Is Calvinism of the Bible?

[unred typo]

I’m sorry, Mondar. I didn’t mean to ignore you but I was out most of yesterday and missed this post.

quote by Mondar:
LOL, where have I head this said before?
unred, do you even read and follow the posts? I doubt you could even find what I was replying to. Since you dont have the foggiest notion of why I said that someone took beloved57s analogy to absurd proportions, you obviously are not even following the thought progression of the conversation.

You’re right. I don’t have the foggiest notion, I have a clear understanding and that’s why I threw it back at you. Unless you were being more cryptic than usual, you were beating up Drew for his admonition to be careful how we interpret "dead" and he said we should “not take this "dead" thing seriously, and if you were to go whole hog, you could claim that the unredeemed are actually dead in every respect.†Did you have something else in mind?

quote by Mondar:
unred typo wrote: 'Dead' is a figure of speech.

Again, what your write is such drivel. Can you show me where either beloved57 or I suggested that the term "dead" is not a figure of speech?

Yes, you’re so quick to pick up on stuff. Can’t get anything by you. I was stating the obvious that you seem to have so much trouble with. Good for you. Now, as a figure of speech, it doesn’t necessarily mean that we are figuratively helpless to reach up and figuratively grasp the figurative rope thrown to the figuratively dead man, but it can mean that we are, as Drew suggested, awaiting the sentence of death, as in the expression, “I’m dead, my mother is going to kill me when she finds out.†It's not that we are unable to respond or accept any help or that Jesus hasn't called us to awake from the dead.

quote by Mondar:
unred typo wrote: It doesn’t mean unable to accept any help from God.

That is exactly what the term means in Ephesians 2:1. I have already presented evidence strait out of the text to demonstrate that the term "dead" is related to the phrase in 2:3 "and were by nature the children of wrath." Did you not read that post? You fail to understand what is being said? We were "dead" until God "made us alive." He made us alive by changing our nature so that we are not "children of wrath."

You might have been in a theological strait to cover up the straight meaning of the text. You are always taking part truth and mixing it with error. Yes, they were ’dead’ until God made them alive. They were dead in trespasses and sins. They became alive by believing the words of Christ and following him. Let’s start with the beginning. Chapter 1. First, let’s straighten out your confusion with the concept of predestination.

Who are predestinated? The faithful saints. Verse 1.

What were they predestined to have because they are faithful saints? Verse 3, they are being blessed in Christ with all spiritual blessings.

What are they predestined to become because they are faithful saints? Verse 6, to be adopted as children.

How were they chosen? They were chosen before the foundation of the world, because they are in Christ, verse 4.

How is adoption possible? They are made accepted in the beloved, verse 6. Now get this straight. Remember who the beloved is? It’s not you, and it’s not beloved57, it’s Christ. It’s HIS blood that removes sin ,verse 7, and makes them, or anyone, even you, even beloved57, even I, accepted in the beloved. This is important stuff. If you miss this, you’re off in the straits between the straight and narrow way and the paths that lead to destruction.

quote by Mondar:
unred typo wrote:If it did, please explain the following verse:
Ephesians 5:14
Wherefore he says, Awake you that sleeps, and arise from the dead, and Christ shall give you light.
That’s just one to account for. There’s more where that came from.

Oh my, the terrible unred has more verses. If you keep asking "what about this verse, and what about that verse. Surely somewhere you can find some minor issue to deal and avoid reading the term "dead" in Eph 2:1 in the context in which it exists. OF course it is true that every word in scripture should be defined by its context, but I doubt you will grasp that concept.

You successfully avoided answering but you’re exactly right. I should just continue to define the words by the context and not confuse you with other examples. What was I thinking? Let’s march on to your ‘dead’ end in chapter 2.

quote by Mondar:
I know your methods of bible study. If you can find some obscure verse that does not neccessarily have the context to demonstrate the meaning of the word "dead." You read your non-Christian concepts into the word in this other more obscure context, and then read that meaning back into the original context of Eph 2:1. Then you can make Eph 2:1 to say something completely opposite of what it is actually saying.

You do seem to know that method of study, but you didn’t learn it from me. And I should know better than to employ anything that resembles such a devise on you since it is your own invention, you would suspect it straight away even though I am not interested in confusing you, but in opening your eyes to the truth. Let’s just forget all those other verses and go on with Ephesians. Good idea.

We haven’t made this crystal clear yet, about the predestination. Look at when the predestination took place, back in the beginning of creation, that we know now, God “having made known unto us the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure which he hath purposed in himself:, verses 9-10, that in the dispensation of the fullness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in himâ€Â. This is that generic group of believers that he is predestinating to spiritual blessings and adoption. These are whosoever will believe in him, throughout history. They are of both Jews and Gentiles, as Drew was explaining in Romans to you. If you understand that now, we can go on. Knowing you, you still aren’t convinced. Ok, three more verses then: :-D

11In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who works all things after the counsel of his own will:
12That we should be to the praise of his glory, who first trusted in Christ.
13In whom you also trusted, after that you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that you believed, you were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise,

Notice the order of things: God makes the plan, without anyone’s help, to predestinate those who have first trusted in Christ after they hear the truth, in whom after they believed were sealed by the Spirit. When you hear the gospel, you have a choice to believe or reject it. The message is life changing or you haven’t really believed it. If you believe it, you are sealed and set apart by the Spirit. If you willingly accept all that Jesus taught us as truth, and that the Spirit leads us to follow, he will live within you and keep you clean, ‘without spot or blemish.’

NOW let’s go on to Chapter 2:

And you has he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins; wherein in time past you walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now works in the children of disobedience: among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.

We are quickened, or made alive, by believing his word, accepting it into our lives in obedience to what Jesus taught us. When we obey the word, it gives us life. Since we are going to be judged by our works, if we don’t obey it, we are no better off than the children of disobedience who were not willing to even hear the words of Christ. It is not the hearers of the word who are justified, but the doers of the word.

quote by Mondar:
So after all that, tell me unred, do you have the foggiest idea what is being said in Eph 4. Do you even understand my small discussion of defining words by their context? Can you demonstrate from the context how the word "dead" in Eph 4:13 demonstrates that "children of disobedience" (Eph 2:2; 5:6) are not in rebellion against God by their own sinful, wrathful, rebellious nature? Actually, you cannot. The context is not about the children of wrath and disobedience (yes, they are mentioned in the context) but the context is an exhortation to the children of light to "walk" as "children of the light" (4:8). Verse 14 is then a quote in which we are called from the dead to the light by Christ. There is no defining context for the word "dead."

Yes, I do understand chapter 4 as well. I didn’t go there because this is getting too long and I know you want to deny who the predestinated are. The children of light are those who have willingly chosen to walk in the light, to awake from the dead, and the children of disobedience are those who refuse to even hear the Spirit or the gospel because they don’t want to obey. They avoid the light because their deeds are evil. They can change but they must be willing to change.

The children of light want to obey but they, too, must apply themselves to do it and the Lord will help them. If they disobey, the Lord will punish them to get them back on track. If they continue to reject the words of Christ, they may find themselves cast into outer darkness with the children of disobedience. You are servants of whom you choose to obey:

2Wherein in time past you walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now works in the children of disobedience:

quote by Mondar:
The word "dead, in the context of Eph 2:1 is best defined by the context of Eph 2:1, not some other context.

I agree, but let’s not pull Calvin’s warped view into the verse to restrict those quickened to some elite group of pre-selected persons. If you are willing to obey, you will be quickened by the words of Christ. The call to awake from the dead is to all who are dead.

 

[mondar]

quote by Mondar:
unred typo wrote: It doesn’t mean unable to accept any help from God.

That is exactly what the term means in Ephesians 2:1. I have already presented evidence strait out of the text to demonstrate that the term "dead" is related to the phrase in 2:3 "and were by nature the children of wrath." Did you not read that post? You fail to understand what is being said? We were "dead" until God "made us alive." He made us alive by changing our nature so that we are not "children of wrath."

You might have been in a theological strait to cover up the straight meaning of the text. You are always taking part truth and mixing it with error. Yes, they were ’dead’ until God made them alive. They were dead in trespasses and sins. They became alive by believing the words of Christ and following him. Let’s start with the beginning. Chapter 1. First, let’s straighten out your confusion with the concept of predestination.

Who are predestinated? The faithful saints. Verse 1.

What were they predestined to have because they are faithful saints? Verse 3, they are being blessed in Christ with all spiritual blessings.

What are they predestined to become because they are faithful saints? Verse 6, to be adopted as children.

How were they chosen? They were chosen before the foundation of the world, because they are in Christ, verse 4.

How is adoption possible? They are made accepted in the beloved, verse 6. Now get this straight. Remember who the beloved is? It’s not you, and it’s not beloved57, it’s Christ. It’s HIS blood that removes sin ,verse 7, and makes them, or anyone, even you, even beloved57, even I, accepted in the beloved. This is important stuff. If you miss this, you’re off in the straits between the straight and narrow way and the paths that lead to destruction.

LOL, unred, your a mess. Do you have any idea what the thread is about at this point? I made a post and connected the term "dead" in Ephesians 2:1 to the phrase "by nature children of wrath. You dont even address the issue of what I said. You go off into the wrong Chapter and post some other nonsense. It is a basic hermeneutical principle that each vocabulary word must be defined within the local context. I did exactly that in Ephesians 2:1, 3. You went off into some other context that does ont even have the word "dead" in it.

Unred, your waisting my time. Stay on topic.

...a lot of off topic drivel snipped.....

And you has he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins; wherein in time past you walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now works in the children of disobedience: among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.

We are quickened, or made alive, by believing his word, accepting it into our lives in obedience to what Jesus taught us. When we obey the word, it gives us life. Since we are going to be judged by our works, if we don’t obey it, we are no better off than the children of disobedience who were not willing to even hear the words of Christ. It is not the hearers of the word who are justified, but the doers of the word.

unred, you have no idea what "exegesis" is, do you? Exegesis is when you draw your theology from the text. Eisegesis is when you impose something on the text. When you bring works into this context, that is eisegesis. The concept of himan works is absent in the context. You imposed it upon the context.

Verses 4-5 make it clear that we do not quicken ourselves with our own works (as you are saying), but God quickened us. We do not raise ourselves from spiritual death, but this is the actin of God. This will go over your head, but there is no active verb in Eph 2:1-5 referring to any human action at all. Every verb or participle that is active refers to an action by God. What did God do in Eph 2:1-5? He made us alive. How? Verse 3 illudes to it, and verse 6 speaks of it more directly.

Unred, you I can see you read the scriptures much like you read my posts. You pick out a few words here and there, and make up what you want them to say.

quote by Mondar:
The word "dead, in the context of Eph 2:1 is best defined by the context of Eph 2:1, not some other context.

I agree, but let’s not pull Calvin’s warped view into the verse to restrict those quickened to some elite group of pre-selected persons. If you are willing to obey, you will be quickened by the words of Christ. The call to awake from the dead is to all who are dead.

Here it is obvious that you are simply unable to discuss the word "dead" from the context. You go on writing volumes and never speak of the context of Eph 2:1ff. IS this the best you can do is poison the well by calling Ephesians 2:1 "Calvin's warped view." Sad, so sad.

 

[francisdesales]

God only Loves certain people and christ died for only certain people and they are called the elect..

God only loves certain people? Why are you restricting God to whom He loves? God loves all men, because God died for all men.

Regards

 

[beloved57]

God only Loves certain people and christ died for only certain people and they are called the elect..

God only loves certain people? Why are you restricting God to whom He loves? God loves all men, because God died for all men.

Regards

God resrticts Him self rom 9:


13As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.
deal with it..

And christ says he died for the sheep jn 10:

15As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father: and I lay down my life for the sheep.
Sorry if you are a goat...if you are you will be on the left...

 

[unred typo]

quote by Mondar:
LOL, unred, your a mess. Do you have any idea what the thread is about at this point? I made a post and connected the term "dead" in Ephesians 2:1 to the phrase "by nature children of wrath. You dont even address the issue of what I said. You go off into the wrong Chapter and post some other nonsense. It is a basic hermeneutical principle that each vocabulary word must be defined within the local context. I did exactly that in Ephesians 2:1, 3. You went off into some other context that does ont even have the word "dead" in it.

Unred, your waisting my time. Stay on topic.

You’re avoiding my argument. You really should learn better English if you’re going to be tossing about hermeneutical principles as eye candy. I have generally read (not red) through your (not you’re) misspellings and wrong uses of words, but most people don’t flaunt their (not there) grammatical excellence as proof for their (not they’re) argument, which is fine if you’re (not your) really all that superior in sentence structure and word meanings.

Your (not you’re) wonderful verbiage is wasted (not waisted ) by your (not you’re) lack of attention to detail. If you can’t handle plain (not plane ) and simple English uses of everyday words, how do expect to ‘wow’ us with your pretentious concept of isogesis versus (not verses ) exegesis versus eisegesis? You don’t (not dont ) even deal with the issue I explained for you carefully, verse by verse. Wasn’t that good enough exegesis for you?

Who’s (not whose ) really off topic, Mondar? Let’s stay on the topic of how unbiblical Calvinism is in regard to the concept of ‘dead’ and what it entails and who it applies to, whaddaya say? That would be the tulip’s T or L unless I’m mistaken. But then, (not than) I’m not a Calvinist and my time with Calvinists (not Calvinist’s ) is usually more of a ostentatious grammar lesson than (not then ) a comprehensive defense of Calvinism, not that I don‘t appreciate your wealth of new vocab.

quote by Mondar:
unred typo wrote:
...a lot of off topic drivel snipped..…

I love to see these little evidences that you understood something that you would rather not face square on. Good show, Mondar!

quote by Mondar:
unred, you have no idea what "exegesis" is, do you? Exegesis is when you draw your theology from the text. Eisegesis is when you impose something on the text. When you bring works into this context, that is eisegesis. The concept of himan works is absent in the context. You imposed it upon the context.

Yes, I do understand those words, because of your use of them here, I looked them up. I always understood the practical application, but thanks to you, I now have a couple fancy words to explain it.

quote by Mondar:
Verses 4-5 make it clear that we do not quicken ourselves with our own works (as you are saying), but God quickened us. We do not raise ourselves from spiritual death, but this is the actin of God. This will go over your head, but there is no active verb in Eph 2:1-5 referring to any human action at all. Every verb or participle that is active refers to an action by God. What did God do in Eph 2:1-5? He made us alive. How? Verse 3 illudes to it, and verse 6 speaks of it more directly.

( word usage question: Do you mean to say ‘alludes’ or is ‘illudes’ one of those variations of a word, meant to express how ill your treatment of the verse is? Freudian slip, no doubt. :wink: )

Of course we do not quicken ourselves. That’s why I wrote: “Yes, they were ’dead’ until God made them alive. They were dead in trespasses and sins. They became alive by believing the words of Christ and following him.†When Lazarus hear the Lord say, ‘come forth!â€Â, he was given life to come forth. He had to get up and walk out of his tomb though. The word is life giving, quick and powerful. When you accept it, take it in, believe it and do what Jesus taught, you will become alive in Christ. It’s pretty simple really.

quote by Mondar:
Unred, you I can see you read the scriptures much like you read my posts. You pick out a few words here and there, and make up what you want them to say.

No, when I read the Bible, I believe it. When I read your posts, I shake my head in disbelief.

quote by Mondar:
Here it is obvious that you are simply unable to discuss the word "dead" from the context. You go on writing volumes and never speak of the context of Eph 2:1ff. IS this the best you can do is poison the well by calling Ephesians 2:1 "Calvin's warped view." Sad, so sad.

I didn’t call Ephesians 2:1 "Calvin's warped view." I said: “let’s not pull Calvin’s warped view into the verse to restrict those quickened to some elite group of pre-selected persons. If you are willing to obey, you will be quickened by the words of Christ. The call to awake from the dead is to all who are dead. Obviously it is YOU that can’t read my words in context and only pick up on a few words that you can spin into your ‘intellectual’ insults.

If you will note, the verse, in fact, the chapter, begins with AND which denotes something added to previous thoughts. That’s why I went back to establish who those people were and did not take the verse in complete isolation so that I could force my own interpretation upon it. I think there’s a word for that…it’s right on the tip of my tongue… never mind, it’s just a stodgy theological term that isn’t even in most people’s dictionaries, let alone their vocabularies.

Ephesians 2
1And you has he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins;

Why do I keep trying to make you understand?

2 Corinthians 5:14-15
For the love of Christ constrains us; because we thus judge, that if one died for all, then were all dead: And that he died for all, that they which live should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto him which died for them, and rose again.

 

[unred typo]

:D

Mondar,
I've been reading over some of your post again and I am confused. I'm not sure what you believe. Would you be so kind to give a brief description of the what you believe the five points of the T.U.L.I.P. to mean. It would probably benefit every one to know. Some of your statements appear to not be in line with any of the outlines of the T.U.L.I.P. that I have read.
Thanks
:D

Mondar,
Forget the humanist comment...that will only take this thread off on another lost tangent.
Could you please answer the quote above so I can be sure what you believe? I may be assuming things about your belief. What do you think the 5 points of the T.U.L.I.P. mean. Are the discriptions below accurate?

T. -- Because of the fall, man is unable of himself to savingly believe the gospel. The sinner is dead, blind, and deaf to the things of God; his heart is deceitful and desperately corrupt. His will is not free, it is in bondage to his evil nature, therefore, he will not - indeed he cannot - choose good over evil in the spiritual realm. Consequently, it takes much more than the Spirit's assistance to bring a sinner to Christ - it takes regeneration by which the Spirit makes the sinner alive and gives him a new nature. Faith is not something man contributes to salvation but is itself a part of God's gift of salvation - it is God's gift to the sinner, not the sinner's gift to God.

U. -- God's choice of certain individuals unto salvation before the foundation of the world rested solely in His own sovereign will. His choice of particular sinners was not based on any foreseen response of obedience on their part, such as faith, repentance, etc. On the contrary, God gives faith and repentance to each individual whom He selected. These acts are the result, not the cause of God's choice. Election therefore was not determined by or conditioned upon any virtuous quality or act foreseen in man. Those whom God sovereignly elected He brings through the power of the Spirit to a willing acceptance of Christ. Thus God's choice of the sinner, not the sinner's choice of Christ, is the ultimate cause of salvation.

L. -- Christ's redeeming work was intended to save the elect only and actually secured salvation for them. His death was substitutionary endurance of the penalty of sin in the place of certain specified sinners. In addition to putting away the sins of His people, Christ's redemption secured everything necessary for their salvation, including faith which unites them to Him. The gift of faith is infallibly applied by the Spirit to all for whom Christ died, therefore guaranteeing their salvation.

I. -- In addition to the outward general call to salvation which is made to everyone who hears the gospel, the Holy Spirit extends to the elect a special inward call that inevitably brings them to salvation. The internal call (which is made only to the elect) cannot be rejected; it always results in conversion. By means of this special call the Spirit irresistibly draws sinners to Christ. He is not limited in His work of applying salvation by man's will, nor is He dependent upon man's cooperation for success. The Spirit graciously causes the elect sinner to cooperate, to believe, to repent, to come freely and willingly to Christ. God's grace, therefore, is invincible; it never fails to result in the salvation of those to whom it is extended.

P. -- All who are chosen by God, redeemed by Christ, and given faith by the Spirit are eternally saved. They are kept in faith by the power of Almighty God and thus persevere to the end.

We can take on point at a time if you want. :D

You were the one that Mondar got upset with because you had the audacity to use the word ‘grace’ in your moniker when you’re not a Calvinist… hehe…welcome back. It seems Mondar believes that Calvinists/reformists have cornered the market on grace and if you want to use that word, you have to get his permission and if you’re not a card carrying Calvinist, I think he’d like you to post a disclaimer and a note from your proctologist. Don’t be offended if he doesn’t answer your posts or if he avoids being pinned down to what Calvinists normally believe versus what he believes. He does that fading in and out thing.
:-D

 

[GraceBwithU]

God only Loves certain people and christ died for only certain people and they are called the elect..

Are you sure you made it. Could be you made the "H-team"

My Bible says, "God so loved the world..." and
Christ died for "...whosoever believeth on Him..."
:D

 

[unred typo]

God only Loves certain people and christ died for only certain people and they are called the elect..

Are you sure you made it. Could be you made the "H-team"

My Bible says, "God so loved the world..." and
Christ died for "...whosoever believeth on Him..."
:D

Here’s me asking beloved57 about that very thing:

quote by unred typo:

Just curious, are you one of the elect?

Here’s beloved57’s answer:

quote by beloved57:

We're still waiting :smt102

 

[francisdesales]

God resrticts Him self rom 9:


13As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.

Deal with it...

Deal with it? Because I disagee with you is no reason for such a reply.

Perhaps you are familiar with the concept of "hate" in semeticism, meaning "love less"? And you should also consider the context of Romans 9:13, which refers to a nation, not an individual.

God doesn't hate His creation. What sort of god do you follow, one who creates objects that he hates??? Explain to me why an all powerful god creates objects that he hates???

And christ says he died for the sheep jn 10:

15As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father: and I lay down my life for the sheep.

Perhaps you are also unfamiliar with the English language as well. That Christ died for His sheep does NOT mean He did not lay down His life for OTHERS, as well. There is no restrictive clause in that verse that denies salvation to anyone. Nowhere does it say Christ did NOT die for the 'goats'. As a matter of fact, the Bible clearly notes that Christ died for the sin of the world. Now, whether men take advantage of that great gift, that remains to be seen. But the Scripture note that Christ died for ALL men.

The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world. John 1:29

The world...

Sorry if you are a goat...if you are you will be on the left...

So how does one know they are a goat? What does Jesus say is the determinant? Does He say "the goats are those who I did not die for"? Or does He say that the goats and sheep will be determined based on how they treat their neighbors?

To all the heady self-proclamations that you make about being a "sheep", I suggest you consider such Scriptures as this...

If we say that we have fellowship with him, and walk in darkness, we lie, and do not the truth: 1 John 1:6

That's the Word of God, not my word.

Regards

 

[Drew]

Drew,
So in 2:13 where the greek word nomos occurs (The hebrew equivelant would be "torah") you deny that it is the law.

I clearly do not the hold the position that you attribute to me here. Here is a recent post of mine that makes it clear: I believe that reference to "law" in Romans 2:13 is about the Torah.

The question then becomes: Who falls under the scope of verse 13 given that, indeed as mondar has stated, the "Torah" is what is being referred to here. We are no longer talking about a general judgement that has not been explicitly connected to Torah (like in verse 7). The Torah has been introduced as the reference point and we need to see verse 13 in terms of Torah.

Can we do so, and not restrict its scope of application to the Jews? Yes, I think we can. So how can it be that this Torah has applicability to Jews and Gentile?

I am going to exercize my right to - gasp - change my mind about how I represented verse 12 in my previous post. I will now rework my "insertion" in respect to verse 12:

12All who sin apart from the law {Gentile non-Christians - my insertion} will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law {Jews and Gentile Christians - my insertion}.

How do I justify (no pun intended) this move? By reference verses 14 and 15:

Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, 15since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts

Gentile Christians do not possess the law by nature (by birth). But they are now, as a result of the covenant renewal, in the strange position of "doing the law", since the Spirit (reference Romans 8) has written the 'work of Torah' on their hearts.

I believe that this solution "works" in the sense that it honours what I think is beyond doubt - Romans 2:6-13 includes all of humanity in it scope - there will be future justification by works for all.

It also honours mondar's statement, with which I agree, that "Law" is essentially Torah. The Gentile Christians have Torah written on their hearts, even though they were not born with it.

I hope this puts the matter to rest. Romans 2:13 is about Torah. Perhaps in earlier posts, I may have said something that supports your claim. But I have reworked my thinking: we both agree that Romans 2:13 refers to Torah.

 

[Drew]

God resrticts Him self rom 9:

13As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.
deal with it..

A careful analysis of Romans 9 (as well as Romans 10 and the rest of Romans) shows that Paul here is in no way dealing with the "election" of individuals to salvation or to loss. He is writing about the election of national Israel. I am more than happy to debate this with any and all.

 

[Orion]

Here's my problem with Calvinism and election. . . . I don't feel the draw of God, therefore, I'm not one of the elect, even though I really want to be, I keep finding myself in situations of questions and doubts. Perhaps God isn't wanting me as one of His elect, which He decided before creation, and I'm just spinning my wheels trying to find God who doesn't want ME to find HIM. It's not like I'm WANTING to be rebellious. I am on an earnest mission and yet I seem to come up short. According to Calvinism, . . . . I'm probably just not one of the elect.

 

[Drew]

This is the second in a series of posts whose purpose is to challenge the view that, in Romans 4:4-5, Paul is addressing the issue of people attempting to earn justification by “good works†and is saying, “no, you cannot be justified that wayâ€Â. I believe that posters such as mondar hold this view and use it to interpret Romans 2:7 as expressing a path to justification that no one will, in fact, take. I, on the other hand, believe that all Christians will, in fact, be justified in accordance with Romans 2:7. I cannot make this argument in a single post, so please refer to my first post in this series.

Now to continue the argument:

I suggest that one reason why Romans 4:4-5 is misinterpreted is that we engage in “atomistic exegesis†– we plunge right in to this little couplet of verses and interpret them, most certainly unconsciously, in accordance with the “received reformation wisdom†about what question Paul is addressing. More specifically, we read these verses with a priori inclination to interpret them as being an argument against justification by works and in favour of justification by faith. And, quite naturally, we can indeed read these verses that way. My point here is that we bring something to the reading of these verses – and this something is a belief about what specific question Paul is addressing. And we need to see if this belief is in fact correct.

My argument will be that the question in Romans 4 verse 1, which of course, establishes the context for the critical verses which follow, show that Paul is not, in fact, addressing the question of justification by works as set against justification by faith. I will explcitly provide this question in a subsequent post.

To begin with, I will quote theologian NT Wright on the historical and theological context in which Paul was situated when he wrote Romans. I am going to simply assume that Wright has his facts right here. Obviously, people should challenge this if they can. I hope that the reader will accept that this is all relevant to the ultimate argument, even though the connection may not yet be seen. I hope that it will soon.

The symbolic world of Judaism focused on temple, Torah, land, and racial identity. The assumed praxis (practices) brought these symbols to life in festivals and fasts, cult and sacrifice, domestic taboos and customs. The narrative framework which sustained symbol and praxis, and which can be seen in virtually all the writings we possess from the Second Temple period, had to do with the history of Israel; more specifically, with its state of continuing “exile†(though it had returned from Babylon, it remained under Gentile lordship, and the great promises of Isaiah and others remained unfulfilled) and the way(s) in which its god would intervene to deliver it as had happened in one of its foundation stories, that of the exodus.

As for theology, belief in the one true god remained basic (the creator god, hence the god of the whole world), as did belief in Israel’s election by this one god (who can therefore be given a capital letter, “Godâ€Â; the fact that scholarship uses this form unthinkingly has not been healthy for discussion of ancient theology). The purpose of this election is not so often noticed, but is, I suggest, vital. Israel’s controlling stories sometimes ended simply with its own vindication, but more often than not they included the idea that its god, in vindicating it, would thereby act in relation to the whole world, whether in blessing or in judgment or both (e.g., Tobit 13-14). Israel’s vocation had to do, in other words, with the creator’s plan for the whole creation. God called Abraham to deal with the problem of Adam.

 

[unred typo]

quote by francisdesales:
Deal with it? Because I disagee with you is no reason for such a reply.

Perhaps you are familiar with the concept of "hate" in semeticism, meaning "love less"? And you should also consider the context of Romans 9:13, which refers to a nation, not an individual.

God doesn't hate His creation. What sort of god do you follow, one who creates objects that he hates??? Explain to me why an all powerful god creates objects that he hates???

Good points and that reminds me of something I have thought about and forgotten to post. I think the concept of hate in that verse is the same as it is in this verse:

Luke 14:26
If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.

Our perception of ‘hate’ is obviously not what the writers of the new testament had in mind. Here you can reasonably understand that the Lord means ‘to put everyone else in second place’ and give preference to God. This is what we see with Jacob and Esau. When there is a choice as to who gets the best, and the most and the first, Jacob gets preferential treatment, he’s da man, and Esau gets the leftovers. Baby Esau is not the object of God’s wrath here in Romans.

 

[francisdesales]

Here's my problem with Calvinism and election. . . . I don't feel the draw of God, therefore, I'm not one of the elect, even though I really want to be, I keep finding myself in situations of questions and doubts. Perhaps God isn't wanting me as one of His elect, which He decided before creation, and I'm just spinning my wheels trying to find God who doesn't want ME to find HIM. It's not like I'm WANTING to be rebellious. I am on an earnest mission and yet I seem to come up short. According to Calvinism, . . . . I'm probably just not one of the elect.

Calvinism is a throwback to pagan fatalism and determinism. According to his followers, God chooses both the elect and the damned before seeing their merits/demerits. Thus, nothing we do has any bearing whatsoever on our eternal destiny. That's called "fate", an unchangeable and pagan concept. Life on earth is a pointless exercise. Calvinism goes beyond what Christianity proclaims - that God is just and rewards those who obey Him, and that life has meaning.

I wonder how many Calvinists proclaim they are NOT elect... How easy it is to fall into self-delusion.

Regards

 

[GraceBwithU]

God resrticts Him self rom 9:

13As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.
deal with it..

The word used here is actually "miseo" in Greek which means "love less". It comes from the root word "misos" which means "hatred". The writer could have used misos but he didn't, he used miseo. In other words, God showed favor for Jacob over Esau.

The 9th chapter of Romans is one of the most favorite chapters in the Bible for Calvinist (and others that believe in the non-sense of the T.U.L.I.P.) to butcher and distort. Here you have quoted one verse out of context. If you read the entire chapter you will see that Paul is referring to Israel. More specifically in verses 9:8-22, to the seed of Jacob, which will be passed eventually to Jesus. Jacob, (later changed to Israel) was for sure a special person in God’s plan. From Israel, Jacob), the Israelites are descended.

And christ says he died for the sheep jn 10:

15As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father: and I lay down my life for the sheep.
Sorry if you are a goat...if you are you will be on the left...

Again a verse out of context and also an interpretation that does not consider all that should be considered to properly understand what is being said. Verse 9 just above this says:

Jn 10:9
9 I am the door: by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture.

Hum…any?

1. one, a, an, or some; one or more without specification or identification
2. whatever or whichever it may be
3. in whatever quantity or number, great or small; some
4. every; all

Is English your native language? You don’t appear to have a very good understanding of the language. You should also try practicing better hermeneutics and invest in an interlinear Bible or begin using the one you have.

Just one more thing…Christ should be capitalized.

 

[beloved57]

God resrticts Him self rom 9:

13As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.
deal with it..

The word used here is actually "miseo" in Greek which means "love less". It comes from the root word "misos" which means "hatred". The writer could have used misos but he didn't, he used miseo. In other words, God showed favor for Jacob over Esau.

The 9th chapter of Romans is one of the most favorite chapters in the Bible for Calvinist (and others that believe in the non-sense of the T.U.L.I.P.) to butcher and distort. Here you have quoted one verse out of context. If you read the entire chapter you will see that Paul is referring to Israel. More specifically in verses 9:8-22, to the seed of Jacob, which will be passed eventually to Jesus. Jacob, (later changed to Israel) was for sure a special person in God’s plan. From Israel, Jacob), the Israelites are descended.

And christ says he died for the sheep jn 10:

15As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father: and I lay down my life for the sheep.
Sorry if you are a goat...if you are you will be on the left...

Again a verse out of context and also an interpretation that does not consider all that should be considered to properly understand what is being said. Verse 9 just above this says:

Jn 10:9
9 I am the door: by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture.

Hum…any?

1. one, a, an, or some; one or more without specification or identification
2. whatever or whichever it may be
3. in whatever quantity or number, great or small; some
4. every; all

Is English your native language? You don’t appear to have a very good understanding of the language. You should also try practicing better hermeneutics and invest in an interlinear Bible or begin using the one you have.

Just one more thing…Christ should be capitalized.

you can torture scripture all you want, God does not love the non elect and Christ died only for the sheep..

μιÃέÉ

1) to hate, pursue with hatred, detest

2) to be hated, detested


hebrew in Malichai 1: 3

sane'






) to hate, be hateful

a) (Qal) to hate

1) of man

2) of God

3) hater, one hating, enemy (participle) (subst)

b) (Niphal) to be hated

c) (Piel) hater (participle)

1) of persons, nations, God, wisdom

 

[Drew]

The 9th chapter of Romans is one of the most favorite chapters in the Bible for Calvinist (and others that believe in the non-sense of the T.U.L.I.P.) to butcher and distort. Here you have quoted one verse out of context. If you read the entire chapter you will see that Paul is referring to Israel. More specifically in verses 9:8-22, to the seed of Jacob, which will be passed eventually to Jesus. Jacob, (later changed to Israel) was for sure a special person in God’s plan. From Israel, Jacob), the Israelites are descended.

I could not agree with you more, at least in respect to this chapter being about Israel - perhaps we might disagree about the specific issue is in respect to Israel. Romans 9 is about Israel - the case for this is a slam-dunk in my opinion. If you read on into chapter 10, the case is strengthened. In Romans 9 and 10, Paul is writing about the covenant with Israel and how God has been faithful to it. It would be very odd indeed, in the middle of a treatment that is clearly about Isreal, to start making theological statements about individuals in general in relation to their salvation or ultimate loss.

It really is all about context and giving Paul the credit for not being a wildly schizophrenic author - introducing the chapter with a lament about his kinsmen according to the flesh and then wandering into statements of theology that have nothing to do with Israel in particular, and then returning again to a treatment of Israel. This makes Paul to be a very confused writer. And I give him more credit than this. The entire passage is rather clearly about Israel. And when Paul gives the famous potter's account, he is not wandering into a theology about how God elects Fred and not Joe - he is still talking about Israel - how God, like the potter with his clay, has the right to mold Israel into a vessel that serves God's plan of redemption.

And I happen to think that God is fashioning Israel to be a vessel of destruction - to act out the Christ pattern and be cast away for the sins of the world. And for that, we Gentiles owe her a great debt.

 

[GraceBwithU]

The 9th chapter of Romans is one of the most favorite chapters in the Bible for Calvinist (and others that believe in the non-sense of the T.U.L.I.P.) to butcher and distort. Here you have quoted one verse out of context. If you read the entire chapter you will see that Paul is referring to Israel. More specifically in verses 9:8-22, to the seed of Jacob, which will be passed eventually to Jesus. Jacob, (later changed to Israel) was for sure a special person in God’s plan. From Israel, Jacob), the Israelites are descended.

I could not agree with you more, at least in respect to this chapter being about Israel - perhaps we might disagree about the specific issue is in respect to Israel. Romans 9 is about Israel - the case for this is a slam-dunk in my opinion. If you read on into chapter 10, the case is strengthened. In Romans 9 and 10, Paul is writing about the covenant with Israel and how God has been faithful to it. It would be very odd indeed, in the middle of a treatment that is clearly about Isreal, to start making theological statements about individuals in general in relation to their salvation or ultimate loss.

It really is all about context and giving Paul the credit for not being a wildly schizophrenic author - introducing the chapter with a lament about his kinsmen according to the flesh and then wandering into statements of theology that have nothing to do with Israel in particular, and then returning again to a treatment of Israel. This makes Paul to be a very confused writer. And I give him more credit than this. The entire passage is rather clearly about Israel. And when Paul gives the famous potter's account, he is not wandering into a theology about how God elects Fred and not Joe - he is still talking about Israel - how God, like the potter with his clay, has the right to mold Israel into a vessel that serves God's plan of redemption.

And I happen to think that God is fashioning Israel to be a vessel of destruction - to act out the Christ pattern and be cast away for the sins of the world. And for that, we Gentiles owe her a great debt.

I agree. You have put it better than I. One can't come to any other conclusion if he reads the complete text.
:D

 

[GraceBwithU]

hebrew in Malichai 1: 3

sane'

) to hate, be hateful

a) (Qal) to hate

1) of man

2) of God

3) hater, one hating, enemy (participle) (subst)

b) (Niphal) to be hated

c) (Piel) hater (participle)

1) of persons, nations, God, wisdom

First of all Beloved57, we are discussing Roman 9:13, not Malachi. Anyway if you want to understand it to be hate...so be it. But the word used is miseo, which means "love less". This still doesn't change what the verses 9:8-22 are saying.

God is a loving God. Doesn't matter what you think. God teaches us to be like Him.

Mt 5:43-44
Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.

44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;

Mt 5:48
48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.

This is our God. Why would you wish to distort God's nature to fit your twisted view of His word? You should burn every John Calvin, (the Pope of Geneva) commentary you have. Only then will you be able to see the truth that you seek. Don't take my word for it or John Calvin. History records many "hateful" and vendictive acts by Mr. John Calvin.

"God does not love the non elect and Christ died only for the sheep.."

God loves even the sinner, (these are not his sheep though). God saves whosoever believes in Him, (these are His sheep). You should start over with your study. You should first understand who the elect are and how one is to become a member of God's elect? Until you understand this you will continue to believe false doctrine. Once you truly understand this you will be able to understand all the scripture on the subject...not just the out of context, misinterpreted views of scripture held by Mr. John Calvin. You will have to shed his false doctrine first and start over.

John Calvin was full of hate and greed. Please let go of this before it is too late.


The verses are not talking about the pick a choose election that John Calvin teaches.