An Article on free will

[Johann]

"Man by his natural birth, and as he is born according to the flesh of his natural parents, is a mere natural man; that is, he is carnal and corrupt, and cannot discern spiritual things; nor can he, as such, enter into, and inherit the kingdom of God; see 1 Corinthians 2:14. And therefore there is a absolutely necessity of his being born again, or of the grace of the Spirit, and of his becoming a spiritual man; and if he was to be, or could be born again of the flesh, or ever so many times enter into his mother's womb, and be born, was it possible, he would still be but a natural and a carnal man, and so unfit for the kingdom of God. By "flesh" here, is not meant the fleshy part of man, the body, as generated of another fleshy substance; for this is no other than what may be said of brutes; and besides, if this was the sense, "spirit," in the next clause, must mean the soul, whereas one soul is not generated from another: but by flesh is designed, the nature of man; not merely as weak and frail, but as unclean and corrupt, through sin; and which being propagated by natural generation from sinful men, cannot be otherwise; for "who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? not one," Job 14:4. And though the soul of man is of a spiritual nature, and remains a spirit, notwithstanding the pollution of sin; yet it being defiled with the flesh, and altogether under the power and influence of the lusts of the flesh, it may well be said to be carnal or fleshly: hence "flesh," as it stands opposed to spirit, signifies the corruption of nature, Galatians 5:17; and such who are in a state of unregeneracy, are said to be after the flesh, and in the flesh, and even the mind/spirit/heart itself is said to be carnal, Romans 8:5."

Brother--

JOHN GILL’S CALVINISTIC READING (as previously outlined)
Key Claims:
a) “Flesh” means corrupt, sin-laden nature incapable of producing spiritual life.
b) Even the immaterial soul is enslaved under carnal desire until the Spirit intervenes.
c) Regeneration is monergistic (God alone acts), irresistible, and precedes faith.
d) “Born of the Spirit” refers to the Spirit’s unilateral act of renewal.

Support:
Rom 8:7–8 + Eph 2:1–3 + 1 Cor 2:14
Lexical support from BDAG (πνεῦμα 3c), Robertson, Moule.
Theological support from Westminster Confession, Institutes (Calvin), Canons of Dort.

II. ARMINIAN READING (esp. as seen in Wesley, Clarke, and Olson)
Overview:
Arminianism affirms total depravity but insists grace is prevenient and resistible, allowing for genuine human response. While “flesh” refers to the natural man, this does not imply that man is wholly inactive or passive in regeneration.

Exegetical Points:
a) "Born of the flesh" refers to natural, Adamic generation—not necessarily total incapacity.
b) “Born of the Spirit” denotes a transformative encounter that occurs through faith, not prior to it.
c) Regeneration is contingent upon faith, which is enabled but not forced by grace.

Key Voices:

John Wesley (Notes on the NT): “The natural man...has neither spiritual life nor light. He must be born of the Spirit—that is, changed by the divine influence.”

Adam Clarke: Interprets “flesh” as "mere natural man," not yet influenced by divine grace, but not devoid of capacity to respond.

Roger Olson: Emphasizes that God initiates, but humans must respond freely—regeneration occurs after the faith response.

Scriptural Emphasis:
Deut 30:19 “Choose life...”
Acts 17:30 “God now commands all men everywhere to repent.”
John 1:12 “To those who received Him...He gave the right to become children of God.”
1 Tim 2:4 + 2 Pet 3:9 – God desires all to be saved, not just a select elect.

Tension:
Arminians reject Gill’s notion of complete passivity and argue that divine imperatives (e.g., “Repent,” “Believe”) presuppose real volitional power, albeit assisted by grace.

III. PATRISTIC READINGS
Here, we trace how early Christian exegetes (prior to Augustine’s strong predestinarian formulations) interpreted this verse. Most Church Fathers affirmed human freedom, while also stressing the Spirit’s role in transformation.

A) Justin Martyr (2nd c.)
View: Emphasizes freedom of the will and human responsibility in responding to God’s truth.

Textual Approach: Likely reads “flesh” as the earthly birth common to all and sees “Spirit” as the gift given to those who choose truth.

Key Text: First Apology, ch. 28 – “If men by their free choice repent...they shall find mercy.”

B) Irenaeus (c. 180, Against Heresies)
Position: Affirms necessity of rebirth, but does not teach total moral inability.

On John 3:6: “The soul which follows the Spirit shall ascend to the spiritual realm, but that which cleaves to the flesh becomes carnal.” (Adv. Haer. V.9.1)

Implication: Spiritual rebirth involves participation with the Spirit—not unilateral transformation.

C) Origen (c. 185–253)
View: Affirms synergy between divine grace and human will.

Homily on John: Explains “flesh” as the condition of those born naturally, but “spirit” as that which arises when man opens himself to divine teaching and grace.

Key Emphasis: “God draws, but He draws him who wills.”
(Cf. Commentary on John, Book VI, Fragment 87)

D) John Chrysostom (c. 347–407)
Soteriology: Strongly synergistic. Free will is central.

On John 3:6 (Homily 24 on John): “The Spirit, when He finds a soul willing and ready, enters in.”

Interpretation: “Flesh” refers to natural birth, which is neutral in itself but needs to be transcended by cooperating with grace.

IV. COMPARATIVE SUMMARY
Issue Gill (Calvinist) Arminian Patristic
Human Will Dead, passive, hostile Fallen but responsive under grace Wounded but free
Flesh (σάρξ) Corrupt nature, hostile to God Natural, unrenewed man Natural birth (not necessarily depraved)
Spirit (πνεῦμα) New nature imparted by monergistic act New life given after faith Spiritual transformation with human cooperation
Faith Result of regeneration Precedes regeneration Human initiative meets divine grace
Regeneration Unilateral, irresistible Prevenient grace enables choice Synergistic transformation

Hope this is helpful.

Johann.

 

[civic]

Brother--

JOHN GILL’S CALVINISTIC READING (as previously outlined)
Key Claims:
a) “Flesh” means corrupt, sin-laden nature incapable of producing spiritual life.
b) Even the immaterial soul is enslaved under carnal desire until the Spirit intervenes.
c) Regeneration is monergistic (God alone acts), irresistible, and precedes faith.
d) “Born of the Spirit” refers to the Spirit’s unilateral act of renewal.

Support:
Rom 8:7–8 + Eph 2:1–3 + 1 Cor 2:14
Lexical support from BDAG (πνεῦμα 3c), Robertson, Moule.
Theological support from Westminster Confession, Institutes (Calvin), Canons of Dort.

II. ARMINIAN READING (esp. as seen in Wesley, Clarke, and Olson)
Overview:
Arminianism affirms total depravity but insists grace is prevenient and resistible, allowing for genuine human response. While “flesh” refers to the natural man, this does not imply that man is wholly inactive or passive in regeneration.

Exegetical Points:
a) "Born of the flesh" refers to natural, Adamic generation—not necessarily total incapacity.
b) “Born of the Spirit” denotes a transformative encounter that occurs through faith, not prior to it.
c) Regeneration is contingent upon faith, which is enabled but not forced by grace.

Key Voices:

John Wesley (Notes on the NT): “The natural man...has neither spiritual life nor light. He must be born of the Spirit—that is, changed by the divine influence.”

Adam Clarke: Interprets “flesh” as "mere natural man," not yet influenced by divine grace, but not devoid of capacity to respond.

Roger Olson: Emphasizes that God initiates, but humans must respond freely—regeneration occurs after the faith response.

Scriptural Emphasis:
Deut 30:19 “Choose life...”
Acts 17:30 “God now commands all men everywhere to repent.”
John 1:12 “To those who received Him...He gave the right to become children of God.”
1 Tim 2:4 + 2 Pet 3:9 – God desires all to be saved, not just a select elect.

Tension:
Arminians reject Gill’s notion of complete passivity and argue that divine imperatives (e.g., “Repent,” “Believe”) presuppose real volitional power, albeit assisted by grace.

III. PATRISTIC READINGS
Here, we trace how early Christian exegetes (prior to Augustine’s strong predestinarian formulations) interpreted this verse. Most Church Fathers affirmed human freedom, while also stressing the Spirit’s role in transformation.

A) Justin Martyr (2nd c.)
View: Emphasizes freedom of the will and human responsibility in responding to God’s truth.

Textual Approach: Likely reads “flesh” as the earthly birth common to all and sees “Spirit” as the gift given to those who choose truth.

Key Text: First Apology, ch. 28 – “If men by their free choice repent...they shall find mercy.”

B) Irenaeus (c. 180, Against Heresies)
Position: Affirms necessity of rebirth, but does not teach total moral inability.

On John 3:6: “The soul which follows the Spirit shall ascend to the spiritual realm, but that which cleaves to the flesh becomes carnal.” (Adv. Haer. V.9.1)

Implication: Spiritual rebirth involves participation with the Spirit—not unilateral transformation.

C) Origen (c. 185–253)
View: Affirms synergy between divine grace and human will.

Homily on John: Explains “flesh” as the condition of those born naturally, but “spirit” as that which arises when man opens himself to divine teaching and grace.

Key Emphasis: “God draws, but He draws him who wills.”
(Cf. Commentary on John, Book VI, Fragment 87)

D) John Chrysostom (c. 347–407)
Soteriology: Strongly synergistic. Free will is central.

On John 3:6 (Homily 24 on John): “The Spirit, when He finds a soul willing and ready, enters in.”

Interpretation: “Flesh” refers to natural birth, which is neutral in itself but needs to be transcended by cooperating with grace.

IV. COMPARATIVE SUMMARY
Issue Gill (Calvinist) Arminian Patristic
Human Will Dead, passive, hostile Fallen but responsive under grace Wounded but free
Flesh (σάρξ) Corrupt nature, hostile to God Natural, unrenewed man Natural birth (not necessarily depraved)
Spirit (πνεῦμα) New nature imparted by monergistic act New life given after faith Spiritual transformation with human cooperation
Faith Result of regeneration Precedes regeneration Human initiative meets divine grace
Regeneration Unilateral, irresistible Prevenient grace enables choice Synergistic transformation

Hope this is helpful.

Johann.

Yes the early church prior to augustine were synergists. Monergism did not exist until augustine.

 

[brightfame52]

Arminianism is humanism in religious garb,

But Arminian thinking, as all forms of humanism, views man primarily as a sinner, with faith within the power of the sinner. The Arminian at least thinks, if he does not say it, that as many as believe are ordained to eternal life. But the Lord says, “As many as were ordained to eternal life believed.” (Acts13:48)The Arminian teaches that if you are not Christ’s sheep, it is because you believe not. But Jesus said of the reprobate wicked, because He knew them and their hearts, “Ye believe not because ye are not of My sheep.” (John10:26)The Arminian says that some men are not of God because they do not hear God’s Word. But Christ affirms, “Ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God.” (John8:47)The Arminian wants to say that God blinds men’s eyes and hardens their hearts because they believe not. But the apostle taught that "they believed not,” if fact, “they could not believe, because that Esaias said, ‘He hath blinded their eyes and hardened their heart, that they should not see.'” (John12:36-40)The Arminian thinks that all who come, the Father gives to Christ. But the Lord taught, “All that the Father giveth to Me shall come to Me.” (John6:37)The Arminian says, Believe on His name and you shall be born of God. But the apostle wrote, “them that believe (presently) . . . were(already) born . . . of God.” (John1:12, 13)The Arminian says that you must hear the Word and believe it in order to obtain eternal life. But it is written, “he that heareth My Word and believeth Him that sent Me, hath (not shall have) everlasting life, and cometh not into judgment, but hath passed out of death into life.” (John5:24)It is therefore the one with spiritual life who hears the Word and believes it. The trouble with the Arminian is that he will not have the plain, bare Word of God, despite his loud boasts that he will. He will have the exact opposite to that found in the infallible Word! https://sb.rfpa.org/its-origin-its-well-spring/

 

[civic]

Arminianism is humanism in religious garb,

Calvinism is humanism in religious garb,

next

 

[Johann]

Arminianism is humanism in religious garb,

"As many as were ordained to eternal life believed" (Acts 13:48) proves unconditional election.

Exegetical Response: The Greek phrase in Acts 13:48 is ὅσοι ἦσαν τεταγμένοι εἰς ζωὴν αἰώνιον ἐπίστευσαν.

The verb τεταγμένοι is the perfect passive participle of τάσσω, meaning “to appoint, arrange, assign.”

A.T. Robertson notes that τεταγμένοι here can be taken in the middle voice sense, “as many as set themselves in order for eternal life believed,” rather than a strict passive divine decree (Robertson, Grammar, p. 817).

C.F.D. Moule and BDAG both acknowledge τάσσω can carry a reflexive force depending on context (BDAG, τάσσω, 2b), and Luke elsewhere uses passive verbs to imply voluntary alignment (cf. Luke 7:29: ἐδικαίωσαν τὸν θεόν, “they justified God”—voluntarily).

The context favors a distinction between Gentile receptivity and Jewish resistance (cf. Acts 13:46). Hence, “as many as had aligned themselves toward eternal life” believed—consistent with human response and Acts 2:41 +*.

Cross-refs: +Luke 8:15, John 5:40, Acts 2:41, Romans 10:13–14.

CLAIM 2: “Ye believe not because ye are not of My sheep” (John 10:26) proves election precedes faith.

Exegetical Response: The verse ὑμεῖς δὲ οὐ πιστεύετε, ὅτι οὐκ ἐστὲ ἐκ τῶν προβάτων τῶν ἐμῶν is not a temporal sequencing of election → faith, but descriptive of present character.

The Greek οὐκ ἐστὲ ἐκ τῶν προβάτων means “you are not among My sheep,” but Jesus also declares that His sheep hear His voice and follow (v. 27)—both continuous present tense.

Wuest and Vincent both note that “sheep” is not a static pre-temporal designation, but a moral and relational identity affirmed by hearing and responding to Christ’s voice (Vincent, Word Studies, vol. 2).

John 10:16 shows sheep not yet in the fold who “shall hear” and be brought in—future responsiveness, not past predetermination.

Cross-refs: John 5:24, Romans 8:29, +Luke 15:4–7.

CLAIM 3: John 8:47 — “Ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God.”

Exegetical Response: This speaks to moral orientation and current resistance, not metaphysical exclusion.

The Greek ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ idiomatically means “from/of God” and in Johannine theology speaks to moral/spiritual disposition, not absolute predetermination (cf. 1 John 4:6).

Jesus does not state they never could be of God, but in their present obstinate condition they “are not”—a contrast to John 1:12–13, where reception leads to new birth.

Wallace reminds us: context controls semantic range. This is polemical speech against hardened Pharisees (cf. John 5:39–40), not a metaphysical decree of reprobation.

Cross-refs: +1 John 4:6, John 3:19–21, 2 Thess. 2:10.

CLAIM 4: John 12:39–40 means they “could not believe” because God hardened them before they disbelieved.

Exegetical Response: This passage quotes Isaiah 6:10 (LXX) and explains the consequence of their ongoing unbelief, not its cause.

The Greek οὐκ ἠδύναντο πιστεύειν refers to a judicial hardening that follows persistent rejection (cf. Isaiah 6:9–10 LXX; ἠκάμμυκεν = “He has calloused”).

A.T. Robertson: This is a divine response to persistent unbelief (Grammar, p. 827), not an arbitrary act.

See John 12:37 — “though He had done so many signs, they were not believing (imperfect)—ongoing rejection.”

Paul interprets this same concept in Romans 11:7–8 as a consequence of hardened hearts after their resistance.

Cross-refs: +Romans 11:7–10, Matt. 13:14–15, Isaiah 6:9–10 (LXX).

CLAIM 5: John 6:37 teaches that all who are given by the Father come, thus proving monergism.

Exegetical Response: The verse: πᾶν ὃ δίδωσίν μοι ὁ πατὴρ πρὸς ἐμὲ ἥξει = “All that the Father gives to Me shall come.”

The verb δίδωσιν is present active indicative, not past tense: “is giving.” Ongoing giving of people to Christ (not a one-time eternal decree).

Wallace notes that verbal aspect matters: this is durative present, implying an unfolding giving, not a static election.

This matches John 6:45: “Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes”—the giving is mediated by hearing and response.

No sense of unconditionality is implied; rather, it is compatible with Isaiah 55:3—“incline your ear and come.”

Cross-refs: +John 6:44–45, Isaiah 55:1–3, Romans 10:17.

CLAIM 6: John 1:12–13 means that people believe because they were born of God, not the other way around.

Exegetical Response: John 1:12–13 makes a distinction between human effort and divine rebirth, but not a sequence excluding faith.

The verb ἔδωκεν in v. 12 (“He gave authority to become”) follows τοῖς πιστεύουσιν—those presently believing. Faith precedes the right of becoming children.

V.13 explains the origin of this status, but not the exact chronology. Greek participles often function theologically, not temporally.

The θεοῦ ἐγεννήθησαν phrase (they were born of God) describes the ground of the new birth, but the invitation to “receive” in v. 12 remains genuine.

Kenneth Wuest points out that believing is man’s response, regeneration is God’s work, but the former is not ruled out as preceding in perception and experience (Wuest's Word Studies).

Cross-refs: +John 3:16, Galatians 3:26, 1 Peter 1:23.

CLAIM 7: John 5:24 proves that the one who believes already has life and thus regeneration precedes faith.

Exegetical Response: The verse: ὁ τὸν λόγον μου ἀκούων καὶ πιστεύων… ἔχει ζωὴν αἰώνιον.

The present participles ἀκούων and πιστεύων ("hearing" and "believing") precede the indicative ἔχει ("has eternal life").

This shows that life is granted in response to the hearing and believing.

Wallace: Greek present participles often express contemporaneous action—there is no linguistic ground to read ἔχει as causally prior to πιστεύων.

Alford and Vincent both affirm the order in this verse is crucial: the believer comes into possession of life through belief.

Cross-refs: +Romans 10:17, 1 John 5:1, John 20:31.

FINAL POINT: Arminians distort the plain Word?

Exegetical Response: This accusation ignores that Arminians affirm the whole of Scripture, not select texts. God's commands to repent, believe, and choose are imperatives calling for response:

Isaiah 55:6–7: “Seek the LORD… call upon Him… return”—commands that assume human responsibility.

Matthew 23:37: “I would… you would not”—demonstrates divine desire frustrated by human refusal.

Acts 7:51: “You always resist the Holy Spirit”—resistance presumes volition, not total passivity.

My affirmed sources, such as Robertson, Wuest, and Moule, all acknowledge the dynamic interplay between divine action and human response—never fatalistic determinism.

Let the Textus Receptus, not the system of Dort, be the foundation.
Let the imperatives of Scripture speak plainly: "Repent," "Believe," "Choose," "Come."
And let the Spirit and the Bride say, "Come!" (Rev. 22:17)
Why invite if the hearer has no capacity to respond?

J.

 

[civic]

"As many as were ordained to eternal life believed" (Acts 13:48) proves unconditional election.

Exegetical Response: The Greek phrase in Acts 13:48 is ὅσοι ἦσαν τεταγμένοι εἰς ζωὴν αἰώνιον ἐπίστευσαν.

The verb τεταγμένοι is the perfect passive participle of τάσσω, meaning “to appoint, arrange, assign.”

A.T. Robertson notes that τεταγμένοι here can be taken in the middle voice sense, “as many as set themselves in order for eternal life believed,” rather than a strict passive divine decree (Robertson, Grammar, p. 817).

C.F.D. Moule and BDAG both acknowledge τάσσω can carry a reflexive force depending on context (BDAG, τάσσω, 2b), and Luke elsewhere uses passive verbs to imply voluntary alignment (cf. Luke 7:29: ἐδικαίωσαν τὸν θεόν, “they justified God”—voluntarily).

The context favors a distinction between Gentile receptivity and Jewish resistance (cf. Acts 13:46). Hence, “as many as had aligned themselves toward eternal life” believed—consistent with human response and Acts 2:41 +*.

Cross-refs: +Luke 8:15, John 5:40, Acts 2:41, Romans 10:13–14.

CLAIM 2: “Ye believe not because ye are not of My sheep” (John 10:26) proves election precedes faith.

Exegetical Response: The verse ὑμεῖς δὲ οὐ πιστεύετε, ὅτι οὐκ ἐστὲ ἐκ τῶν προβάτων τῶν ἐμῶν is not a temporal sequencing of election → faith, but descriptive of present character.

The Greek οὐκ ἐστὲ ἐκ τῶν προβάτων means “you are not among My sheep,” but Jesus also declares that His sheep hear His voice and follow (v. 27)—both continuous present tense.

Wuest and Vincent both note that “sheep” is not a static pre-temporal designation, but a moral and relational identity affirmed by hearing and responding to Christ’s voice (Vincent, Word Studies, vol. 2).

John 10:16 shows sheep not yet in the fold who “shall hear” and be brought in—future responsiveness, not past predetermination.

Cross-refs: John 5:24, Romans 8:29, +Luke 15:4–7.

CLAIM 3: John 8:47 — “Ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God.”

Exegetical Response: This speaks to moral orientation and current resistance, not metaphysical exclusion.

The Greek ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ idiomatically means “from/of God” and in Johannine theology speaks to moral/spiritual disposition, not absolute predetermination (cf. 1 John 4:6).

Jesus does not state they never could be of God, but in their present obstinate condition they “are not”—a contrast to John 1:12–13, where reception leads to new birth.

Wallace reminds us: context controls semantic range. This is polemical speech against hardened Pharisees (cf. John 5:39–40), not a metaphysical decree of reprobation.

Cross-refs: +1 John 4:6, John 3:19–21, 2 Thess. 2:10.

CLAIM 4: John 12:39–40 means they “could not believe” because God hardened them before they disbelieved.

Exegetical Response: This passage quotes Isaiah 6:10 (LXX) and explains the consequence of their ongoing unbelief, not its cause.

The Greek οὐκ ἠδύναντο πιστεύειν refers to a judicial hardening that follows persistent rejection (cf. Isaiah 6:9–10 LXX; ἠκάμμυκεν = “He has calloused”).

A.T. Robertson: This is a divine response to persistent unbelief (Grammar, p. 827), not an arbitrary act.

See John 12:37 — “though He had done so many signs, they were not believing (imperfect)—ongoing rejection.”

Paul interprets this same concept in Romans 11:7–8 as a consequence of hardened hearts after their resistance.

Cross-refs: +Romans 11:7–10, Matt. 13:14–15, Isaiah 6:9–10 (LXX).

CLAIM 5: John 6:37 teaches that all who are given by the Father come, thus proving monergism.

Exegetical Response: The verse: πᾶν ὃ δίδωσίν μοι ὁ πατὴρ πρὸς ἐμὲ ἥξει = “All that the Father gives to Me shall come.”

The verb δίδωσιν is present active indicative, not past tense: “is giving.” Ongoing giving of people to Christ (not a one-time eternal decree).

Wallace notes that verbal aspect matters: this is durative present, implying an unfolding giving, not a static election.

This matches John 6:45: “Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes”—the giving is mediated by hearing and response.

No sense of unconditionality is implied; rather, it is compatible with Isaiah 55:3—“incline your ear and come.”

Cross-refs: +John 6:44–45, Isaiah 55:1–3, Romans 10:17.

CLAIM 6: John 1:12–13 means that people believe because they were born of God, not the other way around.

Exegetical Response: John 1:12–13 makes a distinction between human effort and divine rebirth, but not a sequence excluding faith.

The verb ἔδωκεν in v. 12 (“He gave authority to become”) follows τοῖς πιστεύουσιν—those presently believing. Faith precedes the right of becoming children.

V.13 explains the origin of this status, but not the exact chronology. Greek participles often function theologically, not temporally.

The θεοῦ ἐγεννήθησαν phrase (they were born of God) describes the ground of the new birth, but the invitation to “receive” in v. 12 remains genuine.

Kenneth Wuest points out that believing is man’s response, regeneration is God’s work, but the former is not ruled out as preceding in perception and experience (Wuest's Word Studies).

Cross-refs: +John 3:16, Galatians 3:26, 1 Peter 1:23.

CLAIM 7: John 5:24 proves that the one who believes already has life and thus regeneration precedes faith.

Exegetical Response: The verse: ὁ τὸν λόγον μου ἀκούων καὶ πιστεύων… ἔχει ζωὴν αἰώνιον.

The present participles ἀκούων and πιστεύων ("hearing" and "believing") precede the indicative ἔχει ("has eternal life").

This shows that life is granted in response to the hearing and believing.

Wallace: Greek present participles often express contemporaneous action—there is no linguistic ground to read ἔχει as causally prior to πιστεύων.

Alford and Vincent both affirm the order in this verse is crucial: the believer comes into possession of life through belief.

Cross-refs: +Romans 10:17, 1 John 5:1, John 20:31.

FINAL POINT: Arminians distort the plain Word?

Exegetical Response: This accusation ignores that Arminians affirm the whole of Scripture, not select texts. God's commands to repent, believe, and choose are imperatives calling for response:

Isaiah 55:6–7: “Seek the LORD… call upon Him… return”—commands that assume human responsibility.

Matthew 23:37: “I would… you would not”—demonstrates divine desire frustrated by human refusal.

Acts 7:51: “You always resist the Holy Spirit”—resistance presumes volition, not total passivity.

My affirmed sources, such as Robertson, Wuest, and Moule, all acknowledge the dynamic interplay between divine action and human response—never fatalistic determinism.

Let the Textus Receptus, not the system of Dort, be the foundation.
Let the imperatives of Scripture speak plainly: "Repent," "Believe," "Choose," "Come."
And let the Spirit and the Bride say, "Come!" (Rev. 22:17)
Why invite if the hearer has no capacity to respond?

J.

so much for his false claims regarding Arminianism- good post with Greek Scholars who are experts in their field.

 

[Johann]

so much for his false claims regarding Arminianism- good post with Greek Scholars who are experts in their field.

There are more but this should suffice brother.

God bless.

J.

 

[civic]

There are more but this should suffice brother.

God bless.

J.

One thing with the Greek it is precise language unlike English and these Greek Scholars have done an excellent job and are in agreement with the passages.

 

[Johann]

One thing with the Greek it is precise language unlike English and these Greek Scholars have done an excellent job and are in agreement with the passages.

So did the ECF's [ Pre-Augustine ]

Not many are inclined to study in this manner, rightly dividing the word of God. Scripture4All is a wonderful tool in the toolbox civic.

J.

 

[Red Baker]

@MTMattie @Jim @civic @GodsGrace @synergy @brightfame52 @Kermos @TomL @dwight92070 @Johann

Adam Clarke: Interprets “flesh” as "mere natural man," not yet influenced by divine grace, but not devoid of capacity to respond.

Greetings Johann,

I do have a lot of respect for Adam Clarke ~ for it was Mr. Clark who helped open my eyes to the great error of the eternal sonship doctrine of Jesus Christ, from his comments on Luke 1 and Hebrews one, both which I have saved in my own notes on the subject. He taught and believed in the incarnate Sonship position. He stood alone on this great truth.

On his notes above in your quote, the good man missed the truth.

 

[civic]

So did the ECF's [ Pre-Augustine ]

Not many are inclined to study in this manner, rightly dividing the word of God. Scripture4All is a wonderful tool in the toolbox civic.

J.

Yes early church history is not on their side with free will, predestination and faith following regeneration, original sin etc.....

 

[Jim]

@MTMattie @Jim @civic @GodsGrace @synergy @brightfame52 @Kermos @TomL @dwight92070 @Johann

Jim, You are wrong in using John 3:6 in the sense in which you are using it, or understanding this verse.

This verse is not referencing of God creating a spirit in each and every person at conception that is pure and holy as you would have others to believe; Jim, I'm not sure how you yourself believe this by using John 3:6., that's not how the Lord was using these words recorded for us in John's gospel.

John 3:6​

“That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.”

"That which is born of the flesh is flesh"~Jim, I can do no better than quote from our forefathers who all taught the same truths concerning John 3:6, so why should I add or take aways from what they said, if indeed they were speaking according to the truth of the holy scriptures.

"Man by his natural birth, and as he is born according to the flesh of his natural parents, is a mere natural man; that is, he is carnal and corrupt, and cannot discern spiritual things; nor can he, as such, enter into, and inherit the kingdom of God; see 1 Corinthians 2:14. And therefore there is a absolutely necessity of his being born again, or of the grace of the Spirit, and of his becoming a spiritual man; and if he was to be, or could be born again of the flesh, or ever so many times enter into his mother's womb, and be born, was it possible, he would still be but a natural and a carnal man, and so unfit for the kingdom of God. By "flesh" here, is not meant the fleshy part of man, the body, as generated of another fleshy substance; for this is no other than what may be said of brutes; and besides, if this was the sense, "spirit," in the next clause, must mean the soul, whereas one soul is not generated from another: but by flesh is designed, the nature of man; not merely as weak and frail, but as unclean and corrupt, through sin; and which being propagated by natural generation from sinful men, cannot be otherwise; for "who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? not one," Job 14:4. And though the soul of man is of a spiritual nature, and remains a spirit, notwithstanding the pollution of sin; yet it being defiled with the flesh, and altogether under the power and influence of the lusts of the flesh, it may well be said to be carnal or fleshly: hence "flesh," as it stands opposed to spirit, signifies the corruption of nature, Galatians 5:17; and such who are in a state of unregeneracy, are said to be after the flesh, and in the flesh, and even the mind/spirit/heart itself is said to be carnal, Romans 8:5."

And that which is born of the Spirit, is spirit: a man that is regenerated by the Spirit of God, and the efficacy of his grace, is a spiritual man; he can discern and judge all things of a spiritual nature; he is a fit person to be admitted to spiritual ordinances and privileges; and appears to be in the spiritual kingdom of Christ; and has a right to the world of blessed spirits above; and when his body is raised a spiritual body, will be admitted in soul, body, and spirit, into the joy of his Lord. "Spirit" in the first part of this clause, signifies the Holy Spirit of God, the author of regeneration and sanctification; whence that work is called the sanctification of the Spirit, and the renewing of the Holy Ghost, 1 Peter 1:2. And "spirit," in the latter part, intends the internal work of grace upon the soul, from whence a man is denominated a spiritual man; and as a child bears the same name with its parent, so this is called by the same, as the author and efficient cause of it: and besides, it is of a spiritual nature itself, and exerts itself in spiritual acts and exercises, and directs to, and engages in spiritual things; and has its seat also in the spirit, or soul of man." John Gill ~ with a very few added thoughts by RB.

So, Jim " that which is born of the Spirit is spirit" ~ is speaking concerning the new birth, not our natural conception in our mother's womb. You sound like Nicodemus speaking.

All of that and your view of that verse is of course derived, not from scripture, but from the likes of one like Augustine. That view, in turn, derives from the gnostic view of the whole of the physical creation being evil.

If what your idea of being born of the Spirit being spirit is correct, then the idea of being born again or being regenerated makes no sense. The spirit of a man, formed by God at some point in the womb of the mother is born of Spirit. That is, it is formed, generated, by God. Once that person sins, the spirit becomes dead in that sin. It needs to be regenerated, reborn, born again, made alive. It was once alive but became dead in sin and thus needs to be made alive again. That, by the way, is what Paul was talking about in Romans 7:

Rom 7:9 I was once alive apart from the law, but when the commandment came, sin came alive and I died.
Rom 7:10 The very commandment that promised life proved to be death to me.

When Jesus stated in verse John 3:6, "that which is born of flesh is flesh", He was establishing the fact that only the flesh, not the spirit, of man comes by way of the flesh. That fact was further explained by the next phrase, "that which is born of Spirit is spirit", explaining the true source of the spirit of a man comes from, and only from, Spirit, i.e., God.

 

[civic]

@MTMattie @Jim @civic @GodsGrace @synergy @brightfame52 @Kermos @TomL @dwight92070 @Johann

Greetings Johann,

I do have a lot of respect for Adam Clarke ~ for it was Mr. Clark who helped open my eyes to the great error of the eternal sonship doctrine of Jesus Christ, from his comments on Luke 1 and Hebrews one, both which I have saved in my own notes on the subject. He taught and believed in the incarnate Sonship position. He stood alone on this great truth.

On his notes above in your quote, the good man missed the truth.

Well he would be wrong its not an either /or which is a false dilemma fallacy, for its and and both. He is the Eternal Son as the 2nd Person of the Eternal Godhead- the Son. He has always been the Son Eternally just as the Father has always been the Father eternally and the Holy Spirit the Holy Spirit eternally. The only thing that changed with the Eternal Son is He permanently became flesh, a man at the Incarnation.

hope this helps !!!

 

[Red Baker]

Well he would be wrong its not an either /or which is a false dilemma fallacy, for its and and both. He is the Eternal Son as the 2nd Person of the Eternal Godhead- the Son. He has always been the Son Eternally just as the Father has always been the Father eternally and the Holy Spirit the Holy Spirit eternally. The only thing that changed with the Eternal Son is He permanently became flesh, a man at the Incarnation.

civic,

Do you not have a thread addressing this? If so, then I'll go there and discuss this with you.

 

[Johann]

@MTMattie @Jim @civic @GodsGrace @synergy @brightfame52 @Kermos @TomL @dwight92070 @Johann

Greetings Johann,

I do have a lot of respect for Adam Clarke ~ for it was Mr. Clark who helped open my eyes to the great error of the eternal sonship doctrine of Jesus Christ, from his comments on Luke 1 and Hebrews one, both which I have saved in my own notes on the subject. He taught and believed in the incarnate Sonship position. He stood alone on this great truth.

On his notes above in your quote, the good man missed the truth.

@MTMattie @Jim @civic @GodsGrace @synergy @brightfame52 @Kermos @TomL @dwight92070 @Johann

Greetings Johann,

I do have a lot of respect for Adam Clarke ~ for it was Mr. Clark who helped open my eyes to the great error of the eternal sonship doctrine of Jesus Christ, from his comments on Luke 1 and Hebrews one, both which I have saved in my own notes on the subject. He taught and believed in the incarnate Sonship position. He stood alone on this great truth.

On his notes above in your quote, the good man missed the truth.

Adam Clarke, in his commentary on Luke 1 and Hebrews 1, presents an interpretation that rejects the eternal sonship of Jesus Christ, advocating instead for a position of incarnate Sonship. While Clarke’s scholarship is highly respected, his stance on this matter can be critiqued from a biblical and theological perspective.

1. Clarke’s Position on Luke 1:35
In Luke 1:35, the angel Gabriel tells Mary:
“The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be called holy—the Son of God.”

Clarke’s interpretation of this verse often suggests that Jesus’ sonship is primarily tied to His incarnation, specifically at the moment of His conception by the Holy Spirit in Mary’s womb.

However, this interpretation does not adequately account for the broader Scriptural context of sonship in relation to Christ.

While it is certainly true that Jesus is the Son of God in His incarnation (cf. John 1:14), the Scriptural narrative of sonship extends far beyond His earthly birth. The term Son of God is used in the Old Testament (Psalm 2:7, 2 Samuel 7:14) in a messianic context, and in the New Testament, it is clear that Jesus' sonship is rooted in His eternal relationship with the Father. Consider the prologue of the Gospel of John, which opens with a declaration of the pre-existence of Christ:

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” (John 1:1)
Jesus is presented as the eternal Word, not as a creation or a son that came into being at His incarnation, but as one who eternally existed with the Father.

The concept of Jesus as the Son of God is thus not confined to His earthly conception but reflects an eternal relationship within the Godhead, as articulated in John 17:5, where Jesus prays to the Father, saying:

“And now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had with you before the world existed.”

This pre-existent glory is inseparable from His eternal sonship, a truth that Clarke’s emphasis on incarnate sonship overlooks.

2. Clarke’s Position on Hebrews 1:5
In Hebrews 1:5, the author cites two Old Testament passages to demonstrate the superiority of Christ over the angels:
“For to which of the angels did God ever say, ‘You are my Son, today I have begotten you’?”

Clarke interprets this passage in light of Christ's incarnation, suggesting that the “begotten” moment refers to the time of Christ’s earthly birth.

Yet, this interpretation does not do justice to the full theological import of the term begotten in the context of Scripture.

The phrase “today I have begotten you” is often understood as referring to the messianic kingship of Christ, especially in relation to Psalm 2:7, where God declares to the Davidic king, "You are my Son; today I have begotten you." This is not to be understood in a temporal sense (i.e., that the Son of God only came into existence at a certain point in time) but as a declaration of His unique and eternal relationship with the Father.

The context of Hebrews 1:5 is not about the beginning of Jesus' existence but about His unique identity and role as the Son, in contrast to the angels. Jesus' sonship is eternal, and His begetting is the eternal expression of the relationship between Father and Son, not a temporal event tied solely to the incarnation.

3. The Eternal Sonship of Christ: A Biblical Defense

The doctrine of the eternal sonship of Christ asserts that Jesus, as the second person of the Trinity, has always been the Son of the Father. This is not a title that was conferred upon Him at His conception, birth, or resurrection, but one that reflects His eternal relationship within the Godhead. This doctrine is supported by a number of key biblical passages.

John 1:1-14 – The Logos, who is Jesus, existed eternally with the Father. The Word became flesh, but He existed before the incarnation, emphasizing His eternal sonship.

John 17:24 – In His high priestly prayer, Jesus speaks of the glory He shared with the Father “before the foundation of the world,” affirming His eternal sonship.

Hebrews 13:8 – Jesus Christ is the same “yesterday, today, and forever,” indicating the unchanging nature of His relationship with the Father.

Micah 5:2 – This Old Testament prophecy speaks of the “ruler” who will come from Bethlehem, whose “goings forth are from of old, from ancient days.” This affirms the eternal pre-existence of the Messiah.

In contrast to Clarke’s position, the eternal sonship of Christ is a cornerstone of orthodox Christian doctrine, as it underscores the uniqueness of Jesus as the eternal Son of God, distinct from the Father yet fully divine. The incarnation does not mark the beginning of His sonship but is the moment at which the eternal Son took on human nature.

4. Theological Tradition and the Incarnation

The church’s historic understanding of Christ’s sonship has consistently affirmed that Jesus is the eternal Son of the Father. Early Christian creeds such as the Nicene Creed (325 AD) explicitly state that Jesus Christ is "begotten, not made, of one substance with the Father." This emphasizes that Christ’s sonship is not a temporal or created event but an eternal and unchanging relationship with the Father.

Clarke's perspective on the incarnate sonship, though valuable in its attention to the mystery of the incarnation, misses the broader theological and biblical truth of Christ’s eternal sonship. The incarnation reveals the eternal Son, rather than initiating His sonship.

While Adam Clarke’s insights into the incarnate Sonship are valuable, particularly in emphasizing the significance of Christ’s earthly life, his rejection of eternal sonship is not supported by the broader biblical witness. The doctrine of the eternal Son of God is firmly grounded in Scripture, and this eternal relationship between the Father and the Son is essential to understanding the full divinity and person of Jesus Christ. The incarnation does not create or establish His sonship; rather, it reveals the Son who has always existed with the Father.

J.

 

[Jim]

"As many as were ordained to eternal life believed" (Acts 13:48) proves unconditional election.

Exegetical Response: The Greek phrase in Acts 13:48 is ὅσοι ἦσαν τεταγμένοι εἰς ζωὴν αἰώνιον ἐπίστευσαν.

The verb τεταγμένοι is the perfect passive participle of τάσσω, meaning “to appoint, arrange, assign.”

A.T. Robertson notes that τεταγμένοι here can be taken in the middle voice sense, “as many as set themselves in order for eternal life believed,” rather than a strict passive divine decree (Robertson, Grammar, p. 817).

C.F.D. Moule and BDAG both acknowledge τάσσω can carry a reflexive force depending on context (BDAG, τάσσω, 2b), and Luke elsewhere uses passive verbs to imply voluntary alignment (cf. Luke 7:29: ἐδικαίωσαν τὸν θεόν, “they justified God”—voluntarily).

The context favors a distinction between Gentile receptivity and Jewish resistance (cf. Acts 13:46). Hence, “as many as had aligned themselves toward eternal life” believed—consistent with human response and Acts 2:41 +*.

Cross-refs: +Luke 8:15, John 5:40, Acts 2:41, Romans 10:13–14.

CLAIM 2: “Ye believe not because ye are not of My sheep” (John 10:26) proves election precedes faith.

Exegetical Response: The verse ὑμεῖς δὲ οὐ πιστεύετε, ὅτι οὐκ ἐστὲ ἐκ τῶν προβάτων τῶν ἐμῶν is not a temporal sequencing of election → faith, but descriptive of present character.

The Greek οὐκ ἐστὲ ἐκ τῶν προβάτων means “you are not among My sheep,” but Jesus also declares that His sheep hear His voice and follow (v. 27)—both continuous present tense.

Wuest and Vincent both note that “sheep” is not a static pre-temporal designation, but a moral and relational identity affirmed by hearing and responding to Christ’s voice (Vincent, Word Studies, vol. 2).

John 10:16 shows sheep not yet in the fold who “shall hear” and be brought in—future responsiveness, not past predetermination.

Cross-refs: John 5:24, Romans 8:29, +Luke 15:4–7.

CLAIM 3: John 8:47 — “Ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God.”

Exegetical Response: This speaks to moral orientation and current resistance, not metaphysical exclusion.

The Greek ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ idiomatically means “from/of God” and in Johannine theology speaks to moral/spiritual disposition, not absolute predetermination (cf. 1 John 4:6).

Jesus does not state they never could be of God, but in their present obstinate condition they “are not”—a contrast to John 1:12–13, where reception leads to new birth.

Wallace reminds us: context controls semantic range. This is polemical speech against hardened Pharisees (cf. John 5:39–40), not a metaphysical decree of reprobation.

Cross-refs: +1 John 4:6, John 3:19–21, 2 Thess. 2:10.

CLAIM 4: John 12:39–40 means they “could not believe” because God hardened them before they disbelieved.

Exegetical Response: This passage quotes Isaiah 6:10 (LXX) and explains the consequence of their ongoing unbelief, not its cause.

The Greek οὐκ ἠδύναντο πιστεύειν refers to a judicial hardening that follows persistent rejection (cf. Isaiah 6:9–10 LXX; ἠκάμμυκεν = “He has calloused”).

A.T. Robertson: This is a divine response to persistent unbelief (Grammar, p. 827), not an arbitrary act.

See John 12:37 — “though He had done so many signs, they were not believing (imperfect)—ongoing rejection.”

Paul interprets this same concept in Romans 11:7–8 as a consequence of hardened hearts after their resistance.

Cross-refs: +Romans 11:7–10, Matt. 13:14–15, Isaiah 6:9–10 (LXX).

CLAIM 5: John 6:37 teaches that all who are given by the Father come, thus proving monergism.

Exegetical Response: The verse: πᾶν ὃ δίδωσίν μοι ὁ πατὴρ πρὸς ἐμὲ ἥξει = “All that the Father gives to Me shall come.”

The verb δίδωσιν is present active indicative, not past tense: “is giving.” Ongoing giving of people to Christ (not a one-time eternal decree).

Wallace notes that verbal aspect matters: this is durative present, implying an unfolding giving, not a static election.

This matches John 6:45: “Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes”—the giving is mediated by hearing and response.

No sense of unconditionality is implied; rather, it is compatible with Isaiah 55:3—“incline your ear and come.”

Cross-refs: +John 6:44–45, Isaiah 55:1–3, Romans 10:17.

CLAIM 6: John 1:12–13 means that people believe because they were born of God, not the other way around.

Exegetical Response: John 1:12–13 makes a distinction between human effort and divine rebirth, but not a sequence excluding faith.

The verb ἔδωκεν in v. 12 (“He gave authority to become”) follows τοῖς πιστεύουσιν—those presently believing. Faith precedes the right of becoming children.

V.13 explains the origin of this status, but not the exact chronology. Greek participles often function theologically, not temporally.

The θεοῦ ἐγεννήθησαν phrase (they were born of God) describes the ground of the new birth, but the invitation to “receive” in v. 12 remains genuine.

Kenneth Wuest points out that believing is man’s response, regeneration is God’s work, but the former is not ruled out as preceding in perception and experience (Wuest's Word Studies).

Cross-refs: +John 3:16, Galatians 3:26, 1 Peter 1:23.

CLAIM 7: John 5:24 proves that the one who believes already has life and thus regeneration precedes faith.

Exegetical Response: The verse: ὁ τὸν λόγον μου ἀκούων καὶ πιστεύων… ἔχει ζωὴν αἰώνιον.

The present participles ἀκούων and πιστεύων ("hearing" and "believing") precede the indicative ἔχει ("has eternal life").

This shows that life is granted in response to the hearing and believing.

Wallace: Greek present participles often express contemporaneous action—there is no linguistic ground to read ἔχει as causally prior to πιστεύων.

Alford and Vincent both affirm the order in this verse is crucial: the believer comes into possession of life through belief.

Cross-refs: +Romans 10:17, 1 John 5:1, John 20:31.

FINAL POINT: Arminians distort the plain Word?

Exegetical Response: This accusation ignores that Arminians affirm the whole of Scripture, not select texts. God's commands to repent, believe, and choose are imperatives calling for response:

Isaiah 55:6–7: “Seek the LORD… call upon Him… return”—commands that assume human responsibility.

Matthew 23:37: “I would… you would not”—demonstrates divine desire frustrated by human refusal.

Acts 7:51: “You always resist the Holy Spirit”—resistance presumes volition, not total passivity.

My affirmed sources, such as Robertson, Wuest, and Moule, all acknowledge the dynamic interplay between divine action and human response—never fatalistic determinism.

Let the Textus Receptus, not the system of Dort, be the foundation.
Let the imperatives of Scripture speak plainly: "Repent," "Believe," "Choose," "Come."
And let the Spirit and the Bride say, "Come!" (Rev. 22:17)
Why invite if the hearer has no capacity to respond?

J.

Robertson's view of τεταγμενοι being in the middle voice in Acts 13:48 is very much the same as διατεταγμενος in Acts 20:13 where it is translated/interpreted to be in the middle voice. In doing so in Acts 13:48, the middle voice then aligns perfectly with verse 46 where the Jews decided to reject eternal life. The Jews rejected eternal life for themselves in Acts 13:46; the Gentiles accepted eternal life for themselves in Acts 13:48, clearly refuting monergistic regeneration.

 

[Johann]

Robertson's view of τεταγμενοι being in the middle voice in Acts 13:48 is very much the same as διατεταγμενος in Acts 20:13 where it is translated/interpreted to be in the middle voice. In doing so in Acts 13:48, the middle voice then aligns perfectly with verse 46 where the Jews decided to reject eternal life. The Jews rejected eternal life for themselves in Acts 13:46; the Gentiles accepted eternal life for themselves in Acts 13:48, clearly refuting monergistic regeneration.

Bob Utley is also doing a sterling work on this @Jim.

Johann.

 

[Kermos]

Well the council of Dort - those of your theological persuasion affirmed infused faith.

Article 14 Canons of Dort states, “Faith is a gift of God, not in the sense that it is offered by God for man to choose, but that it is in actual fact bestowed on man, breathed and infused into him. Nor is it a gift in the sense that God bestows only the potential to believe, but then awaits assent—the act of believing—from man’s choice; rather, it is a gift in the sense that he who works both willing and acting and, indeed, works all things in all people produces in man both the will to believe and the belief itself.”129



David L. Allen;Steve W Lemke;; Steve W Lemke. Calvinism: A Biblical and Theological Critique (Kindle Locations 867-869). B&H Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.

to impart unilaterally is to infuse

as for your statement



The first problem with it is It works against the position you argue for. There is no gender agreement between the word "that" and the word faith

The second problem is you try to make a verb the antecedent of a pronoun. This is gramatical folly and not what i argued for

Third when there is no grammatical gender match between a pronoun and referenced noun, a referent according to sense is taken.

Salvation the issue of the passage is such a referent according to sense

A true Greek scholar states

For by grace (τῃ γαρ χαριτι [tēi gar chariti]). Explanatory reason. “By the grace” already mentioned in verse 5 and so with the article. Through faith (δια πιστεως [dia pisteōs]). This phrase he adds in repeating what he said in verse 5 to make it plainer. “Grace” is God’s part, “faith” ours. And that (και τουτο [kai touto]). Neuter, not feminine ταυτη [tautē], and so refers not to πιστις [pistis] (feminine) or to χαρις [charis] (feminine also), but to the act of being saved by grace conditioned on faith on our part. Paul shows that salvation does not have its source (ἐξ ὑμων [ex humōn], out of you) in men, but from God. Besides, it is God’s gift (δωρον [dōron]) and not the result of our work.11 A.T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament (Nashville, TN: Broadman Press, 1933), Eph 2:8.

Finally


Ephesians 2:8, 9 is therefore the key passage: “For by grace [instrumental case, t chariti, by the instrumentality of grace] you have been saved [periphrastic perfect, looking at the present condition that flows from the prior act] through faith [dia plus the genitive, intermediate agency]; and this [neuter touto] not of you, the gift of God; not of works, in order that one may not boast. There are two reasons, one grammatical and one syntactical, for insisting that “this” does not refer back to “faith.” Grammatically, “faith” is feminine and “this” is neuter. Only an unnatural stretching of the possibilities of Greek grammar can read “faith” as the antecedent of “this.” Syntactically, the fact (often overlooked) is that there are three complements of “this” which follow it: (1) “this” (is) not of you, (2) “this” (is) God’s gift, (3) “this” (is) not of works, lest anyone boast. To read “faith” with “this” might make some kind of sense for the first two of these, but it will not work with the third: “this faith is not of works” would be nonsensical tautology in view of the fact that works is in contrast to faith already. In Ephesians 2:8, 9, therefore, “this” has for its antecedent the entire preceding clause. This fits the “rules” of Greek grammar that called for a neuter pronoun to refer to a verbal idea, and it makes perfectly good sense in the context. “By grace you have been saved by faith: and this saving experience is not of you but is the gift of God, not of works lest any boast.”



Picirilli, Robert. Grace Faith Free Will: Contrasting Views of Salvation: Calvinism & Arminianism (p. 166). Ingram Distribution. Kindle Edition.

it would be foolish of Paul to point out faith is not produced by works when works are a result of faith

regarding your statement



you have twisted the text

Ephesians 2:9–10 (LEB) — 9 it is not from works, so that no one can boast. 10 For we are his creation, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, so that we may walk in them.

which tells us our good works not faith are a result of our creation in Christ

TomL, you accuse that I am of the same belief as "the council of Dort - those of your theological persuasion affirmed infused faith. ", yet I still elect not to use your word "infuse" because I use the word "control" and the word "impart" and the word "cause". Lord and God Jesus Christ controls me to proclaim my deeply rooted belief about us Christians that the love of Christ controls us (2 Corinthians 5:14).

To impart is to control (2 Corinthians 5:14).

To control is to cause (2 Corinthians 5:14).

Saving faith in us Christians is controlled by God (2 Corinthians 5:14).

You wrote "Third when there is no grammatical gender match between a pronoun and referenced noun, a referent according to sense is taken" which in Greek grammar requires that the nearest preceding noun be associated; therefore, the word that and the word faith are the grammatically correct association.

You persistently sever the sense of saved through faith.

The full sense is by grace you are saved through faith in Ephesians 2:8 as detailed in post #7,315 to you.

When taken as a linguistic whole, Ephesians 2:8 results in this Truth (John 14:6) that the entirety of

• grace is not a work of man.
• grace is the work of God.
• saved is not a work of man.
• saved is the work of God.
• faith is not a work of man.
• faith is the work of God.

in Paul's writing of

​

by grace you are saved through faith, and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God, not as a result of works, so that no one may boast for we are His work​

(Ephesians 2:8-10)​

​

In Ephesians 2:9, Paul makes amazingly clear that the gift of faith is not a work of man along with the surrounding verses of Ephesians 2:8 and Ephesians 2:10 (the accurate phrase is we are His work which includes my Christian faith) to clearly state that faith is the gift of God because we are his work (Ephesians 2:10).

The Apostle Paul is in accord with Lord Jesus Christ's sayings of "This is the work of God that you believe in Him whom He has sent" (John 6:29).

 

[Red Baker]

@MTMattie @Jim @civic @GodsGrace @synergy @brightfame52 @Kermos @TomL @dwight92070 @Johann

All of that and your view of that verse is of course derived, not from scripture, but from the likes of one like Augustine.

Jim, I have no clue what Augustine even thought about John 3:6 and truly I do not even know alot about Augustine, other than what little I have read by him, which is not that much, more on his endtime teachings more than anything else, which btw, was very good. So, if we have some things in common about such things, so be it.

That view, in turn, derives from the gnostic view of the whole of the physical creation being evil.

Jim, again, call it what you will, and think what you want to think, that I cannot change, and neither desire to do so. I beleive what the scriptures teach, about man's depravity, from Christ, Paul etc.

Matthew 23:33​

“Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?”

Romans 3:10-18, etc.

If what your idea of being born of the Spirit being spirit is correct, then the idea of being born again or being regenerated makes no sense.

Being "spiritual", Jim ! Again, you sound so much like Nicodemus talking to Christ.

The spirit of a man, formed by God at some point in the womb of the mother is born of Spirit.

Jim, that is not what Christ is saying and you cannot make that to mean what you so desperately desire for it to mean. The subject of the context of John 3:1-8 is the new birth, not what constitutes being a living person in the womb of a woman that makes it a flesh and blood living being.

Once that person sins, the spirit becomes dead in that sin. It needs to be regenerated, reborn, born again, made alive. It was once alive but became dead in sin and thus needs to be made alive again. That, by the way, is what Paul was talking about in Romans 7:

Jim, this is your version of whatever you want to call it, for it certainly is not the truth of God's word. It is another gospel other than what the holy scriptures teaches us.

Man is by nature a child of wrath, that is, by birth, before he even knows his right hand from his left! He comes out of the womb at enmity against God. Little vipers are just as dangerous as old and larger ones, the same with flesh and blood, just give them time and they will prove that this is so.

That, by the way, is what Paul was talking about in Romans 7:

Rom 7:9 I was once alive apart from the law, but when the commandment came, sin came alive and I died.
Rom 7:10 The very commandment that promised life proved to be death to me.

Jim, you are so confused. Paul was speaking about what he was as far as his knowledge went before his eyes were open to the truth! But once he was converted in his understanding, he died to all of those false hope of thinking he was a pretty good person, he did not see the evil of sin working deceitfully in his members as he did ONCE he was converted! I could spend so much time here, but enough said to help you see you you are not understanding the scriptures properly.

When Jesus stated in verse John 3:6, "that which is born of flesh is flesh", He was establishing the fact that only the flesh, not the spirit, of man comes by way of the flesh. That fact was further explained by the next phrase, "that which is born of Spirit is spirit", explaining the true source of the spirit of a man comes from, and only from, Spirit, i.e., God.

Jim, there's nothing more to say to you than what was said in post #7,800 the truth has not changed since then, and neither will it ever change.

 

[civic]

civic,

Do you not have a thread addressing this? If so, then I'll go there and discuss this with you.

see below

Thread 'Pre Existence of Christ prior to the Incarnation'

Sep 23, 2023

The Sons pre existence in John’s gospel. There are dozens of other scriptures in other places verifying the Eternal existence of the Son.

John 1:1-3
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God.

All things came into being by Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being.

John 1:14
14 And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory

These verses in John’s prologue reveal the pre existence of the Eternal Word/Son who was God and became flesh. He was the...

• civic
• Replies: 135
• Forum: Christology

•