Featured Seeking God

A quick recap:

The OP presented a view that came from a now closed thread. Briefly the OP summarized a view by posting:

"So seeking God, even the God of the OT, does not require being drawn to Christ. But obtaining salvation, eternal life with God, does require not only being drawn (attracted) by the Father, but having their faith, as worthless as it may be, credited by God as righteousness.

Does God allow people to seek God and put their trust in Christ? Yes, usually, but not always. Romans 11 teaches God does harden the hearts of some people for His purpose. Ditto for Judas who was not allowed to "come to Jesus." (John 6:65)​

To date:

1) The attempt to show that everyone has a limited spiritual ability has yet to be proven by the writer of the OP though in his thinking he considers it accomplished.

2) When confronted with specifics and requests for Scriptures, his responses have shown proof texting (using a verse out of context to prove what the verse does not actually support - my definition), and grandiose claims blaming other participants agenda and view(s) as not being biblical.

3) When shown the presentation is at best faulty, he claims being personally attacked rather than the view. Yet when the view is attacked, there is waffling concerning what he actually posted.

I personally ask, more then once for some OT example of This statement made by him:

"1) I said the lost have limited spiritual ability, thus they can at times seek God."​

Not a single example was found!

Yet, he continues to make the claim.

Then this claim was also made:

"Does God allow people to seek God and put their trust in Christ? Yes, usually, but not always."​

Another poster ask him concerning the word "usually."
The response pointed back to Roman's 11 where the writing visits the estate of Israel.

This again is a sad presentation for he neglects that such was ONLY toward Israel, and not the general population of the world. So again, he presents a misinformation concerning the intent of the Scriptures.

The troubling problem of all this is that the posters have encouraged him to reexamine and accept the truth of Scripture, but it has been met with a hardness and obstinacy.

If I have miss something in all that has been presented, I apologize and ask that you correct my remarks.

On a personal note: I like @Van, and he an I have quite a history of doing battle. He has yet to change my thinking and I his, and there is always hope that one of us will be illuminated by the Spirit - though we both think we are at this time.

I do try to limit and am working on eliminating personal attacks. I have attempted to do so on this thread.

Should I fail in this endeavor, a gentle reminder from anyone will help me.

 

Consider the claim that “unregenerate have the the ability to seek God. Not a single verse used as support. Not one that in context was shown to support the claim.

Next is the claim of a lack of sealing with the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.
Did not David in the great prayer of confession and contrition express anguish pleading that the Lord not take the Spirit from him?

And what of the Scriptures’ testimony of itself? Does it not state that,

“ For prophecy never had its origin in the human will, but prophets, though human, spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit of God”​

And even the testimony of heathen attested to the heathen king concerning indwelling of the Holy Spirit in Daniel:

“There is a man in your kingdom who has the spirit of the holy gods in him. In the days of your father he was found to have insight, intelligence, and wisdom like that of the gods. Your father, King Nebuchadnezzar, appointed him chief of the magicians, enchanters, astrologers, and diviners. Your own father, the king,“
​

The prophets spoke by the Spirit of God:

“Then the Spirit of God came upon Zechariah son of Jehoiada the priest, who stood up before the people and said to them, “This is what God says: ‘Why do you transgress the commandments of the LORD so that you cannot prosper? Because you have forsaken the LORD, He has forsaken you.’ ”​

People of all times were and are redeemed and sealed in the same manner.

As far as grasping spiritual food, I suggest that one look at the list of the saints found in the book of Hebrews. Did they not have a greater grasp of meat with less available to feast upon than almost anyone in this modern world? It is We who read and study of them, not them of us. They wrote Scripture that we study to seek truth. These were not people of milk, but of Godly strength and character. Ones in whom where caught up in whirlwinds of chariot, grasp by the head hair and shown sights and wrote things we can only read about and attempt to discern.

Thus the supposed “doctrine” of limited spiritual ability of the unregenerate is “bogus.”

 

Van, “first born” does not indicate birth order; rather, it is concerning rank, presence and station. In the ancient Mediterranean East, the “first born” is not necessarily the oldest, but the one considered the inheritor of the family honors and wealth.

The Lord Jesus Christ is eternal, took upon human form, but did not relinquish the rank and co-equal to the rest of the trinity. He was not the first resurrected from the dead, nor was He first into Heaven.

Because the assumption is wrong, the conclusion made is also faulty and needs reconsidered.

For documentation of what I posted look at: What does it mean that Jesus is the “firstborn” over Creation? | GotQuestions.org

No, it is not ignored; rather, showing that the salvation of OT saints did indeed involve the work of the Holy Spirit.

Not stating YOU do, but there are those who teach that Pentecost is when the Holy Spirit was given. Not completely true.

1) the Spirit has always been present and an influence (John 3)
2) the pouring out and filling of the Spirit at Pentecost was a sign to those not filled of God’s establishment of the temple being the people of the church rather then temple at Jerusalem (remember the glory of God filling the temple was also a sign) of place of devotion, worship and authority) and also Pentecost was a sign to those filled that God fulfills promises and victory.
3) the redeemed of the OT also had the same Spirit as all believers indwelling them.

All saints are in heaven. Abraham’s bosom was a common vernacular term for the abiding place of those redeemed. Just as the thief desired to be, remembered, though he knew his deeds disqualified him, his hope was in the other man hanging there who he trusted.

The Scriptures record that at the death of Christ, many graves were opened and long dead saints were seen by many. One reason (imo) the religious rulers desired the tomb to be sealed and guarded.

Btw, “Abraham’s bosom” can and is also called “Abraham’s side.” One called along the side of their father was said to be taken to the bosom of the father. This s one reason the Israeli put great “stock” in being from the seed of Abraham considering only his seed is eternally resting in God at Abraham’s side (bosom).

I do hope this helps in your striving to discern the truth of Scripture.

 

two problems:
1) you are not answering the statement with facts, but assumptions. There is history to suggest Mary was not Joseph’s first wife, nor was the Christ first born in the family progeny. James may actually have been the oldest. I don’t care, it makes no difference. The east Mediterranean culture of the ancients is as I described.

2) all are born with an eternal soul, and the eternal did not dissipate when sin arrived. Regeneration is “new life.” All physically die as a result of sin. But not all souls spend eternity as a new creation that is like Him. In Him is life.

You are wrong on this point, as I posted previously.

1) All those in Abraham’s bosom were redeemed.
2) All those in Abraham’s bosom had been indwelt by the Spirit of God as demonstrated in a previous post.
3) All those in Abraham’s bosom were trusting in redemption just as those after the resurrection. They were complete in Him as the mount of transfiguration demonstrates by the presence of two others with Christ.

I will not argue that point, for you are taking ascension as bodily and in this, correct.

 

On the contrary, He is the first immortal man. ". . . And He is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things He might have the preeminence. . . ."

 

“The first born from the dead,” cannot mean one raised from death. That was done twice (as I recall) in the OT about maybe 1000 years prior to the resurrection of Christ.

Therefore, the word “first born” cannot mean “the first immortal man” (not certain what you mean) for all have an immortal soul.

And, the meaning has nothing to do with who was raised first, but which has the “rank” the primary endowment as “first born.” The “first born” in the countries of the east carried the family rights and privileges for all care, legal proceedings, family decisions, and heirs, and personal liabilities for protection and preservation.

When our Lord rose, He shared hoe He now holds certain keys and all authority. That is the status of “first born.”

 

So you do not believe the Lord Jesus Christ is the first person raised to immortality. Major problem. 1 Corinthians 15:21-22, John 5:28-29.

 

Why is it a problem? Your verses do nothing to support your thinking.

That I disagree with how you perceive the words "first borne"?

Why should that be a "major problem?"

First born is not based on age, but having the family authority.

Do you know those words are also used of many redeemed who where very special and appointed to specific work?

If you want a reference, look at Revelation 13-14. In those chapters you will see the meaning of "first born" used exactly as I posted.

"First born" in Scriptures is not always the fist one conceived and born, but one that is given the family honor as I posted.

Other examples include Seth, Jacob, Joseph (his heritage given double portion to own)...

Do all not have an immortal soul, not the flesh but that which lives eternally?

When the prophet raised the widow's son, did that child not have an immortal soul?

Remember, when a group of heathen soldiers were fleeing, they threw the dead comrade into what they thought was a cave not knowing it contained the bones of the prophet. Remember what happened? The soldier came alive and ran after his comrades.

I brings a smile to me thinking how they all ran faster! Those trying to flee what must have been disquieting to them and the one trying to catch up!

 

Romans 8:29, ". . . his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. . . ." The term "firstborn" as the Apostles Paul and John and the writer of Hebrews use refer to Christ being the first resurrected to immortality. You do not agree, that is fine by me.

 

First born among what?

You actually do a disservice to our Savior by not giving to Him the family authority of “the first born.”

Who appeared on the mountain of transfiguration? Where they in their resurrected forms or some other? We’re they transfigured, or was the Lord? Were they immortal or mortal?

Did you read the use of “the first born” in the Revelation?

Have you not read of the elders of God’s thrown room, of the names written on the foundations and pillars of the new heaven, and of the glories and crowns? Where are those crowns cast?


The Scriptures do not support your thinking.

 

Not according to Colossians 1:18, ". . . And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence. . . ." Revelation 1:5, ". . . Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, . . ." And Revelation 3:14, ". . . the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God; . . ."
Colossians 1:15, ". . . the firstborn of every creature . . ."

 

Hebrews 1:1-6 explains firstborn.
The teaching in this passage is that after the angels were created, God declared to them that the person of the Trinity, God the Son, is their Creator and thus the firstborn. Before the angels were...I Am.
This passage shows that Jesus was presented to them as their Creator and thus superior to them.

Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world. He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature, and he upholds the universe by the word of his power. After making purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, having become as much superior to angels as the name he has inherited is more excellent than theirs. For to which of the angels did God ever say, “You are my Son, today I have begotten you”? Or again, “I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son”? And again, when he brings the firstborn into the world, he says, “Let all God’s angels worship him.”

 

Did I read, “…that in all things He might have preeminence…” or was it my imagination?

See your own offering of Scriptures declare what I posted as valid.

“First born” is not always birth order, but the one who holds family authority.

Because all have an immortality, and because Christ was not the first raised from the dead, then it rests upon one given family authority. “…All power is given unto Me….”