Jesus Christ - Bible Study

[Reformed]

This is an empty lecture on your part…no pun intended. Catholics are quite aware that Christ is risen and we celebrate that fact in numerous ways. As far as the crucifix is concerned, you might want to prayerfully look at the following verses from Paul:

1 Cor 1:23-24
“…but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles, but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.”

1 Cor 2:2
“For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified.”

Galatians 3:1
“O FOOLISH Galatians! Who has bewitched you, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified?”

I would humbly suggest that you give greater thought to your remarks about Catholic teaching and views before posting them. No matter what you throw at us, scripture is decidedly in our favor./QUOTE]

That’s a great perspective. Now let’s get back to our Bible Study. Would you like to comment on the gospel of John chapter 1?

 

[jim1130]

Pax;4321279:

This is an empty lecture on your part…no pun intended. Catholics are quite aware that Christ is risen and we celebrate that fact in numerous ways. As far as the crucifix is concerned, you might want to prayerfully look at the following verses from Paul:

1 Cor 1:23-24
“…but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles, but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.”

1 Cor 2:2
“For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified.”

Galatians 3:1
"O FOOLISH Galatians! Who has bewitched you, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified

?"

I would humbly suggest that you give greater thought to your remarks about Catholic teaching and views before posting them. No matter what you throw at us, scripture is decidedly in our favor./QUOTE]

That’s a great perspective. Now let’s get back to our Bible Study. Would you like to comment on the gospel of John chapter 1?

In Chapter 1 we see the incarnation and divinity of Christ acknowledged and professed (and Peter’s name change, which is reinforced with Matthew 16:18-19 and Isaiah 22:22 as Peter receives the keys).

 

[Reformed]

Reformed;4321293:

In Chapter 1 we see the incarnation and divinity of Christ acknowledged and professed (and Peter’s name change, which is reinforced with Matthew 16:18-19 and Isaiah 22:22 as Peter receives the keys).

John 1

The Word Became Flesh
1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. 4 In him was life, [1] and the life was the light of men. 5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.

6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. 7 He came as a witness, to bear witness about the light, that all might believe through him. 8 He was not the light, but came to bear witness about the light.

9 The true light, which enlightens everyone, was coming into the world. 10 He was in the world, and the world was made through him, yet the world did not know him. 11 He came to his own, [2] and his own people [3] did not receive him. 12 But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, 13 who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.

14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth. 15 (John bore witness about him, and cried out, “This was he of whom I said, ‘He who comes after me ranks before me, because he was before me.’”) 16 And from his fullness we have all received, grace upon grace. 17 For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. 18 No one has ever seen God; the only God, [4] who is at the Father’s side, [5] he has made him known…

Behold, the Lamb of God
29 The next day he saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, “Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world! 30 This is he of whom I said, ‘After me comes a man who ranks before me, because he was before me.’ 31 I myself did not know him, but for this purpose I came baptizing with water, that he might be revealed to Israel.” 32 And John bore witness: “I saw the Spirit descend from heaven like a dove, and it remained on him. 33 I myself did not know him, but he who sent me to baptize with water said to me, ‘He on whom you see the Spirit descend and remain, this is he who baptizes with the Holy Spirit.’ 34 And I have seen and have borne witness that this is the Son of God.”

Jesus Calls the First Disciples
35 The next day again John was standing with two of his disciples, 36 and he looked at Jesus as he walked by and said, “Behold, the Lamb of God!” 37 The two disciples heard him say this, and they followed Jesus. 38 Jesus turned and saw them following and said to them, “What are you seeking?” And they said to him, “Rabbi” (which means Teacher), “where are you staying?” 39 He said to them, “Come and you will see.” So they came and saw where he was staying, and they stayed with him that day, for it was about the tenth hour. [7] 40 One of the two who heard John speak and followed Jesus [8] was Andrew, Simon Peter’s brother. 41 He first found his own brother Simon and said to him, “We have found the Messiah” (which means Christ). 42 He brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him and said, “So you are Simon the son of John? You shall be called Cephas” (which means Peter [9]).

Jesus Calls Philip and Nathanael
43 The next day Jesus decided to go to Galilee. He found Philip and said to him, “Follow me.” 44 Now Philip was from Bethsaida, the city of Andrew and Peter. 45 Philip found Nathanael and said to him, “We have found him of whom Moses in the Law and also the prophets wrote, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph.” 46 Nathanael said to him, “Can anything good come out of Nazareth?” Philip said to him, “Come and see.” 47 Jesus saw Nathanael coming toward him and said of him, “Behold, an Israelite indeed, in whom there is no deceit!” 48 Nathanael said to him, “How do you know me?” Jesus answered him, “Before Philip called you, when you were under the fig tree, I saw you.” 49 Nathanael answered him, “Rabbi, you are the Son of God! You are the King of Israel!” 50 Jesus answered him, “Because I said to you, ‘I saw you under the fig tree,’ do you believe? You will see greater things than these.” 51 And he said to him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, [10] you will see heaven opened, and the angels of God ascending and descending on the Son of Man.”

I’m not sure if I get that conclusion from John 1:42. Maybe that’s a discussion for the gospel of Matthew? I think God the Father revealed that Jesus was the Christ later in the ministry of Jesus Christ and not at the begining. We are only on chapter 1 in the gospel of John. But, I like your posting! BTW… each gospel accounts have their own focus. I believe the gospel of John is the most doctrinal. If that’s the case, why didn’t John mentioned that same account found in Matthew 16, or did he? If apostolic succession is so significant, can we find this in the gospel of John too?

 

[jim1130]

jim1130;4321321:

I’m not sure if I get that conclusion from John 1:42. Maybe that a discussion for the gospel of Matthew? I think God the Father revealed that Jesus was the Christ later in the ministry of Jesus Christ and not at the begining. We are only on chapter 1 in the gospel of John. But, I like your posting!

No. It is to emphasize my limitations; that I cannot read Aramaic, Greek, or Hebrew. I can read only English. Still, that does not render me capable of accurately interpreting scripture. I go to the authority designated by Christ, who is Peter, which is why I referenced 1:42. Already you have shown you have corrected me, which is fine, but it proves a point. No need to go any further.

 

[Pax]

Now let’s get back to our Bible Study. Would you like to comment on the gospel of John chapter 1?

I will for the moment only point out the following which will become important for understanding John Chapter 3.

In John 1:12-13 it says:

“But to all who received him, who believed in his name, he gave power to become children of God; who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.”

This passage clues us in on how the Jews understood the first birth. Human beings are born of blood, the will of the flesh, and of the will of man in the natural process of procreation. These are the only kinds of terms used in scripture when it comes to describing child birth. This verse introduces us to the idea that there is a second birth that is “of God.” It is important to keep all of this in mind when we reach Chapter 3 and begin to examine Jesus’s conversation with Nicodemus.

 

[Reformed]

I will for the moment only point out the following which will become important for understanding John Chapter 3.

In John 1:12-13 it says:

“But to all who received him, who believed in his name, he gave power to become children of God; who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.”

This passage clues us in on how the Jews understood the first birth. Human beings are born of blood, the will of the flesh, and of the will of man in the natural process of procreation. These are the only kinds of terms used in scripture when it comes to describing child birth. This verse introduces us to the idea that there is a second birth that is “of God.” It is important to keep all of this in mind when we reach Chapter 3 and begin to examine Jesus’s conversation with Nicodemus.

John 1:12-13 is defintely linked to John chapter 3. In light of John 1:12-13, do you agree that we were born by God’s will and not our own free will? I will post a few more translations.

In John 1:12-13 it says:

“But to all who received him, who believed in his name, he gave power to become children of God; who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.”

But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.

but as many as did receive him to them he gave authority to become sons of God – to those believing in his name, who – not of blood nor of a will of flesh, nor of a will of man but – of God were begotten.

 

[M0nkey]

do you agree that we were born by God’s will and not our own free will?

Of course it is God’s will, otherwise, why would He become flesh? The real question, however, is whether we have free will. You can accept His will in humility and submission, or you can reject it, throw it away, and repudiate Him.

 

[Reformed]

Of course it is God’s will, otherwise, why would He become flesh? The real question, however, is whether we have free will. You can accept His will in humility and submission, or you can reject it, throw it away, and repudiate Him.

But how does your view line-up with John 1 and additional Scriptures on the topic? Have you wrested with Romans 9, and Ephesians 1 and 2 on this topic?

In John 1:12-13 it says:

“But to all who received him, who believed in his name, he gave power to become children of God; who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.”

But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.

but as many as did receive him to them he gave authority to become sons of God – to those believing in his name, who – not of blood nor of a will of flesh, nor of a will of man but – of God were begotten.

 

[M0nkey]

Brother Reformed, use some common sense and step outside of what you ‘see’ in the Bible. God the father who created you did it as an act of freedom and LOVE. You as a creature of God must return the favor as an act of FREDOM and LOVE. This He made available to us through the cross of Christ Jesus.

Why would He create some to be condemned? Does that make sense to you if you believe God is a loving father?

 

[guanophore]

Thank you for understanding my posting in making a theological point only. “The Word was made flesh” seems to be about the incarnation only. God entered the word as the god-man on our behalf. I’m not sure it has anything to do with the Catholic view of the Eucharist, do you?

Yes. Jesus says He will give His flesh to eat, and on Passover, He did so. He did this with HIs words, saying “This is my Body”.

Speaking of zombies… it made me think about the Lazarus account. This is very significant because it parallels our spiritual condition prior to Jesus calling us to spiritual life. We are all born spirituality dead into this world. God by his grace alone, makes us spirituality alive for His good pleasure and His own glory. Do you think Lazarus had free will to choose Jesus Christ for life? No!..he was a dead corpse…just like us a spiritual dead corpse to God before we were granted the spiritual birth.

We are separated from God by our state of sin. However the fallen man is able to search for God and to find Him. Even one separated from God can perceive God in His creation, and acknowledge HIm as God.

Do you really believe that “The Word was made Flesh” is about the Eucharist and not the incarnation?

Both.

. Let’s try to stay within Scriptures and our Bible Study in the gospel of John chapter 1. Remember, it was Monkey who side tracked our study on the Eucharist, not me. If you guys continue to try to go off the chapter subject, I have to assume you are trying to derail our study because Scripture has too much light for you to handle.

You made a truly offensive comment about the Body and Blood of our Lord, comparing it to eating zombie flesh, or something like that. When you were confronted about your offensive comment and reason for posting it (debunking the eucharist) you try to pretend like you were “staying within the scriptures” with this zombie movie?

Again you malign those of us from Apostolic faiths offended by your not so hidden agenda, and insinuate that we are running from the light of the scriptures. You are really a piece of work.

 

[Reformed]

Brother Reformed, use some common sense and step outside of what you ‘see’ in the Bible. God the father who created you did it as an act of freedom and LOVE. You as a creature of God must return the favor as an act of FREDOM and LOVE. This He made available to us through the cross of Christ Jesus.

Why would He create some to be condemned? Does that make sense to you if you believe God is a loving father?

I know these are tough issues. The strenght of Calvinism has always been the Scriptures. Our undestanding of predestination, election and chosen are very important issues, but not essential issues in regards to the gospel proclamation. I think the idea of going through the Scriptures is to transform our minds according to the revealed will of God through biblical revelation by illumination of the Spirit of God.

 

[Reformed]

Yes. Jesus says He will give His flesh to eat, and on Passover, He did so. He did this with HIs words, saying “This is my Body”.

We are separated from God by our state of sin. However the fallen man is able to search for God and to find Him. Even one separated from God can perceive God in His creation, and acknowledge HIm as God.

Both.

You made a truly offensive comment about the Body and Blood of our Lord, comparing it to eating zombie flesh, or something like that. When you were confronted about your offensive comment and reason for posting it (debunking the eucharist) you try to pretend like you were “staying within the scriptures” with this zombie movie?

Again you malign those of us from Apostolic faiths offended by your not so hidden agenda, and insinuate that we are running from the light of the scriptures. You are really a piece of work.

Do you have any idea the offensive words used by historic Protestant pastors, theologians, and gifted men about the Roman Catholic view of the Eucharist? For me to make a joke about zombies is kindergarden stuff as compared to what the Reformers and others have written about the Catholic view of the Eucharist. Here’s a posting from the most famous Protestant Confession of Faith about the Eucharist.

Chapter XXIX
Of the Lord’s Supper
I. Our Lord Jesus, in the night wherein He was betrayed, instituted the sacrament of His body and blood, called the Lord’s Supper, to be observed in His Church, unto the end of the world, for the perpetual remembrance of the sacrifice of Himself in His death; the sealing all benefits thereof unto true believers, their spiritual nourishment and growth in Him, their further engagement in and to all duties which they owe unto Him; and, to be a bond and pledge of their communion with Him, and with each other, as members of His mystical body.[1]

II. In this sacrament, Christ is not offered up to His Father; nor any real sacrifice made at all, for remission of sins of the quick or dead;[2] but only a commemoration of that one offering up of Himself, by Himself, upon the cross, once for all: and a spiritual oblation of all possible praise unto God, for the same:[3] so that the popish sacrifice of the mass (as they call it) is most abominably injurious to Christ’s one, only sacrifice, the alone propitiation for all the sins of His elect.[4]

III. The Lord Jesus has, in this ordinance, appointed His ministers to declare His word of institution to the people, to pray, and bless the elements of bread and wine, and thereby to set them apart from a common to an holy use; and to take and break the bread, to take the cup, and (they communicating also themselves) to give both to the communicants;[5] but to none who are not then present in the congregation.[6]

IV. Private masses, or receiving this sacrament by a priest, or any other alone;[7] as likewise, the denial of the cup to the people,[8] worshipping the elements, the lifting them up, or carrying them about, for adoration, and the reserving them for any pretended religious use; are all contrary to the nature of this sacrament, and to the institution of Christ.[9]

V. The outward elements in this sacrament, duly set apart to the uses ordained by Christ, have such relation to Him crucified, as that, truly, yet sacramentally only, they are sometimes called by the name of the things they represent, to wit, the body and blood of Christ;[10] albeit, in substance and nature, they still remain truly and only bread and wine, as they were before.[11]

VI. That doctrine which maintains a change of the substance of bread and wine, into the substance of Christ’s body and blood (commonly called transubstantiation) by consecration of a priest, or by any other way, is repugnant, not to Scripture alone, but even to common sense, and reason; overthrows the nature of the sacrament, and has been, and is, the cause of manifold superstitions; yes, of gross idolatries.[12]

VII. Worthy receivers, outwardly partaking of the visible elements, in this sacrament,[13] do then also, inwardly by faith, really and indeed, yet not carnally and corporally but spiritually, receive and feed upon, Christ crucified, and all benefits of His death: the body and blood of Christ being then, not corporally or carnally, in, with, or under the bread and wine; yet, as really, but spiritually, present to the faith of believers in that ordinance, as the elements themselves are to their outward senses.[14]

VIII. Although ignorant and wicked men receive the outward elements in this sacrament; yet, they receive not the thing signified thereby; but, by their unworthy coming thereunto, are guilty of the body and blood of the Lord, to their own damnation. Wherefore, all ignorant and ungodly persons, as they are unfit to enjoy communion with Him, so are they unworthy of the Lord’s table; and cannot, without great sin against Christ, while they remain such, partake of these holy mysteries,[15] or be admitted thereunto.[16]

reformed.org/documents/wcf_with_proofs/index.html

Before everybody looses their cool, please consider the Council of Trent from a Protestant perspective. Let’s stay with the Bible study and the gospel of John chapter 1.

 

[guanophore]

John 1:12-13 is defintely linked to John chapter 3. In light of John 1:12-13, do you agree that we were born by God’s will and not our own free will? I will post a few more translations.

Here again is your favorite formula “this AND NOT that”.

But, once again, it is both. We are born by the will of God. Who? “to all those who received Him”. It is our job to receive. If we do not, neither are we born again.

In John 1:12-13 it says:

“But to all who received him, who believed in his name, he gave power to become children of God; who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.”

But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.

but as many as did receive him to them he gave authority to become sons of God – to those believing in his name, who – not of blood nor of a will of flesh, nor of a will of man but – of God were begotten.

 

[Love_is_Patient]

Sure, let’s do the gospel of Mark after John. Do you think the disciples ate the actual flesh of Jesus and drank his literal blood in the upper room while Jesus was still with them? I’m sorry if this offends, but I just watched a zombie movie with my son. Your comment reminded me of that flesh eating zombie movie. The 2nd feature should have been a vampire movie. Well, at least my comments are in-line with Halloween (Reformation day).

Kyrie eleison.

Christe eleison.

Kyrie eleison.

Act of Reparation to the Most Blessed Sacrament
With that most profound respect
which divine Faith inspires,
O my God and Saviour Jesus Christ,
true God and true man,
I adore Thee,
and with my whole heart I love Thee,
hidden in the most august Sacrament of the Altar,
in reparation of all the irreverences,
profanations, and sacrileges, that I,
to my shame, may have until now committed,
as also for all those
that have been committed against Thee,
or that may be ever committed for the time to come.
I offer to Thee,
therefore, O my God,
my humble adoration, not indeed,
such as Thou art worthy of,
nor such as I owe Thee,
but such, at least,
as I am capable of offerings;
and I wish that I could love Thee
with the most perfect love
of which rational creatures are capable.
In the meantime,
I desire to adore Thee now and always,
not only for those Catholics
who do not adore or love Thee,
but also so supply the defect,
and for the conversion of all heretics,
schismatics, libertines,
atheists, blasphemers,
sorcerers, Mahomedans,
Jews, and idolaters.
Ah! yes, my Jesus,
mayest Thou be known,
adored, and loved by all
and may thanks be continually given to Thee
in the most holy and august Sacrament!

 

[Pax]

John 1:12-13 is defintely linked to John chapter 3. In light of John 1:12-13, do you agree that we were born by God’s will and not our own free will? I will post a few more translations.

In John 1:12-13 it says:

“But to all who received him, who believed in his name, he gave power to become children of God; who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.”

But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.

but as many as did receive him to them he gave authority to become sons of God – to those believing in his name, who – not of blood nor of a will of flesh, nor of a will of man but – of God were begotten.

IMHO you are attempting to pit God’s will against the will of man. The verse in question has nothing to do with that. In fact, the passage is showing that while human procreation involves man’s will, spiritual regeneration is by the power of God. It isn’t a matter of pitting man’s will against God’s will. Man simply doesn’t have the power to regenerate himself/be born again.

This is not a matter of competing wills, and it for this reason that the passage never makes reference to God’s will in a direct way, and clearly doesn’t leave man out of the process. It is for this reason that the passage says that those that believe are given the power to become sons of God.

Man has no power to be a son of God unless God gives him the power to become a son.

 

[Pax]

Do you have any idea the offensive words used by historic Protestant pastors, theologians, and gifted men about the Roman Catholic view of the Eucharist? For me to make a joke about zombies is kindergarden stuff as compared to what the Reformers and others have written about the Catholic view of the Eucharist. Here’s a posting from the most famous Protestant Confession of Faith about the Eucharist.

Chapter XXIX
Of the Lord’s Supper
I. Our Lord Jesus, in the night wherein He was betrayed, instituted the sacrament of His body and blood, called the Lord’s Supper, to be observed in His Church, unto the end of the world, for the perpetual remembrance of the sacrifice of Himself in His death; the sealing all benefits thereof unto true believers, their spiritual nourishment and growth in Him, their further engagement in and to all duties which they owe unto Him; and, to be a bond and pledge of their communion with Him, and with each other, as members of His mystical body.[1]

II. In this sacrament, Christ is not offered up to His Father; nor any real sacrifice made at all, for remission of sins of the quick or dead;[2] but only a commemoration of that one offering up of Himself, by Himself, upon the cross, once for all: and a spiritual oblation of all possible praise unto God, for the same:[3] so that the popish sacrifice of the mass (as they call it) is most abominably injurious to Christ’s one, only sacrifice, the alone propitiation for all the sins of His elect.[4]

III. The Lord Jesus has, in this ordinance, appointed His ministers to declare His word of institution to the people, to pray, and bless the elements of bread and wine, and thereby to set them apart from a common to an holy use; and to take and break the bread, to take the cup, and (they communicating also themselves) to give both to the communicants;[5] but to none who are not then present in the congregation.[6]

IV. Private masses, or receiving this sacrament by a priest, or any other alone;[7] as likewise, the denial of the cup to the people,[8] worshipping the elements, the lifting them up, or carrying them about, for adoration, and the reserving them for any pretended religious use; are all contrary to the nature of this sacrament, and to the institution of Christ.[9]

V. The outward elements in this sacrament, duly set apart to the uses ordained by Christ, have such relation to Him crucified, as that, truly, yet sacramentally only, they are sometimes called by the name of the things they represent, to wit, the body and blood of Christ;[10] albeit, in substance and nature, they still remain truly and only bread and wine, as they were before.[11]

VI. That doctrine which maintains a change of the substance of bread and wine, into the substance of Christ’s body and blood (commonly called transubstantiation) by consecration of a priest, or by any other way, is repugnant, not to Scripture alone, but even to common sense, and reason; overthrows the nature of the sacrament, and has been, and is, the cause of manifold superstitions; yes, of gross idolatries.[12]

VII. Worthy receivers, outwardly partaking of the visible elements, in this sacrament,[13] do then also, inwardly by faith, really and indeed, yet not carnally and corporally but spiritually, receive and feed upon, Christ crucified, and all benefits of His death: the body and blood of Christ being then, not corporally or carnally, in, with, or under the bread and wine; yet, as really, but spiritually, present to the faith of believers in that ordinance, as the elements themselves are to their outward senses.[14]

VIII. Although ignorant and wicked men receive the outward elements in this sacrament; yet, they receive not the thing signified thereby; but, by their unworthy coming thereunto, are guilty of the body and blood of the Lord, to their own damnation. Wherefore, all ignorant and ungodly persons, as they are unfit to enjoy communion with Him, so are they unworthy of the Lord’s table; and cannot, without great sin against Christ, while they remain such, partake of these holy mysteries,[15] or be admitted thereunto.[16]

reformed.org/documents/wcf_with_proofs/index.html

Before everybody looses their cool, please consider the Council of Trent from a Protestant perspective. Let’s stay with the Bible study and the gospel of John chapter 1.

I hope you’ve read Luther’s thoughts on Calvin’s opinions as well.

 

[Reformed]

IMHO you are attempting to pit God’s will against the will of man. The verse in question has nothing to do with that. In fact, the passage is showing that while human procreation involves man’s will, spiritual regeneration is by the power of God. It isn’t a matter of pitting man’s will against God’s will. Man simply doesn’t have the power to regenerate himself/be born again.

This is not a matter of competing wills, and it for this reason that the passage never makes reference to God’s will in a direct way, and clearly doesn’t leave man out of the process. It is for this reason that the passage says that those that believe are given the power to become sons of God.

Man has no power to be a son of God unless God gives him the power to become a son.

Since we are both reject Pelagism, maybe we are trying to determine if God’s gracel in regeneration is resistible or irresistible for those whom God predestined to believe in Christ?

The I in TULIP stands for irresistible grace in regards to the elect only. Irresistible grace is also sovereign grace reserved for only the elect. Michael believes something very similar in preserving grace given to the elect only.

Regeneration is a secret act of God in which he imparts new spiritual life to us. As the gospel comes to us, God speaks through it to summon us to himself (effective calling) and to give us new spiritual life (regeneration) so that we are enabled to respond in faith. Effective calling is thus God that Father speaking powerfully to us, and regeneration is God that Father and God the Holy Spirit working powerfully in us, to make us alive.
Sometimes the term irresistible grace is used in this connection. It refers to the fact that God effectively calls people and also gives them regeneration, and both actions guarantee that we will respond in saving faith. The term irresistible grace is subject to misunderstanding, however, since it seems to imply that people do not make a voluntary choice in responding to the gospel - a wrong idea, and a wrong understanding of the term irresistible grace. The term does preserve something valuable, however, because it indicates that God’s work reaches into our hearts to bring about a response that is absolutely certain - even tough we respond voluntarily.
Wayne Grudem from Systematic Theology (pg. 699)

“You stiff-necked people, uncircumcised in heart and ears, you always resist the Holy Spirit. As your fathers did, so do you” (Acts 7:51). This passage, which is often used in an attempt to refute the biblical doctrine of irresistible grace, actually supports it. Notice the condition of the persons who are doing the resisting: their hearts and ears are uncircumcised, which is the Bible’s way of saying they are unregenerate or unspiritual. A person in this condition will always resist the outward call of the gospel. The Holy Spirit may convict them of sin and work to show them their need to Christ, but as long as they remain unregenerate, their hearts will remain closed to Christ. Irresistible grace does not mean that whenever the Spirit works He is irresistible. Rather, it means that while His promptings are always resisted by the dead in sin, He can make the gospel irresistible when He opens their spiritually blind eyes, when he opens their deaf ears and turns their heart of stone to a heart of flesh. He quickens us while we are dead, which is no work of man. As Ephesians 2:5 says, “Even when we were dead in our trespasses, [He] made us alive together with Christ–by grace you have been saved.”
Monergism.com

All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will by no means cast out. For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me. This is the will of the Father who sent Me, that of all He has given Me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up at the last day…No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him, and I will raise him up at the last day.
John 6:37-39 and 44

monergism.com/directory/link_category/Doctrines-of-Grace/Irresistible-Grace–Effectual-Calling/

 

[guanophore]

Do you have any idea the offensive words used by historic Protestant pastors, theologians, and gifted men about the Roman Catholic view of the Eucharist?

Yes, it was study of the history of the Church, and the Reformation that brought me back to the Catholic faith.

For me to make a joke about zombies is kindergarden stuff as compared to what the Reformers and others have written about the Catholic view of the Eucharist.

So you are justifying your offensive remarks in the light of the fact that your spiritual forefathers made even more offensive remarks?

Before everybody looses their cool, please consider the Council of Trent from a Protestant perspective. Let’s stay with the Bible study and the gospel of John chapter 1.

I find these pathetic spinnings of the Reformers in their efforts to undo themselves from “popery” to be at least genuine efforts to find some other meaning that is reverent to themselves. I find nothing remotely attempting to be reverent about your zombie comments.

 

[Love_is_Patient]

Do you have any idea the offensive words used by historic Protestant pastors, theologians, and gifted men about the Roman Catholic view of the Eucharist? For me to make a joke about zombies is kindergarden stuff as compared to what the Reformers and others have written about the Catholic view of the Eucharist. Here’s a posting from the most famous Protestant Confession of Faith about the Eucharist.​

Before everybody looses their cool, please consider the Council of Trent from a Protestant perspective. Let’s stay with the Bible study and the gospel of John chapter 1.

Is that your justification for being offensive? That others have done it before you?

Kyrie eleison.

Love is Patient

 

[Pax]

Since we are both reject Pelagism, maybe we are trying to determine if God’s gracel in regeneration is resistible or irresistible for those whom God predestined to believe in Christ?

The I in TULIP stands for irresistible grace in regards to the elect only. Irresistible grace is also sovereign grace reserved for only the elect. Michael believes something very similar in preserving grace given to the elect only.

Regeneration is a secret act of God in which he imparts new spiritual life to us. As the gospel comes to us, God speaks through it to summon us to himself (effective calling) and to give us new spiritual life (regeneration) so that we are enabled to respond in faith. Effective calling is thus God that Father speaking powerfully to us, and regeneration is God that Father and God the Holy Spirit working powerfully in us, to make us alive.
Sometimes the term irresistible grace is used in this connection. It refers to the fact that God effectively calls people and also gives them regeneration, and both actions guarantee that we will respond in saving faith. The term irresistible grace is subject to misunderstanding, however, since it seems to imply that people do not make a voluntary choice in responding to the gospel - a wrong idea, and a wrong understanding of the term irresistible grace. The term does preserve something valuable, however, because it indicates that God’s work reaches into our hearts to bring about a response that is absolutely certain - even tough we respond voluntarily.
Wayne Grudem from Systematic Theology (pg. 699)

“You stiff-necked people, uncircumcised in heart and ears, you always resist the Holy Spirit. As your fathers did, so do you” (Acts 7:51). This passage, which is often used in an attempt to refute the biblical doctrine of irresistible grace, actually supports it. Notice the condition of the persons who are doing the resisting: their hearts and ears are uncircumcised, which is the Bible’s way of saying they are unregenerate or unspiritual. A person in this condition will always resist the outward call of the gospel. The Holy Spirit may convict them of sin and work to show them their need to Christ, but as long as they remain unregenerate, their hearts will remain closed to Christ. Irresistible grace does not mean that whenever the Spirit works He is irresistible. Rather, it means that while His promptings are always resisted by the dead in sin, He can make the gospel irresistible when He opens their spiritually blind eyes, when he opens their deaf ears and turns their heart of stone to a heart of flesh. He quickens us while we are dead, which is no work of man. As Ephesians 2:5 says, “Even when we were dead in our trespasses, [He] made us alive together with Christ–by grace you have been saved.”
Monergism.com

All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will by no means cast out. For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me. This is the will of the Father who sent Me, that of all He has given Me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up at the last day…No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him, and I will raise him up at the last day.
John 6:37-39 and 44

monergism.com/directory/link_category/Doctrines-of-Grace/Irresistible-Grace–Effectual-Calling/

Calvinist terminology is faulty and misleading. Your definitions are acceptable as long as they do not cross the line of pitting God’s will against that of man. God’s grace is sufficient for all men, but not all men accept it. God gives efficacious grace to those that are justified. This grace is effective in giving man the ability and desire to freely choose that which is truly good; that is to believe and choose God.

As long as you stay out of the realm of pitting God’s will against man’s will in salvation, then we can proceed with what we seem to agree to thus far.