given unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness, through the knowledge of him that hath called us to glory and virtue:

⁴ Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust.

⁵ And beside this, giving all diligence, add to your faith virtue; and to virtue knowledge;

⁶ And to knowledge temperance; and to temperance patience; and to patience godliness;

⁷ And to godliness brotherly kindness; and to brotherly kindness charity.

⁸ For if these things be in you, and abound, they make you that ye shall neither be barren nor unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ.

⁹ But he that lacketh these things is blind, and cannot see afar off, and hath forgotten that he was purged from his old sins.

¹⁰ Wherefore the rather, brethren, give diligence to make your calling and election sure: for if ye do these things, ye shall never fall:

 

#1 Who is Peter talking to? Those who are already saved(see verse 1) and "purged from old sins" (see verse 9)

#2 Yet he tells them to "make your ...election sure"

#3 If "election" really meant "chosen for salvation", how are you going to "make it sure"?

#4 Because that is not what it means; "making your calling and election sure" is by DOING the things listed in verses 5-7.

#5 Because the "election" is God's plan and purpose for your being saved, which is to bear fruit.

$6 You even have to CHOOSE to "make your election sure" just like you had to choose to trust Jesus as Saviour. (See verse 10)

 

 

[Old-Pilgrim]

​2 Peter 1 King James Version (KJV)

1 Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ:

² Grace and peace be multiplied unto you through the knowledge of God, and of Jesus our Lord,

³ According as his divine power hath given unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness, through the knowledge of him that hath called us to glory and virtue:

⁴ Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust.

⁵ And beside this, giving all diligence, add to your faith virtue; and to virtue knowledge;

⁶ And to knowledge temperance; and to temperance patience; and to patience godliness;

⁷ And to godliness brotherly kindness; and to brotherly kindness charity.

⁸ For if these things be in you, and abound, they make you that ye shall neither be barren nor unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ.

⁹ But he that lacketh these things is blind, and cannot see afar off, and hath forgotten that he was purged from his old sins.

¹⁰ Wherefore the rather, brethren, give diligence to make your calling and election sure: for if ye do these things, ye shall never fall:

 

#1 Who is Peter talking to? Those who are already saved(see verse 1) and "purged from old sins" (see verse 9)

#2 Yet he tells them to "make your ...election sure"

#3 If "election" really meant "chosen for salvation", how are you going to "make it sure"?

#4 Because that is not what it means; "making your calling and election sure" is by DOING the things listed in verses 5-7.

#5 Because the "election" is God's plan and purpose for your being saved, which is to bear fruit.

$6 You even have to CHOOSE to "make your election sure" just like you had to choose to trust Jesus as Saviour. (See verse 10)

 

 

​Hi, I will ponder that again latter, but I think it is encouraging you to find ASSURANCE, other wise it might say, 'make your election'. or 'put yourself forward for election', but no, it is saying 'make it sure', 'confirm your own faith', Just as the purpose of 1John is so the the might 'KNOW' that they had eternal life, whereas the purpose of Johns Gospel was that they 'might have life.'  I think we are chosen for Salvation but we are also chosen and given the opportunity to bear fruit, notice if we do we receive an 'abundant welcome' I believe this 'welcome' is our whole reward for service, we must get the fire first, so we can then enjoy the praise of God after.

Yes and not only do we need to choose to make our election and calling solid, but we are to apply all diligence V10 this implies much effort.

Ac 14:22 Confirming the souls of the disciples, and exhorting them to continue in the faith, and that we must through much tribulation enter into the kingdom of God.

I think my argument is accommodated better by scripture. He chose the contrite and the humble and those who were not. The proud and the wicked have the Law to guide them, and even today they have The Baptists harsh teachings to drive them to the narrow gate of humility.

[MountainChristian]

Mat 16:24

Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.

Luk 9:23

And he said to them all, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow me.

Jhn 6:51

I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any maneat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.

Jhn 7:37

In the last day, that great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried, saying, If any man thirst, let him come unto me, and drink.

Jhn 9:31

Now we know that God heareth not sinners: but if any man be a worshipper of God, and doeth his will, him he heareth.

Jhn 10:9

I am the door: by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture.

Jhn 12:26

If any man serve me, let him follow me; and where I am, there shall also my servant be: if any man serve me, him will my Father honour.

1Co 8:3

But if any man love God, the same is known of him.

Co 5:17

Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.

Eph 6:8

Knowing that whatsoever good thing any man doeth, the same shall he receive of the Lord, whether he be bond or free.

Rev 3:20

Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.

 

 

 

[Old-Pilgrim]

TheSword   

Hello Matt

You said >>> I see what you're saying, and I don't want to give unjust focus to the minutia, but I do want to clarify my current understanding. The Law has never been, and will never be, binding upon those outside of the Old Covenant. It's purpose was to distinguish Israel from it's surrounding neighbors by requiring adherence to standards of living and behavior set forth by God. In essence, the Law was only over an written expression of God's mind on right and wrong and how to maintain fellowship with Him.<<<
 

All are under the Law
I am trying to establish some basic principles without getting caught up in too much detail, (as in precept upon precept) when I said ‘old Covenant Law’ earlier I should have just said ‘The Law’ and by that I mean ‘the law of sin and death.‘ Ro 8:2, not the written law of Moses, but the law of God which is a governing principle in all creation, so if a man sins then there is a recompense due, that is a law, if that recompense is administered then the slate on that point is cleared, etc. It was there before Adam sinned and it is still here in all creation, sort of like a spiritual law of nature.

Mt 5:17-18 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

I am saying the Gentiles are saved in the same way as the Jews, Just as they were lost in the same way as the Jew, and just as the Jew wasn’t saved by the Law likewise the Gentile wasn’t saved by good works,

Ro 10:4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.’ The only essential difference as concerning salvation is that they had the Written Law and a Covenant, and the Gentiles had the Law written only on their conscience, but never really knew what the deal was, and the Law, or the Law of Moses, or the conscience was never meant to save anyone, the main thing it does is it brings a recompense good or bad, long life and many cattle on earth etc

Ga 3:24-25 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.
Ro 2:5 But after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God;
Ro 2:6 Who will render to every man according to his deeds:
Ro 3:9 What then? are we better than they? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin;
Ga 3:22 But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.
Ro 3:22 Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:
Ro 3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;

 

>>>>Your understanding of metanoeo is correct, however you're glossing over the "fruits worthy of" portion and making an preconceived assumption. The word "worthy" (axios),  can mean something along the lines of "deserving," but in the context of Luke 3 in which John is rebuking the people who were coming forth to be baptized out of feigned repentance rather than true repentance, it better means "befitting" or "in congruence with" or "corresponding to."

This passage does not say anything about people being granted repentance, but is rather a rebuke on the ones claiming repentance and then behaving otherwise, indicating their "change of mind" is only superficial and thus inadequate for salvation. On this, I think your underlying premise "repentance = the gift of God given sight" fails. Since it is this premise that the rest of your argument rests, I believe it fails as a whole as well.<<<<<

>>>>Since it is this premise that the rest of your argument rests<<<

My argument isn’t based solely on this verse or the word repent, but it does help clear up what I believe to be a common misunderstanding of this verse, many believe that John was preaching the Gospel here, and also that Repentance means ‘stop sinning’ and ‘do good works’ so repent to many means ‘keep the law’ or ‘keep the ten commandments’ so you get Works salvation or salvation maintained by works, (Lordship Salvation).

I think the word repent has still got an historical bias due to the Roman Catholic translation which used ‘do penance’ the interpretation you are taking seems the likely one due to this historical bias which our culture is still steeped in.

The Bishops who liked lording it over the people, the misunderstanding of the word repentance, and not realising that John was an old testament prophet (before Grace came it was by works) but the works was to lead to the faith. And John was pointing out to them that their works were lacking and so leaving them short of the target. In relation to this see. Ac 10:4 And when he looked on him, he was afraid, and said, What is it, Lord? And he said unto him, Thy prayers and thine alms are come up for a memorial before God.  His alms never saved him, but they got him noticed. One verse which sums up my argument much better than this one is;

Ga 3:22-6 But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe. But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed. Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.
For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.

>>>>The word "worthy" (axios),  can mean something along the lines of "deserving," but in the context of Luke 3.…<<<<  

I believe it can and does mean something along the line of ‘deserving’ or ‘worthy’, Based on the overall context in relation to the whole Bible and historical setting, so let us consider the context of Luke 3.

John was the last in a long line of old Testament prophets. I think the 400 odd silent years was perfect, like the silence before the storm, for John had the greatest role of all the prophets that went before him, he actually baptised Jesus Christ, he handed Israel over to the Saviour, he was the greatest ever born of a woman, at least until that time.

Johns ministry was to prepare man kind to receive their Messiah, he was pointing them to Christ, to the narrow gate, exhorting them to make straight the crooked paths within their hearts, so they could walk the path and see the gate and enter in because the time had come.

Mt 11:11 Verily I say unto you, Among them that are born of women there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist: notwithstanding he that is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.

Even although  John was the greatest of all the prophets, the worst born again Christian is Greater that him. John was raised up on the earth, New Covenant believers (Christians) are ‘Translated’, so we are a  world higher than John was, and yet he was greater than Moses.

Main Point John wasn’t preaching the gospel, but rather heralding the gospel to come. That is why there is a symbol of water baptism for John and a symbol of water Baptism for Jesus

>>>>However, John 6:44-45 is talking about learning from the universal calling rather than sanctification. The literal translation of hagiasmos, from which we get sanctification, is "holy-izing," or rather "consecration/purification." It is not a cognitive process as described in John 6:44-45. <<<<

Really? Are you sure your not simply relying on some preconceived theological assumptions.
Sanctification can mean ‘set apart’ what about Joh 17:17 Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth. Surely some cognitivity involved where the word is involved.

I think Your theology is starting to clash with the scripture. 'universal calling?

[Old-Pilgrim]

Mat 16:24

Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.

Luk 9:23

And he said to them all, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow me.

Jhn 6:51

I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any maneat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.

Jhn 7:37

In the last day, that great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried, saying, If any man thirst, let him come unto me, and drink.

Jhn 9:31

Now we know that God heareth not sinners: but if any man be a worshipper of God, and doeth his will, him he heareth.

Jhn 10:9

I am the door: by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture.

Jhn 12:26

If any man serve me, let him follow me; and where I am, there shall also my servant be: if any man serve me, him will my Father honour.

1Co 8:3

But if any man love God, the same is known of him.

Co 5:17

Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.

Eph 6:8

Knowing that whatsoever good thing any man doeth, the same shall he receive of the Lord, whether he be bond or free.

Rev 3:20

Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.

 

 

 

​Hello M C  I have read all those before. I don't think you have read my post very carefully. But no worries. All those scriptures are true.

[TheSword]

TheSword   

Hello Matt

You said >>> I see what you're saying, and I don't want to give unjust focus to the minutia, but I do want to clarify my current understanding. The Law has never been, and will never be, binding upon those outside of the Old Covenant. It's purpose was to distinguish Israel from it's surrounding neighbors by requiring adherence to standards of living and behavior set forth by God. In essence, the Law was only over an written expression of God's mind on right and wrong and how to maintain fellowship with Him.<<<
 

All are under the Law
I am trying to establish some basic principles without getting caught up in too much detail, (as in precept upon precept) when I said ‘old Covenant Law’ earlier I should have just said ‘The Law’ and by that I mean ‘the law of sin and death.‘ Ro 8:2, not the written law of Moses, but the law of God which is a governing principle in all creation, so if a man sins then there is a recompense due, that is a law, if that recompense is administered then the slate on that point is cleared, etc. It was there before Adam sinned and it is still here in all creation, sort of like a spiritual law of nature.

Mt 5:17-18 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

I am saying the Gentiles are saved in the same way as the Jews, Just as they were lost in the same way as the Jew, and just as the Jew wasn’t saved by the Law likewise the Gentile wasn’t saved by good works,

​Ok, I think we actually agree here. When you said "Law", I did think you meant Mosaic Law. Thank you for patiently clearing that up. I think the wording is a little confusing; but that's ok.

>>>>Your understanding of metanoeo is correct, however you're glossing over the "fruits worthy of" portion and making an preconceived assumption. The word "worthy" (axios),  can mean something along the lines of "deserving," but in the context of Luke 3 in which John is rebuking the people who were coming forth to be baptized out of feigned repentance rather than true repentance, it better means "befitting" or "in congruence with" or "corresponding to."

This passage does not say anything about people being granted repentance, but is rather a rebuke on the ones claiming repentance and then behaving otherwise, indicating their "change of mind" is only superficial and thus inadequate for salvation. On this, I think your underlying premise "repentance = the gift of God given sight" fails. Since it is this premise that the rest of your argument rests, I believe it fails as a whole as well.<<<<<

>>>>Since it is this premise that the rest of your argument rests<<<

My argument isn’t based solely on this verse or the word repent, but it does help clear up what I believe to be a common misunderstanding of this verse, many believe that John was preaching the Gospel here, and also that Repentance means ‘stop sinning’ and ‘do good works’ so repent to many means ‘keep the law’ or ‘keep the ten commandments’ so you get Works salvation or salvation maintained by works, (Lordship Salvation).

I think the word repent has still got an historical bias due to the Roman Catholic translation which used ‘do penance’ the interpretation you are taking seems the likely one due to this historical bias which our culture is still steeped in.

The Bishops who liked lording it over the people, the misunderstanding of the word repentance, and not realising that John was an old testament prophet (before Grace came it was by works) but the works was to lead to the faith. And John was pointing out to them that their works were lacking and so leaving them short of the target. In relation to this see. Ac 10:4 And when he looked on him, he was afraid, and said, What is it, Lord? And he said unto him, Thy prayers and thine alms are come up for a memorial before God.  His alms never saved him, but they got him noticed. One verse which sums up my argument much better than this one is;

Ga 3:22-6 But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe. But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed. Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.
For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.

​I think you misunderstood my point on this one. We agree on what repentance means. I was intending to say that your argument rests on repentance being a gift, to which I disagree based on the aforementioned counter-analysis of "fruits worthy of" contextually meaning "befitting" rather than "deserving." If I am correct, it invalidates your use of Luke 3 to assert your position that God chooses the elect and then gives them the ability to repent and thus be saved. (please correct me if I've misstated your position in that very brief summary)

Essentially what we're talking about here is whether repentance is a human response to hearing and understanding the Gospel or a divine intervention by God a limited group of people. I believe I have made a solid case for the former based on the arguments given thus far. What other passages do you believe support the latter?

>>>>The word "worthy" (axios),  can mean something along the lines of "deserving," but in the context of Luke 3.…<<<<  

I believe it can and does mean something along the line of ‘deserving’ or ‘worthy’, Based on the overall context in relation to the whole Bible and historical setting, so let us consider the context of Luke 3.

John was the last in a long line of old Testament prophets. I think the 400 odd silent years was perfect, like the silence before the storm, for John had the greatest role of all the prophets that went before him, he actually baptised Jesus Christ, he handed Israel over to the Saviour, he was the greatest ever born of a woman, at least until that time.

Johns ministry was to prepare man kind to receive their Messiah, he was pointing them to Christ, to the narrow gate, exhorting them to make straight the crooked paths within their hearts, so they could walk the path and see the gate and enter in because the time had come.

Mt 11:11 Verily I say unto you, Among them that are born of women there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist: notwithstanding he that is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.

Even although  John was the greatest of all the prophets, the worst born again Christian is Greater that him. John was raised up on the earth, New Covenant believers (Christians) are ‘Translated’, so we are a  world higher than John was, and yet he was greater than Moses.

Main Point John wasn’t preaching the gospel, but rather heralding the gospel to come. That is why there is a symbol of water baptism for John and a symbol of water Baptism for Jesus

​I agree with you on what John's ministry was, but I don't see how that contextually demands "deserving" over "befitting." Regardless of the portion of the gospel writ large John was preaching, it does not change the concept of repentance and how one comes to it. If we are going to make the application of Luke 3 repentance to the full Gospel of Jesus Christ, which it seems is what the purpose of this discussion began with, then the content of the preaching is moot. Rather, it's the nature of repentance that we're examining. On that note, I believe the following explanation from my previous post correctly explains the context:

​The "fruits worthy of repentance" comes after the completed quote in Isaiah and thus contextually stands on its own. The Isaiah reference (59:1-5) is intended to show how far the people were from God due to their sin. It was a reference Jesus apparently used regularly as well (see Matt 3:7, 12:34, 23:33). The "fruits worthy of repentance", therefore, stands as a contrastive explanation to show that their behavior showed that they had not truly repented in their hearts.

Additionally, I think your Acts 19:3-5 is an invalid insertion on this point. The audience in Luke 3 are Jews in Judea whereas those in Acts 19 are diaspora Jews in Ephesus some 20 years later; so the audience comparison is invalid. The purpose of the statement in Luke 3 is about the truth of their repentance whereas the purpose of the statement in Acts 19 is about the comprehension of the complete Gospel message of Jesus rather than the simplified gospel of repentance preached by John; so I believe the purpose of comparing the two passages in this case is invalid as well. Therefore, the context of "fruits worthy..." still stands on its own, and therefore I believe the context demands the definition of axios be "befitting" or "in congruence with."

​

>>>>However, John 6:44-45 is talking about learning from the universal calling rather than sanctification. The literal translation of hagiasmos, from which we get sanctification, is "holy-izing," or rather "consecration/purification." It is not a cognitive process as described in John 6:44-45. <<<<

Really? Are you sure your not simply relying on some preconceived theological assumptions.
Sanctification can mean ‘set apart’ what about Joh 17:17 Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth. Surely some cognitivity involved where the word is involved.

I think Your theology is starting to clash with the scripture. 'universal calling?

​"Set apart" is bound up in the "consecration" definition; so yes, I believe it can and does mean that. That is part of why I believe sanctification is both an event (being set apart) that happens at the moment of salvation and a process (progressive and continual purification) throughout life which is what John 17:17 refers to. In this discussion on election, we're concerned with the event of sanctification, which I am arguing is a follows salvation sequentially rather than enables it. Since God is the one who sets the new believer apart (i.e. sanctifies), I don't see how human cognition of anything comes into play because it is not a human activity.

The universal calling discussion is much broader and conceptually begins elsewhere. Since it is not currently a critical part of what we're discussing, I think we should table it for now and pick it back up after we've worked through some of these other issues and it becomes more immediately pertinent. The primary point for that post was that John 6:44-45 is not referring to sanctification.

[Old-Pilgrim]

The Baptist

Isa 40:3 The voice of him that crieth in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the LORD, make straight in the desert a highway for our God.
Isa 40:4 Every valley shall be exalted, and every mountain and hill shall be made low: and the crooked shall be made straight, and the rough places plain:
Isa 40:5 And the glory of the LORD shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see it together: for the mouth of the LORD hath spoken it.
Lu 1:17 And he shall go before him in the spirit and power of Elias, to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the disobedient to the wisdom of the just; to make ready a people prepared for the Lord.
Lu 1:18 And Zacharias said unto the angel, Whereby shall I know this? for I am an old man, and my wife well stricken in years.
Lu 1:76 And thou, child, shalt be called the prophet of the Highest: for thou shalt go before the face of the Lord to prepare his ways;
Lu 1:77 To give knowledge of salvation unto his people by the remission of their sins,

Looks like he was going to give them a quick clean so they could see.

 

[Old-Pilgrim]

Hello Matt

You said>>>>?"Set apart" is bound up in the "consecration" definition; so yes, I believe it can and does mean that. That is part of why I believe sanctification is both an event (being set apart) that happens at the moment of salvation and a process (progressive and continual purification) throughout life which is what John 17:17 refers to.<<<<

I also believe sanctification is both an event (being set apart) that happens at the moment of salvation and our translation and a process (progressive and continual purification) which starts long before the moment of salvation and continues throughout life. So just like the old testament path (way) in which they were to walk comes to the gate (salvation) and then continues till the day when we lay aside the body of this death, so sanctification starts long before the day of our salvation and continues till we decease. But you are nullifying my scriptural argument based on your theology and how you think sanctification works and what its limitations are.

I would still argue that the following;  ‘Joh 6:44-45 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him  …It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me.’  Is talking about Pre Salvation Sanctification. I have pretty much given my argument so There isn’t a lot more can be said on it I guess.

 

You said>>>>In this discussion on election, we're concerned with the event of sanctification, which I am arguing is a follows salvation sequentially rather than enables it. Since God is the one who sets the new believer apart (i.e. sanctifies), I don't see how human cognition of anything comes into play because it is not a human activity.<<<<

After Salvation we are to put to death the deeds of the Flesh by the Spirit. Us and God, I am simply arguing from the scriptures I have posted that our being chosen unto Salvation via sanctification ie being separated unto God is also a work of God and Us as shown in John 6:44-45 and many others.

Theologically speaking I suppose I am talking about some sort of Synergism, and you sound like you are talking about Monergism

>>>The universal calling discussion is much broader and conceptually begins elsewhere. Since it is not currently a critical part of what we're discussing, I think we should table it for now and pick it back up after we've worked through some of these other issues and it becomes more immediately pertinent. The primary point for that post was that John 6:44-45 is not referring to sanctification.<<<<

The term ‘Universal calling’ is a theological term, theology usually clashes with scripture at some point and therefore hindering progress. My primarily assertion is that Joh 6:44-5 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day. It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me.’ Is talking about what scripture calls pre salvation sanctification as mentioned in 1Pe 1:2 Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit…’ Your theology calls it the 'universal calling' which is an unbiblical term. I have used Scripture to put forth my argument, No offence intended, but I don’t want to learn some other man's archaic theology. So I guess you disagree with my views on scripture. All were taught of God in order to call those who had an ear, that sounds like the beginnings of sanctification to me.

[Old-Pilgrim]

I'll go and ponder for a while.

Sorry if I was a bit short there.

[TheSword]

Hello Matt

You said>>>>?"Set apart" is bound up in the "consecration" definition; so yes, I believe it can and does mean that. That is part of why I believe sanctification is both an event (being set apart) that happens at the moment of salvation and a process (progressive and continual purification) throughout life which is what John 17:17 refers to.<<<<

I also believe sanctification is both an event (being set apart) that happens at the moment of salvation and our translation and a process (progressive and continual purification) which starts long before the moment of salvation and continues throughout life. So just like the old testament path (way) in which they were to walk comes to the gate (salvation) and then continues till the day when we lay aside the body of this death, so sanctification starts long before the day of our salvation and continues till we decease. But you are nullifying my scriptural argument based on your theology and how you think sanctification works and what its limitations are.

I would still argue that the following;  ‘Joh 6:44-45 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him  …It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me.’  Is talking about Pre Salvation Sanctification. I have pretty much given my argument so There isn’t a lot more can be said on it I guess.

​This is kind of a logical leap, in my opinion, from John 6:44-45. Not only is sanctification not mentioned specifically, it is not present conceptually either. You have to make an inferential assumption to find sanctification in this passage at all. Do you have any other passages that you think point to pre-salvation sanctification? I have given very clear and strong passages intimating that it only occurs post-salvation.

You said>>>>In this discussion on election, we're concerned with the event of sanctification, which I am arguing is a follows salvation sequentially rather than enables it. Since God is the one who sets the new believer apart (i.e. sanctifies), I don't see how human cognition of anything comes into play because it is not a human activity.<<<<

After Salvation we are to put to death the deeds of the Flesh by the Spirit. Us and God, I am simply arguing from the scriptures I have posted that our being chosen unto Salvation via sanctification ie being separated unto God is also a work of God and Us as shown in John 6:44-45 and many others.

Theologically speaking I suppose I am talking about some sort of Synergism, and you sound like you are talking about Monergism

​Ok, I think I've identified a major sticking point in our discussion. What you're talking about now the nature of the choosing; i.e. chosen to salvation vs. chosen based on salvation. I don't have time to elaborate at the moment, but I believe the latter is correct. In order to believe the latter, you must also believe in its corollary that those not chosen to salvation are chosen to damnation, commonly called double predestination. This is the logical end of Calvinism.

>>The universal calling discussion is much broader and conceptually begins elsewhere. Since it is not currently a critical part of what we're discussing, I think we should table it for now and pick it back up after we've worked through some of these other issues and it becomes more immediately pertinent. The primary point for that post was that John 6:44-45 is not referring to sanctification.<<<<

The term ‘Universal calling’ is a theological term, theology usually clashes with scripture at some point and therefore hindering progress. My primarily assertion is that Joh 6:44-5 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day. It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me.’ Is talking about what scripture calls pre salvation sanctification as mentioned in 1Pe 1:2 Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit…’ Your theology calls it the 'universal calling' which is an unbiblical term. I have used Scripture to put forth my argument, No offence intended, but I don’t want to learn some other man's archaic theology. So I guess you disagree with my views on scripture. All were taught of God in order to call those who had an ear, that sounds like the beginnings of sanctification to me.

​Given that the previous comment indicated a major point of disagreement here is over double-predestination of sorts, I think the concept of universal calling is indeed an important part of the discussion. I think before we can have any fruitful discussion on election, we have work to do regarding the purpose of election because when you say election, you think of God choosing who will be saved, but when I say it I think of God choosing those who are saved to be His people. Until we hammer that out, the issue of sanctification is moot.

 

[Old-Pilgrim]

Hello Matt

>You Said>>>This is kind of a logical leap, in my opinion, from John 6:44-45. Not only is sanctification not mentioned specifically, it is not present conceptually either. You have to make an inferential assumption to find sanctification in this passage at all. Do you have any other passages that you think point to pre-salvation sanctification? I have given very clear and strong passages intimating that it only occurs post-salvation.<<<<

Remember this post originally was about Scriptural election not Theological Election, most likely two completely different things, I think the so called Anabaptists had the right Idea when they rejected the Institutional Church in it’s entirety and got back to the Bible, Which the Devil and his willing servants didn’t like for some reason. (I digress)

Two Common Mistakes
One mistake people often make when studying the Bible is that they assume that every time a word is used that it means the same thing that it did in another passage of scripture, another mistake that is often made is that every passage of scripture must always use the same word when talking about any given topic, or else it must be talking about something else. For example when Johns gospel doesn’t use the word ‘Repent’ it doesn’t mean that it doesn’t teach repentance. If an unbeliever or a Jew becomes a Christian, then by necessity he has repented about what he believed before, it is Just that John doesn’t use that word. And the case in hand, just because different words are used in different parts of the Bible, it doesn’t mean that they are always talking about different things.

To sanctify is to literally "set apart for particular use in a special purpose or work and to make holy or sacred." Etymologically, "sanctify" derives from the Latin verb sanctificare which in turn derives from sanctus "holy" and facere "to make".

To sanctify =‘set apart’ ‘to make’ holy’

Essentially as I see it, we are talking about How do the sheep get separated from the goats, the saved from the damned, if you divide humanity into two, lost and saved, how are they ‘separated’. John 6:44-45 would indicate that those who have learnt are separated unto God. I.e. they are being Sanctified.
Joh 6:44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.
Joh 6:45 It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me.