Paul taught that Revelation 20:4 was a current reality

[strepho]

Revelation 20:6 Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.

You referenced Isaiah 29 without specifying why, but I think in this case it makes more sense to reference a verse contained within the same book at the verse above. What does it mean to be "priests of God and of Christ"? You say it means to be appointed as judges and teachers in the future. But, is that how it should be understood? Look at this passage:

Revelation 1:5 and from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, the firstborn from the dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth. To him who loves us and has freed us from our sins by his blood, 6 and has made us to be a kingdom and priests to serve his God and Father—to him be glory and power for ever and ever! Amen.

If we allow this passage to tell us what it means to be "priests of God and of Christ", then it means to be part of His kingdom while serving God. And it means every one of us are priests right now. Notice that it says Jesus "has made us to be a kingdom and priests". Past tense. It is something that He has already done and is ongoing, not something that will be done in the future.

Hello. I documented this. To clarify it. Its below or above.

 

[PinSeeker]

If the first resurrection is the result of the second birth, how can the dead ever have the first resurrection, without a second birth?

Non-Christians do not have a second birth or the resulting first resurrection, Timtofly. They remain dead in their sin.

That means redeemed people are being cast into the LOF having received the second birth, but still condemned,

Absolutely not. See above.

because they did not receive the second birth while physically alive but received the second birth while physically dead.

LOL! Whuuuuuut? Dear God. This it totally ridiculous. LOL!!! See above...

You literally then have no term for an actual physical resurrection.

The second. :) The first resurrection is the spiritual resurrection of God's elect, when ~ or just after, if you insist ~ they are born again of the Spirit. They are then raised ~ resurrected ~ in Christ. At the end of the age, having previously physically died, their bodies will be physically resurrected, and they ~ their spirit, which has been with Jesus through the rest of the course of the millennium after their physical death ~ will be reunited with their resurrected bodies.

Unbelievers ~ if they remain unbelievers ~ are dead in their sin and thus never in their lifetimes experience the second birth or the resulting first resurrection... they are never raised in Christ. And after their physical death, they are... not with Jesus; somewhere else, like the rich man in Jesus's parable in Luke 16... through the rest of the course of the millennium. Their dead bodies will likewise be resurrected at the end of the age, and their spirits will also be reunited with their bodies.

And at the end of the age, after the second resurrection, all will stand before Christ for the judgment, some on His right, and some on His left. And the ones on His left will not stand in the judgment.

A first resurrection is still physical, because of the second birth.

Um, well the first physical resurrection is the first (and only) physical resurrection, sure, but this is not the sense in which the term 'first resurrection' is used in Revelation 20. See above.

You literally then have no term for an actual physical resurrection.

The physical resurrection is, in terms of Revelation 20, the second resurrection.

Which is consistent with premill...

And that's the problem. Premillennialism ~ historical and dispensational and all its other variations (there are many) are wrong.

...some at the GWT Judgment may be granted the second birth...

Nope.

, and then receive the first resurrection (physical) as the result of the second birth.

So nope.

We know the second birth was available after the Cross.

Sure we do. It's been occurring to each member of God's elect, each at his/her appointed time, ever since.

The OT redeemed were...

Saved the exact same way we are today, by faith. Hebrews 11 is very clear about that...

waiting in Abraham's bosom to receive the second birth...

Nope. See above. They were born again just as we are.

and in conjunction, the first resurrection.

Well, yes, in conjunction with the second birth and then being raised ~ resurrected ~ in Christ. That word 'in' is very important, there, Timtofly.

They have been physically enjoying Paradise since the Cross.

Not physically... Not yet. That will come at the end of the millennium, when all are raised, and after the final Judgment.

Yes, He was physically dead. He did not need a new body, but His physical body experienced the first resurrection after 3 days and 3 nights.

His only resurrection, of course. But His resurrection is not in view in Revelation 20 at all. He does not "share in the first resurrection," Timtofly, because He is the resurrection, as He said in John 11:25a (emphasis added) ~ "I am the resurrection and the life."

Jesus did not need the second birth.

Which I've said many, many times...

Hoo, boy. Dude, stop.

Grace and peace to you, Timtofly.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

The first resurrection is physical, not spiritual. What you are implying is two seperate physical resurrections, which is ironic, because you only allow one physical resurrection.

I have said repeatedly in the past that I believe the first resurrection itself was Christ's physical, bodily resurrection. Scripture teaches that specifically.

Acts 26:23 that the Messiah would suffer and, as the first to rise from the dead, would bring the message of light to his own people and to the Gentiles.”

Revelation 20 talks about having part in the first resurrection. I believe that is talking about spiritually having part in Christ's resurrection the way passages like Ephesians 2:4-6, Romans 6 and Colossians 2:11-13 talk about.

Your post to me refutes your own eschatological viewpoint.

Of course it does because you have no reading comprehension skills whatsoever.

In other words, you contradict your own teaching,

No, I don't. You just wish I did. If you actually understood what I believe then you wouldn't say that.

because you deny a first physical resurrection in the first century, which would imply another first resurrection at the Second Coming, if you are being honest with your point.

I'll be honest about this: I believe you have no idea of what you're talking about.

The first physical resurrection would imply a second spiritual resurrection, because the first birth (physical) implies a second birth (spiritual). A first death (physical) implies a second death (spiritual). See how that works? No, you don't, because you call the first resurrection, spiritual, and thus no physical resurrection ever.

You twist that to say a first spiritual resurrection implies a second physical resurrection, which no pre-mill will agree with, so you are not arguing the same thing. Because if there is a second resurrection, it is not just to get back a physical body, it is to have everlasting life. The lost will have another resurrection to eternal life at the GWT Judgment, thus avoiding the second death. That is the implied second chance spiritual resurrection that you should be arguing, not a physical one just back into death.

You have one resurrection avoiding death, then imply the next resurrection equals death. That is not being consistent, so your first resurrection cannot imply an inconsistent second resurrection. Do you think those coming out of sheol get a second chance receiving the first resurrection given prior to the millennium?

"Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power."

So all your lost people get the same first resurrection as implied after the Millennium and also avoid the second death? You would have to call both resurrections spiritual to be consistent. But you don't, do you?

Do you know you can't get the time back that you waste making straw man arguments? You spent all that time arguing against something that I don't even believe. What a waste.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Hello friend. I don't have time to type in verses and chapters.

You can learn how to copy and paste text. It's not hard and doesn't take much time.

Isaiah chapter 29
Verse 17 to 24 is about the millennium.
The priests will do the teaching and discipline, and judging. Jesus will appoint them on the 7 th trump.

Who taught you this? There is nothing in that passage to indicate that it's talking about a time after Jesus returns, as you believe. Not even close.

Zechariah chapter 3 :8. These are God's Elect. No gender applies. In the Dimension Jesus is in, all angels are masculine. There's no female in the Dimension Jesus is in.

What does this have to do with the topic being discussed in this thread?

8:9. This stone laid before Jesus with seven eyes. Are God's Elect.

Who are the Election ??

God judged the election in the first earth age. Lucifer led one third of God's children in rebellion against God. The election stood against satan and one third.

Romans chapter 11:4. God has reserved seven thousand who bow knee to baal. These are same people from zechariah chapter 3. The election will not worship satan as antichrist near future. They have seal of God.

Romans chapter 11:7 to 11:10. The Election have holy spirit, seal of God. Many people have spirit of stupor.

Revelation chapter 12:3. Lucifer had a political system in the first earth age. The dragon is satan. Behind Jesus back, in first earth age, Lucifer was sitting on Mercy seat when Jesus wasn't around. One third of God's children worshipped satan in first earth age.

Currently, we're in the flesh, the 5th trump.
Revelation chapter 13. God will test people by one world religious system. Satan as antichrist will lead this system near future. Jesus wants them Tested !!.

Jesus want's to know if they will worship satan again. Easy to understand.
Revelation chapter 12:4. One third of the stars were cast to earth.
These are the one third of God's children from first earth age, they are here now. God is using satan as antichrist to test people at the 6th trump.

Second thessalonians chapter 2. The son of perdition is satan. He comes 6th trump to Jerusalem, pretending to be messiah.

If you have difficulty understanding this. I recommend shepherds chapel on YouTube. They have videos that cover this.

Election
3 world ages
Antichrist
Seal of God
Mark of beast
Pastor dennis murray teaches chapter by chapter, and verse by verse. He tells us the truth.

It's your decision.
Take care.

That was impossible for me to follow. Thanks for sharing, but unless you can find a way to discuss things more clearly, we'll just have to agree to disagree.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Hello. I documented this. To clarify it. Its below or above.

I don't know what you mean. Do you have any specific thoughts about what I said?

 

[strepho]

I don't know what you mean. Do you have any specific thoughts about what I said?

Ezekiel chapter 40 to 48 is about the millennium, it aligns with revelation chapter 20.

The Zadok of Ezekiel chapter 44, are the just, the election.
They are priests during millennium.

The election are predestined, chosen before foundation of the world.
Read Roman's chapter 8.
Ephesians chapter 1
First Peter chapter 1
Romans chapter 11

The destiny of election, is to be priests during millennium. Jesus is King.

Again. I suggest you watch video of millennium, on shepherds chapel on YouTube.

I can't spend all night elaborating on this.

Take care.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Ezekiel chapter 40 to 48 is about the millennium, it aligns with revelation chapter 20.

The Zadok of Ezekiel chapter 44, are the just, the election.
They are priests during millennium.

The election are predestined, chosen before foundation of the world.
Read Roman's chapter 8.
Ephesians chapter 1
First Peter chapter 1
Romans chapter 11

The destiny of election, is to be priests during millennium. Jesus is King.

Jesus is King now and we are priests now according to Revelation 1:5-6, as I already showed. So, I disagree.

Again. I suggest you watch video of millennium, on shepherds chapel on YouTube.

I'm not interested. I can study scripture for myself and I suggest you do the same.

I can't spend all night elaborating on this.

Take care.

You, too.

 

[Timtofly]

Their dead bodies will likewise be resurrected at the end of the age, and their spirits will also be reunited with their bodies.

This is the only first resurrection. Otherwise it is not a resurrection at all. You cannot say their bodies are resurrected, as there is no third type of resurrection defined in Scripture. You deny the Scriptural definition of the first resurrection, and invent a third type of resurrection. Scripture never once states the dead get their bodies back. Not even Daniel 12 indicates they get bodies, unless they are redeemed and made righteous.

"And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt."

This is vague, and many just claim one resurrection, even though that is not stated either. It does not say "all", it only says "many of them". If one is going to solely base their theology on this one verse, not everyone will even awake. So this would not be talking about the dead that are never resurrected. Then those who awake, some are shown to not have everlasting life either.

Even though Daniel 12 can imply a resurrection, why use Daniel to deny there was a first resurrection a thousand years before your implied resurrection? If John states there is a thousand years between them, how can you say that will not happen? John is being clearer than Daniel.

I have stated this several times, but the reason why Daniel does not say "all" is that some have already been given the first resurrection. Daniel is just seeing the unredeemed awake, and some unredeemed are given eternal life. Daniel is not implying all are still dead, yet that seems to be a popular opinion. Daniel is not implying a single general resurrection at all.

If John sees any of the dead in Revelation 20:12-15 allowed a resurrection, he offers no explicit words stating some receive everlasting life. Nor does he rule that out.

"And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire."

John leaves it open ended that there are some that may be found still written in the book of life. But no explicit examples that some are given the first resurrection, although many claim a first mention implies a second time the first resurrection happens.

Most assume all the dead here are tossed into the LOF, no?

That would depend on if "the dead" here means only physically dead or spiritually dead, no?

One can assume if they come out of death, and sheol they are spiritually dead, as they never experienced the second birth, which also makes one not dead any more. The second birth, which is spiritual, not only prevents the second death, still spiritual, because they already have everlasting life, and will not even see physical death, because the soul will never be without a physical body. But no one on earth seems to understand 2 Corinthians 5:1. If the redeemed are not physically dead in Paradise, they are just considered sleeping but more awake than those in sheol. They don't need to awake, because they are no longer in a state of death, by any understanding of the term "the dead". How can they be dead while serving God day and night in that heavenly temple for the last 1994 years?

Daniel is not seeing those already serving God for thousands of years in that heavenly temple. That is part of the mystery that was hidden from those of Jacob. The fulness of the Gentiles should not be a mystery to us today, but was and is for many who are descendants of Jacob. Applying in general what was revealed to Israel, is denying the mystery and blindness in part, put on Israel. It is a myopic view on the part of the church, not recognizing their own second birth that already removes the effect of being in death. The second birth has removed the need to sleep in the dust in Abraham's bosom. The church was removed from sleep and placed into the physical Paradise where the tree of life is physical, as well as their own physical bodies.

 

[Timtofly]

Nope. See above. They were born again just as we are.

They were born again at the Cross, because the second birth was not necessary for natural branches. Natural branches were cut off in unbelief, because of a lack of faith. They did not maintain their natural status merely by faith, but by obedience to the Law.

We are not natural branches but wild, thus the need to be born again, grafted in. Now Jacob has to be born again, and grafted in as wild branches, thus no distinction between Israel and the church, as both need the second birth equally.

If Nicodemus was confused by the second birth when Jesus presented that fact to him, how can you say they already had the second birth? Being removed from death and made alive at the Cross proves they had the second birth giving them eternal life, and now in heaven also have the first resurrection, to physically enjoy Paradise, and serve God day and night in that heavenly temple. They are already there, not waiting to get there from somewhere else. Paul states God brings them with Him at the Second Coming. God does not leave heaven go someplace, gathers some from that third place, and then comes to the earth.

 

[Timtofly]

Acts 26:23 that the Messiah would suffer and, as the first to rise from the dead, would bring the message of light to his own people and to the Gentiles.”

Which means all the redeemed have also risen from the dead. No one is still waiting in a tomb, because Jesus is not waiting in a tomb.

The first resurrection, physical, applies to all in Christ, the same as the first resurrection applied to the physical body of Jesus.

If Jesus has a physical body, so do they.

 

[PinSeeker]

They were born again at the Cross...

They were not. They... like you and I... had been born again of the Spirit. For them long before, during their lifetime, and for us long after, in ours. In Ephesians 2:4-10, Paul is referring directly to what the prophet Ezekiel had said long before, even long before Jesus was born of Mary:

"And I will give them one heart, and a new spirit I will put within them. I will remove the heart of stone from their flesh and give them a heart of flesh, that they may walk in My statutes and keep My rules and obey them. And they shall be My people, and I will be their God" (Ezekiel 11:19-20).​

"I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you shall be clean from all your uncleannesses, and from all your idols I will cleanse you. And I will give you a new heart, and a new spirit I will put within you. And I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. And I will put My Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in My statutes and be careful to obey My rules. You shall dwell in the land that I gave to your fathers, and you shall be My people, and I will be your God. And I will deliver you from all your uncleannesses" (Ezekiel 36:25-28).​

So you see, unmistakably, people in the Old Testament who were saved were saved exactly people are today; they were born again of the Spirit and raised in Christ through faith by the grace of God.

...the second birth was not necessary for natural branches.

It was and is. Not only was Nicodemus a Jew, he was the teacher of the Jews, and Jesus told him that without exception, no one can see/enter the Kingdom of God without having been born again.

Natural branches were cut off in unbelief, because of a lack of faith.

Right, but they can be grafted back in again, as Paul says in Romans 11, if they are born again of the Spirit and given faith.

We are not natural branches but wild, thus the need to be born again, grafted in.

Sure, and... see above... many of the natural branches broken off will be regrafted in. This is the partial hardening that is now on Israel and will be removed by the end of the age.

...no distinction between Israel and the church, as both need the second birth equally.

Absolutely.

If Nicodemus was confused by the second birth when Jesus presented that fact to him...

Not sure what you mean by "if"... LOL!

...how can you say they already had the second birth?

That Nicodemus didn't understand it shouldn't be understood that it is was not and is not a reality, Timtofly. And we see Paul telling Gentile believers in Ephesus that they have been born again and thus saved by the grace of God. He's writing to live people in his days ~ and also by extension to you and me ~ and speaking in the past tense, not the future, as is their being born again is some distant future event.

Being removed from death and made alive at the Cross proves they had the second birth giving them eternal life, and now in heaven also have the first resurrection...

There is a certain sense in which you're correct, here, Timtofly, but your true sense of these things is quite off. They were made alive because of what Jesus did on the cross and through faith, which is the gift of God. And thus, like Abraham so long ago, we believe God, and it is credited to us as righteousness. Those in heaven now, yes, initially shared and still now share in the first resurrection, having been raised up ~ at the a point in their lifetime, just like us ~ with Christ and seated with Christ in the heavenly places in Christ. And now they are destined to share in the second resurrection at the end of the age, which is physical, to eternal life rather than to judgment, which will be the fate of unbelievers. Everyone is destined for the second resurrection, Timtofly, but the outcome ~ what each is resurrected to ~ differs (some to eternal life, the others to judgment), and the final Judgment will bear that out.

...to physically enjoy Paradise, and serve God day and night in that heavenly temple.

One day we all will, but not yet. And the true temple is not a building. :)

They are already there, not waiting to get there from somewhere else.

LOL!!! Well, I agree... LOL!

Paul states God brings them with Him at the Second Coming. God does not leave heaven go someplace, gathers some from that third place, and then comes to the earth.

Yes, but... and this is getting back to the original subject of this thread... Jesus does not come back secretly and take his church back to heaven and then come back again at some later time, as premillennial believers somehow understand it... :)

Which means all the redeemed have also risen from the dead.

Well, right, in the sense that we are no longer dead in our sin and have been born again of the Spirit and raised up in Christ.... by the grace of God through faith, and this not of our own doing but the gift of God, that no one may boast.

But not so much... LOL! ...in the quite ridiculous sense that we have been physically resurrected after having been physically dead. LOL! :)

No one is still waiting in a tomb...

Well, I agree, but their bodies are in tombs/graves/what-have-you... LOL!

The first resurrection, physical, applies to all in Christ,

Spiritual ~ of the Spirit. We have been born again and subsequently raised up in Christ. This is the "first resurrection" of Revelation 20:4-6.

...the same as the first resurrection applied to the physical body of Jesus.

Our "second resurrection" will be just like His only resurrection was.

If Jesus has a physical body, so do they.

They certainly will. :) Everybody will, actually. But some will be just like Jesus, having been resurrected to eternal life, and will be physically with Him forever in the New Heaven and New Earth.

Grace and peace to you, Timtofly.

 

[Timtofly]

Right, but they can be grafted back in again, as Paul says in Romans 11, if they are born again of the Spirit and given faith.

You are missing the point. They could not choose, and experience the second birth, since they had Christ just by being physically born.

Any one cut off before the Cross, are waiting in sheol to be grafted back in at the GWT Judgment. They could not experience the second birth after physical death. Just like those since the Cross, cannot change their mind after physical death and then recieve what they rejected prior to physical death.

They lived out their life of faith and obedience the same way, but they had the second birth from conception, and then lost the second birth by unbelief. We receive the second birth by choice at all different times of life depending upon the reception of the Gospel.

When Israel has backslidden as a nation throughout time, and throughout Scripture God has always reserved a remnant who could never loose their position in God. That is not applied to the church, because coming out of the world having the Second Birth either happens or it does not happen, and people live a lie, pretending they are saved.

You claim a natural branch cut off can return. Paul never said what happens when a grafted branch is cut off, he warned not to tempt God.

"Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off. And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be grafted in: for God is able to graft them in again."

Paul never says if a cut off grafted in branch could be grafted back in. He said only a natural branch, cut off could be grafted back in. Why would one seek the severity of God's wrath?

 

[PinSeeker]

You are missing the point. They could not choose, and experience the second birth...

No, you're making an erroneous "point." No one can choose to be born of the Spirit, just as none of us could have possibly chosen to be physically born of our earthly mother and father. Either God gives this second birth ~ which is by and of Himself in the person of the Holy Spirit, of course ~ or not, and it is according to whether or not God chooses to have mercy on the person or not. It is not about the will of the person, but the will of God, else we would say that man is sovereign over God, which of course is a perfectly ridiculous thought... And it has always been this way, and will always be thus.

Humanly speaking, it is a matter of the heart~ one's heart always drives his/her will ~ and unless God changes the heart ~ removes the heart of stone and gives the person a heart of flesh, thereby putting a new spirit within the person, as Ezekiel, and thus Paul, says ~ that person will remain dead in his/her sin, his/her heart will remain of stone and therefore never come to love God... indeed will continue to choose the opposite, because he/she, in that case, remains of his/her father the devil, and thus a slave to unrighteousness. But if God does change the heart, then he or she will not fail to then come to belief in and love of God... and then freely choose God. As John says, "We love because God first loved us" (1 John 4:19, emphasis added).

Any one cut off before the Cross, are waiting in sheol to be grafted back in at the GWT Judgment...

No, remains cut off ~ like the rich man in Jesus's parable in Luke 16, and, at the end of the age will be resurrected to judgment rather than eternal life. And in the final Judgment ~ which is depicted as the Great White Throne judgment event in Revelation 20 ~ will be one of the ones as in Matthew 25:41-45 on Jesus's left and, in the words of Psalm 1, will not be in the congregation of the righteous and will not stand in ~ will not come out on the good side of ~ this final Judgment. When this final judgment is rendered, he/she will depart obediently into judgment, away from the New Heaven and New Earth.

They could not experience the second birth after physical death...

This is very much true regarding unbelievers. If they were not born again during their lives, they cannot be born again after their death.

They lived out their life of faith and obedience the same way, but they had the second birth from conception, and then lost the second birth by unbelief.

Hmm, you seem to be speaking of believers here. Faith is the gift of God, Timtofly, it is not something someone is able to somehow manufacture in himself or herself. And obedience is something caused by God as a result of the second birth and this raising unto newness of life, as both Ezekiel and Paul make clear:

• Ezekiel (quoting God): "I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in My statutes and be careful to obey My rules" (Ezekiel 36:27).
• Paul: "...this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast. For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them" (Ephesians 2:9-10).

We receive the second birth by choice...

Nope. See above.

at all different times of life depending upon the reception of the Gospel.

The Gospel has its intended effect to each person at all times. Faith does come by hearing, as Paul says in Romans 10, but not always, as it still depends on whether God has mercy/compassion on the person or not... whether he removes the heart of stone or not. See above. As Paul just previously has said, it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy (Romans 9:16).

You claim a natural branch cut off can return. Paul never said what happens when a grafted branch is cut off, he warned not to tempt God.

I'm... not sure what connection you see between a branch being cut off and tempting God, but no matter... I "claimed" ~ as Paul says explicitly ~ that... well, I'll pull his words verbatim: "...even they, if they do not continue in their unbelief, will be grafted in, for God has the power to graft them in again" (Romans 11:23).

"Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off. And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be grafted in: for God is able to graft them in again."

He said only a natural branch, cut off could be grafted back in...

Well thank you for saying exactly what I just said... :) Un-natural branches, once grafted in, will continue in faith and obedience because this is the will of God, and, as Paul says in Philippians 2, it is God who works in us as believers, so that we then both will and work for his good pleasure, which, again, is echoing Ezekiel's quote of God above, that God, in His invincible working of salvation in a person, puts His Spirit within that person and causes that person to walk in His statutes and to be careful to obey His rules (see above).

Why would one seek the severity of God's wrath?

Good question. The short answer to that is that as children of their father the Devil, they really seek not God's will because they do not love Him. Unbelievers actually seek to do the Devil's will, because he is their father, and they remain slaves of unrighteousness. Remember what Jesus says to the Jews to whom He is speaking in John 8:43-44? He says, "...you cannot bear to hear My word. You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father’s desires..."

Grace and peace to you, Timtofly.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

No, you're making an erroneous "point." No one can choose to be born of the Spirit, just as none of us could have possibly chosen to be physically born of our earthly mother and father. Either God gives this second birth ~ which is by and of Himself in the person of the Holy Spirit, of course ~ or not, and it is according to whether or not God chooses to have mercy on the person or not. It is not about the will of the person, but the will of God, else we would say that man is sovereign over God, which of course is a perfectly ridiculous thought... And it has always been this way, and will always be thus.

Humanly speaking, it is a matter of the heart~ one's heart always drives his/her will ~ and unless God changes the heart ~ removes the heart of stone and gives the person a heart of flesh, thereby putting a new spirit within the person, as Ezekiel, and thus Paul, says ~ that person will remain dead in his/her sin, his/her heart will remain of stone and therefore never come to love God... indeed will continue to choose the opposite, because he/she, in that case, remains of his/her father the devil, and thus a slave to unrighteousness. But if God does change the heart, then he or she will not fail to then come to belief in and love of God... and then freely choose God. As John says, "We love because God first loved us" (1 John 4:19, emphasis added).

Okay, if you're going to promote Calvinism here, then I'm just going to have to refute it.

Acts 7:51 “You stiff-necked people! Your hearts and ears are still uncircumcised. You are just like your ancestors: You always resist the Holy Spirit!

This is Stephen rebuking the Jewish religious leaders of his day. He said they were resisting the Holy Spirit and he was criticizing them for it, implying that they should not have been doing that. Now, why would Stephen get upset at them for resisting the Holy Spirit if they supposedly couldn't help but to resist the Holy Spirit, as you believe? If they had hearts of stone from birth and couldn't help but be the way they were, what is there to get upset about? They were just being who God made them to be in that case. It makes no sense to get upset at someone for not responding favorably to the Holy Spirit if they have no capability of doing so. So, apparently, Stephen believed they were capable of that and got upset that they didn't and stubbornly resisted the Holy Spirit instead.

By the way, for them to be considered stiff-necked (meaning stubborn) means they were willingly making an effort to resist the Holy Spirit. If they just naturally resisted the Holy Spirit then they would not be described as being stiff-necked. They would just be doing what they do naturally. But, when someone stubbornly refuses to do something it means they are capable of doing it, but are being willfully rebellious and choosing not to do it.

Having a heart of stone does not equate to being unable to recognize that you're a sinner and need to repent and acknowledge that to God. It means that you don't have any understanding of God and His deeper truths, but it does not mean that someone is unable to repent and ask for God's mercy while acknowledging that they are a sinner in need of salvation through Jesus Christ. If it meant that someone was unable to repent of their sins and ask God for forgiveness and mercy then what reason would Stephen get upset at those who resisted the Holy Spirit? There would be none. He would have just realized they couldn't help themselves and he would have let it go and not said anything to them. The only explanation that makes sense for what Stephen said to them and for why he was upset with them is that they had the ability to respond favorably to the Holy Spirit by repenting of their sins and accepting Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior, but they willfully chose not to do so (even though they could have chosen to answer the Holy Spirit's call to repent instead).

In the following passage we can see what Jesus said He would have done for them had they not willfully chosen to reject Him and resist the Holy Spirit:

Matthew 23:37 “Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were not willing. 38 Look, your house is left to you desolate.

Notice here that Jesus talked about what He wanted to do for the Jewish people, but they "were not willing". In Calvinism, the reason Jesus didn't do what He wanted for them is because that was God's will from before the foundation of the earth. In scripture, the reason Jesus didn't do what He wanted for them is because they "were not willing". They willfully chose to reject Him rather than accept Him as their Lord and Savior.

Now, if it was God's will for them to not accept Him (not all Jews rejected Him, of course, but most did at that time) then why did Jesus weep over them and their city?

Luke 19:41 As he approached Jerusalem and saw the city, he wept over it 42 and said, “If you, even you, had only known on this day what would bring you peace—but now it is hidden from your eyes. 43 The days will come upon you when your enemies will build an embankment against you and encircle you and hem you in on every side. 44 They will dash you to the ground, you and the children within your walls. They will not leave one stone on another, because you did not recognize the time of God’s coming to you.”

If the only way they could have repented and had faith in Christ is if God would have given them repentance and faith, as you believe, then why did Jesus weep over them? That would make no sense. He is the one who created them. He's weeping over not giving them faith and repentance? No, of course not. The only explanation that makes any sense is that He wept over their willful decision to reject Him rather than willfully choosing to accept Him as they should have done and as He wanted them to do. And He wept over the fact that He knew they would be punished severely for it in the future. There would be no reason for Him to weep over them if they were simply doing what they were naturally born to do without any possibility of doing anything else.

 

[PinSeeker]

Okay, if you're going to promote Calvinism here, then I'm just going to have to refute it.

Oh boy... :) Yeah I'm not... "promoting Calvinism," per se... but rather, God's Word. It is what it is... :) Alas, you may accuse me of lying or being mistaken, but... :)

Acts 7:51 “You stiff-necked people! Your hearts and ears are still uncircumcised. You are just like your ancestors: You always resist the Holy Spirit!

This is Stephen rebuking the Jewish religious leaders of his day. He said they were resisting the Holy Spirit and he was criticizing them for it, implying that they should not have been doing that. Now, why would Stephen get upset at them for resisting the Holy Spirit if they supposedly couldn't help but to resist the Holy Spirit, as you believe?

And what were they resisting the Holy Spirit, SI? Well, yes, the Holy Spirit, but Stephen is not talking about them resisting His salvific act, His converting of their hearts. He was saying they are in rebellion against the Holy Spirit in the same sense in which Isaiah is speaking in Isaiah 63:10 ("...they rebelled against and grieved His Holy Spirit..."), and even Paul, too, later when he writes to the Romans that unbelievers are "by their unrighteousness suppress(ing) the truth... they (know) God, they (do) not honor Him as God or give thanks to Him... (and thus become) futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts (have been) darkened... they (have) exchanged the truth about God for a lie and (have) worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator" (Romans 1:18-24). And to the Ephesians (4:30), speaking to believers, Paul writes, "do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God." So,yes, this kind of resistance is certainly possible, even for believers.

But the salvific act of God by His Holy Spirit cannot be resisted; actually, the better way to say that is that it cannot be thwarted, in the sense that Job finally says that very thing, that "I know that You..." (God) "...can do all things, and that no purpose of Yours..." (God's) "...can be thwarted" (Job 42:2). And as Jesus say to Nicodemus in John 3:3-8, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God... Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God... Do not marvel that I said to you, ‘You must be born again.’ The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear its sound, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit."

If they had hearts of stone from birth and couldn't help but be the way they were, what is there to get upset about? They were just being who God made them to be in that case.

Ah! Well, again, you're speaking of something different than God's salvific act, or actually being one of God's elect. And speaking of Romans 9... <chuckle> ...Paul says:

"You will say to me then, 'Why does He still find fault? For who can resist His will?' But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, 'Why have you made me like this?' Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? What if God, desiring to show His wrath and to make known His power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which He has prepared beforehand for glory ~ even us whom He has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles?"​

So, apparently, Stephen believed they were capable of that and got upset that they didn't and stubbornly resisted the Holy Spirit instead.

Again... See above.

By the way, for them to be considered stiff-necked (meaning stubborn) means they were willingly making an effort to resist the Holy Spirit.

Sure. Absolutely. But still, rebellion against God ~ unbelief, actually ~ is a different thing than God's salvific act of drawing a people collectively and individually to Himself. This rebellion we can certainly all do, even we Christians to some degree. But we Christians are now inclined to fight against this rebellion ~ sin ~ that is still to some degree in us. We understand Paul's exhortation to "put off the old man and put on the new" (Ephesians 4:22-24) and constantly strive to do so. But it's not about that; see above.

If they just naturally resisted the Holy Spirit then they would not be described as being stiff-necked. They would just be doing what they do naturally.

Ah, very interesting that you actually use the term 'naturally.' :) As I'm sure you are aware, Paul says, in 1 Corinthians 2:14, "The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned." So therefore, the natural person ~ one who has not been born again of the Spirit ~ will freely and willingly reject "the things of the Spirit of God" because he does not understand them, and they are folly to him. But Spiritual Israelite, Who gives true understanding? :)

But, when someone stubbornly refuses to do something it means they are capable of doing it, but are being willfully rebellious and choosing not to do it.

Right! This is what I'm saying! And what the Bible says... :) This is the natural condition of man. Yes, from birth; as David says, "Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me" (Psalm 51:5). So it is with us all.

Having a heart of stone does not equate to being unable to recognize that you're a sinner and need to repent and acknowledge that to God.

Well again, they could... woodenly speaking... but they will not. Someone (God, of course) has to open the eyes of the blind, unstop the ears of the deaf, make the lame man to leap like a deer, and cause the tongue of the mute sing for joy (Isaiah 35:5-6). If this happens, then, they will. :) Without fail.

Continued below...

 

[PinSeeker]

...(having a heart of stone) means that you don't have any understanding of God and His deeper truths...

Nope. This understanding comes, at least to some degree, because true knowledge and wisdom are gifts of the Spirit and apportioned to believers as God wills:

"Now there are varieties of gifts, but the same Spirit; and there are varieties of service, but the same Lord; and there are varieties of activities, but it is the same God who empowers them all in everyone. To each is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good. For to one is given through the Spirit the utterance of wisdom, and to another the utterance of knowledge according to the same Spirit, to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healing by the one Spirit, to another the working of miracles, to another prophecy, to another the ability to distinguish between spirits, to another various kinds of tongues, to another the interpretation of tongues. All these are empowered by one and the same Spirit, who apportions to each one individually as he wills." (1 Corinthians 12:4-11).​

...but it does not mean that someone is unable to repent and ask for God's mercy while acknowledging that they are a sinner in need of salvation through Jesus Christ.

Ah, well, again, everyone is able, woodenly speaking, for sure; anyone can, but the issue is whether they will or not. And if one's heart is of stone, if God has not put His Spirit into him/her and thus caused him/her walk in His statutes and be careful to obey His rules, they will not.

If it meant that someone was unable to repent of their sins and ask God for forgiveness and mercy then what reason would Stephen get upset at those who resisted the Holy Spirit? There would be none. He would have just realized they couldn't help themselves and he would have let it go and not said anything to them. The only explanation that makes sense for what Stephen said to them and for why he was upset with them is that they had the ability to respond favorably to the Holy Spirit by repenting of their sins and accepting Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior, but they willfully chose not to do so (even though they could have chosen to answer the Holy Spirit's call to repent instead).

In the following passage we can see what Jesus said He would have done for them had they not willfully chosen to reject Him and resist the Holy Spirit:

Matthew 23:37 “Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were not willing. 38 Look, your house is left to you desolate.

Notice here that Jesus talked about what He wanted to do for the Jewish people, but they "were not willing".

I don't disagree, but you do, I'm sure, remember Jesus saying in John 10:27-30, "My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand. I and the Father are one." This is just after He has said to these same Jews, in response to their demand of Him, "If you are the Christ, tell us plainly." He says,"I told you, and you do not believe. The works that I do in my Father’s name bear witness about me, but you do not believe because you are not among my sheep." Do you see that, SI (as if I have not pointed it out before...)? Not, they are not among His sheep BECAUSE they do not believe, but rather "they do not believe BECAUSE they are not among His sheep.

And this is just shortly after He has said to a group of Jews, "...you cannot bear to hear my word. You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father’s desires... I tell the truth, you do not believe me... If I tell the truth, why do you not believe me? Whoever is of God hears the words of God. The reason why you do not hear them is that you are not of God” (John 8:43-47).

In Calvinism, the reason Jesus didn't do what He wanted for them is because that was God's will from before the foundation of the earth. In scripture, the reason Jesus didn't do what He wanted for them is because they "were not willing". They willfully chose to reject Him rather than accept Him as their Lord and Savior.

Now, if it was God's will for them to not accept Him (not all Jews rejected Him, of course, but most did at that time) then why did Jesus weep over them and their city?

Hm, well, because God "desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth" (1 Timothy 2:4), He "does not wish that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance" (2 Peter 3:9). But because God desires or wishes (or doesn't wish, in this case) something does not dictate His action. As Paul says in Romans 1, although all know God, some will not honor Him as God or give thanks to Him, and will become futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts will be darkened. Claiming to be wise, they become fools, exchanging the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things. Therefore God has given them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves... And, yet again, God could have done this for all men, and would have been just in doing so. "But God..." :)

If the only way they could have repented and had faith in Christ is if God would have given them repentance and faith, as you believe...

...because Paul is very clear that faith is the gift of God... "For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God..." Faith is defined by the writer of Hebrews ~ and ultimately God ~ as "the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen" (Hebrews 11:1). Do you assure yourself or convict yourself, SI? If so, is that worth anything to you? No, this assurance is given to us by God and therefore is Rock solid (pun intended), and we are convicted by the Holy Spirit.

, then why did Jesus weep over them? That would make no sense. He is the one who created them. He's weeping over not giving them faith and repentance? No, of course not. The only explanation that makes any sense is that He wept over their willful decision to reject Him rather than willfully choosing to accept Him...

Sure. Agree. But, yet again, this is not the rebellion Stephen is talking about in Acts 7.

There would be no reason for Him to weep over them if they were simply doing what they were naturally born to do without any possibility of doing anything else.

Again, it's not about, woodenly speaking, what human beings possibly can or can't do.

Grace and peace to you.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Oh boy... :) Yeah I'm not... "promoting Calvinism," per se... but rather, God's Word. It is what it is... :)

Your interpretations of God's Word match up with Calvinism. And you know that's what I mean, so why act otherwise?

Alas, you may accuse me of lying or being mistaken, but...

Oh, you are hilarious.

And what were they resisting the Holy Spirit, SI? Well, yes, the Holy Spirit, but Stephen is not talking about them resisting His salvific act, His converting of their hearts.

I disagree. What are you basing that opinion on?

He was saying they are in rebellion against the Holy Spirit in the same sense in which Isaiah is speaking in Isaiah 63:10 ("...they rebelled against and grieved His Holy Spirit..."), and even Paul, too, later when he writes to the Romans that unbelievers are "by their unrighteousness suppress(ing) the truth... they (know) God, they (do) not honor Him as God or give thanks to Him... (and thus become) futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts (have been) darkened... they (have) exchanged the truth about God for a lie and (have) worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator" (Romans 1:18-24).

Did you miss in Romans 1:18-24 where it says they don't have any excuse for rebelling against God, not honoring Him, not being thankful to Him and suppressing the truth? How do you reconcile that with your doctrine? Your doctrine gives them an excuse for being that way because your doctrine says they are naturally that way. But, Paul said they darken their own hearts and BECOME futile in their thinking. There is nothing that says they couldn't help but rebel against God while suppressing the truth and exchanging the truth for a lie. The scripture says that they knew better, but they stubbornly refuse to submit to God even after He calls them to repentance. They choose to do that by their own free wills.

And to the Ephesians (4:30), speaking to believers, Paul writes, "do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God." So,yes, this kind of resistance is certainly possible, even for believers.

That does not have the same context as unbelievers resisting the Holy Spirit. In that context, they are resisting the Holy Spirit's call for them to humble themselves and repent of their sins. What else do you think they are resisting besides that?

But the salvific act of God by His Holy Spirit cannot be resisted;

Yes, it can and verses like Acts 7:51 prove that. You have offered no evidence at all that those unbelievers resisting the Holy Spirit is not a case of them resisting His call for them to repent and believe so that they would be saved.

actually, the better way to say that is that it cannot be thwarted, in the sense that Job finally says that very thing, that "I know that You..." (God) "...can do all things, and that no purpose of Yours..." (God's) "...can be thwarted" (Job 42:2).

Yes, of course that is true! But, Calvinism always only looks at part of the picture instead of the big picture. Part of God's purpose, because of His love for all people and desire for all people to be saved (1 Timothy 2:3-6) is to offer salvation to all people and no one can thwart that. He does exactly that.

Titus 2:11 For the grace of God has appeared that offers salvation to all people.

And as Jesus say to Nicodemus in John 3:3-8, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God... Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God... Do not marvel that I said to you, ‘You must be born again.’ The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear its sound, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit."

Yes, and? When someone is born again/saved they enter the kingdom of God. But, scripture says people must repent and have faith in order to be born again/saved. The repentance and faith comes first.

Ephesians 1:13 And you also were included in Christ when you heard the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation. When you believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit,

Ah!

Oh!

Well, again, you're speaking of something different than God's salvific act, or actually being one of God's elect.

No, I'm not.

And speaking of Romans 9... <chuckle> ...Paul says:

"You will say to me then, 'Why does He still find fault? For who can resist His will?' But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, 'Why have you made me like this?' Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? What if God, desiring to show His wrath and to make known His power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which He has prepared beforehand for glory ~ even us whom He has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles?"​

This is not talking about God creating people to either be "vessels for honorable use" or "vessels of wrath prepared for destruction" from birth as you probably imagine. In Romans 9, Paul uses Pharaoah as an example of what he's talking about.

Romans 9:17 For Scripture says to Pharaoh: “I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.” 18 Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.

Is this talking about what God planned to do with that person that we know as Pharoah from birth? No! Pharoah first chose to harden his own heart before God ever did. Pharaoh hardening his own heart is what made God choose him to be a vessel of wrath prepared for destruction. And who can say that God couldn't do that? No one, of course. God can do as He pleases, including making an example out of a rebellious person like Pharaoh.

Why are you so willing to interpet this passage in such a way that contradicts many other passages? I don't understand that. God wants all people to repent (Acts 17:30, 2 Peter 3:9) and to be saved (John 3:16, 1 John 2:1-2, 1 Timothy 2:3-6, etc.). Your interpretation of this passage contradicts that.

Sure. Absolutely. But still, rebellion against God ~ unbelief, actually ~ is a different thing than God's salvific act of drawing a people collectively and individually to Himself. This rebellion we can certainly all do, even we Christians to some degree. But we Christians are now inclined to fight against this rebellion ~ sin ~ that is still to some degree in us. We understand Paul's exhortation to "put off the old man and put on the new" (Ephesians 4:22-24) and constantly strive to do so. But it's not about that; see above.

Why are you letting those people off the hook? Stephen was mad at them for resisting the Holy Spirit. You just brush it off and act as if they were just doing what came naturally and weren't able to do anything else. Why did Stephen get upset with them if they were supposedly not capable of doing anything but resisting the Holy Spirit?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Ah, very interesting that you actually use the term 'naturally.' As I'm sure you are aware, Paul says, in 1 Corinthians 2:14, "The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned." So therefore, the natural person ~ one who has not been born again of the Spirit ~ will freely and willingly reject "the things of the Spirit of God" because he does not understand them, and they are folly to him. But Spiritual Israelite, Who gives true understanding?

You continue to misinterpret scripture after scripture.

Look at the context of that verse instead of making assumptions about it based on doctrinal bias. The context is established in the previous verses.

1 Corinthians 2:9 But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him. 10 But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God. 11 For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God. 12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. 13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual. 14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

So, the context of verse 14 is in relation to "the deep things of God". Things like what we are discussing now, for example. And things like determining the proper understanding of Revelation 20. That is not talking about understanding one's need to repent of their sins as God is calling them to do. That is not par of "the deep things of God". You are taking that verse completely out of context.

Right! This is what I'm saying! And what the Bible says... This is the natural condition of man. Yes, from birth; as David says, "Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me" (Psalm 51:5). So it is with us all.

Did you read what I said and immediately forget what I said? I said "But, when someone stubbornly refuses to do something it means they are capable of doing it, but are being willfully rebellious and choosing not to do it.".

And you are supposedly agreeing with me? If someone stubbornly refuses to do something that they are capable of doing that means they could have chosen to do that thing instead. That is not what you believe! You do not believe that the ones Stephen railed against for resisting the Holy Spirit could have chosen to not resist the Holy Spirit instead.

As for Psalm 51:5, all that means is that everyone will eventually sin. We are all born with the tendency to sin and, once old enough to actually sin, we will do so. But, babies do not sin. LOL! That's impossible. So, it certainly is not saying that someone sins even from birth. LOL! What nonsense. And that verse says nothing about one's ability to repent of their sins or not. So, that verse proves nothing one way or another in this particular discussion.

If Psalm 51:5 implied that people are totally depraved even from birth, as I feel certain that you believe (correct me if I'm wrong, though), then why did Jesus say this:

Matthew 18:1 At the same time came the disciples unto Jesus, saying, Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven? 2 And Jesus called a little child unto him, and set him in the midst of them, 3 And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.

Was Jesus saying "Except ye be converted and become as little sinful and totally depraved children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven"? Of course not, right. So, clearly, Jesus did not agree with the belief that people are born totally depraved as He clearly indicated that little children are not totally depraved. As Paul wrote in Romans 1, people "became vain in their imaginations" and "became fools" who darkened their own hearts. They were not born that way.

Well again, they could... woodenly speaking... but they will not.

I believe you are not being honest here. You do not really believe that they could because you believe they will not without exception.

Someone (God, of course) has to open the eyes of the blind, unstop the ears of the deaf, make the lame man to leap like a deer, and cause the tongue of the mute sing for joy (Isaiah 35:5-6). If this happens, then, they will. Without fail.

That is not taught in scripture anywhere. Yes, people need God's help to see the truth but after that it becomes man's choice to accept it or reject it. In the case of those who Stephen was mad at in Acts 7:51, they chose to reject it. That's why Stephen was mad about it. Because they were capable of accepting it and were expected to accept it, but they chose not to. Why else would he be upset about it? Calvinism has no answer for that.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

I don't disagree, but you do, I'm sure, remember Jesus saying in John 10:27-30, "My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand. I and the Father are one." This is just after He has said to these same Jews, in response to their demand of Him, "If you are the Christ, tell us plainly." He says,"I told you, and you do not believe. The works that I do in my Father’s name bear witness about me, but you do not believe because you are not among my sheep." Do you see that, SI (as if I have not pointed it out before...)? Not, they are not among His sheep BECAUSE they do not believe, but rather "they do not believe BECAUSE they are not among His sheep.

And, once again, you are misinterpreting scripture. You are bringing your Calvinist bias into the scripture instead of interpreting it objectively. What was Jesus saying that they didn't believe? That He was the Christ, right? And why didn't they believe that? Because they couldn't? No. They already didn't believe in what was taught about the Messiah in the Old Testament, so they naturally would not believe that Jesus was the Christ since He did not fit their understanding of who the Christ should be.

John 10:7 Therefore Jesus said again, “Very truly I tell you, I am the gate for the sheep. 8 All who have come before me are thieves and robbers, but the sheep have not listened to them

Notice here that the ones He was calling His sheep were already His sheep even before He came. How could that be? Because they had the proper understanding of who the Christ would be. Because of that they easily recognized Jesus as the Messiah they were waiting for.

So, what Jesus was saying in John 10:26 is not that they couldn't believe He was the Christ because they weren't chosen to be among His sheep, as you falsely believe. Rather, they did not believe He was the Christ because they were not among the sheep who had the correct understanding of who the Christ would be. Clearly, since Jesus did not fit their understanding of who the Christ should be, they could not believe He was the Christ. In no way, shape or form does John 10:26 indicate that they were never capable of believing in Christ. They had already made the choice to believe that the Christ would be different than what the scriptures said He would be, so that made it so that they were not among His sheep.

And this is just shortly after He has said to a group of Jews, "...you cannot bear to hear my word. You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father’s desires... I tell the truth, you do not believe me... If I tell the truth, why do you not believe me? Whoever is of God hears the words of God. The reason why you do not hear them is that you are not of God” (John 8:43-47).

You are misinterpreting this passage in a similar way. What you are not addressing here is how did they become children of the devil in the first place? Because they were born that way? I've already addressed this. People are not born totally depraved as Calvinists falsely believe. They are not born as children of the devil. Otherwise, Jesus would not have said "Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven." (Matt 18:3). Instead, people become that way by choice and it isn't as if they didn't have any other choice.

Hm, well, because God "desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth" (1 Timothy 2:4), He "does not wish that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance" (2 Peter 3:9). But because God desires or wishes (or doesn't wish, in this case) something does not dictate His action.

I can't even believe you are being serious here. Since when does God not act on His desires? He always does. And He did act on His desire for all people to be saved by sending His Son the Lord Jesus Christ to die for our sins. And not only our sins, by the sins of the whole world (1 John 2:1-2).

As Paul says in Romans 1, although all know God, some will not honor Him as God or give thanks to Him, and will become futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts will be darkened. Claiming to be wise, they become fools, exchanging the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things. Therefore God has given them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves... And, yet again, God could have done this for all men, and would have been just in doing so. "But God..."

Whoa, wait a minute here. What do you mean "God could have done this for all men"? Done what? Do you see in Romans 1:20 where it says they don't have any excuse for not honoring Him as God and for not giving thanks to Him? Notice it says they "become futile in their thinking" and they "become fools". They are not born "futile in their thinking" and not born as "fools". They choose to become that way. And they have no excuse for it. But, Calvinism gives them an excuse by saying they were born totally depraved and can't help but be that way.

...because Paul is very clear that faith is the gift of God... "For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God..."

Another misinterpretation. It is salvation that is the gift of God, not faith. Salvation equate to eternal life.

Romans 6:23 For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

The gift of salvation is received by way of God's grace and one putting their personal faith in Christ as his or her Lord and Savior. It's not by way of works that we do, it's by way of grace through faith. And faith is not a work which is why James differentiated between faith and works in James 2. He indicated that works are a natural result of true faith, but faith is not a work. The thief on the cross did not do any works, but he had faith and was saved as a result.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Faith is defined by the writer of Hebrews ~ and ultimately God ~ as "the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen" (Hebrews 11:1). Do you assure yourself or convict yourself, SI?

I don't know what you mean by "assure yourself", but like all people, I have the responsibility to respond to the convicting work of the Holy Spirit. I can either choose to humble myself and acknowledge that I'm a sinner who can't save myself and need the work of Jesus on the cross to cover my sins or I can choose to stubbornly resist the Holy Spirit instead.

PS, if people have no responsibility at all to choose whether or not to repent and have faith, then why are people condemned if they don't? What does God's wrath come down on those who don't if they supposedly had no ability to do so? That makes no sense whatsoever. It makes perfect sense if someone is fully capable of repenting and believing but refuses to do so that it would make God angry.

Also, if faith is the gift of God that He gives to some people and doesn't give to the rest (for no discernible reason), then why is persuasion necessary in order to get people to believe? In case you're wondering what I'm talking about, here are a couple examples:

Acts 17:1 When Paul and his companions had passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where there was a Jewish synagogue. 2 As was his custom, Paul went into the synagogue, and on three Sabbath days he reasoned with them from the Scriptures, 3 explaining and proving that the Messiah had to suffer and rise from the dead. “This Jesus I am proclaiming to you is the Messiah,” he said. 4 Some of the Jews were persuaded and joined Paul and Silas, as did a large number of God-fearing Greeks and quite a few prominent women.

Acts 18:1 After this, Paul left Athens and went to Corinth. 2 There he met a Jew named Aquila, a native of Pontus, who had recently come from Italy with his wife Priscilla, because Claudius had ordered all Jews to leave Rome. Paul went to see them, 3 and because he was a tentmaker as they were, he stayed and worked with them. 4 Every Sabbath he reasoned in the synagogue, trying to persuade Jews and Greeks.

If people having faith or not was entirely up to God and the way people had faith was by way of God giving it to them supernaturally, then no persuasion would be necessary. Think about it.

Definition of persuade: cause (someone) to do something through reasoning or argument.

Does God need to persuade people to do anything that He has decided will be done or can He simply just cause them to do it if He has determined that they will do it? Clearly the latter, right? God does not need to persuade anyone to do anything that He has determined will be done. Yet, here we see Paul spending a lot of time reasoning with people and persuading them to believe in Christ. This does not line up with your understanding of how people come to have faith. Can you acknowledge that? The only reason that someone would try to reason with people and try to persuade them to believe is if they have a choice to believe or not. If it's entirely up to God then Paul was wasting his time.

But, those of us who know what scripture teaches about these things know that he wasn't wasting his time and it's worth the effort to try to convince and persuade people to believe because the difference between heaven and hell is enormous! It's too important not to do that instead of just sitting back and thinking that if they are meant to believe then God will give them faith, so why worry about it? Why bother trying to persuade people to believe if they don't have free will and don't have any choice in the matter? It would be a complete waste of time.

Sure. Agree. But, yet again, this is not the rebellion Stephen is talking about in Acts 7.

What evidence do you have to support this? Why else were the unbelieving Jews punished except for being stubborn and resisting the Holy Spirit and refusing to repent and accept Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior?

Again, it's not about, woodenly speaking, what human beings possibly can or can't do.

Why not? For what reason do you think Jesus wept over the eventual destruction of Jerusalem and its people (unbelievers in particular, obviously) if not because they stubbornly chose to refuse to accept Him as their Messiah and their Lord and Savior?