Pastoral Thoughts on the Doctrine of Election

Theology
62

The issue is not whether Scripture commands men to believe, repent, receive Christ, or come to Him. Scripture fully affirms the universal proclamation of the Gospel and the genuine responsibility of every sinner to repent and believe. The real issue is whether fallen man, in his natural state, possesses the moral and spiritual ability to do so apart from sovereign grace. Scripture repeatedly answers that question in the negative.

Jesus Himself declares in John 6:44 (ESV), “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him.” The Greek is especially important here. Christ does not say “no one may come,” but “no one can come.” The phrase οὐδεὶς δύναται ἐλθεῖν (oudeis dynatai elthein) speaks of ability, not mere permission. Fallen man lacks the ability to come savingly to Christ unless the Father draws him. Furthermore, the verb ἑλκύσῃ (helkysē), translated “draws,” carries the sense of effectual drawing, not mere persuasion. The same term is used elsewhere for drawing a sword (John 18:10) and dragging a net full of fish (John 21:6). Christ is therefore teaching divine enablement, not autonomous free will.

Jesus reinforces this again in John 6:65 (ESV): “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father.” Once more, the language is one of inability and divine granting. Coming to Christ is something “granted” by the Father. That is fundamentally monergistic.

It is certainly true that “whoever believes” will be saved, but the question remains: why does one person believe while another rejects Christ? Scripture never attributes the decisive difference to man’s independent will. Instead, Acts 13:48 (ESV) states, “And as many as were appointed to eternal life believed.” The grammar is crucial. The participle τεταγμένοι (tetagmenoi), “appointed,” is in the perfect passive form, indicating those who had already been appointed by God to eternal life. The appointment precedes and explains the believing. The text does not say that those who believed were afterward appointed.

Likewise, Philippians 1:29 (ESV) teaches, “For it has been granted to you that for the sake of Christ you should not only believe in him but also suffer for his sake.” Faith itself is described as something “granted” by God. The verb ἐχαρίσθη (echaristhē) comes from χάρις (charis), grace, emphasizing that belief is graciously given rather than autonomously generated.

The synergistic analogy of “accepting an invitation” also fails to account for the biblical doctrine of spiritual death. Paul writes in Ephesians 2:1–5 (ESV), “And you were dead in the trespasses and sins… even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ.” Scripture does not describe fallen sinners as merely wounded or weakened, but as spiritually dead. Dead men do not cooperate in resurrection. Notice the grammatical structure of the passage: man is passive in death, while God is the active agent who “made us alive.” The entire action originates with God.

Paul further explains the condition of fallen man in Romans 8:7–8 (ESV): “For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God’s law; indeed, it cannot.” Again, the issue is inability. The phrase οὐ δύναται (ou dynatai) means “it is not able.” Fallen humanity is not merely unwilling to submit to God; it lacks the moral capacity to do so apart from grace. Paul then adds, “Those who are in the flesh cannot please God.” Since Hebrews 11:6 teaches that faith pleases God, it follows that those in the flesh cannot produce saving faith from themselves.

Romans 9:16 (ESV) is even more decisive: “So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy.” Paul explicitly denies that salvation ultimately rests upon human willing or effort. The Greek construction is emphatic: οὐ τοῦ θέλοντος (ou tou thelontos), “not of the one willing,” nor οὐδὲ τοῦ τρέχοντος (oude tou trechontos), “of the one running,” but entirely upon God who shows mercy. This directly contradicts the synergistic idea that the decisive factor lies in man’s autonomous cooperation with grace.

John 1:12–13 likewise destroys the notion that regeneration originates in human will. After speaking of those who believe in Christ, John immediately explains that they “were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.” The apostle explicitly denies three possible human sources for the new birth and attributes it solely to God. The phrase ἀλλ’ ἐκ θεοῦ (all’ ek theou) — “but of God” — is profoundly monergistic.

None of this denies human responsibility. Scripture genuinely commands all people everywhere to repent and believe the Gospel. The external call goes out universally. Yet Scripture also teaches that only those whom God effectually calls will come savingly to Christ. This is why Jesus says in John 10:26 (ESV), “you do not believe because you are not among my sheep.” He does not say they are not His sheep because they failed to believe; rather, their unbelief is explained by the fact that they do not belong to Him.

Therefore, the biblical picture is not that God merely offers salvation while fallen man supplies the decisive response. Rather, God sovereignly raises spiritually dead sinners, grants repentance and faith, gives a new heart, and effectually draws His people to Christ. As Ezekiel 36:26–27 (ESV) declares, “And I will give you a new heart… And I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes.”

Shalom.

J.

1 Like
63

More “pastoral thoughts on the doctrine of election”

Our “Great Pastor” said this to His disciples:

"Every plant which My heavenly Father has not planted will be uprooted." Matthew 15:13

This is from God’s mouth to our ears.
What possible interpretations could He have meant by that?

KP

1 Like
64

Ah brother @KPuff!

Matthew 15:13 (ESV) states, “Every plant that my heavenly Father has not planted will be rooted up.” This statement comes in the context of Christ rebuking the Pharisees and exposing the false religion and hypocritical traditions they had elevated above the Word of God. The disciples had just informed Jesus that the Pharisees were offended by His teaching, but Christ responds by declaring that whatever the Father has not planted will ultimately be uprooted. The imagery is agricultural and deeply theological.

The Greek text reads:

πᾶσα φυτεία ἣν οὐκ ἐφύτευσεν ὁ πατήρ μου ὁ οὐράνιος ἐκριζωθήσεται
(pasa phyteia hēn ouk ephyteusen ho patēr mou ho ouranios ekrizōthēsetai)

The phrase πᾶσα φυτεία (pasa phyteia) means “every plant” or “every planting.” The emphasis is comprehensive. Christ is not speaking merely of isolated individuals, but of every religious system, spiritual work, or professing people not established by the Father. The source and origin are central to the verse.

[Isa. 60:21; 61:3; John 15:1, 2; 1 Cor. 3:9]

The verb ἐφύτευσεν (ephyteusen), “has planted,” is an aorist active indicative, pointing to the deliberate action of the Father Himself. God is presented as the active planter. This immediately places the emphasis upon divine initiative and sovereignty. True spiritual life originates from God, not from man. Jesus is drawing a distinction between what the Father sovereignly establishes and what man merely constructs externally through tradition, self-righteousness, or fleshly religion.

The final verb, ἐκριζωθήσεται (ekrizōthēsetai), translated “will be rooted up,” is a future passive indicative. The passive voice is significant because it implies divine judgment. What the Father did not plant will inevitably be removed. False religion may appear established for a time, but because its origin is not in God, its destruction is certain. Christ therefore exposes the Pharisees as a religious system lacking divine planting and therefore destined for judgment.

This passage also harmonizes with the broader biblical doctrine of God’s sovereign work in salvation. Scripture repeatedly portrays believers as those whom God Himself plants, chooses, and causes to grow. Isaiah 60:21 calls God’s people “the branch of my planting.” Likewise, in John 15:16, Jesus tells His disciples, “You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you.” The initiative belongs to God.

In the immediate context, Christ is not primarily discussing abstract theological systems, but the principle underlying the text strongly supports monergism. Spiritual life and true belonging to God originate with the Father’s action, not autonomous human will. Those whom the Father has planted remain secure, while everything merely produced by man will ultimately be uprooted. The verse therefore stands as a solemn warning against false religion and at the same time as a profound testimony to the sovereignty of God in establishing His true people.

Every teacher whom God has not sent will find his teaching contradicted by Christ. The truth is like a spade; it turns up the soil for that life to grow in it which should grow, and it is also the means of killing the weeds: “Every plant, which my heavenly Father hath not planted, shall be rooted up.” May we all be plants of his right-hand planting! Amen.
This exposition consisted of readings from Psa_119:129-144; and Mat_15:1-13.

Did God Choose You Before You Were Born? The Hard Truth | R.C. Sproul Sermon

God bless for participating brother. What is your interpretation of God’s word here?

J.

1 Like
65

Start with the prophetic diagnosis of the human condition. Jeremiah 13:23 (ESV) asks, “Can the Ethiopian change his skin or the leopard his spots? Then also you can do good who are accustomed to do evil.” The logic is straightforward: moral inability is compared to an unchangeable nature. The question expects a negative answer. Fallen man is not merely reluctant but fundamentally incapable of self-reformation.

This is reinforced in Genesis 6:5 (ESV), where “the LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.” The universality (“every intention… only evil continually”) leaves no room for a naturally neutral will waiting to cooperate with grace.

When Jesus explains conversion, He frames it in terms of necessity and divine action. In John 3:3 (ESV), “Unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.” The verb “cannot” (Greek δύναται, dynatai) expresses inability. The new birth is not the result of seeing and deciding; rather, seeing is dependent upon being born from above.

James reinforces the same order of causality in James 1:18 (ESV): “Of his own will he brought us forth by the word of truth.” The phrase “of his own will” (Greek βουληθεὶς, boulētheis) places the origin entirely in God’s deliberation. Regeneration is something God performs, not something man completes through cooperation.

Peter uses the same language in 1 Peter 1:3 (ESV): “He has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead.” The verb “caused us to be born again” (Greek ἀναγεννήσας, anagennēsas) is active with God as subject. The new birth is something God effects, not something man assists.

Paul also describes faith itself as something produced by divine action. In Colossians 2:13 (ESV), “And you, who were dead in your trespasses… God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses.” Again the sequence is decisive: death precedes life, and life is the result of God’s action, not human cooperation.

Even the “choice” language is reoriented in Scripture. In John 15:16 (ESV), Jesus says, “You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you that you should go and bear fruit.” The grammar removes human initiative as the ultimate starting point. The fruit (including faith and obedience) flows from Christ’s prior choosing and appointing.

Paul summarizes the principle most sharply in 1 Corinthians 1:30–31 (ESV): “And because of him you are in Christ Jesus… so that, as it is written, ‘Let the one who boasts, boast in the Lord.’” The phrase “because of him” (ἐξ αὐτοῦ, ex autou) makes union with Christ originate outside the human subject entirely. The design is explicitly to eliminate boasting, which would be unavoidable if the decisive difference between believer and unbeliever were autonomous human cooperation.

So while “synergism” is not a biblical word, the concept of salvation ultimately hinging on an unassisted human response is consistently undermined by Scripture’s teaching on human inability, divine regeneration, and God’s initiating grace across multiple independent passages.

The biblical pattern is therefore not: grace + autonomous human cooperation = salvation, but rather: God acts decisively - God regenerates - God grants faith - man responds because he has been made alive.

That is why the consistent refrain of Scripture remains: salvation is from the Lord in its entirety (Jonah 2:9).

I know this sounds foreign to the ears, but biblical. And nowhere is the concept “synergism” found in God’s holy Scriptures.

J.

1 Like
66

Monergism and synergism have been debated within the church for centuries. It is no exaggeration to say that this debate concerns the very heart of the gospel. First, let us define the two terms. Discussions about monergism vs. synergism are, theologically speaking, about who brings about our salvation. Monergism is the view that God alone effects our salvation. This view is usually associated with Calvinistic and Reformed traditions. Synergism is the view that God works together with us in some way to effect salvation.

The term monergism comes from a compound Greek word meaning “to work alone”; synergism is from another compound Greek word meaning “to work together.” As mentioned, monergism is often associated with Calvinism. Calvinists often accuse Arminians of holding to synergism; however, many, if not most, Arminians would deny the accusation and place themselves in the monergism camp.

Monergism says that God does the work of salvation, and the elect are the beneficiaries of that work. Even the faith needed to receive God’s salvation is a gift from God (see Ephesians 2:8–9). Synergism says that God does part of the work of salvation, but mankind must still do something to reap the benefits: muster faith, be baptized, continue in good works, etc. Defined this way, synergism is clearly unbiblical. No human work or merit can be added to God’s grace without destroying grace (Romans 11:6).

Calvinists typically associate the term monergism with Calvinism: if you believe in monergism, you must be a Calvinist. It’s true that Calvinism is monergistic, but there are also many Arminians who consider their system of theology monergistic, in this way: faith must be present to receive God’s grace, but faith itself is not meritorious. Faith receives grace, but it does not cause grace. In fact, classical Arminianism teaches that the faith needed to receive divine grace is a response to God’s prevenient grace. So, God still does the work of salvation, even though an act of human will (enabled by God) is seen as a necessary requirement to receive it.

The essence of the monergistic argument is that God is in the business of actually saving people and not merely making them “savable.” Monergism starts with an enemy of God, seemingly unsavable, and, by the grace of God, brings that spiritually dead person into saving faith and union with Christ. Synergism, in all its forms (including Pelagianism), starts with a person who has at least a spark of spiritual life. This person has the natural ability to take a step toward God apart from grace and thus meet God in the middle. God may do most of the saving work, but He must somehow also depend on the work of the individual being saved.

Monergism claims that God does all that is necessary for our salvation and that He is sufficient to save; synergism claims that God is necessary but insufficient. The synergistic system ultimately places the responsibility for salvation on us. Monergism places the responsibility for our salvation wholly on God. It is God who has “predestined . . . called . . . justified . . . glorified” us in Christ (Romans 8:30). It is He who began and will complete the work of salvation in us (Philippians 1:6). It is He who keeps the sheep secure in His hand (John 10:27–30).

In conclusion, the weight of the biblical evidence clearly supports the monergistic view of salvation—Jesus is the author and perfector of our salvation (Hebrews 12:2). There is no room for us to boast, and all the glory goes to God our Savior!

What I share regarding the doctrine of election is intended in a pastoral spirit, not to offend, but to be faithful to what is written in God’s Word.

Experiments
Assurance of Salvation Explained – R C Sproul Separates Fact from
Fiction

J.

1 Like
67

Good morning @Johann, this is going to take some time, so bear with me. I truly do not see the scriptures the same way you are. Let’s go one by one.

Here, “drawing” is not the same as “forcing.” In Greek literature, the word helkyō is used for drawing a sword or pulling in a net, but it is also used metaphorically for a powerful attraction.
God provides the necessary “tug” or invitation, but the invitation must still be accepted. Think of it like a magnet: the pull is real and powerful, but the object must be “willing” to be moved (or, in human terms, not resistant).

If you look further ahead to John 12:32, Jesus says, “And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself.”

If God draws everyone, then the “drawing” mentioned in John 6:44 is a universal grace given to all. Therefore, the deciding factor isn’t whether God draws someone (since He draws everyone), but whether the individual responds to that draw or rejects it.

John 6:65 serves as a thematic bookend to the one we just looked at. In the Greek text, the word for “granted” or “enabled” is dedomenon (from didōmi), which literally means “given.”

Are you interpreting “granted” as a selective, exclusive permission slip given only to some? Can you not pivot the focus from exclusivity to necessity?

Because of human nature, we are incapable of reaching toward the divine on our own strength. By “granting” the ability to come, the Father isn’t making the choice for the person; He is giving the person the capacity to make a choice that was previously impossible. It’s like giving a blind person sight—you’ve “granted” them the ability to see the path, but they still have to choose to walk down it.

Continued…

68

In Greek, the form tetagmenoi can be read as either passive (“were appointed” by an outside force) or middle (“had disposed themselves” or “set themselves”).

While most translations use the passive, some scholars (like F.F. Bruce or Chrysostom) have noted that the middle voice is a grammatical possibility. If read as a middle voice, the verse would suggest that those who had “disposed themselves” or “set themselves toward” eternal life believed. They were in a state of readiness or orientation toward the truth.

The root word tassō is a military term used for “arranging” or “ranking” soldiers. Being “stationed” or “ranked” for eternal life doesn’t have to mean a fixed decree from eternity past. It can refer to those who, at that moment, were “in line” or “rightly positioned” to receive the message. In the context of Acts 13, Paul had been preaching to both Jews and Gentiles. Those who were “lined up” for life—meaning those who were open and seeking—responded when the command (the Gospel) was given.

Contextually, verse 48 is the “mirror image” of verse 46. Just two verses earlier, Paul says to the Jews who rejected him.

“…since you thrust it aside and judge yourselves unworthy of eternal life, behold, we are turning to the Gentiles.”

In verse 46, the rejection of salvation is explicitly described as an act of the human will (“you judge yourselves”). If the rejection is a choice, it is logically consistent that the acceptance is also a choice. Verse 48 then describes the result of the Gentiles’ positive response: they were the ones now “ordered” or “enrolled” in the category of those headed for life, precisely because they didn’t “thrust it aside” like the group in verse 46.

The Greek word used here for “granted” is echaristhē, which comes from the root charis (grace). It literally means “to be given as a favor” or “to be graciously granted.”

This isn’t a mechanical installation of a belief-chip. It’s the granting of a privilege. Paul is telling the Philippians that they have been given the high honor of standing on Christ’s side—both in the joy of belief and the honor of suffering. A “privilege” or “favor” is something offered; it doesn’t imply that the recipient’s will was bypassed, but rather that the opportunity was a gift of divine grace.

Does God ‘force’ people to suffer for Him against their will, or do they choose to endure suffering out of love for Him? If suffering for Christ is a choice made by a devoted believer, then, by grammatical parallel, believing in Christ is also a choice made by a devoted seeker. God “grants” the situation and the grace to endure both, but the believer must still “walk” through them.

Again, as with the previous verses, you can see that human choice is only possible if God first opens the door.

Yes, man, in his fallen state, cannot believe on his own. Therefore, God must “grant” the grace that makes belief possible. This verse confirms that the source of our faith is God’s grace, but it doesn’t say that the act of believing is done by God instead of us. It is granted to you to believe that you are still the one doing the believing.
Continued…

69

In the Bible, “death” is frequently used to describe separation, not literal non-existence or total unconsciousness. When Adam and Eve “died” the day they ate the fruit, they didn’t fall over physically; they were separated from God. In Luke 15, the Prodigal Son is described as “dead” while he is in the far country, yet he still has the agency to “come to himself” and decide to return to his father.

Being “spiritually dead” means being legally and relationally separated from God’s life, but it doesn’t mean the person loses the faculty of the will or the ability to respond to a call.

Does God make you alive so that you can believe, or does He make you alive when you believe?

Look at John 20:31: “…that by believing you may have life in his name.”

This suggests that “life” is the result of believing. We are “dead” in sin, God reaches out to us via the Gospel (the “drawing” you discussed earlier), and when we respond in faith, He performs the miracle of “making us alive.” The “making alive” is the spiritual resurrection (regeneration) that follows the human “Yes.”

Think of Lazarus. He was dead, but when Jesus called his name, he came forth. The power was in Jesus’ voice, but Lazarus still had to walk out of the tomb. Or hop as it were.

Similarly, Ephesians 5:14 (in the same letter!) says: “Awake, O sleeper, and arise from the dead, and Christ will shine on you.” If the “dead” had no choice or ability to respond, this command would be nonsensical. Paul is calling those who are spiritually “dead” to take an action—to “arise”—which implies they have a role to play in the process.

The Greek phrase phronēma tēs sarkos refers to a “mindset” or “way of thinking.” The text doesn’t say that the person cannot choose God; it says the mindset of the flesh cannot submit. As long as a person chooses to operate within that fleshly mindset, they are in a state of hostility.

However, the entire point of the surrounding passage is the transition from one mindset to another. Paul is urging his readers to “set the mind on the Spirit” (v. 6). If the transition from a “flesh-mind” to a “Spirit-mind” were impossible or purely a divine puppet-show, Paul’s exhortation to his readers would be meaningless.

In the original language, the phrase “it cannot” (oude dynatai) refers to the inherent nature of the flesh. The “flesh” is, by definition, the part of humanity that acts independently of God. Therefore, the flesh cannot submit—if it did, it wouldn’t be the “flesh” anymore.

Think of it like oil and water. Oil cannot mix with water; it is against its nature. However, a person is not only oil. A person is a volitional being who can, when moved by the Spirit’s conviction, abandon the “oil” (the fleshly mindset) and turn toward the “water” (the Spirit).

While the “fleshly mind” is indeed hostile and unable to submit, no one is left alone in that state. According to John 16:8, the Holy Spirit “will convict the world concerning sin and righteousness and judgment.”

The Spirit’s work is to break through that hostility. The “cannot” of Romans 8:7 describes the human condition apart from the intervening grace of God. But since God is actively calling and convicting everyone, the “cannot” is overcome by His “drawing” (John 6:44), making a choice possible once again.
Continued …

70

Romans 9 is largely a discussion about God’s right to choose the lineage of the promise (Isaac over Ishmael, Jacob over Esau) to fulfill His plan for Israel and the world. Paul is defending God’s sovereignty in choosing the method and path of salvation. Man did not sit down and “will” or “exert” a plan to save the world; God did. “It” (the plan of salvation and the distribution of mercy) depends on God’s initiative. This doesn’t mean an individual’s response to that mercy is irrelevant; it means the existence of that mercy is not something humans earned or invented.

There is a vital distinction between the cause of salvation and the requirement for it. If you are rescued from a burning building, your rescue “depends not on your will or exertion” (you didn’t put out the fire or carry yourself out), but on the firefighter who had “mercy.” However, you still had to allow the firefighter to grab you.

Paul is emphasizing that no amount of human “willing” or “running” (keeping the Law) can force God to show mercy. Mercy, by definition, is a gift. But a gift being freely given by God doesn’t mean it isn’t freely received by man.

Paul frequently uses the imagery of “running” or “striving” to refer to those trying to achieve righteousness through the Jewish Law. In the immediate context (v. 30-32), Paul clarifies: “Israel, who pursued a law that would lead to righteousness, did not succeed. Why? Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as if it were based on works.”

Verse 16 is a critique of legalism. You cannot “will” your way into heaven through sheer mental power or “run” your way there through perfect behavior. Salvation is “of God.” But as Paul concludes in the very next chapter (Romans 10:9), that salvation is accessed when you “confess with your mouth” and “believe in your heart”—both of which involve the will.

You have to look at the preceding verse. The “will” is excluded as the source of the power, but it is not excluded as the requirement for the relationship. You cannot interpret verse 13 without the verse immediately before it. John 1:12 says:

“But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God.”

Verse 12 sets the condition: receiving and believing. These are active verbs that describe a human response. Verse 13 then explains that once a person believes, the resulting “birth” is a miracle performed by God, not a biological or humanly-manufactured event.

A patient chooses to sign a consent form for a life-saving surgery. The patient’s “will” did not perform the surgery—the surgeon did. But the surgery didn’t happen without the patient’s consent. Verse 13 is saying you can’t “birth yourself” into God’s family through your own power; only God can do the “birthing.”

What “Will of Man” actually means (thelēmatos andros) often refers to human effort, lineage, or legal standing. John is writing to a culture that believed they were “born of God” because of their ancestry (blood) or their religious effort (will of man).

John is stripping away those false securities. He is saying, “You aren’t a child of God just because your father was, or because you decided to be a ‘good person’ today.” He is redirecting them from Self-Reliance to God-Reliance. This doesn’t negate the choice to believe; it negates the idea that your choice is the power that saves you. The text says God gave them the “right” or “authority” (exousian) to become children of God.

If you are “born” strictly by a divine decree without any choice, you wouldn’t need to be given a “right” to become a child—you would simply be one. The “right” is a legal status granted by God to those who choose to receive Christ. God is the authorizer, but the person must accept the authorization.

Sorry, my brother, but I think it does. Again, if there is no free will, then it is all pointless. Jesus, God is calling you. Salvation through faith. All of it. If God can simply choose who is and not saved, then it is all meaningless, or a scam, presenting us with a choice. I do not believe God is into scams.
Peter

71

Hi @Peterc, let’s just agree to disagree and leave it there. You are a moderator, and the other moderators seem to be aligning with your reasoning and interpretation of the Scriptures.

I could go through your quotations and analogies one by one, and perhaps find some edification in doing so, but I believe it would ultimately be a futile exercise, so it is not necessary for me at this point.

I do feel somewhat shunned on this forum, though I do not necessarily take issue with that. It simply seems that doctrine is not of primary importance to many here.

I would rather wait for KP and one or two other members to respond.

Shalom.

J.

72

Um ok. I do not think you are being shunned at all. I believe that you are liked and respected, and I personally appreciate your in-depth posting. It got me to look even deeper into the Word. I appreciate that.

I did go verse by verse and told you honestly how I see them. You say you will not respond, yet?

Is this not an arrogant statement? “I posted my view of the Gospel, that is the only meaning, and nobody cares about my interpretation, therefore everyone is wrong?” “Oh, and I will not respond, just know you and anyone who agrees with you is wrong. Because I cannot be?” No, I’m not putting words in your mouth, but can you see how that statement you made could come across?

I love you, brother. I just wish you would stop seeing some grand threat to you and just be you. You are welcome here. If you no longer wish to discuss this with me, so be it. None of it, including this, is, was, or likely to be in the future, personal.

Shalom
Peter

73

Did you pray before writing this? Do you really think I am trying to play the victim here?!
What you wrote is a serious caricature and misrepresentation of what I have plainly stated.

J.

74

I stated explicitly that I am not going to argue with you here, as I believe it would ultimately be a futile exercise.

J.

75

The difficulty with your interpretation is that you insert categories into the text that Jesus Himself does not articulate.

Of course John 6:65 teaches necessity. No Reformed reader denies that. The question is: what kind of “granting” is being described?

Jesus says:

“This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father.” (John 6:65, ESV)

“No man “ — no, not even an apostle, — not the one who ate bread with Christ, and was his familiar friend, — not even he could come without being drawn by God. And he did not come to Christ; in the sense in which our Lord used the Word, Judas never really came to him, but perished in his sin. The Father must draw us with cords divine, or else to the Son we shall never come.

The verb δεδομένον (dedomenon, from δίδωμι, didōmi) indeed means “given” or “granted.” But in John’s Gospel, what the Father “gives” to the Son is not merely a possibility, it results in salvation.

Earlier in the same discourse:

“All that the Father gives me will come to me.” (John 6:37, ESV)

Notice again the certainty. The Father’s giving results in coming.

Then in John 6:39:

“And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me.”

The giving is particular and effectual, not merely a universal enabling that still leaves the final outcome uncertain.

Further, the immediate context matters greatly. In John 6:64 Jesus says:

“But there are some of you who do not believe.”

Then John adds:

“For Jesus knew from the beginning who those were who did not believe, and who it was who would betray him.”

Immediately after this, Jesus explains why some do not believe:

“This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father.”

So Christ Himself presents the Father’s granting as the explanation for why some believe and others do not. The text naturally reads as distinction, not universal equal enabling.

Your analogy of giving sight to a blind man also goes beyond the text.

Scripture describes fallen man not merely as lacking information, but as spiritually dead (Ephesians 2:1), hostile to God (Romans 8:7), and unable to submit to God’s law. The issue is not simply the restoration of neutral capacity.

And again, within John 6, those whom the Father gives come; those drawn are raised up on the last day. The discourse repeatedly ties divine action to certain saving results.

So the central issue is this: does the Father merely make salvation possible for everyone equally, or does He actually secure the coming of those He gives to the Son? John 6 consistently leans toward the latter.

Consistency the key.

J.

76

You are correct that John 1:12 and 1:13 must be read together. The question is not whether believers receive Christ, but what ultimately explains why they do so.

John writes:

“But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God” (John 1:12, ESV)

Then immediately explains who these people are:

“who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.” (John 1:13, ESV)

Verse 13 is not merely saying that human will is insufficient to complete salvation; it explicitly excludes human will as the source of the new birth altogether. Grammatically, the relative clause “who were born” describes the very people who received Christ in verse 12. John is explaining the cause behind their believing, not merely what happened afterward.

The three negations are also striking:

“not of blood” - not by lineage or ancestry
“nor of the will of the flesh” - not from human desire or natural inclination
“nor of the will of man” (thelēmatos andros) - not originating from human decision or volition
“but of God” - the source is divine

The contrast is absolute. John piles up denials of human origin before attributing the birth solely to God.

Your argument being made seems to assume that faith originates autonomously in man and regeneration follows afterward.

But John’s language points the other direction. The believing ones are those who were born of God.

This fits the wider Johannine theology as well:

“Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God.” (1 John 5:1, ESV)

In Greek, “has been born” (gegennētai) is perfect tense, indicating a completed prior action with continuing results. The new birth precedes and explains the believing.

The “right” (exousia) in John 1:12 does not imply autonomous free will as the decisive cause. It means authority, privilege, or legal standing granted by God. Those who receive Christ are granted the status of children of God because they have been born of God.

Your surgery analogy also breaks down because dead sinners are not portrayed in Scripture as spiritually neutral patients capable of consenting apart from grace. Scripture says:

“dead in trespasses and sins” (Ephesians 2:1)
“No one seeks for God” (Romans 3:11)
“The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God” (1 Corinthians 2:14)

So the issue is deeper than merely lacking opportunity or information.

No Reformed reader denies that people truly believe, receive Christ, repent, and come willingly. The question is what ultimately causes that response. John 1:13 attributes the decisive cause not to human will, but to God.

Consistency the key.

J.

77

Scripture never presents salvation as a “scam” because God commands all men everywhere to repent (Acts 17:30), and the Gospel offer is sincere and genuine. Whoever comes to Christ will never be cast out (John 6:37).

But Scripture also teaches that fallen man, left to himself, will not come:

“No one seeks for God.” (Romans 3:11, ESV)

“The mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God… indeed, it cannot.” (Romans 8:7, ESV)

“No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him.” (John 6:44, ESV)

The question then becomes: why does one person come while another does not?

Your position ultimately places the decisive factor in man. Grace may assist, invite, enable, or persuade, but at the final point the determining cause is the sinner’s autonomous choice.

But Paul explicitly asks:

“What do you have that you did not receive?” (1 Corinthians 4:7, ESV)

Even faith itself is presented as granted by God:

“For it has been granted to you that for the sake of Christ you should… believe in him.” (Philippians 1:29, ESV)

And again:

“God may perhaps grant them repentance.” (2 Timothy 2:25, ESV)

Repentance - preliminary to the full knowledge [ epignoosin (G1922)] of the truth (1Ti_2:4), their minds being corrupted (2Ti_3:8) and their lives immoral. The spiritual ignorance which prompts such “questions” is moral-has its seat in the will, not the intellect (Joh_7:17). Therefore “repentance” is their first need. That God alone can “give” (Act_5:31).

The biblical picture is not robots versus free will. Scripture consistently portrays man as acting according to his nature and desires. Fallen man freely rejects God because he loves darkness (John 3:19). Regenerated man freely comes because God has changed his heart.

That is why Ezekiel 36:26 says:

“And I will give you a new heart, and a new spirit I will put within you.”

God does not drag unwilling sinners into the kingdom kicking and screaming. He changes the heart so that Christ becomes desirable.

Also, saying election would make preaching pointless does not fit the New Testament itself. Paul endured suffering precisely because God had chosen people to save:

“I endure everything for the sake of the elect.” (2 Timothy 2:10, ESV)

Likewise in Acts 18:10, the Lord tells Paul:

“I have many in this city who are my people.”

Election did not discourage evangelism; it guaranteed its success.

The difficulty here is understandable because human intuition tends to think sovereignty and responsibility cannot coexist. Yet Scripture teaches both simultaneously:

man is genuinely responsible,
the Gospel is genuinely offered,
and salvation ultimately belongs to the Lord (Jonah 2:9).

A foul-mouthed minister is seldom an instrument to cleanse another’s heart.

Consistency the key.

J.

78

And here…

“Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God.” (1 John 5:1, ESV)

The grammar is significant: “has been born” (perfect tense, gegennētai) indicates a prior divine action that results in the present believing.

So rather than reading John 1:13 as, “you believe, and then God regenerates you,” John’s own internal pattern reads more consistently as, “you believe because you were born of God.”

Your insistence that verse 13 cannot exclude human will as a requirement introduces a category the text itself does not make. John is not describing cooperation between two causes (God + human will), but the divine origin of those who believe.

So the question is not whether human beings truly believe (they do), but what John identifies as the ultimate source of that believing response. In the immediate syntax of the passage, that source is explicitly stated as God, not the will of man.

New birth (being born of God) is not produced by human faith.
Nor is faith something that exists independently and then triggers regeneration.
Rather, God’s act of new birth includes and produces faith itself.
Therefore:
regeneration > faith (not faith > regeneration)

This is exactly the structure implied in passages like:

“Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God.” (1 John 5:1, ESV)

The Greek verb gegennētai (“has been born”) is perfect tense, indicating a completed prior action with ongoing result. The text grammatically places “being born of God” as logically prior to believing.

image
image774×528 16 KB

…OUT of the God

..out of God…

Instead of quickly scanning my posts and pulling out isolated excerpts, I would suggest you take some time to slow down and search the Scriptures for yourself, like the Bereans did.…and also take the time to study the middle voice, for example in Wallace’s Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, to better understand how it functions in the Greek text.

J.

79

“A deponent middle is a middle voice verb that has no active form but is active in meaning.58 This is the most common middle in the NT, due to the heavy use of certain verbs. English (as well as other modern Indo-European languages) has few analogies, making analysis of this phenomenon particularly difficult.59 But in the AV, we read on occasion “he is come” in the sense of “he comes” (cf. Matt 12:44; John 4:25).
–Daniel Wallace, Greek Grammar, 428.

ἔλαβον (elabon, “received”) - aorist active, not middle
πιστεύουσιν (pisteuousin, “believing”) - present active participle
γενέσθαι (genesthai, “to become”) - aorist middle infinitive of γίνομαι

So if someone is arguing from the middle voice, they are probably referring to γενέσθαι (“to become”).

But γίνομαι is very commonly middle/deponent in Koine Greek. The middle form does not automatically carry a theological idea of cooperative causation.

In Wallace’s discussion of middle voice and deponency, the point is grammatical voice/function, not “partial self-salvation.” **Many Greek verbs naturally occur in middle forms without implying autonomous human contribution.**Suggest check this for yourself as I have.

In John 1:12:

ἔδωκεν αὐτοῖς ἐξουσίαν τέκνα θεοῦ γενέσθαι
“He gave them the right to become children of God.”

The infinitive γενέσθαι (genesthai) is middle because γίνομαι regularly appears in middle forms (“become,” “come into being”). It often conveys transition into a state involving the subject itself. That is a normal semantic feature of the verb, not evidence of synergistic theology.

In fact, the larger context of John 1:13 immediately guards against making human will the decisive cause:

“who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.”

So even if γενέσθαι carries a middle nuance (“become for themselves” / “enter into the state of”), John immediately attributes the source of that birth to God, not human volition.

The middle voice in Greek is much broader than “cooperation.” It can indicate:

participation of the subject,
involvement of the subject,
transition of state,
reflexive nuance,
or simply lexical/deponent usage.

So if someone says:

“It’s middle voice, therefore humans cooperate in regeneration,”

that is grammatically overextended. Voice alone cannot bear that theological weight.

“And now we come to what I would fain call the drip-pan middle, the πανδέκτης middle, the middle that is put at the bottom to catch the drippings of the other uses as the ablative is put to catch the drippings of the others cases. It is called the intensive middle, the dynamic middle. We have five chevaux de frise pages on the subject and after all the categorizing, individual authors baffle us. There is, f. i., παρλεχειν and παρέχεσθαι. If you read certain authors you are ready to formulate. ὁ παρέχων shirks responsibility for disagreeable things, ὁ παρεχόμενος take the credit for agreeable things, but alas! Plato who after all writes Jove-like Greek sends the distinction ἐς κόπακας. In short the dynamic middle might as well be called the ethical middle and spelling it out with the help of ‘out of one’s means’ and the like is in many cases a mere concession to the mania for explaining the reflexive notion, which is often so faint that one forgive Curtius for his untenable explanation of -μαι, -σαι, -ται. After one has done one’s best, one must needs fall back on the way of the language. λαβεῖν may be rendered to ‘grip’, and λαβέσθαι ‘to get one’s grip’, the -εύειν and -εύεσθαι may be differentiated, πολιτεύειν, ‘to be a citizen’, πολιτεύεσθαι, ‘to play one’s part as a citizen’, but ἕπεσθαι like sequi does not yield to us a reflexive sense without forcing, and after all is said and done we have to admit, as Stahl has done, that the language is capricious in such matters. We translate ἰδεῖν, ‘see’, ἰδέσθαι, ‘to see with one’s own eyes’, and overtranslation as ὀφθαλμοῖσιν ὁρᾶν shows, but if there is such virtue in ἰδέσθαι, why not in ἰδόμενος? Ah! the verse. Like the rest of us Stahl has to go into bankruptcy. Translation with not suffice. ‘The middle may be quite appropriate’, he says, ‘and yet when there is not essential difference between the middle and the active the author may go to work and use the active’. And the whole thing winds up with a chapter on the differences between -κα and the strong perfects, the use of the aorist active (e.g., ἔδρακον) side by side with the present middle (e.g., δέκρομαι) and the tendency of the sigmatic aorist to the causative signification, ἔστησα)(ἔστην. All this is very disappointing in a work that was to have illuminated the whole track of our studies. The book will be a God-send to those who like to write about Greek syntax without reading Greek, and every Greek scholar will welcome the material, but the specialist in syntax who is really seeking light and who has worked through the whole period covered by Stahl will not be edified by the false points he has made the the ruthless way in which he breaks off those that he has not developed himself.”

—Gildersleeve, Notes on Stahl’s Syntax of the Greek Verb, 277-8.

I’ll give you the links, just ask, and thou shalt receive.

J.

80

However, many Christians were raised as Christians and at some point made it their personal relationship with God at his leading, @KPuff. God works in different ways with different people, but it is his work.

81

Amen. I used the same verses you used to show you that there is a possibility that you are not seeing the truth of the matter, that Freewill exists. Yet you still do not, as I do not see where the Word says anything other than we have a choice.

"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. John 3:16-18

Seems pretty clear to me.

Of course, I understand that you are leaning into a theological perspective often called Monergism, which suggests that the initial impulse of faith comes entirely from God. However, this is not the only intrepretation. While no one can come to God on their own power, God gives everyone the ability to respond. This is often called “Prevenient Grace.”

If I am locked in a room, I cannot leave unless someone unlocks the door. Unlocking the door is “granted” to me, but I still have to choose to walk through it. Just a few chapters later, in John 12:32, Jesus says, “And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself.” This suggests the “granting” isn’t for a select few, but a universal invitation that enables the choice.

In this view, “granting” the ability to come to Him doesn’t mean the Father forces the person to come. A university grants a student a scholarship. The student couldn’t attend without it (it was “granted”), but the student can still reject the scholarship or fail to show up for class.

God provides the capacity for faith, but the human will must still exercise that faith.

Some scholars argue that in the specific context of John 6, Jesus is addressing a crowd that had already seen miracles and rejected Him for selfish reasons (they just wanted more free bread). The “granting” might refer to God opening the hearts of those who are actually seeking truth, while leaving those who are intentionally rebellious in their self-chosen blindness. As we see in Romans 1.

God “gives” to Jesus those who respond to His initial drawing. God doesn’t give people to Jesus arbitrarily. Rather, the “giving” is the Father’s response to the individual’s willingness to listen and learn. Just a few verses later in John 6:45, Jesus says, “Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to me.”

The Father “gives” those who have chosen to “hear and learn.” The human choice happens at the “hearing” stage, and the “giving” is God’s seal on that choice.

Think of a bus route. The Father has “given” the bus (the Way to salvation) to Jesus. Everyone who gets on that bus will arrive at the destination. The “coming” is certain for the group, but the individual still decides whether or not to step onto the bus. John 6:37 actually has two halves that represent the “Great Mystery” of the Bible.

The divine side: “All that the Father gives me will come to me…” (Sovereignty) and the human side: “…and whoever comes to me I will never cast out.” (Human Action/Invitation)

Matthew 23:37: Jesus says, “How often would I have gathered your children together… and you were not willing!” Acts 7:51: Stephen tells the leaders, “You always resist the Holy Spirit.”

“Will come” doesn’t have to mean “is forced to come.” It can mean that God’s grace is so perfectly tailored to the human heart that those who don’t harden their hearts will naturally and freely gravitate toward Him. It’s the difference between being dragged to a feast and being so hungry that you can’t help but run toward the smell of food.

I’m going to stop there, before I run out of time. I agree. We could go back and forth daily on this one topic. However, I’m not sure that would be productive in the long run for anyone.
Peter