The Elect

EclipseEventSigns said:
No it does not help!!!!!! You didn't address the passage that I quoted. Let's have your response to Paul's specific teaching in that specific passage. I'd really like to see how you explain it away. Specifically "I WILL HAVE MERCY ON WHOM I HAVE MERCY, AND I WILL HAVE COMPASSION ON WHOM I HAVE COMPASSION"
Click to expand...

The key to reading Romans 9 without being convinced it contains Calvinism, is to see that it still allows room for free will.

 
civic said:
Since all men are not saved and Gods grace goes out to all men, Gods grace can be resisted.
Click to expand...
YES.

We know they are condemned already, John 3:18. We also know that they have sinned the unforgivable sin or they would be saved by HIS grace. Therefore we can assume that the unforgivable sin is a sin that so separates them from HIM and HIS loving mercy that they can never chose to bow to HIM as their LORD and Saviour...

They can't be forgiven because
1. they made the decision to rebel against GOD's claims to Deity by their free will and a free will decision cannot be changed by anyone, even GOD, unless the person asks for it to be changed. All free will decisions must be sacrosanct and inviolable, apart from GOD's interference or it cannot be defined as free. This is not a rule but a matter of definition: A cannot be not A at the same time; wet cannot be dry at the same time; free to choose an unchangeable decision can't therefore be changed by another and still be considered free.

2. Once they rebelled they became enslaved by the addictive power of evil which destroyed their ability to seek true repentance and save themselves by changing their minds about HIM. They were instantly and totally unable to repent of their evil and became even more committed to the belief that they were right to rebel against this upstart liar and false god. So great is their addiction to evil that even after they learned the truth of HIS divinity and power when they saw the creation of the physical universe with their own eyes as described in Job 38:7, they could not change their minds because they loved their sin more than the truth as we learn in Roman 1:18+.

This describes the Satanic fall that precipitated the war in heaven and had all sinners, elect and reprobate, flung into the earth.

They are not unforgivable because HE hates them and their sin so much because it is worse than other sins but because when HE proclaimed his gospel of salvation to every creature created in HIS image, Colossians 1:2 , for us to accept HIS claims or to reject HIM, HE promised us our choice would not be interfered with or changed or forced upon us without our consent, though there would be legal and natural consequences... warnings which some ignored as lies.

The choice to repudiate HIS help in saving them from the grip of sin while becoming unable to save themselves by changing their minds sealed their doom.
 
EclipseEventSigns said:
Since the New Testament texts were almost certainly originally written in Aramaic, it's better to check what Paul's original words were. Where the Greek translation uses the same word in all the passages noted, Paul actually made use of two different Aramaic terms.

The word used in I Thes 1:4 is: ܓܒܝܘܬܟܘܢ "g'ab,yuwt,k,uwn"
It means "election, choice"

This same word is found in Romans 9:11 and Romans 11:28.

However, for Romans 11:5 and 11:7, a different word is used. It is ܒܓܒܝܬܐ "b'ag,b,iyt,a"
It means "selected, choice, chosen"
Click to expand...
ELECTION/PREDESTINATION AND THE NEED FOR A THEOLOGICAL BALANCE

Election is a wonderful doctrine. However, it is not a call to favoritism, but a call to be a channel, a tool, or means of others' redemption! In the Old Testament the term was used primarily for service; in the New Testament it is used primarily for salvation which issues in service. The Bible never reconciles the seeming contradiction between God's sovereignty and mankind's free will, but affirms them both! A good example of the biblical tension would be Romans 9 on God's sovereign choice and Romans 10 on mankind's necessary response (cf. Rom. 10:11,13).

The key to this theological tension may be found in Ephesians 1:4. Jesus is God's elect man and all are potentially elect in Him (Karl Barth). Jesus is God's "yes" to fallen mankind's need (Karl Barth).

Ephesians 1:4 also helps clarify the issue by asserting that the goal of predestination is not heaven, but holiness (Christlikeness). We are often attracted to the benefits of the gospel and ignore the responsibilities! God's call (election) is for time as well as eternity!

Doctrines come in relation to other truths, not as single, unrelated truths. A good analogy would be a constellation versus a single star. God presents truth in eastern, not western, genres. We must not remove the tension caused by dialectical (paradoxical) pairs of doctrinal truths:

1. Predestination vs. human free will

2. Security of the believers vs. the need for perseverance

3. Original sin vs. volitional sin

4. Sinlessness (perfectionism) vs. sinning less

5. Initial instantaneous justification and sanctification vs. progressive sanctification

6. Christian freedom vs. Christian responsibility

7. God's transcendence vs. God's immanence

8. God as ultimately unknowable vs. God as knowable in Scripture

9. The Kingdom of God as present vs. future consummation

10. Repentance as a gift of God vs. repentance as a necessary human covenantal response

11. Jesus as divine vs. Jesus as human

12. Jesus as equal to the Father vs. Jesus as subservient to the Father

The theological concept of "covenant" unites the sovereignty of God (who always takes the initiative and sets the agenda) with a mandatory initial and continuing repentant faith response from mankind (cf. Mark 1:15; Acts 3:16,19; 20:21).

Be careful of proof-texting one side of the paradox and depreciating the other! Be careful of asserting only your favorite doctrine or system of theology!

Good ol' Utley.
 
civic said:
unprovable .

We have the Greek NT. which we all here accept. You have another thread for that discussion. I’m not diverting this one .
Click to expand...
The Greek NT is UNPROVABLE. And that is exactly the reason for that thread. When anybody makes the ridiculous claim that the NT texts were originally written in Greek can go there and see exactly NO EVIDENCE EXISTS.
 
EclipseEventSigns said:
The Greek NT is UNPROVABLE. And that is exactly the reason for that thread. When anybody makes the ridiculous claim that the NT texts were originally written in Greek can go there and see exactly NO EVIDENCE EXISTS.
Click to expand...

The oldest manuscripts are Greek.

That's at least one evidence, whether you like it or not.

There are other forms of deduction as well.
 
civic said:
Since you like scripture only I’ll return the favor.

Romans 9
That the Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained it, a righteousness that is by faith; 31 but the people of Israel, who pursued the law as the way of righteousness, have not attained their goal. 32 Why not? Because they pursued it not by faith but as if it were by works. They stumbled over the stumbling stone. 33 As it is written:

“See, I lay in Zion a stone that causes people to stumble
and a rock that makes them fall,
and the one who believes in him will never be put to shame.
Click to expand...
So I see you can not actually work through the passage that I quote to give any reasons for your views. And what's with the hostility? I quote Scripture. Yes. Because that is the evidence. The onus is on you to explain that Paul didn't actually mean the clear words that are in his text.
 
Last edited:
EclipseEventSigns said:
So I see you can not actually work through the passage that I quote to give any reasons for your views. And what's with the hostility? I quote Scripture. Yes. Because that is the evidence. The onus is on you to explain that Paul didn't actually mean the clear words that are in his text.
Click to expand...
I know reformed theology and I have several threads on the topic of this thread . I’ve been debating both sides for over 4 decades. And since you refuse to answer my direct questions asked several times I’m under no obligation to answer yours.
 
civic said:
I know reformed theology and I have several threads on the topic of this thread . I’ve been debating both sides for over 4 decades. And since you refuse to answer my direct questions asked several times I’m under no obligation to answer yours.
Click to expand...
Oh really? Fine. I don't know what the silly fight is all about that you are all hot and bothered about. I don't actually see 2 sides at all - no room for debate. I read what Scripture says and it's pretty clear to me. If you've had to spend 40 years explaining something different than what God clearly says, then it's really up to you to inform us about it. It took me less than 5 minutes to come up with the passage that refutes your opinions pretty soundly.

I guess I haven't travelled in circles where this topic is much of a debate.
 
Last edited:
EclipseEventSigns said:
Oh really? Fine. I don't know what the silly fight is all about that you are all hot and bothered about. I don't actually see 2 sides at all - no room for debate. I read what Scripture says and it's pretty clear to me. If you've had to spend 40 years explaining something different than what God clearly says, then it's really up to you to inform us about it. It took me less than 5 minutes to come up with the passage that refutes your opinions pretty soundly.

I guess I haven't travelled in circles where this topic is much of a debate.
Click to expand...

The debate is, "God is love, and a loving God couldn't possibly mean what that God-inspired scripture says."
 
makesends said:
Are you denying, then, that believers are not individually chosen by God? The members of the Bride of Christ are random?
Click to expand...
Correct in Romans 9-11 chosen/elect does not equate to being saved since the Jews are Gods chosen/elect in Romans 9-11. They are reprobate, given a spirit of stupor by God. Because of that those who are not His people will become His people ( Gentiles ).
 

Similar threads

civic
What Calvinists and Arminians have in common
Replies
3
Views
197
Rockerduck
R
brightfame52
Salvation is according to the will of God
4 5 6
Replies
112
Views
946
brightfame52
brightfame52
civic
The Potter and the Clay
2 3
Replies
52
Views
619
Obadiah
Obadiah
Logikos
Thru the Bible—Romans
Replies
2
Views
119
civic
civic
civic
sola fide
2 3 4
Replies
60
Views
944
Presby02
P
Back
Top Bottom