Election question.

[wavy]

For this reason: since the problem raised by verses 1-5 concerns the eternal destinies of individuals, the solution to this problem which Paul defends in the rest of Romans 9 must also deal with the eternal destinies of individuals.

This is a lie. Paul is speaking of Jewish Israel here as a whole, or Beit Yahudah/House of Judah.

No individuals are in the context. His original assumption is incorrect which, by his logic above, destroys the rest of his argument.

Let me repeat this: since the problem of verses 1-5 concerns the eternal destinies of individuals, the solution to the problem that Paul explains (vv.7-14)

Again, he is going off of that original assumption. This is wrong. All Rav Shaul explains in verses 7-14 is that Israel should be like Isaac and Jacob. Not just born after the flesh (like Ishmael was) but by promise through the renewal of the Spirit. You can't just claim kingdom entry because of heritage. You must be like Isaac and Jacob. Chosen through the Spirit and not just because of the flesh.

Isaac and Jacob's call was to birth the nation of Israel (this has nothing to do with their being predestined to be saved).

The Pharaoh was chosen for the purpose of making the name of Yahweh known in the earth his true name that distinguishes him from other gods, (not just his "authority", btw).

Again individuals being called to be saved has nothing to do with this context. The context is how Jewish Israel should be, not that individuals are chosen for salvation. This is nowhere hinted at in verses 1-5 as this guy asserts.

The "corporate election to historical roles" view cannot successfully explain Paul's thread of argument: How is the problem of eternally condemned, individual Israelites in vv. 1-5 resolved if vv. 6-24ff. only refer to historical roles and not individual salvation?

Again, that original false assumption. He's speaking in terms of the house of Judah as a whole (the opposite of individuals), not of individuals being saved or not saved.

If verses 6-13 (and 14-29) only refer to historical roles of nations, then Paul is not at all addressing why "God's word has not failed" (v. 6), but only restating the fact that created the problem in the first place. "Those interpreters who assert that Paul is referring merely to the historical destiny of Israel and not to salvation do not account plausibly for relationship of verse 1-5 to the rest of the chapter."[3]

He doesn't, imo, understand the example being given. The Rabbi is showing how Israel should be called through the Spirit and through Yahweh's great rachamim/mercies by the examples given. He is not speaking of how certain individuals within Israel will be saved (I guess you've heard me say this enough).

Pharaoh's "calling", for example, had nothing to do with salvation. Rav Shaul is making an example that the house of Judah should not try to earn their right standing by other criteria; not by the fact being being biological Israelites or by works.

Then entire context of this chapter and the next two chapters deal with unbelieving Jewish Israel and the believing nations (primarily Ephraim Israel).

This guy is refuted by Shaul when he quotes Joel 2:32:

Romans 10:13 "For whosoever shall call upon the name of YHWH shall be saved."

 

[Asaph]

Good Day, Asaph

I just wanted to say HI to you as it has been a while, hope you are doing well.

In Him,

Bill (bbas 64)

Hi Bill,

Yes it has been. I pray you are well and blessed beyond understanding. :D

Asaph

 

[Bubba]

John 1:12-13
"Yet to all who received Him, to those who believed in His name, he gave the right to become children of God--children born not of natural descent, not of human decision or a husband's will, but born of God."

And who is it that receives Him? Those who are made alive by GOD!

Eph.2:1-6
1And you were dead in your trespasses and sins,
2in which you formerly walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, of the spirit that is now working in the sons of disobedience.
3Among them we too all formerly lived in the lusts of our flesh, indulging the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest.
4But God, being rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us,
5even when we were dead in our transgressions, made us alive together with Christ ( by grace you have been saved),
6and raised us up with Him, and seated us with Him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus,

Bubba

 

[Drew]

To better understand the sovereignty of God... and whether election plays a role into the true gospel, we need to understand that a Creator who made all beings, whether we are vessels of destruction or vessels of mercy (as it is put by Paul), made us so that HIS plan could become of itself. He was not wrong in ordaining that there be sin, or ordaining that some would go to hell, and some would go to heaven. Because without evil, there is no concept of what is good. God would have no glory, if there were no such thing as sin and the devil. Because we, as humans, would know no different than Him, so we would not fully appreciate his glory. God wanted all of his attributes to be shown, which is why he ordained that some would perish and some would live. Without some pershing, where is our God of Wrath? Without some living eternally, where is our God of Mercy? And without God being in complete control of every event that happens, and every choice man makes, where is our Sovereign God of Complete control?

I must admit that I have never found this kind of argument very convincing. It seems to paint a picture of a God who sends people to an eternity of torment in Hell for the purposes of "allowing Himself to be known". It would surely seem that there must have been another way than to arrange for the eternal torture of countless millions to reveal Himself.

Its on issues like these that the rubber really hits the road. With no specific disrespect intended to Hawkanomics, I am going to make the risky statement that almost no thoughtful Christian really and truly, deep down in their heart and bowel, believes in such a picture of God. I propose, that they very reluctantly accept it because it is "standard doctrine" or because they need to believe this to preserve the doctrine of Biblical inerrancy.

I would claim that responses like "The ways of God are incomprehensible to us" are very dubious indeed. I knows this sounds kind of sentimental, but I think every human, deep in their guts, "knows" that pre-destining (fore-ordaining) someone to an eternty of conscious torment simply cannot be reconciled with any concept of a just and loving God.

I am sure many will take issue with these views. Please, respond as you see fit.

 

[Imagican]

Amen Drew!

What I have witnessed in this thread is a complete and obviously intentional overlooking of the 'other' force that man must contend with in this life. Satan is ALWAYS there to lead the lost away from God. It is with him that those that parish will reside. It is he that has been separated and wishes this same separation for mankind. And it is he that many will choose to follow rather than Jesus to the Father. And that will be THEIR choice.

 

[farley]

Bubba...

Farley,
Please check out this article, which I believes will help you see that individuals are the predominant subject of election in Romans 9.
Bubba

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Delphi/8449/rom.html

Let me back up just a little bit and try to clarify my position. The Bible plainly teaches us that the elect are Israel! Of this, I have no doubt! Israel is the chosen people of God.

This does not mean that the chosen are guaranteed salvation. Calvin's definition of predestination is not scriptural!

I am looking at passages now, as I continue to study Calvinism, that I feel speaks to some few who MAY have been predestined to salvation: the OT prophets, Christ, the apostles...but at this time, I'm uncomfortable with even this view.

In Christ,

farley

 

[JM]

Peace

 

[Bubba]

Farley,

One Church. One Body. One (true) Israel.

See: http://www.hisremnant.org/hennessy/one.html

Bubba

 

[Dave...]

Christ said that it is faith in Him that saves. I think we have a real problem in the church in that we venerate the words of Paul over Christ. Seems everyone is trying to make Christs Gospels align with Pauls epistles instead of the other way around.

I never really had a problem with Paul vs. Jesus. I'm having difficulty putting my thoughts into words.

I believe that the Calvinist understanding of election is accurate to the Bible. I know people have other thoughts on this topic.

If you need to, assume that the Calvinist understanding of election is true. Assume that you reject it. What is the ripple affect of rejecting election? Will this ripple affect lead you to reject important foundational truths that you need to know to be saved? Like...have you rejected God's sovereignty? If only a little, does rejecting it a little mean rejecting all of it? Have you denied God His deserved Glory because of ...pride and not really given your live to Christ, so you can find it?

As someone stated earlier, the "faith of a mustard seed". If we come seeking, the faith of a mustard seed works, but what if we come rejecting, and what is left over is the faith of a mustard seed?

Give me tonight to think of a better way to narrow this question down. I'm stuck on stupid these last couple of days. :-D

 

[JM]

Someone said, 'everyone believes in God's sovernity while on there knees, it's when they stand up they have the problem.'

 

[Bubba]

Hey Jason,
This is the formerly Beza now Bubba. Gave up on Theodur after learning about his Sacralism. I to have notice that when people pray they sound a bit like a Calvinist, then they open their eyes and the great "I" takes over.
Bubba AKA George

 

[Asaph]

Hey Jason,
This is the formerly Beza now Bubba. Gave up on Theodur after learning about his Sacralism. I to have notice that when people pray they sound a bit like a Calvinist, then they open their eyes and the great "I" takes over.
Bubba AKA George

Noticing is good then I guess. Know what I have noticed? That the Arminians have all one thing in common. Wanna know what it is? It is blinding pride. All of them, down to the letter, have that one thing. Massive pride.

They all, every last one, have within their selfish mental doctrine the pride of hell.

How's that for descriptive?

 

[Klee shay]

I think most of you that answered "no" confused the question. He didn't ask whether election was essential in being saved. He said understanding the true gospel.

Are you saying the true gospel was not the Christ?

 

[Drew]

Noticing is good then I guess. Know what I have noticed? That the Arminians have all one thing in common. Wanna know what it is? It is blinding pride. All of them, down to the letter, have that one thing. Massive pride.

They all, every last one, have within their selfish mental doctrine the pride of hell.

How's that for descriptive?

Thanks for not stooping to something rhetorical, say like questioning the character of your opponent without actually making an argument......

 

[wavy]

Are you saying the true gospel was not the Christ?

He's the one through whom the good news comes through. He is the deliverer. He offers it through his own self. It's impossible to be a partaker of the good news if he's not the central focal point (being יהוה manifested, of course)

But what is the good news??? I think we have a half, shallow definition of what it really is: the ingathering of the exiles of Israel and the restoration of the kingdom of Israel. Reconciliation between both houses.

This is the good news. This, if we go back and read the prophets, is what Messiah's whole coming was about.

The "gospel" we preach today is to go find pagans and try to change their religion by saying "Jesus Christ is Lord, believe and you will be saved from hell and you can have joy, peace..." etc, etc.

Where did this come from? At what point did the consistency of the scripture come to an end and we came to preaching this?

This means nothing to a pagan or some one of a false religious system. This is why the question is always raised, "why is your religion more true than mine or some one else's?"

The only way some one could be living their life and then accept the "gospel" mentioned above is out of fear, or because the "evangelists" offer them food and "miracles" and promises of this and this and that...

It's all self-indulgence. It's just, quite simply, "my religion is right and yours is not so you need be converted to what I'm telling you; and if you don't, you won't have the vague definition of joy that I have and will burn forever in hell".

Nonsense. So I repeat myself:

The true gospel cannot be understood, imo, unless one realizes this. And yes, it is here:

1 Corinthians 15:1 Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;
1 Corinthians 15:2 By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.
1 Corinthians 15:3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;

We know primarily where this is: Isaiah 53; Israel being the context.

1 Corinthians 15:4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:

Many people do not know where this is. Hosea 6:2. Context? Israel. (the whole book of Hosea is about sin as it pertains to backslidden Israel).

So heed Yahweh's advice:

Isaiah 56:3 Neither let the son of the stranger, that hath joined himself to YHWH, speak, saying, YHWH hath utterly separated me from his people: neither let the eunuch say, Behold, I am a dry tree.

 

[Asaph]

Noticing is good then I guess. Know what I have noticed? That the Arminians have all one thing in common. Wanna know what it is? It is blinding pride. All of them, down to the letter, have that one thing. Massive pride.

They all, every last one, have within their selfish mental doctrine the pride of hell.

How's that for descriptive?

Thanks for not stooping to something rhetorical, say like questioning the character of your opponent without actually making an argument......

Ah, I see. Mine was a generalized comment that struck a nerve.

I was actually trying to point out the double standard the arminians use, and I guess you have helped to illuminate that.

Thank you for your assistance.

Grace, Mercy, and Peace,
Asaph

 

[farley]

Hey...

I just caught Vic's sig line from his post in another thread. The last verse in the last book of the NT. It is the perfect response to the subject raised by this thread, and the Tulip thread as well!

Revelation 22 KJV
(21) The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen.

Salvation is for everyone who will!!!

In Christ,

farley

 

[Bubba]

Revelation 22 KJV
(21) The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen.

Salvation is for everyone who will!!!

The Book of ther Revelation was written for the believer and John's use of grace is extended to those who are saved. Who is it that "will" believe? Those who have been regenerated by God's Spirit (Eph.2:1-6).

Bubba

 

[farley]

Bubba,

I'm thinking that somewhere there is a passage that told me that ALL Scripture is useful for instruction!

You said...

The Book of ther Revelation was written for the believer and John's use of grace is extended to those who are saved. Who is it that "will" believe? Those who have been regenerated by God's Spirit (Eph.2:1-6).

I happen to believe that Ephesians 2:1-6 means exactly what it says. He is talking to those who were formerly sinners, and after having gone through conversion, are now brothers and sisters in Christ. Believers, yes! Believers who still need to hold fast to the Word, through obedience.

I also believe that Revelation is speaking to everyone. And, that no one should count themselves as "saved" until Jesus Christ has judged the life they've led on this earth, and found them good and faithful.

Your view that the book of Relevation is speaking only to the believers (I'm taking this to mean Calvin's 'elect', those who were 'once saved' and are now 'always saved', right!?!) is a position that I haven't heard before.

I would be interested to know your interpretion of the following passage, when viewed through your lens.

Revelation 3:5 KJV
(5) He that overcometh, the same shall be clothed in white raiment; and I will not blot out his name out of the book of life, but I will confess his name before my Father, and before his angels.

In Christ,

farley

 

[Klee shay]

He's the one through whom the good news comes through. He is the deliverer. He offers it through his own self. It's impossible to be a partaker of the good news if he's not the central focal point (being יהוה manifested, of course)

The good news is; Jesus has the power to forgive sins and give life.

It is written that a man who loses his life will gain it and a man who gains his life will lose it. How then can one give up everything they have to follow Christ when they lay possession to the Law?

When you are free to love the heart values it more than mere obedience.