The Doctrines of Grace
- Thread starter ElectedbyHim
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Very well! I hope all's well that ends well.
You should have... <smile>
Ah, well, by the same token, you're just as guilty of that as I am; surely you would admit that. The difference is, though, in my case, I've actually been very accurate in... I mean, not "telling you what you believe," but in stating your beliefs, and the implications of them.
<eye roll> A parting shot, I guess... <sigh> As for Calvin, that's all you, too, GodsGrace. Goodness gracious.
I most certainly understand your wild-eyed Arminian You-Tubers. LOL!!!!
Just a couple for you, both of John McArthur... and I certainly wouldn't call John McArthur "wild-eyed"...
Ohhhhh, I doubt it... <smile> But if so, fair enough.
Steering folks away from God's Word.... hmmm....
Well, yes, some of us have more fully embraced "the whole armor of God"... and specifically relevant here "the belt of truth," for sure (Ephesians 6)... <smile> But not doing so fully doesn't disqualify anyone as a Christian. <smile> Nor does it mean we're "smarter," or "better Christians," or anything like that...
But yes, I mean, I'm saying it in a... slightly... <wink wink>... different context than Jesus does in John 3... although really not all that different... "the wind blows where it wishes, and you hear its sound, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes, and so it is with the Spirit" (John 3:8). Yes, Jesus is talking specifically about being born again of the Spirit, there, and once we are born again, we have the Spirit always... but the same is true regarding God's Word; it is the Spirit Who gives true wisdom, knowledge, and discernment (1 Corinthians 2:14, and 1 Corinthians 12:8-9, 11). Even more relevantly, the Holy Spirit is our Helper, and He teaches us all things and brings to our remembrance all that Jesus has said to us (John 14:26).
Grace and peace to you. May God make His face to shine on you, may He lift His countenance to you, and give you peace.
Last edited:
Lambano
Well-Known Member
As a cynic, I have to point out that the Gospel as presented by modern Evangelicalism boils down to, "follow Jesus or you will be tortured for all eternity". I submit to your consideration that Man's natural inclination towards self-preservation and pain avoidance aligns quite well with that message.
Lambano
Well-Known Member
That begs several questions:
1. Humans are taught from childhood to overcome their natural inclinations in order to do what's right. Whether or not they are 100% successful is irrelevant to this argument. How does this work if Man is not able to overcome his natural inclinations?
2. Our natural inclinations of the "flesh" are not instantaneously overcome at regeneration. Why not?
3. Paul attributes Man's inclination to sins of the flesh to "adokiomon noun" (literally, "unfit mind"), see Romans 1:28. Paul sees the "unfit mind" (Clark, that's the gift that keeps on giving") as God's punishment on Man for not "seeing fit" to retain God in his knowledge; see Romans 1:21-23. Where did we get our "natural inclinations"?
4. You invoked the "children of the devil" motif. Who created the devil, and why?
5. As almost any atheist will tell you, Man seems to be naturally inclined to participate in all kinds of religions. What is he seeking? What inclines a pious Muslim to seek Allah?
Last edited:
Hmmm... Well, of course, no one is actually tortured for all eternity... With which you agree, I know. Unless you mean "tortured" in an entirely different sense than what people commonly think of regarding torture. Not having access anymore to something desired... that could have easily had... especially having once had that thing and then having that thing completely taken away or sent away from it, and all hope of having that thing again gone... Now that certainly is a torment... a torture... even in this life, but in eternity infinitely more so.
Hmmmm... self-preservation and pain avoidance... You can understand that in a couple of different ways, too. I know what you mean; nobody wants to die, certainly, or have any pain. But might we all understand self-preservation as a personal selfishness and a pride, too, Lambano? And what if, in this life, even in literal or figurative pain, God has a greater purpose in that for us as Christians? In those cases/senses, respectively, self-preservation is a bad thing, and so is pain avoidance ~ and again, I mean that both literally and figuratively.
These are great questions, Lambano. Really great questions.
1. I was about to answer straight up, but then thought better of it; I think the better thing to do is to ask you, Lambano, do you ask this question with regard to the finite or the infinite? In other words, a.) from a human perspective, or humanistically, or b.) from God's perspective, from a position of godliness, of holiness, from Him as Creator (and don't say we cannot <smile>)? And that should be a very strong indication of my answer... <smile>
2. I could go several different ways in answering this, but I would submit that a triumph after a long personal struggle and even hardship is much greater than instantaneous satisfaction. To illustrate, I'm sure the members of the Chiefs or the Eagles organizations would like to be Super Bowl champions without ever having had to play a single game, but the fact that they will have had to play twenty tough NFL games to do it will make it a great deal sweeter... No?
3. As I've said many times to many people, Adam was the federal head of the human race, and when he disobeyed God and partook of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil...
NOTE: and we should take at least two things from that:
- This "knowledge" was/is not mere cognition but an innate intimacy and even a nature.
- Before the Fall, Adam had only this "knowledge" of good and not evil, but afterward the knowledge of both. Now, of sin, James says if one commits even the smallest sin, it is as if he has broken the entire law, In the same sense, even though one ~ all of us, really ~ may have only a small knowledge of the latter (evil), it is to God as if he is wholly evil... and he is, because even his "good" is tainted with (to put it mildly) evil.
4. Well, in the sense that Jesus did, yes. You're asking something ~ "What is the origin of evil?" ~ that cannot be answered. Even from the beginning... Well, almost; Satan was not mentioned in the days of creation in Genesis 1 and 2, so I would submit that he was not created in the same manner as all the other beasts of the field, and, even from the opening of the scene where Eve is speaking to Satan, the only thing we can really take from that is that he was more crafty. But yeah, there is no way to know what the origin of evil was, or why Satan was in Eden; we cannot know. The only thing we can really say is that God had a purpose in it, with which... I think we would all agree... and I think we at least begin to see that in Romans 9:22-24.
5. You would agree, I think ~ correct me if not ~ that... well, everything God did and does and will do has a purpose. So, just generally speaking, God made man for a purpose. That, then, begs two very closely related questions, and I would submit are properly ordered in this way:
a. Why did God create man?
b. What is man's chief end... or put another way, what is man (originally) made ~ by God, of course ~ to do?
Well the first question is easy; everything God did, does, and will do is for His own glory, of course.
To the second question, if this is why God made man (and it is), then man's glorifying and enjoying God is the fulfillment of God's purpose for each individual man (or woman) ~ and really, what every individual human being, past, present, and future, regardless of his or her preferring this thing or that thing of any kind, what he really wants... what would give him the most pleasure and happiness; it's what he or she was made for. So, all human beings want a god. All human beings want a king. All human beings are naturally religious. Even atheists, despite what they think. This is the answer to your question five. As Paul says, some have exchanged the truth for a lie ~ which implies, unmistakably, that they knew the Truth, but yet still ~ purposely ~ exchanged it for a lie. They worship creation rather than the Creator. So yes, we all naturally are religious, and thus we all naturally want a God, a King, we want someone or something to worship and glorify, and this is why, in answer to your question five, we all, as human beings, naturally seek that at least some kind of god. The question then becomes, will we make for ourselves a god to worship? Or will we worship the One True God?
And I'll even add this... <smile>... We all were like that at one time; Paul says in Ephesians 2, even of us as born-again Christians, that we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind, but God.... This is God's amazing grace.
Great questions indeed.
Grace and peace to you, Lambano.
Last edited:
Lambano
Well-Known Member
As commonly proclaimed in Evangelicalism, Hell/Gehenna/The Lake of Fire is portrayed (with some biblical support) as a place of fiery torment for all of eternity for the non-elect. Do you agree with this portrayal?
I don't agree with this statement at all. Especially your use of "non-elect." You use this term as if it were a reference to salvation. Here is an answer with Got Questions: Simply put, the doctrine of election is that God chooses/determines/elects/predestines who will be saved.
Just to justify the above statement, think of this. The nation of Israel was an elect nation, but this had nothing to do with salvation. Many Jews were elected but were not saved, unless you wont to argue that every single Jews was saved, a most preposterous speculation. Also, according to GJohn 6, Judas was one of the elect. Was he a believer?
Election has nothing to do with salvation. To be an elect you have to be given a privileged position in God's plan. It does not ipso facto mean that the person is saved, rather it means that the elect is chosen to serve in a privileged position, and God predestines the plan not the people. That is why we are chosen/elected to a privileged position once we are "in him." We are not chosen "outside of him." This is called Positional Truth.
As a final task, try to find one instance in the OT where elect equals saved.
Lambano
Well-Known Member
I agree, but the misconception about what biblical "election" is, that's a separate issue. And it drives me nuts when people misread Romans 9-11 with that misconception in mind and miss what Paul is really talking about (i.e. has "God unelected His people?"; see Romans 11:1)
My understanding of Reformed doctrine is that when they talk about (unconditional) "election" they are referring to God's choice to save some (but not all) of sinful Mankind, and which individuals whom He chooses to save. This is pretty much what your Got Answers link says too. If God chooses whom He will save, then He is also choosing whom He will not save. Basic Set Theory. But I should let our Reformed brothers and sisters speak for themselves. @PinSeeker, you want to take this one?
Last edited:
Well, it depends on what you mean by this "lake of fire" and "fiery torment"... what one understands those things to be. Which I alluded to above, at least the "fiery torment." Ahhhh, Revelation 20... it causes so many so much... consternation... But that too cannot be pinned on God, of course.
Okay, so, tell me what you think is the misconception and the correct reading of Romans 9-11... and what Paul is really talking about. I'll just say going into it that I think it's going to boil down to who God's people really are... who His Israel really always has been, is, and always will be. But I'd like to hear your answer on that. One thing, though:
The word there is 'rejected,' which indicates a never having elected, rather than an electing and subsequent unelecting. Paul goes on to say in verse 6, "Israel failed to obtain what it was seeking. The elect obtained it, but the rest were hardened," which hearkens back to what he said in Romans 9:6, that "not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel," which hearkens back also to what he said in Romans 2:28-29, that "no one is a Jew who is merely one outwardly, nor is circumcision outward and physical, (b)ut a Jew is one inwardly, and circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter. His praise is not from man but from God." So here I'm really getting directly to what you're alluding to ~ or possibly mis-alluding to ~ regarding whatever you mean by the "misconception" above.
Sure. Yes, we can say this about anyone, even God, that, if presented with... well, two things, if we choose ~ elect to do ~ one thing and not the other, then even by not choosing the other, we are effectively making a choice ~ by exclusion. Now, I humbly ask you to... not stop reading here... <smile> But if you do, that's... your choice. <smile>
In the case of God and His purpose of election, He says (quoted by both Moses and Paul), "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, compassion on whom I have compassion." Just from that statement, we know, unmistakably, that, well, God doesn't give this mercy to all, and also that He chooses who He will give this mercy/compassion to.
Really, it boils down to whether one is going to be repulsed by God doing what He chooses to do and/or by exclusion chooses not to do, but whether we are repulsed or not really is of no consequence, because He's going to do what He chooses to do ~ and for His own glory ~ whether any of us likes it... or thinks it's just of Him to do that... or not. <smile> God is God, and we are not. <smile> As Paul says, who are we to answer back to God? Do we, creatures that we are, have the audacity to question the Creator and ask, "Why have you made me like this?”
And again, as can easily be seen by what Paul says earlier in that letter to the Romans (chapter 1), yes, we can call it a passive choice, and therefore a passive predestination, but regarding those He does not give this mercy and compassion to, He gives them up to their own selfish passions ~ in a very real sense He gives what they want, even what they choose. even what they have chosen for themselves. Still, the only active predestination on God's part is of His elect.
Everybody gets exactly as they choose. It's just that the choice of some ~ God's elect, those whom He has chosen for Himself, according to His own glory ~ changes, and freely so, because of God's mercy and compassion, which is given to these, and not to others, in which He "takes out the heart of stone and gives the heart of flesh," as Ezekiel says... actually as God says through Ezekiel... thereby putting a new spirit within us, even giving us His Holy Spirit.
Again, like it or not, He can give mercy/compassion, out of His grace ~ unmerited favor ~ to those to whom He chooses to do so... dependent only on His will and not ours. This is not to say that any of us don't have free will, but only that our being one of His elect or not is dependent first on His will... and mercy/grace. As Paul says, "it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, Who has mercy" (Romans 9:16).
Grace and peace to you both.
BreadOfLife
Well-Known Member
- Jan 2, 2017
- 21,653
- 3,590
- 113
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- United States
And the Bible itself doesn’t say that everything is found in the Bible. Sola Scriptura is fundamentally untenable.
Jesus left His CHUTCH to be His mouthpiece (Matt. 16:18, Matt. 18:15-18, Luke 10:16, John 16:12-15, John 20:21-23)
NOT true.
And it’s not up to YOU to say what goes and what doesn’t.
Jesus gave us a Church to make those decisions (Matt. 16:18-19, Matt. 18:15-18, Luke 10:16, John 20:16:12-15)).
Absolutely.
Those in Heaven have been made PERFECT. Their wills are in PERFECT line with God’s
We can forgive sins/trespasses against US.
We can’t forgive sins among others.
The Trinity is NOT explicitly explained in the NT.
It is an implicit teaching - as is the Hypostatic Union.
And it took the God-given Authority of the Catholic Church to declare it . . .
The Church cannot look like it did in the first few centuries. As anything else – it grew from the acord into the oak – the mustard seed into the largest of plants (Matt. 13:32).
Jesus guaranteed that His Church would NEVER succumb.
Either you believe that as truth – or you reject it as a lie . . .
My point is - if you measure it by the false Protestant doctrine of Sola Scriptura – it fails.
It is NOT mentioned in Scripture.
Agreed.
That was a typo on my part.
I was talking about Rev. 5:8.
The people of God are His Church.
Poor guy was confused . . .
Hmmmm, where so start . . .
First of all – Augustine didn’t “change: the meaning of Original Sin. He just explained it in a unique way. You can’t change a truth.
As for Calvinists – they fail to realize that Augustine’s journey was a LONG one. They adhere to his early writings when he was still early on in his journey. If they were serious – they wouldn‘t stick on ONE ECF – when 99% of the others weren’t teaching thing like Eternal Security.
The only thing holding you back – is you . . .
As for Francis – I’m NOT crazy about him, either. However – I’m NOT going to abandon Jesus for Francis.
There have been bad Popes in the past – and there will be bad ones in the future. God can and DOES work His will through ALL of them.
Note this in Rom 11.32
For God has bound everyone over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all.
Sure. He may, in the sense that He can have mercy on all, but... He doesn't... He has mercy on whom He will have mercy. The word 'may,' there, KUWN, indicates discretion. He can have mercy on all, but does not... and that according to His will, of course. And as for the "everyone," it is unmistakably indicative of the natural human condition.
Grace and peace to you.
Last edited:
Agreed.
Besides the fact that there is NO AGREEMENT in Protestantism.
Every denomination has its own truth.
Since there's more than one truth...
there is NO truth.
Agreed.
He did intend to build a church. I mean a brick and mortar church AND an invisible church too.
I know. But this is how I am.
I said: I wish I could be different.
I have a few born again Catholic friends (everyone here is Catholic) and they accept what the church teaches.
This has to be accepted...it's the new dogma I have a problem with.
Oh well.
I know Bread. But this is not what we're discussing here.
But I'd like to stop.
Exactly! Jesus gave the Apostles the authority to forgive the sins of others...this is what I meant.
Right. It had to be developed.
BUT it started with the writings in the NT.
I've stated this many times to my Protestant friends.
Even history can't be accepted.
By change I mean doctrinal change.
I don't care to discuss this any further..it's damaging.
It's the truth....and the gates of hell will not prevail.
And they haven't.
It's truly a miracle.
Not only is it not mentioned in scripture...
it doesn't even FUNCTION.
If it did...we'd all be under one umbrella, believing the same doctrines.
No. I knew you meant Rev. 5:8 it was MY typo.
Not going there unless you really want to.
But I tried when I had just come back here and I couldn't explain to you the difference,
so no use trying again.
Right.
Can't change my brain.
Wow! Why would you!
Many really dislike this pope and yet remain in the church.
HE should be leaving...not the laity.
Amen to that.
He's appointed many cardinals...we'll see what happens.
Ronald David Bruno
Well-Known Member
I am not a Calvinist, but I do not think they are heretics, just have what seems to me to be a narrow view. In that I mean compared to the view that God has.
I wouldn't say mine is iron clad. It just appears to me that Calvin put God in a box, well sort of ... a theology that resides within a simplistic acronym. The words have this finite meaning that are really trying to describe something infinitely profound; yet he seems to want to expand their meaning to encompass God's plan and purpose for man. I think Calvin's acronym ( if it is his) is flawed. It is high minded, presumptuous, cold and simplistic ( as to reduce the sovereignty of God into a cute flowery acronym). Actually to be able to summarize something of this magnitude, one would have to be omniscient.
Man's attempt, however scholarly, is elementary if not guided by the Holy Spirit. And why would He guide Calvin to construct TULIP? The Holy Spirit brings truth of scripture that is sufficient _only what Jesus taught.
Totally Depraved means immoral and wicked, really without any goodness. But Calvin redefines it. Sure, the Bible says "we are all like dirty rags" spiritually, but we are not void of goodness. How can I say that? Because we do have God guiding us and we, thoughout the history of man, have lived under His principles that have permeated civilizations, transforming them. We have been learning how to discern from good and evil. And so we are not totally depraved.
Totally unable to save ourselves, regenerate? Sure but a different word or phrase is needed ... spiritually dead and unequipped, in need of God's help - absolutely.
The world before Noah may have been totally depraved; but still, some were not. Was Enoch totally depraved? No, he walked with God and was taken up.
Then Irresistible Grace to Calvin requires also a redefinition of grace, split into common grace and effectual grace. Ah well, let me get on with it.
The often Calvinesque flare has a touch of arrogance, pride and is often absent compassion: "Come to Me all you totally depraved dirty rags, who do not want to burn, for I will save you from the fire ..."
There is a tension between the spiritual and physical realms and just how things play out are mysterious to us, above our knowledge and mental capacity. So it is with this apparent paradox that we bump up against and take opposition to TULIP.
God draws all men to Himself but many resist! He grieved when He destroyed the world with the flood, but it had to be that way - for our sake. Prophetic scripture states that many will be lost and hence judged and destroyed. What else can we conclude other than He did not predestine those to be saved?
Okay, here we go.
Totally depraved"? Well, man left to himself is, but we aren't are we? GOD is the author of our faith AND He is also working in everyone's life.
God's principles have permeated throughout the world since the Flood.
And Jesus has changed the world. We have God, some of us do, so why imply the harsh negative, that is not the Gospel way. Sin needs to be addressed.
I just think the acronym is high minded, the implications are beyond what we can know - God's foreknowledge for instance.
God simplified His plan for us by giving us the whole Bible. His foreknowledge is far beyond what we were given.
It's sort of cold too. Calvinists are judgmental, pointing their holy fingers at everyone. I think they are like Ephesus.
There is a tension between the two realms and just how things play out are mysterious to us.
We know in part!
There is this apparent paradox that we bump up against when examing these five points; and so we take sides. Btw, I don't, I am not an Arminian either - don't entertain that dispute.
Unconditional Election? Maybe, but that is in the realm of God's foreknowledge, His omniscience and should be left alone.
From our perspective God says if you do this, this will happen or I will grant you that. We are supposed to believe that our cooperation is essential to how things turn out - even though we cannot mess up His plan, He still wants us to feel like we have achieved something to get the " Well done good and faithful servant"!
Isn't believing "in Christ" a condition? Jesus is the AUTHOR and FINISHER of our faith, so that should settle the matter. But still, we are participants, thinking that our choices in life matter. They do, life is filled with them. So how do we sort out God's power and ours?
God desires that all to come to Him --- but not all do.
Wait a minute, God desires something that can't be done ... that He is unable to accomplish??? That must be true. He grieved when He destroyed the world with the flood, but it had to be - for our sake. Prophetic scripture states that many will be lost and hence judged and destroyed. What else can we conclude other than He did not predestine those to be saved?
Forrest Gump may have had a point, maybe one to add to TULIP? He posed if our destiny was fixed or do we make our own destiny? He said, "I think both are going on at the same time."
Is our fate fixed? The Christian's perspective says, yes we hope that it's fixed ... God promised eternal life- if we believe in Christ.
I used to say the signifant things our part of His plan. The forks in the road, the people in your life, the life altering experiences; but not the small stuff. But beware, what we think is small stuff, may not be. Our view of the small stuff may amount to a big deal.
Example: You want to go for a ride with the guys to the beach, but your Dad tells you you must do your chores and homework! Is that small stuff? Not when the boys that day happen to drink and wrapped the car around a telephone pole and all died. The following year, you became a Christian. If you are predestined to be saved, God obviously must keep you alive until then, which means everyday He and His angels are watching over you keeping you from a dealt incident. What about those boys who died? Were they Christians, did they have faith?
Limited Atonement? Predestination is true; but why present it as though Jesus sacrificial death was limited, not powerful enough to cover all sin? It is. Limited atonement, is technically _ at the end of time _ true _ (that not all will make it so, the blood will not be applied to all); but this should not be a theme and an evangelical tool to hit everyone over the head with as they spread the love of the Gospel.
Irresistible Grace? Wait a minute, for that to work, he had to divide grace into two categories: common grace and effectual grace. What? Grace is grace, it is God's unmerited favor. It is offered to all but some resist it. Romans 1 says, " man is without excuse". If some were predestined to die ( made for dishonor - which I believe), then that would be their excuse, "You made me this way, how could I do otherwise"? See the paradox, the tension.
Jesus said, “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were not willing” Matthew 23:37-39.
They resisted His Grace over and over again.
Perseverance of the Saints? Now, here we have something positive, a real actual scripture quote. (Phil.1:6 & 2:13) It is a fact, those who are born again will do the Lord's work and persevere til the end.
Last edited:
The hINA + the Subjunctive has several uses, but mostly to express result or purpose, and it substitutes for the future tense. I presume your are not a serious Greek student. Not sure where you got the idea of "may" indicates discretion. And your rendition "He can have mercy on, but does not..." There is no basic for this translation; it has no has no grammatical support.
The corrected translation is:
For God has consigned all people to disobedience (we are all sinners) for the purpose of showing mercy to all those that he consigned to disobedience.
Being consigned to disobedience immediately qualifies all people to be recipients of God's grace and mercy.
I agree concerning the expression of a result of purpose, of course, and that it substitutes for the future tense. But what is being expressed by Paul here is, regarding any individual even in the past and from then going forward, the universal possibility for all of receiving God's salvific mercy, but only at His discretion ~ in each individual case depending on God's giving this mercy or not. And remember, Paul has just said a few sentences earlier (in Romans 8:29-30), "for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose... For those whom he foreknew He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers... And those whom He predestined He also called, and those whom He called He also justified, and those whom He justified He also glorified." Note the use of 'those' in all these instances, KUWN. Paul is irrefutably referring to a limited group, and not all.
That's 'you're.' You presume... wrongly. <smile> But you don't have to be a terribly serious Koine Greek student to get what Paul is saying here... <smile>
LOL! I may do this, or I may do that, tomorrow, but... I'll cross that bridge when I get there... LOL! Or, hey, I have limits set for my son regarding how much he can game per day, but he's been a good boy lately, and I may give him some more time... you know, just because I love him... <smile> ...and I... well, I don't have to, but I can... <smile>
Hmmm... <smile> If God purposed to give this salvific mercy to all, He could certainly do that. God is God.
You're welcome to your opinion. And I respect it, actually. But wrong it is. As I was saying to Lambano above, not everyone is elect, KUWN. If they were, universalism would be true. But it is not.
No, it's not, KUWN. Your statement here is a statement of universalism, and therefore terribly wrong. "Corrected" by whom, I wonder (a bit) <chuckles>... But now if you were to change the 'for' phrase to "for the purpose of showing mercy to those whom He chooses to give this salvific mercy to, who therefore are His elect," then I will agree with you, but only then. I mean that's exactly what Paul is saying. It's really not that hard... <smile>
The better way to say that is... <smile>... surely, all are consigned to disobedience, so all are unqualified. God would have been perfectly just to leave everyone to themselves, consigned to disobedience, and no one would be saved. "We have all gone astray, each to his own way"... "There is no one righteous, no, not one..." "All have fallen short of the glory of God..." We are all ~ from conception ~ "by nature children of wrath." "But God, being rich in mercy..." (Ephesians 2:4 and following).
Grace and peace to you.
Lambano
Well-Known Member
The question on Paul's heart in Romans 9-11 is stated directly in Romans 11:1 is, "God hasn't unelected His people, has He?"
And right there is exactly what I'm talking about. The key phrase is "rejected HIS PEOPLE".
6 For you are a people holy to the Lord your God. The Lord your God has chosen you out of all the peoples on the face of the earth to be his people, his treasured possession.
God chose a people to be His people before the rest of the world. "God's people" may have been redefined around Messiah, but THAT is what "election" is. And in Romans 9-11, Paul is concerned that Israel has lost the one thing that defines her identity. If you don't understand that, if you start pulling 9:13 and 9:18 and such out of that context, you'll completely miss what Paul is talking about, Romans 11:28-29 ("As far as the gospel is concerned, they are enemies for your sake; but as far as election is concerned, they are loved on account of the patriarchs, for God’s gifts and his call are irrevocable") won't make a lick of sense (though many pull verse 29 out of that context to support perseverance of the saints) and in fact the whole section is incoherent.
And right there is exactly what I'm talking about. The key phrase is "rejected HIS PEOPLE".
6 For you are a people holy to the Lord your God. The Lord your God has chosen you out of all the peoples on the face of the earth to be his people, his treasured possession.
God chose a people to be His people before the rest of the world. "God's people" may have been redefined around Messiah, but THAT is what "election" is. And in Romans 9-11, Paul is concerned that Israel has lost the one thing that defines her identity. If you don't understand that, if you start pulling 9:13 and 9:18 and such out of that context, you'll completely miss what Paul is talking about, Romans 11:28-29 ("As far as the gospel is concerned, they are enemies for your sake; but as far as election is concerned, they are loved on account of the patriarchs, for God’s gifts and his call are irrevocable") won't make a lick of sense (though many pull verse 29 out of that context to support perseverance of the saints) and in fact the whole section is incoherent.
Last edited:
Lambano
Well-Known Member
The Baptists whose altar call I answered certainly had a literal understanding of that fire. If you took a poll, how many on this board would express belief in eternal conscious torment?
I take it you do not hold to a literal fire and eternal torment?
So much posting by Calvinists of Romans 9.
It's all they've got.
And when I try to post re this...they disappear.
I even will post written articles and YouTube links showing that ONLY the reformed interpret
Romans 9 as they do. It's good for those reading along who may be interested...but I never hear
from the reformed again.
Or, they might link something from MacArthur maybe.
Funny....they link a Calvinist .... guess they like to prove that only Calvinists believe Romans 9 as they do!
But look....Romans 9:30-33 kills any belief they may have of the understanding of earlier verses:
Israel’s Unbelief
30 What then shall we say? That the Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained it, a righteousness that is by faith;31 but the people of Israel, who pursued the law as the way of righteousness, have not attained their goal.
32 Why not? Because they pursued it not by faith but as if it were by works. They stumbled over the stumbling stone.
33 As it is written: “See, I lay in Zion a stone that causes people to stumble and a rock that makes them fall, and the one who believes in him will never be put to shame.”
It's clearly stated WHAT causes one's salvation:
FAITH
BECAUSE THEY PERSUED IT NOT BY FAITH....
It's FAITH that saves a person... Persuing righteousness BY FAITH.
NOT God's predestinating a person to life or damnation.
So easy to see when those Calvinist colored glasses are removed from the eyes.
Okay I'm going to split this up, because this is important...
In the same vein, many short-change ~ inadvertent as it may be ~ the idea of a "lesser" and a "greater" from the Old Testament to the New, if they even recognize it at all. There is a lesser and greater David: David himself the former, and Jesus the latter. In this way, David was a type/shadow of the true King of Israel to come, Jesus. And this is what I'm finally getting at, is that there is a lesser and a greater Israel, the commonwealth of Israel being the lesser Israel and all of God's true Israel ~ all the Jews of God's Israel, regardless of ethnicity, Jews inwardly, circumcised in the heart by the Spirit... all those in Christ. And this was the case even from the beginning, really, since Adam and from Abraham on up (by faith, Abraham..." [Hebrews 13]). You see? I mean, the writer of Hebrews begins by saying, to all of God's Israel, regardless of ethnicity, "Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days He has spoken to us by His Son, Whom He appointed the heir of all things, through Whom also He created the world" (Hebrews 1:1-2). We are all one in Christ Jesus (Romans 12:5; Galatians 3:28). You see? As Paul says to the Gentiles at the end of Ephesians 2:11-22...
Grace and peace to you, Lambano.
Disagree. In the last verse of chapter 10 ~ immediately prior to 11:1 ~ Paul quotes Isaiah, who is quoting God in saying, "All day long I have held out my hands to a disobedient and contrary people" (from Isaiah 65:2). So, in Romans 11:1, 'rejected' ~ which is the actual word Paul uses there ~ is not synonymous with "un-elected." It should be understood in the sense of a disqualification, not a revoking of an election, which would then be a contradiction to verse 29, thus making the gifts and the calling of God are revocable rather than irrevocable. And the only one ~ One, actually ~ who could possibly revoke anything given is the giver or caller ~ Giver, Caller, in this case, so this irrevocable-ness is referring to God Himself. And in this way, it is absolutely in the same vein as what this same Paul says in 2 Corinthians 1:20, that "...all the promises of God find their Yes in Him..." (Christ Jesus, of course) "...That is why it is through Him..." (Christ Jesus, of course) "...that we utter our Amen to God for His glory."
Lambano, this is an excellent point, but it is precisely why I asked you a few posts ago ~ and you seem to have ignored it for some reason, or perhaps you didn't see it, so I'll ask you again ~ who are His people? Who is Israel? Who does God's Israel really consist of? Who are the true Jews of God? Now, that's four questions, yes, but it's really one question. And in answering it, remember first the following from this same Paul, in this same letter to the Romans:
- "For no one is a Jew who is merely one outwardly, nor is circumcision outward and physical. But a Jew is one inwardly, and circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter. His praise is not from man but from God" (Romans 2:28-29)
- "But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel, and not all are children of Abraham because they are his offspring, but 'Through Isaac shall your offspring be named.' This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring'" (Romans 9:6-8). In saying, "through Isaac shall your offspring be named" Paul is directly quoting Moses, who is directly quoting God Himself, in Genesis 21:12. Therefore, "children of the promise" is synonymous with "the elect of God").
- "Lest you be wise in your own sight, I do not want you to be unaware of this mystery, brothers: a partial hardening has come upon Israel, until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in. And in this way all Israel will be saved, as it is written, 'The Deliverer will come from Zion, He will banish ungodliness from Jacob' (from Isaiah 59:20); 'and this will be my covenant with them when I take away their sins' (from Isaiah 27:9)” (Romans 11:25-26).
In the same vein, many short-change ~ inadvertent as it may be ~ the idea of a "lesser" and a "greater" from the Old Testament to the New, if they even recognize it at all. There is a lesser and greater David: David himself the former, and Jesus the latter. In this way, David was a type/shadow of the true King of Israel to come, Jesus. And this is what I'm finally getting at, is that there is a lesser and a greater Israel, the commonwealth of Israel being the lesser Israel and all of God's true Israel ~ all the Jews of God's Israel, regardless of ethnicity, Jews inwardly, circumcised in the heart by the Spirit... all those in Christ. And this was the case even from the beginning, really, since Adam and from Abraham on up (by faith, Abraham..." [Hebrews 13]). You see? I mean, the writer of Hebrews begins by saying, to all of God's Israel, regardless of ethnicity, "Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days He has spoken to us by His Son, Whom He appointed the heir of all things, through Whom also He created the world" (Hebrews 1:1-2). We are all one in Christ Jesus (Romans 12:5; Galatians 3:28). You see? As Paul says to the Gentiles at the end of Ephesians 2:11-22...
- "Therefore remember that at one time you Gentiles in the flesh, called 'the uncircumcision' by what is called the circumcision, which is made in the flesh by hands ~ remember that you were at that time separated from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. For He Himself is our peace, who has made us both one and has broken down in His flesh the dividing wall of hostility by abolishing the law of commandments expressed in ordinances, that He might create in Himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace, and might reconcile us both to God in one body through the cross, thereby killing the hostility. And He came and preached peace to you who were far off and peace to those who were near. For through Him we both have access in one Spirit to the Father. So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God,.." (the household of God... this is greater Israel, God's Israel) "...built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the cornerstone, in Whom the whole structure, being joined together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord. In Him you also are being built together into a dwelling place for God by the Spirit."
Grace and peace to you, Lambano.
Last edited:
Similar threads
- Locked
