***Luke 20:34-36 : 34 Jesus replied, “The people of this age marry and are given in marriage. 35 But those who are considered worthy of taking part in that age and in the resurrection from the dead will neither marry nor be given in marriage, 36 and they can no longer die; for they are like the angels. They are God’s children , since they are children of the resurrection.***
Worthy. I thought that the Reformed claim that none are worthy.
***John 1:12-13 : 12 Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God***
Jesus gave them the right. Rights can be withdrawn or rejected.
***In every single case, there is a distinction between some who are God’s children and some who are not. There can be no confusion. That the saved are God’s children, and the lost are not is a theme running throughout the NT. There are just too many verses to interpret that idea away.***
Now there is something that we do agree on. We just don’t agree on who makes up the saved.
***BTW, I went rotifer fishing once, and caught me a big one too. He must have come in at just over 0.7 mm or so. :)***
Some of the new toy dog breeds would be just the right size for bait.
Worthy. I thought that the Reformed claim that none are worthy.
None are worthy in their own right. But obviously, by God's standards, some are "deemed" or "considered" worthy to enter Heaven and some are not. Imputed vs. infused.
FK: ***John 1:12-13 : 12 Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God***
Jesus gave them the right. Rights can be withdrawn or rejected.
Not this kind. The word used is exousia. Here is Strong's:
NT:1849 exousia (ex-oo-see'-ah); from NT:1832 (in the sense of ability); privilege, i.e. (subjectively) force, capacity, competency, freedom, or (objectively) mastery (concretely, magistrate, superhuman, potentate, token of control), delegated influence: KJV - authority, jurisdiction, liberty, power, right, strength.
We must ask ourselves why God uses the human parent-child analogy over and over again in scriptures. Can you really throw away your "right" to be your father's son? Symbolically perhaps, but never in fact. Once you are your father's son, there is no undoing of it. It is true forever. So it is true with the children of God. Once they have become His children, NONE will be lost:
John 10:28-29 : 28 I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one can snatch them out of my hand. 29 My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all; no one can snatch them out of my Father's hand.
Perhaps the concept of being "a child" to "a parent" has been watered down by today's standards. But as you know, the concept of family meant much more then. I really doubt that God would have chosen this comparison to a born (again) child if He didn't think it had the truth of permanence. Jesus explained this to Nicodemus. We are born physically once (unchangeable), and SOME are born again (also unchangeable).
Now there is something that we do agree on. We just don’t agree on who makes up the saved.
OK, who do you say makes up the saved? My guess would have been that we probably agree on who makes up the saved (unless sacraments are required for salvation), but we disagree about whether one is able to know if he is one of them. :)