Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Baptist Theology & Bible Study' started by JesusFan, Jul 13, 2011.
is it really to those who are NOT of God, children of the Devil?
You are pulling scripture out of context, read all of chapter 8. It begins with scribes and Pharisees bringing a woman caught in adultery, that they might accuse him, vs. 1-11. These men were trying to find a way to accuse Jesus that they might execute him.
But not all of these people were out to kill Jesus, in vs. 30 it says many people believed on him when they heard his words.
When Jesus spoke of the devil being their father, he was not speaking of all the people, but those specific men who sought to kill him, vs. 37 and 40.
So, these were not ordinary sinners, many who heard him believed on him. But these specific men had rejected Jesus and accused him of having a devil.
Even with this Jesus did not speak to them as if they were unable to believe on him, he said;
If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed. (Jn 8:36)
This statement by Jesus would be falsehood and a lie if your view is correct. There is no IF in Unconditional Election, you are either elect, or you are not. If these men were unelect, then Jesus COULD NOT make them free.
He also told these very men whom he had just said the devil was their father;
Verily, verily, I say unto you, If a man keep my saying, he shall never see death. (Jn 8:51)
Again, there is no IF in your view, but Jesus told these men IF they keep his saying they shall never see death.
So, he did not speak to them as being unable to believe.
I just do not understand Calvinists. It's like you all get some sort of pleasure from God denying salvation to some people.
pretty basic here though...
Jesus said to them , by very nature, children of Devil, would refuse to heed Him, because God NOT their father, NOT those whom God named as His own!
God doesn't deny salvation to anyone according to Calvinism. fyi
as far as the op, this may shed some light...
I John 3:10 NASB "By this the children of God and the children of the devil are obvious: anyone who does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor the one who does not love his brother."
Amy, that does seem to be so true at times.
Wouldn't call it pleasure, just trying to see it the way God explains it to us in the Bible!
At least that group of people were said NOT to be able to come to Jesus, ditto the pharisees against Him, as they would "die in their sins"
Jesus said if you disown Him, He will disown you.
He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him.
But whoever disowns me before others, I will disown before my Father in heaven.
Don't all men start out life as "children of the devil" and then some become children of God? I ask because this argument seems to be predicated on the assumption that some are born children of the devil while others are born children of God. Am I just misunderstanding your point?
I actually understand that JF, that is why I said it "seems" that way at "times".
That is not what Jesus said, you ignore the word "IF".
Jn 8:24 I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins.
Jesus did not say their fate was fixed in stone, he said IF they believe not they shall die in their sins. Jesus showed they had choice.
You misrepresent scripture.
What happens is some refuse to acknowledge, address, and accept other Scriptures that show forth this teaching, then they bash others as Calvinists who do so. Then they argue that they do address these. No, they only attempt to refute them.
So, nope, they don't address them.
Good point jhb28.
Sometimes this word implies "since." Perhaps since they didn't believe, they were not His Sheep whom He came to save?
Here we go again, yet another word that Calvinism must redefine to make your doctrine work.
If I had to redefine words to make my theology work, that would be a big tip-off that there was something seriously wrong with it. I personally could never do this.
I couldn't find any version that uses the word "since" in this verse. They all use either "if" or "unless". The ASV uses "except ye believe".
I depends on what your definition of "if" is.
That the word implies since, doesn't make it Calvinist. It's just a matter of fact.
To imply that one needs to "redefine" words to make ones theology work is an unfortunate assumption on your part.
Again, it's just a fact (if may = since).
I personally just accept Scripture and its estimation of lost man and the world condition.
Note Col. 2:20; 2 Thess. 3:10; 2 Tim. 2:11; Gal. 3:29; Col. 3:1... several passages implying "since."
I don't have to, nor do I redefine anything. I just happen to pay attention to Scripture and know these things.
You probably won't.
"Ei" or "i" sometimes can mean "forasmuch as, that, since, though." It doesn't always call into question by an "if" as sometimes it implies a "since." You have to look at its useage and context, not for a version that says "since."
Colossians 3:1 could read "Therefore if (or) "forasmuch as, since, that, though" you are risen with Christ keep seeking the things..."
This verse is not a "witch hunt" ("if!") to find hypocrites, but serves as edification for believers (since).
Thanks for being "lighthearted" and picking up on my attempt to do so.