Calvinism / pre-destination

[Noeb]

"Walk in sin". As Hebrews10 says, "If we continue sinning willfully after having received saved-knowledge of the truth...

You are making my case Gadget. For if we sin wilfully after receiving the knowledge of the truth? In Romans 7 Paul was not sinning willfully (I do what I don't want to do) because he had not received the knowledge of the truth in how to not sin until the end of the chapter. He had not Heb 6:4 been enlightened , tasted of the heavenly gift, made partakers of the Holy Ghost, 5 tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come.

" What did you think about the discussion on Romans6, 7, and 8? That chapter 7 cannot be "divorced" from chapters 6 and 8, it's a "topic sandwich".

I agree it's a topic sandwich but there's not two natures.

We have truly "died to sin", and are alive in Christ and Christ in us. If we walk in sin, then we have not died to sin and we are not alive in Christ (and He is not in us).

Certainly those that have died with Christ in a past moment event (born again) do not continue the same life, but what has this to do with the remaining sins we are left with to test our faith? Like Paul in Romans 7? It's not automatic. God doesn't just take away all our lusts and drives. I immediately stopped a lot of things just because I was instantly changed but I was left with more to test my faith. Just because I continued to do things I did not want to do did not mean I was in sin and Christ was not in me.

See if we can resolve something --- you know the story of the Prodigal Son, Luke 15? In verse 13 (and only verse 13), when the Prodigal was drunk and carousing and visiting harlots, would you say he was "still saved"?

Of course. He was still the fathers son (that's key), still alive (that's key), and still had the opportunity to repent and return to the father (that's key). Sure he was "lost", but remember he was first found (that's key) and a son (that's key). Much of the nt is about remembering who we are, where we came from, and if we have been deceived and gone astray, to return.

It says he who does these things shall not inherit; clearly if one dies before quitting, he'd better be buried with a whole ton of marshmallows!

You are making my case.

"Sins" do not condemn us; just as "lack-of-sins" does not save us.

That we have the choice to sin is clear (1Cor10:13). What happens after we sin? It's still the same choice --- to sin again, or to repent.

Same difference. Christ died for sin.

What I'd like to resolve between us is the "indwelt nature of salvation".

That's a very strange phrase. Where's scripture for that?

If someone walks in sin, do Jesus and the Spirit still indwell the person (and therefore participate in his sin)?

Yes.

Say I was getting drunk, and/or fornicating or visiting prostitutes. Can I walk towards my sin praising God and celebrating Jesus and the Spirit inside of me? Can I walk AWAY still praising God and celebrating Jesus and the Spirit, while looking forward happily to my next sin appointment?

Christians don't do that, so I don't know why you are asking.

Do we agree that there is a difference between "sin occasionally", and "WALK in sin"?

I don't know, you didn't answer me yet.

You don't hold to "Once Saved Always Saved"?

No

You believe a truly-saved person can become unsaved?

Yes

What would it take for someone who WAS saved, to move to where he or she is saved no longer?

Deny that faith and/or Christ.

[Noeb]

That (which) dies is soulish. The soul that sins it shall die. He's talking about the death he mentioned in chapter 7. Born again Paul was alive, sin revived, and he died.

Can a "soul-that-dies", still go to Heaven?

Why do you change scripture and peoples post to say what you want it to say? I didn't say that.

That die (in Romans 8) is soulish. The soul that sins it shall die. He's talking about the death he mentioned in chapter 7. Born again Paul was alive, sin revived, and he died.

Mind will and emotions die when you sin. Guilt, depression, anxiety, stress, etc.... Why we have so many unhappy christians. This of course has greater consequence (spiritual death/second death is future) if one dies in a state of unbelief. Flesh and spirit make a living soul.

[Gadgeteer]

Why do you change scripture and peoples post to say what you want it to say? I didn't say that.

Because "That die is soulish" doesn't make any sense. With respect, is English not your first language?

Mind will and emotions die when you sin.

"Mind will"? Mind will what?

Guilt, depression, anxiety, stress, etc.... Why we have so many unhappy christians. This of course has greater consequence (spiritual death/second death is future) if one dies in a state of unbelief. Flesh and spirit make a living soul.

There are two words in Greek, "pneuma" ghost, and "psyche" soul. In Revl20:4, "I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded and had not worshiped the beast come to life and reign with Him for a thousand years" --- it uses "psyche".

Is there any difference between "practicing-sin", and "unbelief"? If a soul dies in unbelief and sin, will he still go to Heaven?

[Gadgeteer]

You are making my case Gadget. For if we sin willfully after receiving the knowledge of the truth? In Romans 7 Paul was not sinning willfully (I do what I don't want to do) because he had not received the knowledge of the truth in how to not sin until the end of the chapter. He had not Heb 6:4 been enlightened , tasted of the heavenly gift, made partakers of the Holy Ghost, 5 tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come.

Yes, he had; that was in chapter 6, the whole concept of "born-again". Five words used interchangeably, "died/crucified/buried/immersed/UNITED". It's all there. Chapter 7 is the war between the new man and the old man; chapter 8 is the solution. It fits perfectly with Eph4:22-24, "lay aside the old man, put on the new man, be renewed in the spirit of your mind."

I agree it's a topic sandwich but there's not two natures.

If I "lay aside the blue suit" and "put on the tan suit", do I have two suits? Yes.

Certainly those that have died with Christ in a past moment event (born again) do not continue the same life, but what has this to do with the remaining sins we are left with to test our faith? Like Paul in Romans 7? It's not automatic. God doesn't just take away all our lusts and drives. I immediately stopped a lot of things just because I was instantly changed but I was left with more to test my faith. Just because I continued to do things I did not want to do did not mean I was in sin and Christ was not in me.

Yes, it did. In Galatians 2:20 Paul eloquently describes Christ living in us; if we walk in sin, Jesus would have to be participating in those sins --- He will not.

See if we can resolve something --- you know the story of the Prodigal Son, Luke 15? In verse 13 (and only verse 13), when the Prodigal was drunk and carousing and visiting harlots, would you say he was "still saved"?

Of course. He was still the fathers son (that's key), still alive (that's key), and still had the opportunity to repent and return to the father (that's key).

And THAT, is pure "Antinomianism". In 1Jn3:5-10 those who practice sin are not of God, they are of the devil; "by this the children of God and the children of the devil are exposed."

The KEY, is that the father said "He was DEAD, now is alive AGAIN". The kid was drunk, carousing, lying with harlots; in no way "saved".

Sure he was "lost", but remember he was first found (that's key) and a son (that's key). Much of the nt is about remembering who we are, where we came from, and if we have been deceived and gone astray, to return.

But "astray" is not really astray, you just said! "OF COURSE he was still saved!" That's a license to sin.

You are making my case.

You just said the Prodigal was still saved, even when he was fornicating/carousing/drunk! Now you're agreeing with 1Cor6:9-11, Eph5:5-6, and Gal5:19-21 that "he who DOES these things shall not inherit"! Which do you really embrace?

"Sins" do not condemn us; just as "lack-of-sins" does not save us.

That we have the choice to sin is clear (1Cor10:13). What happens after we sin? It's still the same choice --- to sin again, or to repent.

Same difference. Christ died for sin.

Not unless they repent!

"Unless you repent, you will perish!" Luke13:3, 5.

What I'd like to resolve between us is the "indwelt nature of salvation".

That's a very strange phrase. Where's scripture for that?

"Fellowship", 1Jn1:3 and John17:3. "Indwelt", Gal2:20 and Eph5:18.

If someone walks in sin, do Jesus and the Spirit still indwell the person (and therefore participate in his sin)?

Yes.

1John3:5 says "in Him there is no sin". You are proposing a kind of "sinfully-saved", just as you proposed that the Prodigal remained saved even when he was breaking the behaviors of 1Cor6:9-11, Eph5:5-6, and Gal5:19-21. How do you find "exceptions" for those Scriptural absolutes?

Say I was getting drunk, and/or fornicating or visiting prostitutes. Can I walk towards my sin praising God and celebrating Jesus and the Spirit inside of me? Can I walk AWAY still praising God and celebrating Jesus and the Spirit, while looking forward happily to my next sin appointment?

Christians don't do that, so I don't know why you are asking.

Yes they do, in your just-stated-position. The Prodigal did, and it didn't hurt his salvation; you just said Jesus will walk in sin WITH a person! Sin is no problem in your view, by your own words. No offense or insult, tell me how you are not asserting contradictory things.

Do we agree that there is a difference between "sin occasionally", and "WALK in sin"?

I don't know, you didn't answer me yet.

What didn't I answer? And, how can we come to agreement on what John said in 1:3:5-10, "he who practices sin is of the devil (and) does not know God"?

You don't hold to "Once Saved Always Saved"?

No

You believe a truly-saved person can become unsaved?

Yes

What would it take for someone who WAS saved, to move to where he or she is saved no longer?

Deny that faith and/or Christ.

Please tell me how walking-in-sin, is not that very "denying that faith and/or Christ"?

Look at what Peter said:

"Supply in your faith moral excellence, knowledge, self-control, perseverance, godliness, brotherly kindness, love; if these qualities are yours and increasing ...you are useful... He who LACKS these qualities is blind, short-sighted, having forgotten purification from former sins (is no longer saved). THEREFORE (against that man) be all the more diligent to make your calling and election firm/steadfast, as long as you practice these things you will not stumble/ptaio/become-wretched; in THIS way the gates of God's kingdom will be (abundantly) provided to you." 2Pet1:5-11

These fruits are not optional; he who is immoral (like the Prodigal!) does not belong, is not Heaven-bound.

What do you think, "Noeb", have we resolved anything, or are we going in circles?

[keyzer soze]

This is why Jesus said "The gate is small and the way narrow that leads to eternal life, and few are those who find-by-diligently-seeking it." Matt7:14.

Do your regularly change scripture and quote it on this forum? Why would you change that verse? I am sorta baffled by this... I always assumed that everyone here cut and pastes from scripture and doesn't change it and pass it off as scripture. Did you change it to change it's meaning? If so, what gives you the right? If no, why change the wording? I don't get it...

Matthew 7:14

New American Standard Bible (NASB)

¹⁴ For the gate is small and the way is narrow that leads to life, and there are few who find it.

[Brother Mark]

Do your regularly change scripture and quote it on this forum? Why would you change that verse? I am sorta baffled by this... I always assumed that everyone here cut and pastes from scripture and doesn't change it and pass it off as scripture. Did you change it to change it's meaning? If so, what gives you the right? If no, why change the wording? I don't get it...

Matthew 7:14

New American Standard Bible (NASB)

¹⁴ For the gate is small and the way is narrow that leads to life, and there are few who find it.

I don't like it when people change the word either brother.

[keyzer soze]

Reading the O.T. and seeing the balance of God's sovereignty and man's free-will intertwined through the stories while participating in this thread has been amazing. Stop and think about how Rehoboam responded and whether or not he could have exercised free-will to listen to the elders... All because of Solomon angering God...

I believe this is a good example of how I view "free-will" vs. God's sovereignty. Did Rehoboam have free will to listen to the elders or his young friends? YES. However, it was God's will that he would choose his young friends which would divide Israel as God decreed when Solomon angered God with his actions... I see both as equally true, which obviously is hard to process, but to God I see this as simple.

9 The LORD became angry with Solomon because his heart had turned away from the LORD, the God of Israel, who had appeared to him twice. 10 Although he had forbidden Solomon to follow other gods, Solomon did not keep the LORD’s command. 11 So the LORD said to Solomon, “Since this is your attitude and you have not kept my covenant and my decrees, which I commanded you, I will most certainly tear the kingdom away from you and give it to one of your subordinates. 12 Nevertheless, for the sake of David your father, I will not do it during your lifetime. I will tear it out of the hand of your son. 13 Yet I will not tear the whole kingdom from him, but will give him one tribe for the sake of David my servant and for the sake of Jerusalem, which I have chosen.”

29 About that time Jeroboam was going out of Jerusalem, and Ahijah the prophet of Shiloh met him on the way, wearing a new cloak. The two of them were alone out in the country, 30 and Ahijah took hold of the new cloak he was wearing and tore it into twelve pieces. 31 Then he said to Jeroboam, “Take ten pieces for yourself, for this is what the LORD, the God of Israel, says: ‘See, I am going to tear the kingdom out of Solomon’s hand and give you ten tribes. 32 But for the sake of my servant David and the city of Jerusalem, which I have chosen out of all the tribes of Israel, he will have one tribe. 33 I will do this because they have forsaken me and worshiped Ashtoreth the goddess of the Sidonians, Chemosh the god of the Moabites, and Molek the god of the Ammonites, and have not walked in obedience to me, nor done what is right in my eyes, nor kept my decrees and laws as David, Solomon’s father, did.

34 “‘But I will not take the whole kingdom out of Solomon’s hand; I have made him ruler all the days of his life for the sake of David my servant, whom I chose and who obeyed my commands and decrees. 35 I will take the kingdom from his son’s hands and give you ten tribes. 36 I will give one tribe to his son so that David my servant may always have a lamp before me in Jerusalem, the city where I chose to put my Name. 37 However, as for you, I will take you, and you will rule over all that your heart desires; you will be king over Israel. 38 If you do whatever I command you and walk in obedience to me and do what is right in my eyes by obeying my decrees and commands, as David my servant did, I will be with you. I will build you a dynasty as enduring as the one I built for David and will give Israel to you. 39 I will humble David’s descendants because of this, but not forever.’”

6 Then King Rehoboam consulted the elders who had served his father Solomon during his lifetime. “How would you advise me to answer these people?” he asked.

7 They replied, “If today you will be a servant to these people and serve them and give them a favorable answer, they will always be your servants.”

12 Three days later Jeroboam and all the people returned to Rehoboam, as the king had said, “Come back to me in three days.” 13 The king answered the people harshly. Rejecting the advice given him by the elders, 14 he followed the advice of the young men and said, “My father made your yoke heavy; I will make it even heavier. My father scourged you with whips; I will scourge you with scorpions.” 15 So the king did not listen to the people, for this turn of events was from the LORD, to fulfill the word the LORD had spoken to Jeroboam son of Nebat through Ahijah the Shilonite.

[keyzer soze]

I don't like it when people change the word either brother.

yeah, I am sorta shocked by this because I don't check verses that people list UNLESS i want to read more for context which was the case here. I simply don't get why anyone would do this. He even has it in quotes! Are you quoting yourself and your personal translation of the bible? I don't get it.

[Brother Mark]

yeah, I am sorta shocked by this because I don't check verses that people list UNLESS i want to read more for context which was the case here. I simply don't get why anyone would do this. He even has it in quotes! Are you quoting yourself and your personal translation of the bible? I don't get it.

Well, I am not sure what or why he did. Perhaps he is expounding on the Greek, but I didn't investigate to see. Let me ask you, how is what he did any different than changing the meaning of "world" to mean "elect and some creation but excludes the non-elect". Is that any different than what he did with the verse you quoted?

[Noeb]

As such (fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, perversely effeminate, homosexuals, thieves, covetous, drunkards, revilers, swindlers) WERE some of you; but you were washed...

Are these people getting drunk any more? No. Are they immoral or adulterers or homosexuals? No. Are they stealing or coveting? No. They do not practice the sin that they once did constantly without even thinking.

They may not have been practicing sin (the text does not say) but you need to read it again if you don't think they were sinning.

5 I speak to your shame . Is it so, that there is not a wise man among you? no, not one that shall be able to judge between his brethren? 6 But brother goeth to law with brother, and that before the unbelievers. 7 Now therefore there is utterly a fault among you, because ye go to law one with another. Why do ye not rather take wrong ? why do ye not rather suffer yourselves to be defrauded ? 8 Nay, ye do wrong , and defraud , and that your brethren. 9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived : neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, 10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

Actually, many times Paul is rebuking them to salvation.

I didn't mention many I mentioned Ephessians.

Do you have any verses to support that?

That's what the word means. That's how it historically was used before in other languages and how it was used in Greek literature. That's how it is used still. Again, only the church says one thing can have two natures.

I gave you Eph4:22-24, "lay aside the old sinful man, and put on the new spiritual man. That's two men.

Two concepts, not two people. You know, people say, "the old me would have....". You don't really think you are two people do you? Please tell me you don't think that!

Before, we walked in sin; "we were children of wrath (Hell) same as the rest".

Do you have any verse to support that? No. Ephessians 2 does not. It says they walked and so were.....

1 And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins;

Does that say dead before they walked, or dead because of plural tresspasses and plural sins because of their walk? This is personal sin not unscriptural original sin (singular) that only results in a walk.

2 Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience: 3 Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.

Wherein? In personal tresspasses and sins.
Walking according to, not born in.
Our conversation (lifestyle) in lusts and desires, not born in.
They walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience.
and therefore were chidren of wrath.

Now, we walk in Christ and not in sin; we are "new creations". But what are we if we begin walking in sin again? What, and where are we?

New creatures sinning. You didn't change the nature into a new creature and you can't change it back unless you commit apostasy. God is longsufferring wanting us to repent. You don't just get saved, fall back into sin and lose it. If you lose it you can't get it back, and a lot of believers would no longer be believers if God held your beliefs.

Suppose I go to God and say, "Dear God, forgive me for the man I killed yesterday, and the one I'm gonna kill tomorrow." Will He forgive me?

If you are a believer you are already forgiven, but believers don't run around killing people so your question doesn't make any sense.

"Repentance" is a 180° change in direction, is it NOT doing the same sin day after day.

Actually repentance is a change of mind. Faith in the right thing is what causes the change in direction. If you sin every day and do not want to, you have already changed your mind from before you were saved and wanted to. You keep sinning because your faith is not on the right things. If it was in the faithful saying that you died with him when you were born again and are a new creature that does not have to sin, you wouldn't have to sin. If your faith is in anything else regardless if its christian or not, you will sin. Why, because believing your death with Christ and new birth is walking in the Spirit, truth, and gospel.

We can replace "kill" with "fornicate", or "get-drunk", or any other sin; that which happens repeatedly is "practicing".

believers don't run around doing those things so your question doesn't make any sense.

There was a story of a man who showed up for church --- but only on Christmas and Easter, and no other time. He would stand up and cry, "Oh Lord, fill me with Your Holy Spirit!" But then he'd go right back out and get drunk and steal and see prostitutes. One Easter he showed up again, and once again stood and cried, "Fill me with Your Holy Spirit!" Another member obviously fed-up with the hypocrisy, shouted: "Don't do it, Lord, he LEAKS!"

The fed up member was wrong because the man wasn't ever filled. Besides, filled has nothing to do with whether or not one sins. Your story doesn't make any sense. Filled is for miracles, signs, wonders, preaching, work of the ministry.

Suppose I belonged to a church that offered "confession and forgiveness". Suppose once a month I hired a prostitute; but then I confessed my sin and the person hearing me "forgave my sin". But then in a couple weeks I go out and hire the same prostitute again. Month after month, and year after year it's the same; I feel happy 'cause I know I can keep going to the prostitute, and all I have to do is confess and be forgiven. That's called "practicing-sin", and I would be THINKING that I am (sinningly) saved. Scripture may well contradict that thought, but I'm not really interested in learning it. "Surely a good and loving God will FORGIVE me a few indiscretions".

See, we are talking about two different things. You are talking about what no believer even claims. I'm talking about Romans 7 doing what I do not want to do. Ashame so much time has been spent on a non-issue.

Is forgiveness possible without repentance?

No. You must first change your mind before you turn your faith towards God. You can see that in the gospels and Hebrews 6, the foundation.

If I commit the same sin over and over and over, never stopping the sin, am I "repentant"?

When you are committing the same sin over and over and over, are you wanting to sin?

[keyzer soze]

Well, I am not sure what or why he did. Perhaps he is expounding on the Greek, but I didn't investigate to see. Let me ask you, how is what he did any different than changing the meaning of "world" to mean "elect and some creation but excludes the non-elect". Is that any different than what he did with the verse you quoted?

Having a discussion about what a verse means or a word in a verse means vs. changing the words in a verse and putting them in quotes is totally different IMO. Night and day difference. I am hoping that the changing of words in verses is extremely minimal because I don't often spend the time to verify the verse. I assume that people cut and paste from a site, particularly if someone puts the entire thing in quotes...

[Brother Mark]

Having a discussion about what a verse means or a word in a verse means vs. changing the words in a verse and putting them in quotes is totally different IMO. Night and day difference. I am hoping that the changing of words in verses is extremely minimal because I don't often spend the time to verify the verse. I assume that people cut and paste from a site, particularly if someone puts the entire thing in quotes...

They are the same, unless you want to be legalistic. Both are talking about the meaning of the word. Both are saying "This is what the scriptures is saying".

When we say a word means "X" we are saying you can substitute "X" into the passage and not change the meaning. Now if we do that with quotes, or interpretation or some other means, how is it different? In each case we are trying to make a point.

So, world doesn't mean world. God doesn't change his mind even though scripture says he does. He doesn't love the world even though scripture says he does. And so on. We can change the very word of God with or without quotes.

[keyzer soze]

They are the same, unless you want to be legalistic. Both are talking about the meaning of the word. Both are saying "This is what the scriptures is saying".

When we say a word means "X" we are saying you can substitute "X" into the passage and not change the meaning. Now if we do that with quotes, or interpretation or some other means, how is it different? In each case we are trying to make a point.

So, world doesn't mean world. God doesn't change his mind even though scripture says he does. He doesn't love the world even though scripture says he does. And so on. We can change the very word of God with or without quotes.

what are you talking about? In the case of world everyone knows we are having an open discussion about OPINION of the meaning of the verse. However, if I simply quote scripture and change the words and do not tell anyone that I have done so that is totally different. The verse that was changed was being used to back up a position, so when I read it I just assumed that was the verse. However, it seemed strange to me so I wanted to see it in context so I went looking for it but could not find the exact words and hence asked Gadgeteer what version he uses....

[Brother Mark]

what are you talking about? In the case of world everyone knows we are having an open discussion about OPINION of the meaning of the verse.

They don't make it opinion KS. It is the doctrine of some. How is that any different than what happened above? It's the same exact thing as far as I can tell. It is the doctrine of some that world doesn't mean world. That God doesn't change his mind even though scripture states he does. That Love doesn't love even though scripture states He does.

You tell me, if it is taught as doctrine, is it different than what you pointed out above with the scripture quote? Or is it only different if we are discussing opinion?

How is using an actual quote different than teaching "World doesn't mean world what it means is something less than world" as a doctrinal truth?

However, if I simply quote scripture and change the words and do not tell anyone that I have done so that is totally different.

How is that totally different than making doctrine that changes the meaning of a word?

The verse that was changed was being used to back up a position, so when I read it I just assumed that was the verse.

I understand your frustration in that and I agree.

However, it seemed strange to me so I wanted to see it in context so I went looking for it but could not find the exact words and hence asked Gadgeteer what version he uses....

Not sure what version it was. And I am not sure the Greek word means diligently seek and find so I can't answer for him.

[Gadgeteer]

Do your regularly change scripture and quote it on this forum? Why would you change that verse? I am sorta baffled by this... I always assumed that everyone here cut and pastes from scripture and doesn't change it and pass it off as scripture. Did you change it to change its meaning? If so, what gives you the right? If no, why change the wording? I don't get it...

I don't like it when people change the word either brother.

You missed post 705?

The Greek for "find", is heuriskō. Defined as:

heuriskō:
1) to come upon, hit upon, to meet with
.....a) after searching, to find a thing sought
.....b) without previous search, to find (by chance), to fall in with
.....c) those who come or return to a place
2) to find by enquiry, thought, examination, scrutiny, observation, to find out by practice and experience
.....a) to see, learn, discover, understand
.....b) to be found i.e. to be seen, be present
.....c) to be discovered, recognised, detected, to show one's self out, of one's character or state as found out by others (men, God, or both)
.....d) to get knowledge of, come to know, God
3) to find out for one's self, to acquire, get, obtain, procure

The tense is "present active participle". Few are those who are finding it themselves.

And that is inexorably connected to Jesus' words just a couple breaths before, "he who seeks, finds".

The text was written in Greek, while we converse in modern English. To cite the Greek for a deeper meaning written in the original is not "changing-the-word". Such a charge is baseless and offensive; I stand by what I said, and documented from the Lexicon.

The intent as written is that a person consciously seeks and finds for himself; the point was not that God seeks out a few (they then receive God's seeking), He receives those who seek Him.