tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post1901298763632263621..comments2024-03-10T10:40:32.319-07:00Comments on Pyromaniacs: Election ResultsPhil Johnsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00649092052031518426noreply@blogger.comBlogger100125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-71727640079468733442010-04-22T07:09:47.367-07:002010-04-22T07:09:47.367-07:00100. Comments closed.100. Comments closed.FX Turkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16798420127955373559noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-30701313989332899862010-04-22T06:47:23.926-07:002010-04-22T06:47:23.926-07:00Johnny Dialectic: It seems to me it's the Calv...<b>Johnny Dialectic</b>: <i>It seems to me it's the Calvinist who can never be certain this "embrace" is real or false.</i><br /><br />So the Calvinist can't have biblical assurance of salvation from 1 John?<br /><br />Johnny, I don't know where you get the notion but Calvinists do not teach that God lies to people. He is truth and there is no lie in Him and therefore He <b>cannot</b> lie. So when God sends a deluding influence He plainly says that He is doing it and why He is doing it. <br /><br />Biblical assurance of salvation can only be had from the BIBLE and not some unbiblical "I choose to embrace Jesus each day."olan stricklandhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05345193051857763038noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-66920752488247021352010-04-22T06:32:13.638-07:002010-04-22T06:32:13.638-07:00Someone needs to race around the globe and tell al...Someone needs to race around the globe and tell all that they must become thinkers of the Scottish tradition in order to rightly interpret God's Word - so as to be saved.<br /><br />KJV only too!olan stricklandhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05345193051857763038noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-53280806990206601702010-04-22T06:11:22.145-07:002010-04-22T06:11:22.145-07:00CR, thanks for your comment. I have absolutely no ...CR, thanks for your comment. I have absolutely <i>no problem</i> with Calvinists who affirm an "antinomy". People like Packer, etc. The problem is that the conditionality aspect is so often downplayed, if not outrightly ignored, by Calvinists. Then, too, the rest of Calvinist theology pulls inextricably away from the implications of true conditionality. That's why so many of us outside the system look at it as confused if not outright deceptive.<br /><br />I do think you're terribly confused about the Arminian's spiritual condition. How is it any different for us -- <i>With humility, I can confidently say I'm one of God's elect because I understand and embrace the biblical Jesus and the natural man hates and/or cannot understand the biblical Jesus</i>.<br /><br />It seems to me it's the Calvinist who can never be certain this "embrace" is real or false. How do you know you're not going to turn out to be a fake sheep at the end? That your delusion of election was visited upon you by God for purposes of his greater glory? That you are being used as an object lesson by God that will be fully understood only in eternity?<br /><br />The Arminian, OTOH, can choose to look each day at Jesus, and continue to trust and obey (which, according to the old hymn, is the only way to be "happy in Jesus." So this odd caricature of Arminians as "depressed" has no basis in reality or tradition.)James Scott Bellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07641370124346172648noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-79862599606093494462010-04-22T05:58:52.881-07:002010-04-22T05:58:52.881-07:00Bobby --
your comments about one and many are gob...Bobby --<br /><br />your comments about one and many are gobbledegook.<br /><br />However, your question about the Greek text is a great one. Go to this site:<br /><a href="http://www.greekbible.com" rel="nofollow">Greek Bible</a><br /><br />When you go to select the font that the text will render in, select "palatino linotype". Copy the text, and paste into the comment box. It will present the unicode greek characters and you will be all set.<br /><br />Not just Bobby, btw: anybody. That site will work for whosoever will.FX Turkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16798420127955373559noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-11625372297635711112010-04-22T01:34:44.281-07:002010-04-22T01:34:44.281-07:00CR,
Thanks, I really like that answer; you look t...CR,<br /><br />Thanks, I really like that answer; you look to Jesus alone. He is the objective ground of the salvation that you experience by the Spirit. <br /><br />All I can say, is, Amen!Bobby Growhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06831009618873548948noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-86127538905430500682010-04-22T01:19:05.664-07:002010-04-22T01:19:05.664-07:00Good and $64,000 question and here's a real sm...Good and $64,000 question and here's a real small sweet answer: I love the biblical Jesus. Not just any Jesus, but the biblical Jesus. <br /><br />How do I get assurance of election from that. We have to look at Rom 8:29-30. There, part of the order of salvation is listed. Predestination, effectual calling, justification and glorification. <br /><br />Now someone could ask, CR, now wait a minute, you weren't there in eternity past, how can you know you're one of God's elect. We can know this by following the order of salvation.<br /><br />Everyone that God elects, He predestines. Everyone He predestines he effectual calls (regenerates). Everyone he regenerates or calls He justifies. So, if I can answer whether I have been regenerated then I can answer that I am one of God's elect. How do I do that? Here's how: every single person without exception (a)cannot understand the things of God, the natural man cannot understand the things of God like the biblical Jesus UNLESS they are born-again. (b)the natural man is at enmity with God and hates the biblical Jesus.<br /><br />With humility, I can confidently say I'm one of God's elect because I understand and embrace the biblical Jesus and the natural man hates and/or cannot understand the biblical JesusCRhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01912897040503058967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-24762762144282471072010-04-22T00:06:35.910-07:002010-04-22T00:06:35.910-07:00Mike,
Here is a good quote from a Calvinist schol...Mike,<br /><br />Here is a good quote from a Calvinist scholar on the reality of presuppositions for the original 'Reformers' and thus all of us. This holds true for our discussion on 'election'. <br /><br /><em>If there is one thing that can be called a genuine breakthrough in the last half-century of Reformation studies, it would be the ‘discovery’ that the Reformation had a background. The reformers, all of whom were theologians, and a good number of whom had formal academic training in the discipline, emerged out of a theological landscape that profoundly shaped their horizons. Some elements from this late medieval theological bequest they rejected; some they appropriated; and still others they sublated by taking something old and fashioning from it something new. In other words, their ideas did not spring to life ex nihilo, or descend from above, or emerge full-blown from an ‘objective’ study of the Bible alone. They worked in the intellectual context of late medieval theology, and consequently, without some grasp of this context , there can be no adequate understanding of their theology. By today, this realization has had an impact on every area of Reformation studies. (Denis J. Janz, David Bagchi and David Steinmetz, eds., “The Cambridge Companion To Reformation Theology,” 5)</em>Bobby Growhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06831009618873548948noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-34865329433731698352010-04-21T23:44:47.379-07:002010-04-21T23:44:47.379-07:00CR,
I have a question for you. How do you know yo...<strong>CR</strong>,<br /><br />I have a question for you. How do you know your one of the 'elect'?<br /><br />And, no, I'm not Arminian --- I'm what they call, an <em>Evangelical Calvinist</em> (vs. Classical or Federal Calvinist). I similiarly feel bad for the Arminian, in re. to 'security'. But then this takes me back to my question to you (above) . . .Bobby Growhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06831009618873548948noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-68261762996539925812010-04-21T23:36:17.993-07:002010-04-21T23:36:17.993-07:00Reading some of the comments like from Johnny Dial...Reading some of the comments like from Johnny Dialetic has been interesting. One of the interesting questions brought up by Arminians like him is how can we reconcile this or that. And that's where he goes wrong. <br /><br />We have an antinomy which is when we are in a position where we have two truths that we cannot reconcile but as Christians we must accept. <br /><br />Truth 1- We have God's election and reprobation which are not dependent on human actions at all. They are unconditional and sovereign. What does that mean - His choices are not determined on anything that people do or don't do. They don't depend on anything except God's will. God chose Jacob and hated Esau and it had nothing to with their works at all. <br /><br /><br />Truth 2 - that doesn't mean there are no conditional actions, there is cause and effect and "free" actions (or free agency) and all of that is part of God's decree. He's not only determined the ends, but He as determined the means.<br /><br />How do I reconcile those two? I cannot. It is beyond me. I know what the Scriptures teaches those two things. If I (or anyone) asks why this or why that Paul gives the answer to these why questions and it is this: who are you to answer back to God?<br /><br />You know, life is hard enough with the conscience (and Satan) trying to constantly accuse us. I think it was Spurgeon that said the Arminian can never be truly safe, secure and sure about their salvation. But the biblical teaching is this:we are children of God because God has determined it. No one can ever take us out of God's hands. <br /><br />This is what is troubling from the Arminian gospel and I can symphathize with those that want to label it as...well, I won't say it.<br /><br />The Arminian cannot confidently answer the accusations of his conscience. Thoughts will arise in all of us and say, "<i>How can you honestly say you are at peace with God. Look at yourself, you're pathetic, look at your heart, how can it be that God has forgiven you? Did you pray like you should have today? Did you read and meditate over Scriptures like you should have today? How could you in good conscience go to the Table today after the thought you had last night?</i>"<br /><br />What a miserable and depressed condition to be in.CRhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01912897040503058967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-18027308780878084822010-04-21T23:30:40.106-07:002010-04-21T23:30:40.106-07:00Btw Frank,
I never said Calvinists invented elect...Btw Frank,<br /><br />I never said Calvinists invented election; I'm Calvinist myself (I'm "contracted" as one). I believe in election, just framed differently than you.Bobby Growhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06831009618873548948noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-40372457567446911192010-04-21T23:28:31.181-07:002010-04-21T23:28:31.181-07:00Frank,
I didn't even see your first comment t...Frank,<br /><br />I didn't even see your first comment to me . . . woops :-).<br /><br />Like I said, I "rushed" Eph. 1, dangit (I'm blaming that on my "treatments" ;-). <br /><br />How do you insert the Greek text into the comment meta here, seriously; do you write your comment out on 'Word' first? Serious, I'm really curious; there are certain situations that I would like to be able to do that too.Bobby Growhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06831009618873548948noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-51590365432245178622010-04-21T23:07:29.137-07:002010-04-21T23:07:29.137-07:00Mike,
I never said that I believe that I don'...Mike,<br /><br />I never said that I believe that I don't think the Father didn't elect; instead that the Son willingly elected (as part of three) to assume humanity in submission to the Father's choosing (the part I didn't mention). <br /><br />You'll need to do more than assert that my view is unbiblical, Mike; which is a pretty serious charge. I could make the same assertion about your view, right? <br /><br />What the text says assumes certain theological presuppositions (in logic: enthymeme). For example the way we speak of the Trinity (De Deo Uno/Trino), or better the 'grammar' we use to articulate the biblical doctrine of the Trinity is only to identify what Paul and the rest of the scriptures presuppose about God --- that He is one and three; and that He is three and one. This reality is left unstated in the NT and OT, but enthymemically it is the presupposition of the scripture writers. So there are presuppositions that need to be indentified and articulated in order to more clearly understand the skeletal framework from which the 'text' hangs. Even your earlier point on an adverbial modifier is not a strictly grammatical decision; there is a prior theological framework that led you to make that 'interpretive decision' relative to the syntax.<br /><br />Again, I never said the Father didn't elect; but instead that the 'electing' work was not outside the work of the Son in accordance with the 'one will of God'. These are theological presuppositions that need to be worked out.<br /><br />I thoroughly disagree with the informing apparatus that serves as your informing theological and interpretive grid; and so I want to challenge it, Mike. We all have theological grids; mine, theologically and historically is from the Scotist tradition. What is the background to your interpretive grid? What informs, theologically, your interpretive decisions relative to your exegetical work?<br /><br />And in regards election I would ask you 'what kind of humanity' Christ assumed in the Incarnation?<br /><br />I understand that I've come acrossed quite arrogantly in some of my comments here (but this site is not usually a friendly place for the uninitiated --- thus a rather defensive posture is usually the approach I take); but let me just say, Mike, it is quite arrogant for you to say that my view is unbiblical before you ask me if what I'm saying is that the Father did not elect (in other words make sure that that's what I believe before saying that what I believe is unbiblical --- in the history of the church there is a long hertiage of theologians and exegetes who believe what I believe and they are also Calvinists within the 'Scottish tradition').<br /><br />I've never believed that anyone here was not my brother or sister in Christ (who names the name of Christ); I'm sorry you felt that way in the past, Mike. I'm glad that's changed!Bobby Growhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06831009618873548948noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-68265631857653222212010-04-21T21:29:23.301-07:002010-04-21T21:29:23.301-07:00Bobby,
I still think you're reaching.
I can&...Bobby,<br /><br />I still think you're reaching.<br /><br />I can't think of anybody I've ever read or talked to who believes that election is the work of the Son and not the Father. To speak about the eternal Word electing is to ignore that Ephesians 1 says that the Father chose us.<br /><br />I appreciate your last comment very much. It seems to be much more humble than pretty much everything I've read from you. And that endears you to me as a brother in Christ. And so as a brother, I want to exhort you to simply receive what the text says. Your position isn't Biblical. I'm not sure why it's attractive to you, but I entreat you to leave it be.<br /><br />Frank, I also appreciated your response. I suppose there's a case one can make on either side of this little exegetical insight, but as I've plugged around the internet, every one I've checked has taken in Him to mean in Christ. I don't know how this isn't name dropping -- I really don't mean it that way, but rather to benefit you... but adding to Hoehner and the ESV Study Bible are P.T. O'Brien, MacArthur, Piper, Spurgeon, and Ligon Duncan going with "in Christ." I guess I'd just encourage you not to feel like you need to take the "in Himself" position just because you're arguing against Bobby's position.Mike Riccardihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06748453197783538367noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-10054978158922987412010-04-21T21:01:37.243-07:002010-04-21T21:01:37.243-07:00As far as Frank's point on the plural; I would...As far as Frank's point on the plural; I would just say that there is the one and the many, or the one and the three. So we can speak of humanity collectively represented in the first Adam (or seminally); thus it shouldn't pose a problem to speak of 'the elect' through a corporate or better Trinitarian lense.Bobby Growhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06831009618873548948noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-5738107914043220182010-04-21T20:56:40.627-07:002010-04-21T20:56:40.627-07:00Mike, Jugulum,
I was a bit sloppy and quick in my...Mike, Jugulum,<br /><br />I was a bit sloppy and quick in my discussion of Eph 1 relative to syntax; I'm afraid I let my theology get ahead of my careful reading on that one.<br /><br />Nevertheless, when I used 'grammar' I was also thinking in terms of the theological grammar that the NT presupposes relative to its articulation on the Incarnation of Christ --- and all that implies.<br /><br />My point is simple, I think. That the eternal 'word' is the electing God, and the elected man; which means that He elected to take our humanity, and thus we (the 'elect') are said to be chosen in Him. <br /><br />Even given my syntactical error on Eph. 1 my point stands --- and is reinforced by your guys' discussion. When Christ assumed our humanity, He truly assumed humanity (in other words all of humanity). So in God's choice of 'us' or electing to be humanity it can truly be said that we are 'in Him' (in union or one spirit I Cor 6:17). <br /><br />Here's the order I'm thinking from: 1. God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit inhabiting eachother and thus eternity 2. Then the Son as the eternal word 'electing' our humanity for Himself 3. Then the Incarnation actualising election in time/space 4. Then elect humanity responds 'out of Christ's humanity for us' to the Father by the Spirit.<br /><br />Galatians 2:20 speaks to the vicarious nature of faith I'm getting at (following the KJV translation) I have an article on this issue here: http://evangelicalcalvinist.com/2010/01/06/some-greek-the-faith-of-christ-in-galatians-220/<br /><br />Something else to consider, guys. I shouldn't take up the meta trying to explain all of this, so just copy and paste that link; and maybe it'll be a little more clear.<br /><br />As far as 'why' the elect respond, it's because they are elect in Christ and they respond by the Holy Spirit. Why there are reprobate, this has to be relegated to the 'mystery of sin' (as Calvin might say).<br /><br />PS. I'm a little rusty on all of this, due to some serious health concerns I've been dealing with lately. But everything I just said should pretty much be up to snuff :-).Bobby Growhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06831009618873548948noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-31140522139643220242010-04-21T20:52:41.921-07:002010-04-21T20:52:41.921-07:00Mike --
I'd say a good reason to take "i...Mike --<br /><br />I'd say a good reason to take "in autw" to mean "in the Father" or "in God" rather than "in Christ" is that there's no compelling reason to think that the "him" in which we are chosen is different than the "him" before whom we are blameless in the second half of the verse, and the only subject/noun that precedes "him" in both cases is "the God and Father of Christ".<br /><br />There are plenty of places in the NT where there is much made of being "ἐν Χριστῷ". This just doesn't happen to be one of them.<br /><br />I think that fact, paired with the fact that the 'elect' are most frequenty refered to in the plural and as the human people God called out, makes Bobby's point somewhat unworkable.FX Turkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16798420127955373559noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-67261120578484869662010-04-21T20:29:57.982-07:002010-04-21T20:29:57.982-07:00...but in fact the antecedent of "he" an...<i>...but in fact the antecedent of "he" and "him" are both the Father</i>.<br /><br />I dunno, Frank. I don't see any compelling reason why "in Him" shouldn't find its antecedent in "in Christ" in verse 3. <br /><br />I left the library for the day, but the resources I have at home seem to understand "in Him" to refer to Christ. This includes Harold Hoehner's commentary on Ephesians as well as the ESV Study Bible.<br /><br />I think Bobby's assertions are untenable, but I don't think "in Him" needs to mean "in Himself" for that to be so.Mike Riccardihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06748453197783538367noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-43621458133251749132010-04-21T20:25:17.706-07:002010-04-21T20:25:17.706-07:00Actually I wasn't arguing against election, bu...Actually I wasn't arguing against election, but rather the way it's supposedly realized in history; i.e. through irresistible grace. If God gives Christians sufficient grace to resist temptation, and some do not (and yet those who do have no reason to boast in themselves), then what prevents us from assuming that God gives grace that sufficiently enables belief to people who will in the end never believe?Tomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11254920985242767984noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-56684349321738699832010-04-21T20:13:33.693-07:002010-04-21T20:13:33.693-07:00It seems to me that 1 Cor 10:13 is about the grace...It seems to me that 1 Cor 10:13 is about the grace that God gives believers to stand <i>through</i> our trials. Similar to the admonition Paul gives us in Philippians 2 to "work out our salvation in fear and trembling." Or in Joshua 24 in which Joshua tells Israel that they need to choose who they will follow. (Remember that these are <i>God's chosen people</i> - - very important in that they were chosen by Him <i>first</i>). This is completely separate from Divine election. The reference is that we will always have trouble following God's Law but He will give us grace enough (and a way of escape) to make it through our trials.Sven Pookhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02539861346612451560noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-62551876997990556472010-04-21T19:59:16.077-07:002010-04-21T19:59:16.077-07:00Tom:
I’m no expert and am typing this with my mout...Tom:<br />I’m no expert and am typing this with my mouth agape waiting to insert my foot if necessary, but I’ll try to respond as best I can. <br /><br />I would say that this verse is speaking more towards not succumbing to temptation in an ultimate sense (from the preceding examples of Israel and the idolatry warning after the ‘therefore’ – which makes me question what is the therefore there for? – sorry, it’s late:). However, I don’t think this verse is speaking to the choice you are wanting it to speak of. There is a difference in my unregenerate, stony heart choosing to love God’s law and my yet-to-be-fully-sanctified heart giving into temptation. I just don’t see where there is an equality in the ‘choice’. I still say there is a reason for the word ‘endure’ being used rather than yield. Perhaps I am missing where you are driving?Arichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04559641241257829676noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-39751447830041705882010-04-21T19:47:07.627-07:002010-04-21T19:47:07.627-07:00Poor Bobby. He seems to think that us slobbish ca...Poor Bobby. He seems to think that us slobbish calvinists invented the idea that people are elect.<br /><br />Consider Jesus in Mt 24:<br /><b>And if those days had not been cut short, no human being would be saved. But for the sake of the elect those days will be cut short.</b> ["elect" there is plural in the Greek, for those interested]<br /><br />Or perhaps Jesus in Mark 13:<br /><b>For false christs and false prophets will arise and perform signs and wonders, to lead astray, if possible, the elect.</b> [again, plural in the Greek]<br /><br />Or perhaps Paul in Rom 8:<br /><b>Who shall bring any charge against God’s elect? It is God who justifies.</b> [again: plural in the Greek]<br /><br />Or perhaps Peter in 1 Peter 1:<br /><b>Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ,To those who are elect exiles of the dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia ...</b> [again: plural]<br /><br />But far worse for Bobby is what the Greek actually says in Eph 1:4 --<br /><br />καθὼς ἐξελέξατο ἡμᾶς ἐν αὐτῷ πρὸ καταβολῆς κόσμου<br /><br />That is, <b>"even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world"</b>. In Bobby's view, The Father is choosing us "in the son", but in fact the antecedent of "he" and "him" are both <i>the Father</i>. God has chosen us <i>in himself</i> as adopted children (as v. 5 goes on to say) <i>by Christ</i>. The fact is that "us" is the <i>direct object</i> and "him" is the <i>indirect object</i>. As Wallace says in his <i>Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics</i>, "The indirect object is the receiver of the direct object of an active verb". (141)<br /><br />May it be a blessing to Bobby to stand corrected.FX Turkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16798420127955373559noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-8918977723866478532010-04-21T19:43:59.379-07:002010-04-21T19:43:59.379-07:00Aric:
I agree that the passage only applies to Ch...Aric:<br /><br />I agree that the passage only applies to Christians. I don't believe (and the Bible teaches against the idea) that non-Christians have the ability to not sin.<br /><br />Is your argument that the endurance that God provides the endurance that prevents us from ultimately apostatizing and dying in our sins? I still see "bearing" temptation as not falling into it, i.e. resisting (and this would include any and all temptations). In that case, it is my choice that causes me to yield to temptation and thus sin, even though God's grace was sufficient for me to not yield.Tomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11254920985242767984noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-90954320695217164072010-04-21T19:39:05.947-07:002010-04-21T19:39:05.947-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Tomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11254920985242767984noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-80873848659936278372010-04-21T19:26:03.156-07:002010-04-21T19:26:03.156-07:00Thought provoking post. When I was growing up (an...Thought provoking post. When I was growing up (and looking back now, before I was converted), I always struggled with the use of elect/elected/election in the bible. It seemed so unfair that some got elected, as if everyone was trying to get picked and only some did. Very unsettling at the time. Now I see that no one is trying to get picked; yet, some are adopted as sons. Amazing!<br /><br />@Tom’s 7:11 comment: Let me throw out my thoughts: I don’t see where that verse says we won’t “always be able to resist temptation”, as in never sin; rather, it says that we will “be able to endure it.” I think we need to tie that verse to the rest of the context about not giving into idolatry and Israel’s example of not enduring temptation.<br /><br />Plus, wouldn’t a desire and ability to actually resist temptation be a sign of a new heart; one that desires and loves God’s law?Arichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04559641241257829676noreply@blogger.com