The Children of Promise have already been appointed beforehand as in before faith and salvation as evident in John 8 #ChatGPT

Isn't it true, according to the context surrounding verse 35 of John chapter 8, that Jesus was telling the Jews that they were not the children of promise?

Yes, that's correct. In the broader context of John chapter 8, Jesus is indeed challenging the Jews' claim to being Abraham's descendants and, by extension, children of promise. He points out that their actions—seeking to kill Him—demonstrate that they are not living as true children of Abraham would, who would embrace His message and God's truth.

In John 8:34, Jesus says, "Everyone who practices sin is a slave to sin." This sets up His statement in verse 35 about the slave not remaining in the house forever. He contrasts the temporary status of a slave with the permanent status of a son. By implication, Jesus is indicating that those who live in sin are not truly part of God's family, despite their physical descent from Abraham.

In verses 37-39, Jesus acknowledges their physical descent from Abraham but challenges them by saying, "If you were Abraham's children, you would be doing the works Abraham did." He goes further in verse 44, stating that they are of their "father the devil," because they are doing the works of evil, not of God.

So, in essence, Jesus is telling them that being true children of promise, like Abraham's spiritual descendants, involves more than just lineage; it requires living according to God's will and accepting the truth He brings.

ChatGPT / Aaron Fisher 

Why Did the Apostle Paul introduce the examples of Issac and Jacob regarding Romans 9? #ChatGPT

According to the context of Romans 9, doesn't the Apostle Paul give the examples of Isaac and Jacob as to explain why the Word of God has not failed in regard to the Jews?

Yes, in Romans 9, the Apostle Paul uses the examples of Isaac and Jacob to explain why the Word of God has not failed in regard to the Jews. He argues that God's promises were never meant for all descendants of Abraham, but for those chosen by God.

Paul points out that not all of Abraham's children were chosen to carry forward the promise. For instance, Ishmael was also a son of Abraham, but Isaac was the one through whom the promise would be fulfilled. Similarly, even within Isaac's family, God chose Jacob over Esau, demonstrating that God's election is not based on human desire or effort but on His own purpose and choice.

By highlighting these examples, Paul shows that God's word has not failed because it was never intended that every physical descendant of Abraham would be part of the chosen people, but rather those whom God elected according to His purpose. This helps explain the current state of Israel and the inclusion of Gentiles in the salvation plan.

ChatGPT / Aaron Fisher 

NO ONE has the "ability" to "libertarianly" come to the Father based upon "free will".

Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me ~ John 14:6

The mere fact that no one can come to Son unless they have been given to Him by the Father (john 6:39) coupled with the fact that no one can come to the Father except through the Son (john 14:6) implies an "inability" on the one "coming" to either the Father or the Son; seeing that the one coming "cannot" come to either (john 14:1) apart from those belonging to the Father having been given to the Son beforehand as in prior to faith in both the Father or the Son from before the foundation of the world (ephesians 1:4).

In other words, seeing that no one can come to the Father without having been beforehand been given to the Son or prior to faith in the Son implies that those given to the Son were given to Him likewise prior to faith in the Father or else how could the Son say - "no one can come to the Father except through me?" This biblical truth eliminates the idea of "free will". No one can come to the Father, let alone the Son based upon libertarian free will. 

If there lies an inability as to come to the Son, in so far as prior to faith in the Son, one must be given to the Son; then there also lies an inability as to come to the Father seeing that the very same one's who belong to the Son prior to faith in the Son likewise belong to Father prior to faith in the Father (john 17:10).

The reason why the Son can say "no one can come to the Father except through me" is because those who come to the Son "belong" to the Son prior to demonstrating faith in the Son in the very same manner that those who come to the Father; likewise "belong" to the Father prior to demonstrating faith in the Father. They are the same group of particular people. 

In fact, the scriptures teach that those who belong to the Father have belonged to Him before the foundation of the world. This is why ephesians 1:4 speaks of those foreordained unto salvation as being "chose" by God before creation unto holiness and blameworthiness. Those who eventually come to the Father as to believe upon the Son were already the Father's since before creation. Likewise, those who belonged to the Father also belonged to the Son before creation as well. The Father chose His elect "in" the Son as belonging to the Son before creation unto holiness and blameworthiness. 

Those who come to the Father as to believe in Him will have done so because God will have solely and unilaterally circumcised their heart; taking out the heart of stone and replacing it with a heart of flesh in order for the sinner to respond and comply to God's command as to repent and believe. However, the only individual whom God will circumcise the heart of is a chosen remnant according to His grace; those who have been elected prior to birth of having done neither good or evil as of yet NOR according to the will of the individual as to rob God of the glory that's due Him alone in the salvation of sinful man.

In short, no one can libertarianly freely come to the Father apart from having been given to the Son before the foundation of the world. In order to believe in the Father, one must have already been given to the Son prior to belief in the Father; this is why Jesus can say - "no one can come to the Father except through me".

By Aaron Fisher 

Drawn by Jesus? A Response to Leighton Flowers and upcoming Debate with James White.

A list of 7 simple questions asked and answered regarding John 6:44 ~ 

(1) Who are those "drawn" by the Father as to come to the Son?

The Children of Promise aka God's Elect; a remnant unmeritely chosen by God's grace unto faith, righteousness and salvation (genesis 17:7, romans 9:8,11, and romans 11:5-7). 

(2) Why "initially" are the Children of Promise aka God's Elect "drawn" by Father as to come to the Son? Because they have always belonged to the Father and appointed beforehand OR prior to faith as already "heirs" according to Abraham Covenant (john 8:35-47, luke 19:10, galatians 4:30, romans 4:16, 22-25, romans 9:6-11)

(3) When "exactly" OR for "how long" have the Children of Promise OR God's Elect belonged to the Father?

There was NEVER a "time" when they didn't; since they belonged to Him "before the foundation of the world" OR "before time" as we consider the concept of time as it relates to a chronological order of events (ephesians 1:11 and ephesians 1:14).

(4) When "exactly" OR for "how long" have the Children of Promise OR God's Elect belonged to the Son?

There was NEVER a "time" when they didn't; since they belonged to Him "before the foundation of the world" OR "before time" as we consider the concept of time as it relates to a chronological order of events. The Father gave His Elect to the Son as His very own sheep before creation. This is why Ephesians 1:4 asserts that the Father chose "us" in Christ before the foundation of the world as already belonging to Him; with the end goal in mind to be "holy and blameless". The "heirs of promise" have always belonged to both the Father and the Son. This is also why Jesus can claim - "what's yours is mine and what is mine is yours" (john 17:10).

(5) Were those (children of promise aka God's elect) chose before creation elected unto salvation? YES! The same one's predestined before the foundation of the world for adoption as sons are the very same one's who go on to hear the word of truth and positively respond the Gospel as to be saved (ephesians 1:5 and ephesians 1:13-14) according to the context.

(6) Are those elected before creation unto salvation the same ones "drawn" by the Father as to come to the Son and believe in Him? Absolutely! They are the very "heirs of promise" for whom the Son came down from Heaven as to do the will of the Father and lose none of all those whom before creation was given to Him (1 peter 1:18-25, 1 peter 2:6-10 and 1 peter 2:24-25).

(7) Are those "drawn" to the Son by the Father a particular people to the exclusion of the rest of mankind?

YES! The only ones drawn by the Father are the Children of Promise OR God's Elect who have already been appointed beforehand OR prior to faith for salvation. Those who have been passed over by God for salvation and will never or could ever be drawn by the Father (as in, an impossibility) to the Son are those for example the scripture speaks of as (a) the perishing (b) rest of mankind (c) those who Father is the Devil (d) and those who do not belong to Him as His sheep.

CONCLUSION: 

No one's "drawn" by the Father according to their "libertarian free will" as Leighton claims. The scriptures are clear! The only ones "drawn" are those whom the Father has eternally loved - His beloved; the Children of Promise, chosen before creation and decreed unto salvation. If Leighton would like to debate me; simply contact me - I'M READY.

By Aaron Fisher 

A child's state of so called "innocence" is NOT a criteria nor factor regarding their possible salvation - only the mercy of God!

                                                          

There is a popular teaching among Christian circles that a newborn or young child who unfortunately happens to die prematurely is somehow entitled to inherit salvation due to the so called "innocence" of the child not having enough acquired knowledge as to not only discern good from evil but also enough acquired knowledge as to reject evil and choose the good. However, first and foremost, such an assertion would presume that every infant or young child has been favorably blessed by God as to partake and benefit of the New Covenant and the spiritual blessings which derive from it; which gives life to the spiritually dead as Christ sheep (hebrews 13:20, 2 corinthians 3:6). Secondly, another major delimmna; is that God has predetermined as in chosen prior to one's birth all of everyone who has been foreordained to inherit salvation and that ones salvation is not dependent upon any criteria on the individual's part; apart from whom God has predetermined to show mercy to beforehand (romans 9:11). So, in order for any individual to argue that an infant or young child is "entitled" to inherit salvation due to their so called state of "innocence" - one must likewise 'successfully' demonstrate this assertion biblically from scripture that such an entitlement of salvation is "indeed" a "factor" regarding God's decision or determination to have mercy upon a child who dies prematurely and likewise chooses them prior to their birth for glory in order for such an assertion to be scripturally accurate. 

On the other hand, I believe the scriptures has clearly stated that God chose specific individuals prior to their birth as to not regard any specific good deed OR evil deed of which they had not done as of yet OR will do - involving His prerogative to save whom He wills (romans 9:11). Therefore, if God did not take into account any good deed; let alone any evil deed; then one's "innocence" is not a factor in His determination to save - seeing that such an assertion of a child's so called "innocence" would surely suggest that an infant or young child is not capable of doing anything good or bad "as of yet" as a factor. The true biblical doctrine of Election rules out such a criteria of "innocence" of entitlement for salvation because God has determined to have mercy upon His elect not taking into account prior to one's birth any evil that a infant or young child who prematurely dies after birth may or may not or even could have committed (romans 9:11). God's saves in spite of the sins committed of His elect; therefore neither a child or an adult sin's for that matter; is a factor in the salvation of His chosen ones. Therefore, the so called "innocence" of a child is entirely ruled out regarding the salvation of God's people because an infant or young child's state of "innocence" implies potential future guilt regarding acts of evil and God has neither elected His people on the basis of committed acts of evil or committed acts of good BUT only on the basis of His prerogative prior to one's birth to have mercy upon whom He wills!

By Aaron Fisher 

Vessels of Mercy "Prepared Beforehand or In Advance for Glory" (ROMANS 9:22-23)? "Beforehand" or the Greek "Proetoimazó"

                                    

If God determined to save someone prior to their birth as a vessel of mercy; then in doing so and as a consequence - they, by default, have been technically "prepared beforehand or in advance for glory! And if the Children of Promise are considered to be the Children of God; then when God foretold of Issac's future birth as the Child of Promise and elected Jacob prior to his birth also as a Child of Promise; then God was essentially declaring beforehand as in before they both were born that they were already considered as Children of God by decree - even prior to their birth. Their salvation was inevitable even prior to their actual birth!

A simple outline with commentary as to "disect" the passage of ROMANS 9 in question.

(1) The Children of Promise ARE the Children of God (vs 8)

(2) Issac was foretold to be the "Child of Promise" prior to his birth (vs 9)

(3) Jacob was elected prior to his birth IN ORDER THAT God's purpose of ELECTION might continue (vs 10 and 11).

(4) However, the Children of Promise ARE God's Elect. The two terms can be used interchangeably. You can't speak of the one without acknowledging the other (vs 8 and 11).

(5) Issac, the Child of Promise aka God's Elect (vs 8 and 9)

(6) Jacob, God's Elect aka the Child of Promise (vs 10-12)

(7) The "vessels of mercy prepared beforehand for glory" ARE the Children of Promise aka God's Elect

(8) Both Issac AND Jacob were considered to be "vessels of mercy" because they both were deemed as a Children of Promise aka God's Elect prior to their birth. Every Child of Promise receives saving mercy. However, God determined to bestow saving mercy upon both Issac and Jacob before they were born as a Child of Promise aka God's Elect upon setting them apart unto Himself.

(9) This is the very reason why Paul could say that the "vessels of mercy" were "prepared beforehand for glory" - because both Isaac and Jacob received saving mercy from God before each of them was even born as a Child of Promise aka God's Elect. Their salvation was inevitable. They were essentially prepared beforehand for glory by way of God's saving mercy bestowed upon them prior to their birth as a consequence. This would be the correct understanding according to the context.

(10) However, not only were Issac and Jacob prepared beforehand or in advance for glory prior to their birth BUT every would be Child of Promise aka God's Elect as well (galatians 4:28). This is why the Apostle Paul cold claim that the Word of God has not failed because it was NEVER God's intention to save every Israelite or even Gentile for that matter - only the Children of Promise.

(11) Lastly, if God deemed Issac and Jacob as a Child of Promise aka God's Elect prior to their birth and their salvation is inevitable because of this fact as I have demonstrated; then it would deem logical if not biblical (for argument sake) to conclude that they were "prepared beforehand for glory" because of the predetermined actions by God correct?

By Aaron Fisher

 

Provisionalism, Pelagianism AND the Biblical Truth!

[In love] God [predestined] us for [adoption to himself as sons] through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will, [to the praise of his glorious grace], with which he has [blessed us in the Beloved] - Ephesians 2:5-6

Leighton Flowers outright dissociates himself from Pelagianism or even Semi Plaginism for that matter. However both Pelagianism and Semi-Pelagianism do acknowledge as not to reject God's "grace". Nonetheless, Pelagianism, Semi-Pelagianism AND Provisionalism do indeed reject God's grace. They reject God's "initial" or "primary" grace that preceded creation itself. This grace or unmerited favor of God was predetermined towards a particular people by decree unto faith. This particular grace was brought forth in love as to predestine a people before the foundation of the world unto adoption as sons aka believers in God. And if predestined to adoption as sons; then those predestined were by default foreordained to believe - to the exclusion of the "rest of mankind" of whom God did not predestine. Therefore, by the Provisionist own acknowledgement - they fit the religious category of Pelagianism or even Semi Plaginism for argument sake because they unequivocally deny God's grace; the very grace that preceded creation itself!

-----------------------------------

Saving Grace is a Unique and Particular Grace that's not granted to all men but Only a select few; God's Elect (Ephesians 2:4-10). 

SAVING GRACE is a particular grace that's not granted to all men but only a chosen few whom God has predetermined to unmeritly favor in regards to their salvation. This grace is distinct from all other graces bestowed by God seeing that only a select group can benefit from this unique grace. We see this confirmation of such grace particularly in Ephesians Chapter 1 and 2. The saving grace the Apostle Paul speaks of (ephesians 2:4-10) is in conjunction with Gods choosing and predestining before the foundation of the world a particular people as adopted sons to be holy and blameless (ephesians 1:4-5). Therefore, this particular grace rules out the "rest of mankind" (eph.1:3) or "sons of disobedience" whom God has left to remain in their sins being still deserving of wrath (ephesians 5:5-12) from ever benefitting from such grace.

In order for the "rest of mankind" or the "sons of disobedience" that God has passed over as to remain in their sins to benefit from this unique and particular saving grace - then they too must have been chosen in Christ and predestined as well before the foundation of the world to partake of any and such spiritual blessing (ephesians 1:3). Furthermore, those of whom God neither chose or predestined before creation also would have to been among those for whom Jesus had died for (ephesians 5:1-2) in order for them to be redeemed by His blood and their sins forgiven (ephesians 1:7) of which they were not. To argue otherwise, would be to undermine the love of God for a specific people unto His own glory and to assert or demand that God must love everyone as in all without exception in the very same manner for He only "in love" predestined before the foundation of the world those whom He foreknew; a particular people for His own glory while passing over the rest. Furthermore, to also argue against God having chose and predestined a select people unto salvation would call into question His wisdom, counsel, and judgement as if they are somehow flawed or misguided and not considered perfect in and of themselves seeing that God is perfect in all His ways as Paul goes on to rightly proclaim (ephesians 1:8-10). The grace or favor of God is only extended towards a select few of whom He has both foreknew and foreloved.

By Aaron Fisher