Preaching Sovereignty of God in salvation.

[Drew]

If you can't see that Paul is talking about the election and predestination of individuals in Romans 9,

Thats asking a lot of a blind man, to see spiritual truth..read his post, they are built upon human reasoning a philosophy..

I'll take that as an admission on your part that I actually make a case for my position.

 

[Drew]

Calvinists see the natural man as busily defying God as an angry rebel sinner.
Eph 2:3 among whom we also all once lived in the lust of our flesh, doing the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest: -

As you are aware, the expression "by nature" can mean "by birth". There is biblical precedent for Paul using the term this way. Here is a repost of material I posted earlier in an interaction with you. I remember that you had some kind of counterargument. Please provide if you see fit. But until a counterargument is provided, I think the following post shows that you may be reading something into this text that Paul never intended:

I know that I have been out of this loop for a while, and there are some questions for me (e.g. from mondar) for me "on the table". However, I would like to address the above specific argument.

I think you are assuming a certain meaning to the phrase "by nature". When we read this as 21st century westerners, we think that a statement is being made about our fundamental constitution. But there is precedent for Paul using the term "by nature" to really say "by birth".

Here is an example, Galations 2:15:

We are Jews by nature and not sinners from among the Gentiles

Clearly, Paul means "by birth" here. He is not asserting that Jews are born with fundamentally different inner constitutions than Gentiles.

And the Greek word rendered as "by nature" is the same word as used in a clearly "by birth" sense in Galatians 2:15. Here is Ephesians 2:1-3:

And you were dead in your trespasses and sins,
in 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.

Verse 3 reads perfectly well with a "by birth" reading. And being "children of wrath" by birth in no way rules out a free will response to God in the way that being "children of wrath" by fundamental inner constitution would.

So, unless and until the ambiguity of what Paul means by the phrase "by nature" is resolved Ephesians 2:1-3 does not support the notion that we cannot freely accept a gift of grace.

 

[Drew]

PS, I forget what thread this was in... but I was speaking to someone who denied that the term nature (Eph 2:3) was referring to the natural human nature. That our nature is not defective... I forget who that was. Can anyone help me?

I think that was me, as per the repost I just made........ :D

 

[Drew]

Who are the vessels fitted for destruction in Romans 9? Note what Paul says about their relationship to the vessels of glory:

What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrathâ€â€prepared for destruction? 23What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for gloryâ€â€

Now note what Paul says about Israel - national Israel, that is - in Romans 11:

12But if their transgression means riches for the world, and their loss means riches for the Gentiles, ....

You will say then, "Branches were broken off so that I could be grafted in." 20Granted

Paul is using very similar language. In Romans 9, Paul says that there is a purpose in the hardening of the vessels, and that purpose clearly relates to bringing riches and glory to the vessels of mercy.

In Romans 11, Paul is saying the very same things about Israel - establishing that Israel has "fallen" in order to bring covenant membership to the (non-Jewish) world.

This, along with much other evidence already presented, leads us to conclude that the vessels of destruction are indeed non-believing Jews, not the pre-destined lost.

I would be interested in an explanation from my worthy opponents as to:

1. How does the "pre-destining" of some to hell "make the riches of God's glory" known to those who are pre-destined to heaven? I have an actual explanation for this in my model - the unbelieving Jews are acting out the Christ pattern - blessing the world by having the world's sin accumulated in them through the action of Torah (Romans 7) so that this sin can then be borne by Israel's representative - Jesus. Do you have a parallel explanation as to how it is that predestining some to loss in any way is related to bringing God's glory to the "pre-destined elect".

2. If I am wrong - if Paul is talking about the pre-destined lost as the vessels of destruction in chapter 9 - then please explain why he makes clear statements about the "stumble" of Israel bringing salvation to others in chapter 11. If I am wrong, then Paul is being exceedingly misleading - saying basically the same thing about 2 different groups in terms of their bringing glory to the pre-destined elect.

It is, of course, much more sensible to "take the hint" from Romans 11 and realize that the vessels fitted for destruction are, of course, the same unbelieving Jews who he characterizes in chapter 11 as standing in exactly the same relation to those who "get glory" as the vessels of destruction staind in relation to the vessels of glory.

 

[beloved57]

Who are the vessels fitted for destruction in Romans 9?

Those who God hates, those outside of electing Love, like easu was..and pharoahrom 9:

11(For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;)

12It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger.

13As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.
14What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid.

15For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.

16So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.

17For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth.

18Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.

19Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?

20Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?

21Hath not the potter power over the clay,[/b] of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour? job 10:

9Remember, I beseech thee, that thou hast made me as the clay; and wilt thou bring me into dust again?

22What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:

23And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,

24Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?

 

[3rddayuprising]

If you can't see that Paul is talking about the election and predestination of individuals in Romans 9,

Thats asking a lot of a blind man, to see spiritual truth..read his post, they are built upon human reasoning a philosophy..

I'll take that as an admission on your part that I actually make a case for my position.

This is a good example that you have a hard time determining the context of a text. Beloved57 was saying that a blind man can't see spiritual Truth. His "context" was that of what a blind man can or cannot see. He was NOT saying anything about you making your case. Just the opposite. Just like Paul is saying the opposite of what you think he was saying.

 

[Drew]

Who are the vessels fitted for destruction in Romans 9?

Those who God hates, those outside of electing Love, like easu was..and pharoahrom 9:

You are simply making a claim, providing no supporting explanation as to why we should understand that these vessels to be the pre-destined lost. After all, the text never directly says that "the vessels of destruction are the pre-destined lost". You need to explain why your interpretation is correct.

And you need to address the voluminous arguments provided as to why the vessels must be understood to be unbelieving Jews. Those arguments are out there for the reader's consideration.

 

[Drew]

Just like Paul is saying the opposite of what you think he was saying.[/color][/i][/b]

If Paul is saying the opposite of what I am saying, you should be able to point out the errors in my many posts. Do you think the other readers have not noticed that you and beloved57 generally do not engage the content of my posts in any substantial way.

If I am wrong, you should be able to explain where my arguments fail. Why are you not doing so?

For example, why are you not responding to this:

1. How does the "pre-destining" of some to hell "make the riches of God's glory" known to those who are pre-destined to heaven? I have an actual explanation for this in my model - the unbelieving Jews are acting out the Christ pattern - blessing the world by having the world's sin accumulated in them through the action of Torah (Romans 7) so that this sin can then be borne by Israel's representative - Jesus. Do you have a parallel explanation as to how it is that predestining some to loss in any way is related to bringing God's glory to the "pre-destined elect".

2. If I am wrong - if Paul is talking about the pre-destined lost as the vessels of destruction in chapter 9 - then please explain why he makes clear statements about the "stumble" of Israel bringing salvation to others in chapter 11. If I am wrong, then Paul is being exceedingly misleading - saying basically the same thing about 2 different groups in terms of their bringing glory to the pre-destined elect.

 

[beloved57]

If Paul is saying the opposite of what I am saying, you should be able to point out the errors in my many posts.

It has been pointed out, you reject scripture..

 

[Drew]

If Paul is saying the opposite of what I am saying, you should be able to point out the errors in my many posts.

It has been pointed out, you reject scripture..

Where have errors been pointed in my post? What specific posts of yours or 3rddays have actually said something like this "When drew says so-and-so here, he is wrong for this reason xyz".

Posting scripture is not enough. There are two competing alternative for what Paul meant by "vessels of destruction". You need to actually make a case for your interpretation (and show that mine is incorrect).

 

[beloved57]

You are simply making a claim, providing no supporting explanation as to why we should understand

I dont believe you can understand scripture truth..I have given you loads of scripture and you reject the truth of it..because you cannot understand it..a natural man like yourself cannot understand truthes that are spiritually discerned..1 cor 2:

14But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

The word discerned is: anakrino:

examine or judge

a) to investigate, examine, enquire into, scrutinise, sift, question1) specifically in a forensic sense of a judge to hold an investigation

2) to interrogate, examine the accused or witnesses

b) to judge of, estimate, determine (the excellence or defects of any person or thing

So you not being a born again man with a spiritual capacity to determine, or Judge truth of a spiritual nature..tends only to your rejection of spiritual truth..

 

[Rick W]

Reminder:

5 - Respect each other's opinions. Address issues, not persons or personalities.

 

[beloved57]

Respect each other's opinions

Not agree with them or condone them though if they are against scripture..it perfectly o k to tell a person his or her understanding is not of God..

Address issues

issues are addressed..else there would be no source of contention..

not persons or personalities.

I have said nothing of a personal nature to disparge ones person..but have spoken against their beliefs that contradict truth..the source of this is not having the discernment of the Holy Spirit..thats not speaking against them personally, but an acknowledgement of a percieved fact..everyone speaking on spiritual matters of the bible are not equipped to do so..though they humanly speaking have a right to do so..

 

[3rddayuprising]

If Paul is saying the opposite of what I am saying, you should be able to point out the errors in my many posts.

It has been pointed out, you reject scripture..

Where have errors been pointed in my post? What specific posts of yours or 3rddays have actually said something like this "When drew says so-and-so here, he is wrong for this reason xyz".

Posting scripture is not enough. There are two competing alternative for what Paul meant by "vessels of destruction". You need to actually make a case for your interpretation (and show that mine is incorrect).

Before one can learn their "XYZs" they have to learn their "ABCs".

We don't need to "make our case", Paul has already made his case. The predestinated ones (those "afore prepared to glory") see it...and are glad!

 

[beloved57]

[We don't need to "make our case", Paul has already made his case. The predestinated ones (those "afore prepared to glory") see it...and are glad![/color][/i][/b]

even though you and i differ on some key issues..yet, you have made your case..drew is being dishonst in this, if he was honest, he would just admit though you have presented your case from scripture..he just doesnt believe it..simple as that..if a person cannot understand ones position..thats not the fault of the one giving their sense of a subject..

If one judicially lays out information to one who just cant understand it..then thats all can be done..but its hypocrisy and arrogant to say, you didnt present your case scripturally..

even drew presents his view, but its Just wrong lol..but to his credit, he does present a view, a humanistic view, a view vioid of spiritual wisdom..but he presents a view..

 

[Rick W]

One - more - time

5 - Respect each other's opinions. Address issues, not persons or personalities.

6 - No Bashing of other members. Give other members the respect you would want them to give yourself.

7 - Any personal problems with another member, then deal with it through private messages.


:-?

 

[Drew]

We don't need to "make our case", Paul has already made his case. The predestinated ones (those "afore prepared to glory") see it...and are glad!

You are really continuing to avoid arguments that challenge your position. I have repeatedly shown that a "group" can be pre-destined to some state without the necessary implication that the specific members are thus pre-destined.

Let me ask you this question:

Is it possible for God to pre-destine that 9 men in New York Yankees will take the field on April 6, 2017 without also pre-destining who the specific players are? If you answer is "no", I will then prove that you are wrong through a detailed and precise argument. If your answer is "yes", then you have proved my point - God can pre-destince a group to glory without pre-destining the specific members.

 

[beloved57]

I have repeatedly shown that a "group" can be pre-destined to some state without the necessary implication that the specific members are thus pre-destined.

what you have shown is a distortion of the scriptures and your human reasoning..you have been shown the truth and rejected it..

 

[Drew]

I have repeatedly shown that a "group" can be pre-destined to some state without the necessary implication that the specific members are thus pre-destined.

what you have shown is a distortion of the scriptures and your human reasoning..you have been shown the truth and rejected it..

No. Your argument is entirely undercut by the clear fact that the pre-destination of a group does not necessitate the pre-destination of specific persons.

Let me ask you this question (the same one I asked 3rdday):

Is it possible for God to pre-destine that 9 men in New York Yankees will take the field on April 6, 2017 without also pre-destining who the specific players are? If you answer is "no", I will then prove that you are wrong through a detailed and precise argument. If your answer is "yes", then you have proved my point - God can pre-destince a group to glory without pre-destining the specific members.

 

[beloved57]

No. Your argument is entirely undercut by the clear fact that the pre-destination of a group does not necessitate the pre-destination of specific persons.

where is that in the scripture ? where does it say in the scripture that predestination of a group of people does not necessitate the predestination of specific persons ? can you show me that passage please ?