AVBunyan has had enough - Goodbye

[AVBunyan]

Hi folks – as you are reading this a PM has been sent to one of the mods requesting my account be deleted for 2 reasons:

1. My threads and posts do nothing to edify this forum - they just stir it up.

2. I’ve have left before and always come back so since I lack the discipline to stay away on my own I have requested them to delete my account so I won’t be tempted to come back and bang my head against the wall anymore. :

Some of you may think it is because I cannot answer your “lose it†verses or just can’t take the heat, or whatever – matters not what some of you think here on this matter. I’ve got to redeem the time God has given me and â€Âposting†is not redeeming the time for me – may be for you, but not for me.

God bless

 

[cyberjosh]

I've partly become exhausted of these boards as well, thus why I do not frequent as often, but when I do, I do so to try to discuss important doctrinal points. I'm sorry you and I disagree but it is hard to relate when one holds almost polar-opposite views from yourself. I try to make discussions deep & technical, however its hard to go into forensics sometimes without hitting touchy subjects. Perhaps I should have laid back on my sarcasm in our other discussions but when I think something is contrary to the word of God and rather a man made doctrine.... the man made doctrine annoys me - thus why I am sarcastic.

Go in peace and I hope God will settle your heart as He is settling mine. Just please don't be legalistic about doctrines, that's my greatest pet pieve.

God Bless,

~Josh

 

[unred typo]

I can’t say I’m surprised. AV’s answers to other’s posts were taking on an beleaguered tone as if he had too much to deal with. I don’t believe his position is easily defended if anyone reads more than sweetened, condensed canned theology of reconstituted verse fragments.

I agree his posts did stir up the forum but I don’t think that is a bad thing to do when people get complacent. His ‘pot calling the kettle black’ tactics and only dealing with certain parts of posts (while ignoring anything that solidly proved him wrong ) will not be missed however.

I also agree that his time would be better spent living out his faith and redeeming the time. No one should try to live out the Christian life online. We all need a break from time to time to devote ourselves to real life ministries.

I’ll pray for continued healing of his wrist injury and for healing of his wounded spirit and soul.

If you can read this, AV, no hard feelings...

 

[Heidi]

Hi folks – as you are reading this a PM has been sent to one of the mods requesting my account be deleted for 2 reasons:

1. My threads and posts do nothing to edify this forum - they just stir it up.

2. I’ve have left before and always come back so since I lack the discipline to stay away on my own I have requested them to delete my account so I won’t be tempted to come back and bang my head against the wall anymore. :

Some of you may think it is because I cannot answer your “lose it†verses or just can’t take the heat, or whatever – matters not what some of you think here on this matter. I’ve got to redeem the time God has given me and â€Âposting†is not redeeming the time for me – may be for you, but not for me.

God bless

I totally understand your frustration, Av. You are correct that we can't lose our salvation. But you have to remember that those people without the Spirit cannot believe Jesus as 1 Corinthians 2:14 explains. They will argue with him every chance they get because as Jesus tells us, we are either sons of God through the Spirit or children of the devil without the Spirit. So you will never convince everyone. And those who are born again of the Holy Spirit will agree with you and Jesus anyway, so you don't have to convince us. But you have done a lot to try to give people faith, not increase their doubt they are saved like the devil does. So all we are called to do is tell the truth, which you have done, and God does the rest.

 

[Drew]

But you have to remember that those people without the Spirit cannot believe Jesus as 1 Corinthians 2:14 explains.

This is precisely the way these interactions should not be formulated. This kind of thinking implicitly says "let's not grapple with the complexities of the texts and critically examine our own position, let's claim our position as correct and turn the debate from one of textual interpretation to one of questioning the salvation and / or integrity of our opponent".

I can empathize that AVB was defending his position against many adversaries. In these discussions, I think the following things should be borne in mind:

1. Even though we all (probably) agree that the Scriptures are the word of God and are therefore authoritative, any one of us can be deeply mistaken about what they mean. We are not inerrant, even if the Scriptures are.

2. We all need to ask whether we have come to a position where we "seek to be seen as being in the right" as importantly distinguished from a stance where we seek the truth, regardless of whether this upsets a previously held belief of ours. Usually, one can discern when a participant has "crossed the line" and is in a place where it does not really matter what counter-arguments are presented, the position that he holds must prevail (because it is his position). I would politely suggest (to any poster) that if you have not changed your mind about any points of doctrine over the years, you may have this problem. It is unlikely that any one of us will "get it all right" at the very beginning of our walk.

3. I empathize with being in the position of having an effective counterargument cut down a position that I previously held. It does indeed involve hurt feelings, no matter how hard one tries to rise above such things. As a person who has, in these very forums, "changed positions", I would encourage others to consider the benefits of "having the truth" even at the expense of coming to realize that one's pursuit of doctrinal truth is likely to entail being repeatedly shown to be in the wrong.

AVB, if you read this: I truly do intend to grapple with the texts you had provided in this thread. I hope that I am not being too self-promoting when I say that I am fully committed to working out a position that "works" with all the relevant scriptural material, not just the ones that are comfortable for me. You may not believe this, but my "default position" was the OSAS one. I have become convinced that I was wrong based on Scriptural arguments. But the last chapter is not written yet - who knows what I will say in 10 years, if God spares me.

 

[stranger]

Farewell AV!

 

[mondar]

AVBunyan, if you are still reading any of this thread, I would like to say a few things to you personally. I say these things not as one who has mastered these things in my own life, and so excuse some of my hypocracy in saying things where I too fail.

AVBunyan, apologetics is a demanding and difficult field. If I can suggest that your frustration comes from not deeply understanding the power of original sin, or sin nature. I would remind you that this forum is not to be seen as a "christian" forum. It is apologetics. It is the "world."

I have seen you write, and know you have some ability (certainly you are not infallible) to distinguish between those of the true faith, and those who hold heretical positions and are the false teachers mentioned in the NT. I would remind you that God, through the apostle Paul, long ago spoke how we should expect them to suppress the truth. See Roman 1:18.
Rom 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hinder the truth in unrighteousness;
The word in the NAS that is translated "hinder" is in the KJV "hold" or hold down. It is the greek word καÄεÇÌνÄÉν. This refers to an active suppression of the truth. They not only suppress the truth, but in Romans 1:25 we see that they will change the truth into a lie. The ancient cultures had their false religions, we have our false teachers today. False teachers today might be more into sophistry, but they are still false teachers.

You will always face those who hate the truth, who will suppress the truth, who change the truth. I do not see our job as convincing them of the truth, that is the job of the sovereign Holy Spirit. Our job is merely presenting the truth is the clearest manner we are able. The Holy Spirit might choose to convince them, but he might sovereignty be allowing them to deny him so that he might judge them later by "giving them up" (Rm 1:24, 26, 28) to their own sins.

I do not pretend to know which individual the HS is working to convince. John 3:8 informs us that the HS is totally sovereign, and he chooses where the winds of salvation will blow.
Joh 3:8 The wind bloweth where it will, and thou hearest the voice thereof, but knowest not whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit. I do know this, that no matter how great our apologetics might be, the natural man cannot receive it. 2 Cor 2:14 is clear that the natural man cannot receive the things of the Spirit of God.
1Co 2:14 Now the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him; and he cannot know them, because they are spiritually judged.

Remember, false teachers are some of the most hardened people to deal with. Satan has truly blinded their eyes. When you take upon yourself the task of apologetics, you take upon yourself a task that is not even remotely humanly possible, that is the task of convincing men to believe, men that have no ability to believe. Men who are hardened in their unbelief. The fact of their inability is meaningless because again.... our responsibility is not to convince them, but merely to present the truth. Yes, the stubborn unbelief of those hardened is discouraging, but you cannot be cast down.

I am sure that God will work with you. If this BB is not the place for you to defend the faith, there is no wrong in that. I am sure that God will find a place for you, for your God and my God is full of grace. Last, let me leave you with the charge in Jude 3
Jud 1:3 Beloved, while I was giving all diligence to write unto you of our common salvation, I was constrained to write unto you exhorting you to contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered unto the saints

Please understand this post as what Jude 3 says "ÀαÃÂακαλÉν"... a friendly exhortation in which I am not better then you, but hope merely to come along side you as your brother and equal. The brotherhood is to εÀαγÉνιζŽÂµÃƒÎ¸Î±Î¹---(aorist infinitival form ----to contend).

Mondar

 

[Drew]

I have seen you write, and know you have some ability (certainly you are not infallible) to distinguish between those of the true faith, and those who hold heretical positions and are the false teachers mentioned in the NT. I would remind you that God, through the apostle Paul, long ago spoke how we should expect them to suppress the truth. See Roman 1:18.
Rom 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hinder the truth in unrighteousness;

....You will always face those who hate the truth, who will suppress the truth, who change the truth.

It has been my experience that, almost without exception, those who promote a Calvinist position resort to the strategy you deploy when the force of the argument goes against them. I will not name names but the trend is clear. This is not to say that the "non-Calvinists" among us are without blemish. But, I would wager a pint of ale that this kind of holier than thou condescension is more common among the "Calvinists".

And, in a sense, this does not really surprise me. When one comes to believe that one is "elect to heaven" from the foundation of time and the other guy is equally "elect to damnation", one cannot help but see the world as comprised of a good "us" and a wicked "them", notwithstanding the protestations to the contrary that I am certain you will mount. Such a worldview easily legitimizes the position that one does not need to stoutly defend one's view, but rather that , simply by virtue of one's election, one has special access to the truth and need worry about the very difficult and humble task of actually mounting a credible argument.

It is simply too easy to declare your opponents to be "haters of the truth". Let the content of the arguments (pro and con) decide the matter. When one starts to think of the other person as a "hater of the truth", when this really has not legitimately been established, one lowers the level of discourse significantly.

It is true, I think, that some posters were a little harsh with AVB. But he was harsh as well at times (as are almost all of us). But it is never constructive to couch these debates in terms of a "faithful we" and a "truth-hating them".

 

[mondar]

I have seen you write, and know you have some ability (certainly you are not infallible) to distinguish between those of the true faith, and those who hold heretical positions and are the false teachers mentioned in the NT. I would remind you that God, through the apostle Paul, long ago spoke how we should expect them to suppress the truth. See Roman 1:18.
Rom 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hinder the truth in unrighteousness;

....You will always face those who hate the truth, who will suppress the truth, who change the truth.

It has been my experience that, almost without exception, those who promote a Calvinist position resort to the strategy you deploy when the force of the argument goes against them.

I guess this thread is not anything but a personal issue, lets rock on.

So I am a Calvinst that the argument has gone against me? Can you point out where this might have occured? Or is this just some mud you like slinging against Calvinists. Have you ever listened to Calvinist/Arminian public moderated professional debates?

Interestly enough there is a debate thread on this BB. Since Calvinists are so whimpy maybe you and me could have a debate thread on election and predestination. Drew, consider this a formal challenge to debate me one on one in the debate thread on the "biblical teaching on election and predestination."

You seem happy to make these huge blanket statements yourself, "those Calvinists..." aren't all those Calvinsts soooo self righteous."

Your right about one thing, I do think Calvinists are better at something. Its called biblical exegesis. I find most non-calvinists to be extremely poor at contextual biblical exegesis. It is the strenght of Calvinism. I find most non-calvinists like drew to resort to the same thing when they see verses, they ignore them and make personal attacks.

I will not name names but the trend is clear. This is not to say that the "non-Calvinists" among us are without blemish. But, I would wager a pint of ale that this kind of holier than thou condescension is more common among the "Calvinists".

Heh, your on! And I dont drink!

And, in a sense, this does not really surprise me. When one comes to believe that one is "elect to heaven" from the foundation of time and the other guy is equally "elect to damnation", one cannot help but see the world as comprised of a good "us" and a wicked "them", notwithstanding the protestations to the contrary that I am certain you will mount. Such a worldview easily legitimizes the position that one does not need to stoutly defend one's view, but rather that , simply by virtue of one's election, one has special access to the truth and need worry about the very difficult and humble task of actually mounting a credible argument.

I must admit I did have not read the "election - predestination" thread lately. Election and predestination are biblical doctrines. For a person to say "I believe the bible," and deny that he believes in election and predestination is a self contradiction. Face it, those words are in the bible. IF one went to lexicons or grammers books to demonstrate that Calvinists are misunderstanding the biblical terms, then the arguments might be valid. I never see that in non-Calvinists. The always argue from their tradition or some human reasoning.

It is simply too easy to declare your opponents to be "haters of the truth". Let the content of the arguments (pro and con) decide the matter. When one starts to think of the other person as a "hater of the truth", when this really has not legitimately been established, one lowers the level of discourse significantly.

It is true, I think, that some posters were a little harsh with AVB. But he was harsh as well at times (as are almost all of us). But it is never constructive to couch these debates in terms of a "faithful we" and a "truth-hating them".

Herecy is a biblical issue. The context of Galatians makes it clear that there are certain theological issues that should be considered essential to a true gospel. When Galatians 1 says that some teach "another gospel", the word "another" is not "allos" (another gospel of the same kind) but it "heteros" (another gospel of a different kind--IE a false gospel). The question is then what is this false Gospel. In the context of Galatians, by chapter 2 Paul will be speaking about "justificaion by faith." As I have said in other threads justification by faith is such a consistant statement (IE all the balls are red) that the word "alone" can be understood. Justification is by faith alone. If works are added, there is only debt and no justification (see Romans 4:4-5). In other word, yes, I consider a denial of sola fide or justification by faith alone heresy.

While I consider many to be heretics, I wish I could say that I am some how more holy then they are. That is the wonder of Calvinistic doctrine. You non-calvinists are arogant enough to think you come wih works, we calvinists recognize that Gods grace is shed upon us not because we are better, but because God is sovereign. Calvinism is a truly humbling doctrine.

So drew, interested in that 1v1 debate on election predestination?

Mondar

 

[Drew]

You seem happy to make these huge blanket statements yourself, "those Calvinists..." aren't all those Calvinsts soooo self righteous."

I was not as precise as I intended. I should have said that within the context of this forum (123) I believe that those with a Calvinist disposition tend to more frequently engage in the type of non-constructive rhetoric that was present in your post.

I find most non-calvinists like drew to resort to the same thing when they see verses, they ignore them and make personal attacks.

I submit myself to the judgement of the posters as to whether or not I have a propensity to resort to personal attacks. I could make a claim about this, but the truth, for good or for bad, is in the content of my rather substantial number of posts. It is in these posts that lie the evidence as to whether I am a person who engages in personal attacks.

Election and predestination are biblical doctrines. For a person to say "I believe the bible," and deny that he believes in election and predestination is a self contradiction.

This, of course, is the very question at issue and so no reader (a thinking one anyway) is simply going to accept your say-so (or mine) on the matter. My studies on this matter have led to believe that God elects and pre-destines at the level of nations or groups (e.g. Israel in Romans 9). On balance I think the Scriptural evidence is against election of persons unto salvation.

So drew, interested in that 1v1 debate on election predestination?

No thanks, I have never liked the 1 on 1 debate format - I think it suffers from 2 huge (and related drawbacks).

1. You only gets the ideas of 2 people.
2. I believe that these threads are not heavily read (could be wrong about this)

Besides, I am not particularly knowledgeable in respect to arguing for the view that I presently hold to be true - that God does not elect or pre-destine at the personal level.

This might seem a strange thing for me to say since I so frequently tend to argue against the pre-destination / election position. I believe that my posts on this matter have generally been of the "re-active" variety. I read an argument from a supporter of election / pre-destination that seems to be rather shoddy and I respond to that argument. I am more of a "critique-er" than an "advocate" in respect to this issue - and that is perfectly ok in my view. What relatively little energy that I have dedicated to this issue, outside of responding to what I think are weak arguments (such as those historically posted by JM and RedBeetle) leads to me to believe that God does indeed "desire that all be saved". But I am not ready to debate this issue at this time. Perhaps in the future if you are still willing.

 

[destiny]

I've partly become exhausted of these boards as well, thus why I do not frequent as often, but when I do, I do so to try to discuss important doctrinal points. I'm sorry you and I disagree but it is hard to relate when one holds almost polar-opposite views from yourself. I try to make discussions deep & technical, however its hard to go into forensics sometimes without hitting touchy subjects. Perhaps I should have laid back on my sarcasm in our other discussions but when I think something is contrary to the word of God and rather a man made doctrine.... the man made doctrine annoys me - thus why I am sarcastic.

Go in peace and I hope God will settle your heart as He is settling mine. Just please don't be legalistic about doctrines, that's my greatest pet pieve.

God Bless,

~Josh

Thats what happens to me too, Josh. It's righteous indignation if it is born out of a love for Gods word and a disdain for that which causes another to stumble.
It's not that you hate anyone personally.

 

[mondar]

I was not as precise as I intended. I should have said that within the context of this forum (123) I believe that those with a Calvinist disposition tend to more frequently engage in the type of non-constructive rhetoric that was present in your post.

Alrighty, so we who are Calvinists on this board are a little more on the nasty side in your opinion. Tell me drew, do you think its just the few Calvinists you see as persons who are nasty, or does our theology just simply repulse you? In your tradition, you do not like to hear how evil all mankind really is? Your you just are bothered by some of us as individuals?

I submit myself to the judgement of the posters as to whether or not I have a propensity to resort to personal attacks. I could make a claim about this, but the truth, for good or for bad, is in the content of my rather substantial number of posts. It is in these posts that lie the evidence as to whether I am a person who engages in personal attacks.

Oh really? I will have to give you credit for being more civil then some, but I strongly suspect you are bothered by words "heretic" and "false teacher." You consider them ad-hominims.

I suppose they are not nice sounding terms. In your mind it might bring visual immages of inquisition or some sort of witch hunt. Maybe what I wrote would have better been sent in a private message to AVBunyan, but I cannot withdraw the accusations that many on this BB hold heretical views. The biblical uses those same identical terms. Did Paul ever use the terms heresy? Did the Peterine epistles ever use the terms "false teachers?" I admit it does tend to divide things when those terms are used, but I think those divisions are desirous. We are not Christians together with those who deny doctrines like justification by faith alone (sola fide). We have no common faith with those who believe the bible is merely a book of man (liberalism) or who place their own traditions at a level on par with the scriptures (sola scriptura). Let me say that it is not an inquisition that is in the history or etymology of those terms. Those terms should be seen in light of the separation of evangelicals from Rome, or the separation of the evangelical denominations from theological liberalism. Many of we evangelicals think that it is biblical to have our own Churches, organizations, fellowships, and spiritual organizations that are separate from heresy. Such organizations do not include bulletin boards such as 123. When I approach 123 and the apologetics threads, I feel no spiritual unity with many, but feel this is little more then a meeting in the marketplace.

I think the basic difference concerns the differences in our epistemology. You might be tempted to complain that I am creating a spiritual elitism. It might be politically correct to say such a thing. It might sound good to the ears and eyes of many, but it does not to me. Without a correct view of truth, It reduces all morality and theology to meaningless subjectivist thinking. It reduces everything to what do you think or what do I think. Such is not what truth is about. Truth is about morality and immorality. Truth is about heaven and hell. It is about being a child of God and a child of the devil. It is about light and darkness.

You would be correct to say that I should not make personal attacks, and I am not perfect, but I cannot and will not withdraw the concepts of heresy and false teaching. But on the other hand, all that means to me, is that those who I think are heretics should go to Church somewhere else. Somehow, I suspect that it means something totally different to you.

Election and predestination are biblical doctrines. For a person to say "I believe the bible," and deny that he believes in election and predestination is a self contradiction.

This, of course, is the very question at issue and so no reader (a thinking one anyway) is simply going to accept your say-so (or mine) on the matter. My studies on this matter have led to believe that God elects and pre-destines at the level of nations or groups (e.g. Israel in Romans 9). On balance I think the Scriptural evidence is against election of persons unto salvation.

While I do not deny that God elects nations, I feel it is an exegetical failure to recognize that God also elects individuals. Let me use Thessalonians to demonstrate this.
2Th 2:13 But we are bound to give thanks to God always for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, for that God chose you from the beginning unto salvation in sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth:

The context of this little quip of Pauls has nothing to do with nations or any group. No such thing exists in the context.

1Pe 1:1 Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the elect who are sojourners[/b] of the Dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia,
While geographical provinces of the Roman Empire are mentioned, these are not groups of elect, but individuals that are elect.

Also, Romans 9 is not completely teaching national election. While there is a national election election taught in Romans 9, it is a reference not to the entire nation, but to the remnant of Israel. Romans 9:6 teaches that some of national Israel is non-elect. I find the illustrations Paul uses in Romans 9 to be illuminating. He uses Isaac,
Rom 9:7 neither, because they are Abraham's seed, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.
Jacob,
Rom 9:13 Even as it is written, Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.
Pharaoh,
Rom 9:17 For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, For this very purpose did I raise thee up, that I might show in thee my power, and that my name might be published abroad in all the earth.
Was Pharaoh a nation? In the context, how can you say that Pharaoh is a nation? Pharaoh is an illustration of the kind of individual person that is the lump of clay fitted for destruction. Paul is not talking about the Egyptians in verse 17 but one individual Egyptian.

Tell me, would you be consistant enough to say that this passage that preceeds chapter 9 is also about nations?
Rom 8:28 And we know that to them that love God all things work together for good, even to them that are called according to his purpose.
Rom 8:29 For whom he foreknew, he also foreordained to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren:
Rom 8:30 and whom he foreordained, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.

The called ones are nations? So then God works all thing for good not for individuals but for nations?

In Romans 8:33 Paul says...
Rom 8:33 Who shall lay anything to the charge of God's elect? It is God that justifieth;
So Paul is concerning about the justification of nations and not individuals? So you read his statement in this verse to be about nations? How can you possibly read a verse like that and say that no reference in the bible to election is about individuals? That is totally isogetical in which you bring a tradition and place it over everything you read it the bible.

By the way, it is not only the term "election" found in Romans 8, but the term predestination is also found.
Rom 8:29 For whom he foreknew, he also foreordained to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren:
The term foreordained is translation "predestinate" in the KJV. So then it is nations predestinated to be conformed to the image of the son? I do not doubt that God decrees or predestinates certain nations to do certain things. He called the Assyrians and Babylonians to chasten Israel. But Romans 8 is not about nations being conformed to the image of Christ. To say that all these references are about a group called the Church is not in any of the context of each passage. The concept of the Church (the body of Christ and the local Church) I agree is biblical, but those teaching are not a part of the context of the verses I am quoting.

It has been my experience that, almost without exception, those who promote a Calvinist position resort to the strategy you deploy when the force of the argument goes against them.

So drew, interested in that 1v1 debate on election predestination?

Perhaps in the future if you are still willing.

Of course to insinuate in any way that Calvinists cannot defend their faith without ad-hominims and to refuse a challenge to debate the issue 1v1 would not be fair.
[/quote]
In light of the first statement you made, may I consider the 2nd statement a withdrawal of your first statement?

 

[Drew]

Alrighty, so we who are Calvinists on this board are a little more on the nasty side in your opinion. Tell me drew, do you think its just the few Calvinists you see as persons who are nasty, or does our theology just simply repulse you? In your tradition, you do not like to hear how evil all mankind really is? Your you just are bothered by some of us as individuals?

I think that the evidence of specific Calvinist posters in these forums supports my assertion about the behaviour of Calvinists in this forum. I also happen to think the theology of individual pre-destination is not supported by the Scriptures although I have, as I have said, not studied this in detail. In another thread, I am in the middle of presenting what I think is a solid argument against Ephesians 1 as a "proof-text" for pre-destination of individuals in general. I will not call people heretics, I will not call people false teachers. That is thought-stopping rhetoric better left to those with a penchant for such. I will simply provide an argument (with appropriate credit to the person who inspired it). Readers will judge whether posters from either side of the issue engage the relevant arguments or play the "false teacher" or "heretic" card.

I do think that we can draw an important lesson from Romans. In Romans, Paul undercuts the national boast of Israel - that simply by specific virtue of being ethnically Jewish, they have a legitimate claim to the covenant promises of God. I think it would be very strange for Paul to also hold to what is simply a different version of the same kind of thing - a "system" whereby simply by virtue of being "born elected", a person can claim the covenant promises. There is no fundamental difference here - a person who claims they have "been chosen by God over and above others" unto salvation from the foundations of time is making the same kind of boast as did ethnic Israel - that they have some kind of special status, not available to their fellow men. I just can't see Paul believing this, given his attack on the national boast of Israel.

 

[mondar]

Alrighty, so we who are Calvinists on this board are a little more on the nasty side in your opinion. Tell me drew, do you think its just the few Calvinists you see as persons who are nasty, or does our theology just simply repulse you? In your tradition, you do not like to hear how evil all mankind really is? Your you just are bothered by some of us as individuals?

I think that the evidence of specific Calvinist posters in these forums supports my assertion about the behaviour of Calvinists in this forum.

My experience with Calvinists is the exact opposite. There are a few nasty Calvinists around, but what can I say (shrug) there are some in every group with the nasties. The Calvinists I have meet I have found to be gracious, knowledgeable, and charitable. On the other hand, before I became a Calvinist, I found a small group of non-calvinists fundamentalist kind of people that I used to fellowship with to be extremely shallow, arrogant, self-promoting group. Oh well, so much for swapping experiences.

I also happen to think the theology of individual pre-destination is not supported by the Scriptures although I have, as I have said, not studied this in detail.

If you have not studied this subject in detail, how do you know that your beliefs are supported by Scriptures? At this point I dont see how you can say you know the scriptures do not teach election and then turn around and say that you have not studied the issue in detail.

I could recommend several books if you wish. There is a series of modern books on exactly this debate by several authors on both sides. I have read the Arminian side, and most the Calvinist side. The first book is by RC Sproul (I dont know the name, and did not read his book on election). Norman Geisler, and arminian (who claims to be a "modified Calvinist"). His book is "Chosen but Free. I read it, but find the exegesis to be very shallow. To answer Geislers book, James White (aomin.org) wrote a book called "The Potters Freedom." I enjoyed Whites in depth exegesis. Then Dave Hunt wrote a book, but later White (Calvinist) and Hunt (Arminian) wrote a debate book called "Debating Calvinism, five points, two views." White does public moderated debates on the issue, and has challenged both Geisler and Hunt to public moderated debates (do you think that is a Calvinist thing? ) but both Geisler and Hunt have refused (maybe thats an Arminian thing). Geisler at least just simply refused, but Hunt is saying he already debated White in the book. In my opinion Hunt is just avoiding answering specific questions from White. In the book at least Hunt can ignore many issues, in open debate with questioning, it would be more difficult to avoid Whites exegetical questions. I think the debate book to be distasteful. White brings up pointed issues that need addressed, and Hunt talks right past White avoiding the issues.

In another thread, I am in the middle of presenting what I think is a solid argument against Ephesians 1 as a "proof-text" for pre-destination of individuals in general.

Oh yeah? What thread?

I will not call people heretics, I will not call people false teachers. That is thought-stopping rhetoric better left to those with a penchant for such. I will simply provide an argument (with appropriate credit to the person who inspired it). Readers will judge whether posters from either side of the issue engage the relevant arguments or play the "false teacher" or "heretic" card.
I do think that we can draw an important lesson from Romans. In Romans, Paul undercuts the national boast of Israel - that simply by specific virtue of being ethnically Jewish, they have a legitimate claim to the covenant promises of God. I think it would be very strange for Paul to also hold to what is simply a different version of the same kind of thing - a "system" whereby simply by virtue of being "born elected", a person can claim the covenant promises. There is no fundamental difference here - a person who claims they have "been chosen by God over and above others" unto salvation from the foundations of time is making the same kind of boast as did ethnic Israel - that they have some kind of special status, not available to their fellow men. I just can't see Paul believing this, given his attack on the national boast of Israel.

So far I dont see any exegesis at all. You mention Romans 9, you say "this is what Romans 9 means" and then assume that is what it means. Do you put the words of Romans 9 in your post, and show from the language of the text why it shows that election in Romans 9 is "only" national? No, you ignore all the points I have made in my previous post on Romans 9, and then simply re-assert that Romans 9 is only national.

Now its true, that I have not written a book in my previous posts, and could write much more and much better, but drew, you have presented absolutely no defense for your claims about Romans 9. It makes me wonder if you know the difference between defending a proposition, and making a proposition. You seem to say things, but not defend them. What is this, a shoot and run strategy?

I mentioned how the text does speak of individuals, and even pointed specificly to Pharaoh. You ignore the evidence I present and do not even mention it, and then continue to remake the same assertions (Romans 9 is only national and not about individuals). Can you present evidence of your assertion that Romans 9 is only an issue of national Israel from the text?

The word "election" occurs in Romans 9:11. Paul states his thesis that election is not by works. If in this text it is referring to nations or Israel, then what "works" is he referring to that a nation practices? You say the context is about Israel depending upon its election, but when the text uses the word election, Paul is correcting people for thinking election is based upon works in verse 11.

 

[Drew]

In another thread, I am in the middle of presenting what I think is a solid argument against Ephesians 1 as a "proof-text" for pre-destination of individuals in general.

Oh yeah? What thread?

There is another thread on predestination in this category. I have written 2 detailed posts and will probably write more.

So far I dont see any exegesis at all. You mention Romans 9, you say "this is what Romans 9 means" and then assume that is what it means. Do you put the words of Romans 9 in your post, and show from the language of the text why it shows that election in Romans 9 is "only" national? No, you ignore all the points I have made in my previous post on Romans 9, and then simply re-assert that Romans 9 is only national.

When time permits, I will indeed attempt to show how Romans 9 is about national election. I think that the case for this is exceedingly strong and I will be impressed if anyone can undercut it.

It makes me wonder if you know the difference between defending a proposition, and making a proposition. You seem to say things, but not defend them. What is this, a shoot and run strategy?

I will let my posting history speak to the issue as to whether I "know the difference between defending a proposition and making a proposition. I did indeed only make a claim re Romans 9. If time permits, I will get to this.

In short, I indeed "owe" the reader a defence re Romans 9. In the predestination thread, I offer a rather detailed argument against the texts in Eph 1 as used to support predestination.

 

[unred typo]

quote by mondar on Sat Sep 08, 2007 1:46 pm
So far I dont see any exegesis at all. You mention Romans 9, you say "this is what Romans 9 means" and then assume that is what it means. Do you put the words of Romans 9 in your post, and show from the language of the text why it shows that election in Romans 9 is "only" national? No, you ignore all the points I have made in my previous post on Romans 9, and then simply re-assert that Romans 9 is only national.

(snip)
I mentioned how the text does speak of individuals, and even pointed specificly to Pharaoh. You ignore the evidence I present and do not even mention it, and then continue to remake the same assertions (Romans 9 is only national and not about individuals). Can you present evidence of your assertion that Romans 9 is only an issue of national Israel from the text?

The word "election" occurs in Romans 9:11. Paul states his thesis that election is not by works. If in this text it is referring to nations or Israel, then what "works" is he referring to that a nation practices? You say the context is about Israel depending upon its election, but when the text uses the word election, Paul is correcting people for thinking election is based upon works in verse 11.
mondar

Nowhere in Romans is anyone elected to salvation or damnation. Romans 9:11 is only to specify which twin will be the royal lineage of God’s son. What did he base this choice on? Not works but it was a sovereign choice based on things he did not disclose. Romans 9:15 is in reference to Exodus 33:19. When he said that he would have mercy on whom he would have mercy, he was telling Moses that he would allow him to see his glory pass by, but not honor Moses’ desire that he forgive the nation’s sin strictly because they were the chosen people. He would destroy as many of the Israelites as he decided to for their sin of making a golden calf. He even says he will specifically destroy those who committed the sin, not the entire people in Exodus 32:33. This is not saying that he chooses certain people for eternal salvation. The story in Exodus 32-34 tells it like it was. If you first read the Exodus account, you get an understanding of why Paul uses it for an example. 32:10 records God telling Moses:

“Now therefore let me alone, that my wrath may wax hot against them, and that I may consume them: and I will make of you a great nation.â€Â

Looks like they were the elect until they blew it. Moses tries to put in a good word for them:

11And Moses besought the LORD his God, and said, LORD, why does your wrath wax hot against your people, which you have brought forth out of the land of Egypt with great power, and with a mighty hand?
12Wherefore should the Egyptians speak, and say, For mischief did he bring them out, to slay them in the mountains, and to consume them from the face of the earth? Turn from your fierce wrath, and repent of this evil against your people.
13Remember Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, your servants, to whom you swore by your own self, and said unto them, I will multiply your seed as the stars of heaven, and all this land that I have spoken of will I give unto your seed, and they shall inherit it for ever.
14And the LORD repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his people.

Does this sound like God had chosen these individuals from the foundation of the world? They were ‘the elect’ as long as they followed God. If they disobeyed, God could easily destroy them and raise up ‘the elect’ from the descendants of Moses.

Exodus 32:31-33 31And Moses returned unto the LORD, and said, Oh, this people have sinned a great sin, and have made them gods of gold.
32Yet now, if you will forgive their sin--; and if not, blot me, I pray thee, out of your book which you have written.
33And the LORD said unto Moses, Whosoever has sinned against me, him will I blot out of my book.

Does this sound like God is randomly choosing the ones he will show mercy to? Not at all. He is going to ‘blot out’ as many as he wants to out of the sinners who worshipped the calf. Does he kill them all at this point? No, he takes the rest on a wilderness journey that lasts forty years. I think the lucky ones died by the hand of Levi. None of those sinners reached the promised land. We don't see many if any of them ever repented of their sin and truly believed God, as we see time and time again in the wilderness. Read more. This is amazing:

33:2 And I will send an angel before you; and I will drive out the Canaanite, the Amorite, and the Hittite, and the Perizzite, the Hivite, and the Jebusite:
3Unto a land flowing with milk and honey: for I will not go up in the midst of you; for you are a stiffnecked people: lest I consume you in the way.
4And when the people heard these evil tidings, they mourned: and no man did put on him his ornaments.

God is not going to go with them himself now but send an angel to go before them. This is bad news. They will not be seeing the glory of God among them now.


5For the LORD had said unto Moses, Say unto the children of Israel, You are a stiffnecked people: I will come up into the midst of you in a moment, and consume you: therefore now put off your ornaments from thee, that I may know what to do unto you.

God is going to watch them, however, for signs of true repentance before he decides their fate..


6And the children of Israel stripped themselves of their ornaments by the mount Horeb.
7And Moses took the tabernacle, and pitched it without the camp, afar off from the camp, and called it the Tabernacle of the congregation. And it came to pass, that every one which sought the LORD went out unto the tabernacle of the congregation, which was without the camp.

Notice the ones who sought the Lord had to make the effort to go outside the camp to the tabernacle now.

8And it came to pass, when Moses went out unto the tabernacle, that all the people rose up, and stood every man at his tent door, and looked after Moses, until he was gone into the tabernacle.
9And it came to pass, as Moses entered into the tabernacle, the cloudy pillar descended, and stood at the door of the tabernacle, and the Lord talked with Moses.
10And all the people saw the cloudy pillar stand at the tabernacle door: and all the people rose up and worshipped, every man in his tent door.
11And the LORD spoke unto Moses face to face, as a man speaks unto his friend. And he turned again into the camp: but his servant Joshua, the son of Nun, a young man, departed not out of the tabernacle.
12And Moses said unto the LORD, See, you said unto me, Bring up this people: and you have not let me know whom you will send with me. Yet you have said, I know you by name, and you have also found grace in my sight.
13Now therefore, I pray you, if I have found grace in your sight, show me now your way, that I may know you, that I may find grace in your sight: and consider that this nation is your people.

Moses doesn’t want a new ‘elect people’. God agrees to bring them into the promised land and makes the covenant with them conditional to their obedience to laws that he repeats to Moses. Exodus 34:10-11 and onward, if you want to read it for yourself. Moses had said if God himself doesn’t go with them, he doesn’t even want to go. God changed his mind and his glory will go with the people into the hostile lands before them but only on the condition that they obey his commands.

Now when you read Romans 9, you get a better view from where Paul is writing from and I think you can see that Drew’s interpretation is correct, whether you will admit it or not. It is a national ‘election’ but with a personal responsibility to obey.

I would like to go into the Pharaoh illustration but I think Drew will do a much nicer job. I probably will butt in later anyways though. You know me... :

 

[mondar]

Nowhere in Romans is anyone elected to salvation or damnation.

Heh, well, when Paul speaks of election in Romans 9, why do you think he starts the chapter with a concept of salvation? The Chapter begins with a statement of Pauls heartfelt pain.
Rom 9:2 that I have great sorrow and unceasing pain in my heart.
Now why do you think Paul is depressed in verse 2? What will you say, unred, do you think Paul was depressed because he could not get his favorite MD, Dr. Luke, to write a prescription for prozac?

Verse 3 tells us that Paul wishes he could be accursed for the sake of his countrymen.
Rom 9:3 For I could wish that I myself were anathema from Christ for my brethren's sake, my kinsmen according to the flesh:
Paul, the great apostle to the gentiles, had a favorite targets of his evangelism. In may of the cities he went to in the book of Acts he evangelized the Jews of the dispora. Paul, the apostle had a great passion for evangelizing Jews. He had a desperate desire to see Jewish people saved. This desire was so great, that he penned in verse 3 is desire to be forsaken by Christ for the sake of his fellow Jews.

This great passion concerning individual salvation is part of Paul's great discourse on election. Unred, the conversation was on Romans 9, but I dont have to even leave Romans 9 to show individual election. Yet you say individual election is nowhere in any part of Romans.
Rom 8:29 For whom he foreknew, he also foreordained to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren:
To say that there is no concept of individual election, you would have to say that being conformed to the image of his son is not referring to salvation. Conforming us to the image of his Son is the whole purpose of salvation. It is just a macro view of salvation. We are then predestined to salvation in the larger sense of the word. Now I do not deny that there is a national election, but it would be a gross absurdity to think of any nation being conformed to the image of Christ.

2Th 2:13 But we are bound to give thanks to God always for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, for that God chose you from the beginning unto salvation in sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth:
Individual election to salvation is clearly a biblical doctrine.

Romans 9:11 is only to specify which twin will be the royal lineage of God’s son.

Hehe, you gotta be kidding me? Tell me I am misunderstanding you. You are actually suggesting that Romans 9:11 is about the election of an individual to kingship or linage in the line of Christ? The only way you could get this out of the context is if the material in Matthew 1 preceeded Romans 9:11. Please check, are the pages of your bible sticking? Did you miss the material between Matthew 1 and Romans 9:11? There is absolutely nothing in the context about royal linages.

The entire purpose of Paul placing Romans 9:11 in the context is not to say that the issue of election concerns who will be in the royal linage, but Romans 9:11 is there to demonstrate that election is not based upon works.
Rom 9:11 for the children being not yet born, neither having done anything good or bad, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth,
The point of election Paul is making is that it is not of works. In the material you wrote you is saying the exact opposite that Paul says in verse 11. I must admit I am amazed that anyone could read verse 11 and then say the exact opposite of what verse 11 says. You say election is by works, verse 11 says it is "not of works." So then when your read not of works you think that means it is of works. Think hard on this next question..... Could it be that when Paul said that election is "not of works" that he actually meant what he said?

Now I will admit, that in your next sentence you said....

What did he base this choice on? Not works but it was a sovereign choice based on things he did not disclose.

but soon you are saying the exact opposite....

Looks like they were the elect until they blew it. Moses tries to put in a good word for them:

They were ‘the elect’ as long as they followed God. If they disobeyed, God could easily destroy them and raise up ‘the elect’ from the descendants of Moses.

God is going to watch them, however, for signs of true repentance before he decides their fate..

Now I suspect I know why you write these self contradictory things. You are going to bring in a new definition for works that will simply wild.

You also say

Romans 9:15 is in reference to Exodus 33:19.

Of course this would be correct. Paul quotes Exodus in verse 15. After you say this, you go on this discourse of Exodus and apply it to the concept of election. You really need to read Pauls application to verse 15. I think his application is obviously inspired of the Holy Spirit. Now where do you think Paul put his application of verse 15. Would it shock you if you found out that Paul put his own application of verse 15 in the very next verse. Verse 16 is Pauls application.
Rom 9:16 So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that hath mercy. Now who do you think the person is that willeth? Now think hard, could it be the person that is elected. Do you think it was Isaac that willed? Was it Jacob that willed? Of course election is then not of the person that wills. Isaac and Jacob did nothing to get elected to salvation. The text say, that is is "of God that sheweth mercy." In other words, when you said...

What did he base this choice on? Not works

BINGO, unred gets the prize!!! That is Pauls view of Exodus.

God agrees to bring them into the promised land and makes the covenant with them conditional to their obedience to laws that he repeats to Moses.

You are correct that the Mosaic is a conditional covenant. But this is meaningless in light of the new covenant. The new covenant trumps the mosaic covenant for Israel. God promised to give Israel all the obedience it needs.

Under the mosaic covenant it was impossible for Israel to obey because....
Deu 29:4 but Jehovah hath not given you a heart to know, and eyes to see, and ears to hear, unto this day.
Under the new covenant they will obey because
Jer 31:33 But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith Jehovah: I will put my law in their inward parts, and in their heart will I write it; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people:

So then, no one ever obeys God. No one seeks God, no one is righteous, all are sinners. God select to make some righteous, but even those who are righteous, it is not their own works, but it is simply the act of God. Yes, I know faith is involved, but without God's efforts, no one would have faith. It is God that changes hearts and gives obedience. It is God that elects, no one can elect themselves by their own works.

Unred, give up your works righteousness. Come to the gospel and the grace of God. Trust in him for that righteousness, he will save you.

 

[unred typo]

quote by mondar on Sun Sep 09, 2007 4:49 pm
[quote:cbb77]unred: Nowhere in Romans is anyone elected to salvation or damnation.

Heh, well, when Paul speaks of election in Romans 9, why do you think he starts the chapter with a concept of salvation? The Chapter begins with a statement of Pauls heartfelt pain.
Rom 9:2 that I have great sorrow and unceasing pain in my heart.
Now why do you think Paul is depressed in verse 2? What will you say, unred, do you think Paul was depressed because he could not get his favorite MD, Dr. Luke, to write a prescription for prozac?

Verse 3 tells us that Paul wishes he could be accursed for the sake of his countrymen.
Rom 9:3 For I could wish that I myself were anathema from Christ for my brethren's sake, my kinsmen according to the flesh:
Paul, the great apostle to the gentiles, had a favorite targets of his evangelism. In may of the cities he went to in the book of Acts he evangelized the Jews of the dispora. Paul, the apostle had a great passion for evangelizing Jews. He had a desperate desire to see Jewish people saved. This desire was so great, that he penned in verse 3 is desire to be forsaken by Christ for the sake of his fellow Jews.[/quote:cbb77]

Small point here. Paul is not talking about his countrymen but his actual brothers, his blood kin. How many of us have had brothers, sisters, father or mother who were not following the Lord that we would have gladly given up our place in heaven if we could see them turn from sin and to the savior? Read it again:

9:3 For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh

quote by mondar:
This great passion concerning individual salvation is part of Paul's great discourse on election. Unred, the conversation was on Romans 9, but I dont have to even leave Romans 9 to show individual election. Yet you say individual election is nowhere in any part of Romans.
Rom 8:29 For whom he foreknew, he also foreordained to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren:
To say that there is no concept of individual election, you would have to say that being conformed to the image of his son is not referring to salvation. Conforming us to the image of his Son is the whole purpose of salvation. It is just a macro view of salvation. We are then predestined to salvation in the larger sense of the word. Now I do not deny that there is a national election, but it would be a gross absurdity to think of any nation being conformed to the image of Christ.

The Word was conformed into the image of his Son. God knew the Word from before the foundation of the world. Paul probably never dreamed that anyone in their right mind would suppose that this referred to individuals who were not even thought of, let alone born, before the creation of the world. In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God. You weren’t with God. You didn’t even exist. Hard to imagine, isn’t it? But it makes sense, doesn’t it? You didn’t exist before Adam was created. It’s doubtful you even existed before you were conceived. Your conception was the beginning of you. That’s as far back as you can go. What kind of ego do you have, to believe you were there before Adam? Talk about gross absurdity.

quote by mondar:
2Th 2:13 But we are bound to give thanks to God always for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, for that God chose you from the beginning unto salvation in sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth:
Individual election to salvation is clearly a biblical doctrine.

In the beginning, you were interested in ‘works’ and now you concentrate on ‘election’. Do you think I mean that you were interested in ‘works’ from the beginning of this thread or the beginning of this post or the beginning of the creation of the world? Clearly you wouldn’t expect the latter. But when you see the word ‘beginning’ in Paul’s writing, why do you immediately and solely relate it to the beginning of creation? Very strange phenomena.

quote by mondar:
[quote:cbb77] unred: Romans 9:11 is only to specify which twin will be the royal lineage of God’s son.

Hehe, you gotta be kidding me? Tell me I am misunderstanding you. You are actually suggesting that Romans 9:11 is about the election of an individual to kingship or linage in the line of Christ? The only way you could get this out of the context is if the material in Matthew 1 preceeded Romans 9:11. Please check, are the pages of your bible sticking? Did you miss the material between Matthew 1 and Romans 9:11? There is absolutely nothing in the context about royal linages.[/quote:cbb77]

No kidding. You actually missed something, right there in the first five verses of chapter nine, where one would expect to see an opening statement to the next topic discussed:

4Who are Israelites; to whom pertains the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, a n d t h e p r o m i s e s; (i.e. the promised messiah from the lineage of David…. )
5Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.
There ya go. Amen.

quote by mondar:
The entire purpose of Paul placing Romans 9:11 in the context is not to say that the issue of election concerns who will be in the royal linage, but Romans 9:11 is there to demonstrate that election is not based upon works.
Rom 9:11 for the children being not yet born, neither having done anything good or bad, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth,
The point of election Paul is making is that it is not of works. In the material you wrote you is saying the exact opposite that Paul says in verse 11. I must admit I am amazed that anyone could read verse 11 and then say the exact opposite of what verse 11 says. You say election is by works, verse 11 says it is "not of works." So then when your read not of works you think that means it is of works. Think hard on this next question..... Could it be that when Paul said that election is "not of works" that he actually meant what he said?

I fully understand election here is not by works. Election here is being elected to the lineage of Christ, getting your name in the genealogy list. It was a big deal back then before TV and Oprah and getting to be famous for 15 minutes for having the current biggest heartbreak.

quote by mondar:
Now I will admit, that in your next sentence you said....
[quote:cbb77]unred:What did he base this choice on? Not works but it was a sovereign choice based on things he did not disclose.

but soon you are saying the exact opposite....

unred wrote: Looks like they were the elect until they blew it. Moses tries to put in a good word for them:
They were ‘the elect’ as long as they followed God. If they disobeyed, God could easily destroy them and raise up ‘the elect’ from the descendants of Moses.
God is going to watch them, however, for signs of true repentance before he decides their fate..

Now I suspect I know why you write these self contradictory things. You are going to bring in a new definition for works that will simply wild.[/quote:cbb77]

That’s big of you to admit I actually said what I said. Let me explain why you are having a problem reconciling the two seemingly contradictory statements. For election to the nation of Israel or the lineage of Christ, there are no works involved so if you are in this elect, you have only been sovereignly chosen by God to be so gifted with these honors by birth into the physical family of Abraham. But the spiritual sons of Abraham are chosen by their faith in the word of God, just as their spiritual father Abraham was. Abraham believed God and did what God told him to do. If you believe God and do what God tells you to do, you are a spiritual son of Abraham. See? It’s not hard. It just seems contradictory.

quote by mondar:
You also say
Romans 9:15 is in reference to Exodus 33:19.

Of course this would be correct. Paul quotes Exodus in verse 15. After you say this, you go on this discourse of Exodus and apply it to the concept of election. You really need to read Pauls application to verse 15. I think his application is obviously inspired of the Holy Spirit. Now where do you think Paul put his application of verse 15. Would it shock you if you found out that Paul put his own application of verse 15 in the very next verse. Verse 16 is Pauls application.
Rom 9:16 So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that hath mercy. Now who do you think the person is that willeth? Now think hard, could it be the person that is elected. Do you think it was Isaac that willed? Was it Jacob that willed? Of course election is then not of the person that wills. Isaac and Jacob did nothing to get elected to salvation. The text say, that is is "of God that sheweth mercy." In other words, when you said...
What did he base this choice on? Not works
BINGO, unred gets the prize!!! That is Pauls view of Exodus.

Hey, we agree on something. Baby steps. You’ll come around, Mondar.

quote by mondar:

[quote:cbb77]unred: God agrees to bring them into the promised land and makes the covenant with them conditional to their obedience to laws that he repeats to Moses.

You are correct that the Mosaic is a conditional covenant. But this is meaningless in light of the new covenant. The new covenant trumps the mosaic covenant for Israel. God promised to give Israel all the obedience it needs.

Under the mosaic covenant it was impossible for Israel to obey because....
Deu 29:4 but Jehovah hath not given you a heart to know, and eyes to see, and ears to hear, unto this day.
Under the new covenant they will obey because
Jer 31:33 But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith Jehovah: I will put my law in their inward parts, and in their heart will I write it; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people:[/quote:cbb77]

God turned the Israelites back into the wilderness to wander for forty years. He was punishing them for what? Think back to Miss Beulah’s third grade Sunday School class… because they didn’t believe God so he sent them back to the desert unto the time when Moses stood before their children and recited the words of the law that they were now ready to hear since all their faithless fathers were dead. It’s true. Check out Deuteronomy 29:29:

“The secret things belong unto the LORD our God: but those things which are revealed belong unto us and to our children for ever, that we may do all the words of this law.â€Â

quote by mondar:
So then, no one ever obeys God. No one seeks God, no one is righteous, all are sinners. God select to make some righteous, but even those who are righteous, it is not their own works, but it is simply the act of God. Yes, I know faith is involved, but without God's efforts, no one would have faith. It is God that changes hearts and gives obedience. It is God that elects, no one can elect themselves by their own works.

Really? What about these:
Jeremiah 35:17-19
17Therefore thus says the LORD God of hosts, the God of Israel; Behold, I will bring upon Judah and upon all the inhabitants of Jerusalem all the evil that I have pronounced against them: because I have spoken unto them, but they have not heard; and I have called unto them, but they have not answered.
18And Jeremiah said unto the house of the Rechabites, Thus says the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel; Because you have obeyed the commandment of Jonadab your father, and kept all his precepts, and done according unto all that he hath commanded you:
19Therefore thus says the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel; Jonadab the son of Rechab shall not want a man to stand before me for ever.

Haggai 1:12
Then Zerubbabel the son of Shealtiel, and Joshua the son of Josedech, the high priest, with all the remnant of the people, obeyed the voice of the LORD their God, and the words of Haggai the prophet, as the LORD their God had sent him, and the people did fear before the LORD.

Genesis 7:1
And the LORD said unto Noah, Come thou and all thy house into the ark; for thee have I seen righteous before me in this generation.

1 Kings 14:8
And rent the kingdom away from the house of David, and gave it you: and yet you have not been as my servant David, who kept my commandments, and who followed me with all his heart, to do that only which was right in mine eyes;

1 Kings 15:5
Because David did that which was right in the eyes of the LORD, and turned not aside from any thing that he commanded him all the days of his life, save only in the matter of Uriah the Hittite.

1 Kings 15:11
And Asa did that which was right in the eyes of the LORD, as did David his father.

2 Kings 18:3
And he did that which was right in the sight of the LORD, according to all that David his father did.

2 Kings 22:2
And he did that which was right in the sight of the LORD, and walked in all the way of David his father, and turned not aside to the right hand or to the left.

2 Chronicles 6:23
Then hear thou from heaven, and do, and judge thy servants, by requiting the wicked, by recompensing his way upon his own head; and by justifying the righteous, by giving him according to his righteousness.

2 Chronicles 14:2
And Asa did that which was good and right in the eyes of the LORD his God:

2 Chronicles 24:2
And Joash did that which was right in the sight of the LORD all the days of Jehoiada the priest.

2 Chronicles 31:20
And thus did Hezekiah throughout all Judah, and wrought that which was good and right and truth before the LORD his God.

2 Chronicles 34:2
And he did that which was right in the sight of the LORD, and walked in the ways of David his father, and declined neither to the right hand, nor to the left.

Psalm 7:11
God judges the righteous, and God is angry with the wicked every day.

Psalm 11:5
The LORD tries the righteous: but the wicked and him that loves violence his soul hates.
Psalm 11:7
For the righteous LORD loves righteousness; his countenance does behold the upright.

Psalm 15:1-3
1Lord, who shall abide in your tabernacle? who shall dwell in your holy hill?
2He that walks uprightly, and works righteousness, and speaks the truth in his heart.
3He that backbites not with his tongue, nor does evil to his neighbour, nor takes up a reproach against his neighbour.
Psalm 34:15
The eyes of the LORD are upon the righteous, and his ears are open unto their cry.

Psalm 34:19
Many are the afflictions of the righteous: but the LORD delivers him out of them all.

Psalm 37:17
For the arms of the wicked shall be broken: but the LORD upholds the righteous.
Psalm 58:11
So that a man shall say, Verily there is a reward for the righteous: verily he is a God that judges in the earth.

Psalm 75:10
All the horns of the wicked also will I cut off; but the horns of the righteous shall be exalted.

Psalm 97:11
Light is sown for the righteous, and gladness for the upright in heart.

Psalm 112:4
Unto the upright there arises light in the darkness: he is gracious, and full of compassion, and righteous.
Psalm 119:40
Behold, I have longed after thy precepts: quicken me in thy righteousness.

Psalm 125:3
For the rod of the wicked shall not rest upon the lot of the righteous; lest the righteous put forth their hands unto iniquity.
Proverbs 10:2
Treasures of wickedness profit nothing: but righteousness delivers from death.

Proverbs 10:16
The labour of the righteous tendeth to life: the fruit of the wicked to sin.

Proverbs 10:25
As the whirlwind passes, so is the wicked no more: but the righteous is an everlasting foundation.

Proverbs 11:5
The righteousness of the perfect shall direct his way: but the wicked shall fall by his own wickedness.

Proverbs 11:6
The righteousness of the upright shall deliver them: but transgressors shall be taken in their own naughtiness.

Proverbs 11:18
The wicked works a deceitful work: but to him that sows righteousness shall be a sure reward.

Proverbs 11:21
Though hand join in hand, the wicked shall not be unpunished: but the seed of the righteous shall be delivered.

Proverbs 13:9
The light of the righteous rejoices: but the lamp of the wicked shall be put out.

There are lots more but the mods get upset if I post too many verses.

quote by mondar:
Unred, give up your works righteousness. Come to the gospel and the grace of God. Trust in him for that righteousness, he will save you.

I do trust Christ for my righteousness. I can't be perfect without his blood.
Just for chuckles, read this:
Ezekiel 3:19-21
18When I say unto the wicked, You shall surely die; and you give him not warning, nor speak to warn the wicked from his wicked way, to save his life; the same wicked man shall die in his iniquity; but his blood will I require at your hand.
19Yet if you warn the wicked, and he turn not from his wickedness, nor from his wicked way, he shall die in his iniquity; but you have delivered your soul.
20Again, When a righteous man does turn from his righteousness, and commit iniquity, and I lay a stumbling-block before him, he shall die: because you have not given him warning, he shall die in his sin, and his righteousness which he hath done shall not be remembered; but his blood will I require at your hand.
21Nevertheless if you warn the righteous man, that the righteous sin not, and he does not sin, he shall surely live, because he is warned; also you have delivered your soul.

 

[mondar]

The Word was conformed into the image of his Son. God knew the Word from before the foundation of the world.

Now get a load of the quote above! Astonishing! Unred, when you reached for your bible, I suspect you accidentally picked up the readers digest. I know it is hard for you to distinguish between the two.

Romans 8:29 is talking about the word? I must admit that I rarely have seen crazier wild eyed speculation. Now for you readers that are following this.... I think I can explain how unred came to this conclusion. Unred has a tradition of justification by faith and works. If he sees any verses that do not fit his preconcieved tradition of justification by faith and works he simply makes something up.
Is the concept of the Logos (word) mentioned anywhere in Romans 8:29? In looking through Chapter 8 and then Chapter 9, the closest occurrence of the word "logos" is Romans 9:6. In Romans 9:6 the word logos refers to the scriptures, not the person of Christ, and the word logos in Chapter 9 has no bearing on the meaning of 8:29. The absurdity of such an interpretation can only be explained in one way.... We have major tradition being inserted into the text by unred.
In greek Romans 8:29 reads...
Rom 8:29 Äι ο ÀÃÂοέγνÉ, καὶ ÀÃÂοÃŽÃÂιÃε ÃÆ’Ã…μμÃÅ’ÃÂÆοÅ Äη εικÌνο ÄοÃ… Ã…ιοÃ… αÅÄοÃ…, ει Äὸ εναι αÅÄὸν ÀÃÂÉÄÃ΀οκον εν Àολλοι ἀδελÆοι·
The word logos is not there.

This has been repeated behavior by him. In his previous post, he was speaking of Romans 9:11.
Rom 9:11 for the children being not yet born, neither having done anything good or bad, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth,
He started out agreeing with the passage, but by the time he was working with Romans 9:15 he was preaching a bizzare doctrine of works election. How can you get works election with Romans 9:11 right in the context? Thats something that only our very own unred can do with his amazing traditions.

In the beginning, you were interested in ‘works’ and now you concentrate on ‘election’.

I dont remember bringing up works, I believe you did. My motive in mentioning 2 Thes 2:13 was to demonstrate that individual election to salvation is a concept that is obviously in the scriptures.
2Th 2:13 But we are bound to give thanks to God always for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, for that God chose you from the beginning unto salvation in sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth:

But when you see the word ‘beginning’ in Paul’s writing, why do you immediately and solely relate it to the beginning of creation? Very strange phenomena.

Eph 1:4 even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blemish before him in love:
Now unred, I know Paul is not your favorite, but when he says that election occurred "before the foundation of the world," it makes it rather difficult to read this after creation. I cannot wait to see your mental gymnastics on how election is not before the foundation of the world. I bet within a few verses of Eph 1:4 you could somehow find something in your tradition that will say that election was long after creation. If I can quote your words....

Very strange phenomena.

unred: Romans 9:11 is only to specify which twin will be the royal lineage of God’s son.[quote:b1a61]Hehe, you gotta be kidding me? Tell me I am misunderstanding you. You are actually suggesting that Romans 9:11 is about the election of an individual to kingship or linage in the line of Christ? The only way you could get this out of the context is if the material in Matthew 1 preceeded Romans 9:11. Please check, are the pages of your bible sticking? Did you miss the material between Matthew 1 and Romans 9:11? There is absolutely nothing in the context about royal linages.

[/quote:b1a61]

No kidding. You actually missed something, right there in the first five verses of chapter nine, where one would expect to see an opening statement to the next topic discussed:

4Who are Israelites; to whom pertains the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, a n d t h e p r o m i s e s; (i.e. the promised messiah from the lineage of David…. )
5Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.

Again notice the major importation of thinking. Now in case the reader is not following unreds argumentation (I would not be able to blame you), he is suggesting that the election of Romans 9:11 is that "royal linage." When I point out that the context does not even mention kingship or "royal linage," unred quotes Romans 9:5. Does he show where the term "royal linage" occurs in verse 5? No, he assumes that because there is a concept of fleshly Israel in verse 5 that it is talking about a royal linage. Why does unred assume this? His tradition tells him he must and so it is not neccessary for the words "royal linage" to actually occur. Isogesis is absolutely necessary to maintain the tradition, and so he can insert any word or change the meaning of any word he wishes.

Will unred quote a lexicon to demonstrate the the word "concerning the flesh, Christ came" actually means "royal linage?" No, the words loose meaning by isogesis.

Actually, Romans 9:4-5 speak of the national promises to Israel. Romans 9:6 then clarifies that he is not talking about genetic Israel only. He is talking about the remnant of Israel, or believing Israel.
Rom 9:6 But it is not as though the word of God hath come to nought. For they are not all Israel, that are of Israel:
Paul is actually demonstrating that there is no such thing as an election by your genes. Many Israelites were unbelievers and went to hell. Some where of the remnant, and to them belong the promises of verses 4-5. Now Paul will later tell us that he is not talking about the elect within Israel (not the same as elect Israel), but he also includes the gentiles in verse 24 as part of the elect.
Rom 9:24 even us, whom he also called, not from the Jews only, but also from the Gentiles?
Of course unreds tradition does not include the concept of individual election to salvation, so he must force the entire context to be about national election.
(Let me add, that there is a concept of the remnant of Israel as being elect within the passage, this is not to deny that dispensationaiist concept of the remnant of Israel being elect and receiving the promises of God in the kingdom. Even then, the remnant of Israel includes concepts of salvation and individual election in the scriptures).

Unred, the rest of your last post is a little over the edge. It seems you are trying to prove that the Mosaic covenant was a covenant or works. I know of no one who disagrees with that. If that is what you are arguing, why did you bother to start arguing that point when I was talking about election?

When I said

So then, no one ever obeys God. No one seeks God, no one is righteous, all are sinners. God selects to make some righteous, but even those who are righteous, it is not their own works, but it is simply the act of God. Yes, I know faith is involved, but without God's efforts, no one would have faith. It is God that changes hearts and gives obedience. It is God that elects, no one can elect themselves by their own works.

You pick out one part of the first sentence of the paragraph and read this part in isolation from the rest of the context of my statement. I know I should not be surprised at this because you do the same thing with the scriptures constantly. If you are unable to read the scriptures in context, why should I expect you to read my own comments in context?

Notice in that paragraph I said "It is God that changes hearts and gives obedience." So then, I am saying that obedience in humans occur, but that this obedience is totally the work of God. Then notice that I am still thinking in terms of election when I say "It is God that elects, no one can elect themselves by their own works."

So when I read you writing this huge discourse on works proving that men can do good works, I shrug and wonder why you bothered to write all that. I think I get it, you simply cannot read either a biblical context or the context of my own statements. You focus on one small part and bring your own preconceived idea of what you want it to say.

I dont feel inclined to bother with the drivel in the rest of your post. I believe the Mosaic Law and Mosaic Covenant is a covenant of works that does not lead to salvation. Of course I believe no covenant of works leads to salvation. Attempting to use works to contribute to your salvation will not bring you closer to salvation, but will take you further away, it only adds debt.
Rom 4:4 Now to him that worketh, the reward is not reckoned as of grace, but as of debt.

In fact, the one who depends totally upon the grace of God (and Christs shed blood) without any works for salvation, he is justified.
Rom 4:5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is reckoned for righteousness.

Notice that interesting little contrast in Romans 4:4-5. Justification is by faith alone, election is not even by faith, it is by the sovereign choice of God.

Sola fide,
Mondar

 

[unred typo]

quote by mondar on Mon Sep 10, 2007 3:36 pm
[quote:2247b]unred wrote: The Word was conformed into the image of his Son. God knew the Word from before the foundation of the world.

Now get a load of the quote above! Astonishing! Unred, when you reached for your bible, I suspect you accidentally picked up the readers digest. I know it is hard for you to distinguish between the two.
Romans 8:29 is talking about the word? I must admit that I rarely have seen crazier wild eyed speculation. Now for you readers that are following this.... I think I can explain how unred came to this conclusion. Unred has a tradition of justification by faith and works. If he sees any verses that do not fit his preconcieved tradition of justification by faith and works he simply makes something up.
Is the concept of the Logos (word) mentioned anywhere in Romans 8:29? In looking through Chapter 8 and then Chapter 9, the closest occurrence of the word "logos" is Romans 9:6. In Romans 9:6 the word logos refers to the scriptures, not the person of Christ, and the word logos in Chapter 9 has no bearing on the meaning of 8:29. The absurdity of such an interpretation can only be explained in one way.... We have major tradition being inserted into the text by unred.
In greek Romans 8:29 reads...
Rom 8:29 Äι ο ÀÃÂοέγνÉ, καὶ ÀÃÂοÃŽÃÂιÃε ÃÆ’Ã…μμÃÅ’ÃÂÆοÅ Äη εικÌνο ÄοÃ… Ã…ιοÃ… αÅÄοÃ…, ει Äὸ εναι αÅÄὸν ÀÃÂÉÄÃ΀οκον εν Àολλοι ἀδελÆοι·
The word logos is not there.[/quote:2247b]

I didn’t explain that very well and actually misstated the explanation that I should have given here, having rushed through your post. It does say that the ones referred to as those that he did foreknow and predestinate to be conformed to the image of his son here are indeed ‘the called’ who are also the ones who love God. I accept your rebuke for my hasty, poorly thought out rationalization. While it is true that the Logos was conformed to the image of his son in the incarnation of Christ, this is not specifically the thought that Paul appears to be conveying here. I stand corrected. However, it is still the case that the ones who are called are the ones who love God.

He calls those who love him. It stands to reason that the ones who love him cannot love him before they were born, before the foundation of the world. The purpose of God existed before man was even created, and the Logos existed then but you and I did not exist, except as a desire of God to have autonomous beings who could love him of their own free will, that would be created in his image. This is our purpose; to freely love God. This is God’s plan; to call those who freely love him and lead them in such a way that will conform them to the image of his son. These are individuals but they are not specific individuals, until they are known to love God and are called to fulfill this very purpose of God, to become sons of God, brothers to the firstborn son.

quote by mondar:
This has been repeated behavior by him. In his previous post, he was speaking of Romans 9:11.
Rom 9:11 for the children being not yet born, neither having done anything good or bad, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth,
He started out agreeing with the passage, but by the time he was working with Romans 9:15 he was preaching a bizzare doctrine of works election. How can you get works election with Romans 9:11 right in the context? Thats something that only our very own unred can do with his amazing traditions.

I really think you have misrepresented what I wrote concerning Romans 9:11. This is my quote:
I said: “I fully understand election here is not by works. Election here is being elected to the lineage of Christ, getting your name in the genealogy list. It was a big deal back then before TV and Oprah and getting to be famous for 15 minutes for having the current biggest heartbreak.â€Â

Why do you think I changed to getting in the genealogy by works? The election to the lineage of Christ was not by works. If I have had a brain cramp and said otherwise, please show me where that is and I will gladly retract it and take your derision like a man, (whimpering and pouting… )

quote by mondar:
I dont remember bringing up works, I believe you did. My motive in mentioning 2 Thes 2:13 was to demonstrate that individual election to salvation is a concept that is obviously in the scriptures.
2Th 2:13 But we are bound to give thanks to God always for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, for that God chose you from the beginning unto salvation in sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth:
[quote:2247b]unred said: But when you see the word ‘beginning’ in Paul’s writing, why do you immediately and solely relate it to the beginning of creation? Very strange phenomena.

Eph 1:4 even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blemish before him in love:
Now unred, I know Paul is not your favorite, but when he says that election occurred "before the foundation of the world," it makes it rather difficult to read this after creation. I cannot wait to see your mental gymnastics on how election is not before the foundation of the world. I bet within a few verses of Eph 1:4 you could somehow find something in your tradition that will say that election was long after creation. If I can quote your words....
Very strange phenomena.[/quote:2247b]

You must be sigh-kick. Yes, I am going to say that election in 2 Thessalonians 2:13 is not at the foundation of the world. ‘The beginning’ in 2 Thessalonians is the beginning of their belief in truth and the time when the Spirit set them apart because of this belief in the truth. BTW, it says ‘through sanctification’ in the KJV, not ‘in sanctification.’ I think that helps to see it better.

Ephesians 1:4 illustrates another problem you have. You skipped the two most important words of the verse that define who the ‘we’ are. They are those ‘in him’. God chose those unknown whoevers that become part of the body of Christ in the future to be those who are holy and without blame before him in love.

You’re sloshing through these verses like it doesn’t matter that you can’t be chosen before you exist and you can’t believe before you hear and you can‘t hear before you were born. Tell me how this can be otherwise. Remember, keep it simple as if you were talking to a plowboy, not a theological scholar.

quote by mondar:
unred said previously: [quote:2247b]“Romans 9:11 is only to specify which twin will be the royal lineage of God’s son.â€Â

Mondar reply: Hehe, you gotta be kidding me? Tell me I am misunderstanding you. You are actually suggesting that Romans 9:11 is about the election of an individual to kingship or linage in the line of Christ? The only way you could get this out of the context is if the material in Matthew 1 preceeded Romans 9:11. Please check, are the pages of your bible sticking? Did you miss the material between Matthew 1 and Romans 9:11? There is absolutely nothing in the context about royal linages.
unred said previously:

“No kidding. You actually missed something, right there in the first five verses of chapter nine, where one would expect to see an opening statement to the next topic discussed:

4Who are Israelites; to whom pertains the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, a n d t h e p r o m i s e s; (i.e. the promised messiah from the lineage of David…. )
5Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.â€Â

Again notice the major importation of thinking. Now in case the reader is not following unreds argumentation (I would not be able to blame you), he is suggesting that the election of Romans 9:11 is that "royal linage." When I point out that the context does not even mention kingship or "royal linage," unred quotes Romans 9:5. Does he show where the term "royal linage" occurs in verse 5? No, he assumes that because there is a concept of fleshly Israel in verse 5 that it is talking about a royal linage. Why does unred assume this? His tradition tells him he must and so it is not neccessary for the words "royal linage" to actually occur. Isogesis is absolutely necessary to maintain the tradition, and so he can insert any word or change the meaning of any word he wishes.

Will unred quote a lexicon to demonstrate the the word "concerning the flesh, Christ came" actually means "royal linage?" No, the words loose meaning by isogesis.[/quote:2247b]

I really don’t see you have made your case here. How can you possibly not see that the expression, “as concerning the flesh, Christ came†is referring to the human lineage of Jesus Christ??? Do you deny that Jesus came in the flesh and was born in the lineage of King David? Do you see that these listed here were all chosen to be in that lineage? From Abraham, to Isaac, to Jacob?

quote by mondar:
Actually, Romans 9:4-5 speak of the national promises to Israel. Romans 9:6 then clarifies that he is not talking about genetic Israel only. He is talking about the remnant of Israel, or believing Israel.
Rom 9:6 But it is not as though the word of God hath come to nought. For they are not all Israel, that are of Israel:
Paul is actually demonstrating that there is no such thing as an election by your genes. Many Israelites were unbelievers and went to hell. Some where of the remnant, and to them belong the promises of verses 4-5. Now Paul will later tell us that he is not talking about the elect within Israel (not the same as elect Israel), but he also includes the gentiles in verse 24 as part of the elect.
Rom 9:24 even us, whom he also called, not from the Jews only, but also from the Gentiles?
Of course unreds tradition does not include the concept of individual election to salvation, so he must force the entire context to be about national election.
(Let me add, that there is a concept of the remnant of Israel as being elect within the passage, this is not to deny that dispensationaiist concept of the remnant of Israel being elect and receiving the promises of God in the kingdom. Even then, the remnant of Israel includes concepts of salvation and individual election in the scriptures).

I have no problem with your explanation here about the nation being chosen, and there is a remnant according to grace which is all irrelevant to the purpose of election here being to the lineage of Jesus who was the elect seed of promise within the elect royal lineage within the elect nation of Israel, except that none of this pertains to salvation by election. Those who are the spiritual sons by faith in God are the ones who will be saved eternally, not those chosen specifically for a particular honor (or dishonor) .

quote by mondar:
Unred, the rest of your last post is a little over the edge. It seems you are trying to prove that the Mosaic covenant was a covenant or works. I know of no one who disagrees with that. If that is what you are arguing, why did you bother to start arguing that point when I was talking about election?

When I said
So then, no one ever obeys God. No one seeks God, no one is righteous, all are sinners. God selects to make some righteous, but even those who are righteous, it is not their own works, but it is simply the act of God. Yes, I know faith is involved, but without God's efforts, no one would have faith. It is God that changes hearts and gives obedience. It is God that elects, no one can elect themselves by their own works.

You pick out one part of the first sentence of the paragraph and read this part in isolation from the rest of the context of my statement. I know I should not be surprised at this because you do the same thing with the scriptures constantly. If you are unable to read the scriptures in context, why should I expect you to read my own comments in context?

Notice in that paragraph I said "It is God that changes hearts and gives obedience." So then, I am saying that obedience in humans occur, but that this obedience is totally the work of God. Then notice that I am still thinking in terms of election when I say "It is God that elects, no one can elect themselves by their own works."

Lost my head again. I forgot to think like a Calvinreformist. You missed my point because you think it’s an acceptable thing to say that “God changes hearts and gives obedience.†You don’t even realize how inane that sounds to a normal person. ( not that I qualify as normal but I can imagine how it might be : ) You don’t give obedience to your children, you demand it. You don’t tinker with their free wills and change their hearts, you give them incentives to change their hearts themselves through rewards offered and punishments threatened. If obedience is totally the work of God, there will be no reward for those obey since they had no choice and did not do it willingly. See Paul’s statement in 1 Corinthians 9:16-17:

For though I preach the gospel, I have nothing to glory of: for necessity is laid upon me; yea, woe is unto me, if I preach not the gospel!
For if I do this thing willingly, I have a reward: but if against my will, a dispensation of the gospel is committed unto me.

quote by mondar:
So when I read you writing this huge discourse on works proving that men can do good works, I shrug and wonder why you bothered to write all that. I think I get it, you simply cannot read either a biblical context or the context of my own statements. You focus on one small part and bring your own preconceived idea of what you want it to say.

I dont feel inclined to bother with the drivel in the rest of your post. I believe the Mosaic Law and Mosaic Covenant is a covenant of works that does not lead to salvation. Of course I believe no covenant of works leads to salvation. Attempting to use works to contribute to your salvation will not bring you closer to salvation, but will take you further away, it only adds debt.
Rom 4:4 Now to him that worketh, the reward is not reckoned as of grace, but as of debt.

In fact, the one who depends totally upon the grace of God (and Christs shed blood) without any works for salvation, he is justified.
Rom 4:5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is reckoned for righteousness.

Notice that interesting little contrast in Romans 4:4-5. Justification is by faith alone, election is not even by faith, it is by the sovereign choice of God.

Rom 4:4 Now to him that works, the reward is not reckoned as of grace, but as of debt.
Rom 4:5 But to him that works not, but believes on him that justifies the ungodly, his faith is reckoned for righteousness.


You can only see your narrow interpretation of those verses. I see yours and I see the better one that agrees with the words of Christ and the words of all the prophets, apostles, disciples, including James and last but not least, Paul.

If anyone could do perfect works, they might be able to puff out their chest and demand the reward promised to those who have worked out their salvation in perfection. As we agree, this isn’t going to be possible for all have sinned. That leaves the other option where every person must believe on him that justifies the ungodly…which is how? By his blood through repentance, confession and continuance in the doctrines of Christ. What is this faith that is reckoned for righteousness? Look at our examples in the faith chapter of Hebrews 11. By faith these all believed and obeyed God. What are we to believe? Every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God, his prophets, his Holy Spirit, and his son. What are we to obey? All that he commands us to do, repenting and asking for forgiveness when we mess up and continuing in his way.