The Elect

[civic]

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.

There is nothing clear in your belief of Romans 9-11 its full of contradictions with those chapters and the rest of the Bible and its an assault on the character and nature of God. Your passage support me not you. Do you even know where Paul is quoting from ?

Paul's concern for his fellow countrymen, the Jews/Israel below. Gods chosen people, the elect.

Romans 9
What then shall we say? 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.”

Romans 10:1
Brothers and sisters, my heart’s desire and prayer to God for the Israelites is that they may be saved.


Romans 11
28 As far as the gospel is concerned, they are enemies for your sake; but as far as election is concerned, they are loved on account of the patriarchs, 29 for God’s gifts and his call are irrevocable. 30 Just as you who were at one time disobedient to God have now received mercy as a result of their disobedience, 31 so they too have now become disobedient in order that they too may now receive mercy as a result of God’s mercy to you. 32 For God has bound everyone over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all.

hope this helps !!!

 

[civic]

The renown calvinist Scholar FF Bruce: It is a pity that in some schools of theological thought the doctrine of election has been formulated to an excessive degree on the basis of this preliminary state in Paul’s present argument, without adequate account being taken of his further exposition of God’s purpose in election at the conclusion of the argument (xi. 25-32).
Romans 9, in Genesis 18:17-19 (note also, that Paul actually quotes from this very same chapter in Romans 9:9!) bold mine:

The Lord said, “Shall I hide from Abraham what I am about to do, since Abraham will surely become a great and mighty nation, and in him all the nations of the earth will be blessed? For I have chosen him, so that he may command his children and his household after him to keep the way of the Lord by doing righteousness and justice, so that the Lord may bring upon Abraham what He has spoken about him.”

And in fact, we can see the fulfilment of this––that through Jesus all nations are blessed––stated in Romans 9:4, “and from whom is the Christ according to the flesh, who is over all, God blessed forever.” And in verses 24-26:

even us, whom He also called, not from among Jews only, but also from among Gentiles. As He says also in Hosea, “I will call those who were not My people, ‘My people,’ And her who was not beloved, ‘beloved.’”
“And it shall be that in the place where it was said to them, ‘you are not My people,’ There they shall be called sons of the living God.”

As Calvinist Bill MacDonald wrote, against the common Calvinist view, “God does not prepare vessels of wrath for destruction, but he does prepare vessels of mercy for glory“.[9]

FF Bruce:

While Paul will allow no questioning of God’s right to do what He will with His own, he lets his emphasis fall, not on God’s wrath towards the reprobate, but rather the postponement of His wrath against men who have long since become ripe for destruction. As has been pointed out earlier (2:4), the mercy and forbearance of God are intended to afford men time for repentance; if, instead, they harden their hearts yet more, as Pharaoh did after repeated respites, they are simply storing up an increasing weight of retribution for themselves against the day of requital. [10]

Jeremiah 18, where Paul’s illustration seems to have originated, also confirms this. There, the Prophet Jeremiah watches a potter as “the vessel that he was making of clay was spoiled in the hand of the potter; so he remade it into another vessel, as it pleased the potter to make” (v 4). The Lord tells the Prophet:

“Can I not, O house of Israel, deal with you as this potter does?” declares the Lord. “Behold, like the clay in the potter’s hand, so are you in My hand, O house of Israel. At one moment I might speak concerning a nation or concerning a kingdom to uproot, to pull down, or to destroy it; if that nation against which I have spoken turns from its evil, I will relent concerning the calamity I planned to bring on it. Or at another moment I might speak concerning a nation or concerning a kingdom to build up or to plant it; if it does evil in My sight by not obeying My voice, then I will think better of the good with which I had promised to bless it. So now then, speak to the men of Judah and against the inhabitants of Jerusalem saying, ‘Thus says the Lord, “Behold, I am fashioning calamity against you and devising a plan against you. Oh turn back, each of you from his evil way, and reform your ways and your deeds.”’ But they will say, ‘It’s hopeless! For we are going to follow our own plans, and each of us will act according to the stubbornness of his evil heart.’ (v 6-12)soteriology101

If a vessel of wrath, prepared for destruction, “turns from its evil” it becomes a vessel of mercy. And like in 2 Peter 3, God longs for it to be so: “Behold, I am fashioning calamity against you and devising a plan against you. Oh turn back, each of you from his evil way, and reform your ways and your deeds.” (v 11, and cf Romans 11:20 & 23)

hope this helps !!!

 

[civic]

I'm not going say I disagree or agree with a lable - calvinist and/or reformed. What I will point out is what is stated in Scripture and what it seems to suggest.

Romans 9:6-29
But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel; 7 nor are they all children because they are Abraham’s seed, but: “THROUGH ISAAC YOUR SEED WILL BE NAMED.” 8 That is, the children of the flesh are not the children of God, but the children of the promise are considered as seed. 9 For this is the word of promise: “AT THIS TIME I WILL COME, AND SARAH SHALL HAVE A SON.” 10 And not only this, but there was Rebekah also, when she had conceived twins by one man, our father Isaac; 11 for though the twins were not yet born and had not done anything good or bad, so that the purpose of God according to His choice would stand, not because of works but because of Him who calls, 12 it was said to her, “THE OLDER SHALL SERVE THE YOUNGER.” 13 Just as it is written, “JACOB I LOVED, BUT ESAU I HATED.”

14 What shall we say then? Is there any unrighteousness with God? May it never be! 15 For He says to Moses, “I WILL HAVE MERCY ON WHOM I HAVE MERCY, AND I WILL HAVE COMPASSION ON WHOM I HAVE COMPASSION.” 16 So then it does not depend on the one who wills or the one who runs, but on God who has mercy. 17 For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, “FOR THIS VERY PURPOSE I RAISED YOU UP, IN ORDER TO DEMONSTRATE MY POWER IN YOU, AND IN ORDER THAT MY NAME MIGHT BE PROCLAIMED THROUGHOUT THE WHOLE EARTH.” 18 So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires.

19 You will say to me then, “Why does He still find fault? For who resists His will?” 20 On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God? WILL THE THING MOLDED SAY TO THE MOLDER, “WHY DID YOU MAKE ME LIKE THIS”? 21 Or does not the potter have authority over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? 22 And what if God, wanting to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath having been prepared for destruction, 23 and in order that He might make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy, which He prepared beforehand for glory— 24 even us, whom He also called, not from among Jews only, but also from among Gentiles? 25 As He says also in Hosea,

“I WILL CALL THOSE WHO WERE NOT MY PEOPLE, ‘MY PEOPLE,’

AND HER WHO WAS NOT BELOVED, ‘BELOVED.’”

26 “AND IT SHALL BE THAT IN THE PLACE WHERE IT WAS SAID TO THEM, ‘YOU ARE NOT MY PEOPLE,’

THERE THEY SHALL BE CALLED SONS OF THE LIVING GOD.”

27 And Isaiah cries out concerning Israel, “THOUGH THE NUMBER OF THE SONS OF ISRAEL BE LIKE THE SAND OF THE SEA, IT IS THE REMNANT THAT WILL BE SAVED; 28 FOR THE LORD WILL EXECUTE HIS WORD ON THE LAND, THOROUGHLY AND QUICKLY.” 29 And just as Isaiah foretold,

“UNLESS THE LORD OF SABAOTH HAD LEFT TO US A SEED,

WE WOULD HAVE BECOME LIKE SODOM, AND WOULD HAVE RESEMBLED GOMORRAH.”

quoting scripture and understanding it are two entirely different things. anyone can quote scripture ad nauseum.

The Calvinist interpretation is completely divorced from the preface in Romans 9:1-5. Paul’s stated passion was Jewish conversion, and his strategy is to refute Jewish hindrances and roadblocks to conversion.

Paul says that it’s not as if the word of God has “failed.” Well, who thinks that? No one, but when his Jewish brothers hear him refute birthright assurance, then *they* will suppose God is unfair for breaking His word. So, Paul successfully refutes birthright assurance by pointing out the facts concerning the condemnation of the Edomite descendants who had a common (and superior) ancestry. (One orthodox Rabbi even suggested that the Edomite descendants will ultimately be saved, made necessary by the presumption of birthright assurance in Abraham.) Question: Is v.12 talking about the individuals or descendants? The answer is the descendants, and exclusively so, since Esau never, ever personally served Jacob, though the descendants did. Question: Is v.13 about the individuals or descendants? It must be about the descendants, or else it would leave *unresolved* the earlier point in v.6 about the descendants, in refuting birthright assurance. (Huge point.) Paul’s anticipated pushback in v.14 is about orthodox Jews thinking God is unfair for breaking His promise about a perceived birthright assurance. (See also Matthew 3:9.) Calvinists agree that Malachi 1:2-5 meant “Israel] I loved but [Edom] I hated” but then claim an “apostolic interpretation” whereby Paul changes the original meaning from descendants to individuals, but (again) that would make v.12 odd for quoting the descendants’ servitude, and it would also mean that v.13 never resolves the earlier point about descendants in v.6, and (big point), claiming an “apostolic interpretation” would leave Paul vulnerable to the charge that he was inventing a “new religion.” Paul’s whole rapport with his fellow Jews was based upon being faithful to Scripture, not unfaithful with supposed “apostolic interpretations” that change things. (Another massive point.)r.coords

After refuting birthright assurance, Paul addresses another Jewish obstacle and roadblock to conversion by refuting works-based assurance. Jewish rabbis believe that Scripture points only to one thing in obtaining righteous with God, and that is by *keeping the Law*. However, Paul often argued that no one keeps the Law, and hence no one is made righteous through a Law they do not keep. V.16’s reference to “willing” and “running” was about Jewish efforts under the Law to be made righteous, and Paul’s counter-argument is that righteousness for guilty sinners can *only* come through God’s “mercy,” rather than by keeping a Law that everyone breaks. Paul then points out the results of God’s historical warnings to harden Israel.

hope this helps !!!

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

There is nothing clear in your belief of Romans 9-11 its full of contradictions with those chapters and the rest of the Bible and its an assault on the character and nature of God.

You're saying exactly what I described: "God is love, and a loving God would never mean what scripture plainly says". You pervert scripture to match your ideological view of what a loving God would do.

 

[civic]

You're saying exactly what I described: "God is love, and a loving God would never mean what scripture plainly says". You pervert scripture to match your ideological view of what a loving God would do.

I explained the meaning numerous times and not once in this thread mentioned love outside of the text. Any more fallacious arguments?

 

[EclipseEventSigns]

quoting scripture and understanding it are two entirely different things. anyone can quote scripture ad nauseum.

The Calvinist interpretation is completely divorced from the preface in Romans 9:1-5. Paul’s stated passion was Jewish conversion, and his strategy is to refute Jewish hindrances and roadblocks to conversion.

Paul says that it’s not as if the word of God has “failed.” Well, who thinks that? No one, but when his Jewish brothers hear him refute birthright assurance, then *they* will suppose God is unfair for breaking His word. So, Paul successfully refutes birthright assurance by pointing out the facts concerning the condemnation of the Edomite descendants who had a common (and superior) ancestry. (One orthodox Rabbi even suggested that the Edomite descendants will ultimately be saved, made necessary by the presumption of birthright assurance in Abraham.) Question: Is v.12 talking about the individuals or descendants? The answer is the descendants, and exclusively so, since Esau never, ever personally served Jacob, though the descendants did. Question: Is v.13 about the individuals or descendants? It must be about the descendants, or else it would leave *unresolved* the earlier point in v.6 about the descendants, in refuting birthright assurance. (Huge point.) Paul’s anticipated pushback in v.14 is about orthodox Jews thinking God is unfair for breaking His promise about a perceived birthright assurance. (See also Matthew 3:9.) Calvinists agree that Malachi 1:2-5 meant “Israel] I loved but [Edom] I hated” but then claim an “apostolic interpretation” whereby Paul changes the original meaning from descendants to individuals, but (again) that would make v.12 odd for quoting the descendants’ servitude, and it would also mean that v.13 never resolves the earlier point about descendants in v.6, and (big point), claiming an “apostolic interpretation” would leave Paul vulnerable to the charge that he was inventing a “new religion.” Paul’s whole rapport with his fellow Jews was based upon being faithful to Scripture, not unfaithful with supposed “apostolic interpretations” that change things. (Another massive point.)r.coords

After refuting birthright assurance, Paul addresses another Jewish obstacle and roadblock to conversion by refuting works-based assurance. Jewish rabbis believe that Scripture points only to one thing in obtaining righteous with God, and that is by *keeping the Law*. However, Paul often argued that no one keeps the Law, and hence no one is made righteous through a Law they do not keep. V.16’s reference to “willing” and “running” was about Jewish efforts under the Law to be made righteous, and Paul’s counter-argument is that righteousness for guilty sinners can *only* come through God’s “mercy,” rather than by keeping a Law that everyone breaks. Paul then points out the results of God’s historical warnings to harden Israel.

hope this helps !!!

No, it continues to NOT help at all!!!!! First, you seem to want to lump me in with some argument you are railing against. Labling me a "calvinist"? Well, I don't believe what you think I believe. So you can just stop right there.
Second, I read all you wrote and try to follow the slippery reinterpretation of the words in the Romans passage and do appreciate where you go off the rails. Paul simply does not say what you claim he says.
Third, I'm not interested in an argument and "debate" where all you will respond with is mocking derision for anyone that doesn't believe like you do. So many topics on this forum descend into that type of mud slinging.

 

[civic]

No, it continues to NOT help at all!!!!! First, you seem to want to lump me in with some argument you are railing against. Labling me a "calvinist"? Well, I don't believe what you think I believe. So you can just stop right there.
Second, I read all you wrote and try to follow the slippery reinterpretation of the words in the Romans passage and do appreciate where you go off the rails. Paul simply does not say what you claim he says.
Third, I'm not interested in an argument and "debate" where all you will respond with is mocking derision for anyone that doesn't believe like you do. So many topics on this forum descend into that type of mud slinging.

Your beliefs are identical with John Calvin on double predestination and sovereignty.

I'm right on point with Romans 9-11. You are the one who is off the rails with the biblical text and narrative not me. You quote scripture then start the personal attacks on me instead of addressing the text/argument.

You are not interested in debate ? You sure like to debate your theology with the original biblical languages and eschatology. You do that every day here.

You are stepping into my area of expertise with Reformed theology, church history and the Trinity/Deity of Christ. Good theology begins with the nature/character of God- Theo ( God ) ology ( the study of ) Theology is the study of God. These are Theology boards/forums to defend and debate ones Theology.

Then don't mud sling. I want to talk about the biblical text of Romans 9-11 on election/chosen/predestination.

hope this helps !!!

 

[civic]

Look in the mirror, bub. You are the one mud slinging. I don't stoop to such levels. No, I don't debate. I post facts and invite people to investigate for themselves. That you haven't and don't want to spend the effort to - but not just you - pretty much no one is willing to - is very disappointing. No one is willing to be like the Bereans on this forum.

You claim my beliefs are a certain way. I simply quoted Scripture and you assumed my beliefs from that. You are jumping to a lot of assumptions

Personally I'm not that interested in end times regarding pre,mid, post and amil. I studied that in depth decades ago.

I'm more interested in the 2nd Coming than the above. The biblical text warns us to be ready for He will come when you least expect it. The imminent return is the important one since Jesus Himself said He did not know the day/hour of His return. That should be the first clue.

There are many more important things in scripture like spreading the gospel, living a holy life, praying for all people, fellowship with other believers that take precedent over eschatology. If studying any theological topic does not transform ones life its worthless. Its all for nothing as 1 Cor 13 declares by Paul.

hope this helps !!!

 

[makesends]

Honest question—would that bother you?

Of course. It is both intellectually and Biblically vapid.

 

[makesends]

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 ).

How does the fact that "chosen/elect does not equate to being saved" show that God is not particular about precisely who will be the members of the Bride of Christ?

 

[civic]

How does the fact that "chosen/elect does not equate to being saved" show that God is not particular about precisely who will be the members of the Bride of Christ?

That is a different argument that can be made from many other texts. I'm pretty sure we would agree on that as to God saving people in the body of Christ. We might disagree on the means/method but not the end result.

I would lean upon foreknowledge above whereas you would most likely lean on determination/predestination as the means. Whom He foreknows, He predestines.

 

[Bob Carabbio]

I've seen on here someone who says

No reason to bother with anything after this introduction.

 

[civic]

I'm expecting a public apology for your behaviour that is clearly against the forum rules.

Why would I apologize for challenging your views since I'm addressing your arguments and not making any personal comments about your character. I have asked you to defend your position and to explain the scriptures you posted in Romans 9 which you have yet to do and then make personal comments about me as your answer. You are avoiding the scriptures and making a defense for your argument, then making personal comments about me.

Maybe you should apologize for attacking me personally.

Quote me attacking you personally.

 

[makesends]

That is a different argument that can be made from many other texts. I'm pretty sure we would agree on that as to God saving people in the body of Christ. We might disagree on the means/method but not the end result.

But you're not answering.

A. You say, to my question,
makesends said: Are you denying, then, that believers are not individually chosen by God? The members of the Bride of Christ are random?,
civic said: "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 )."

Neverminding that I don't see how that makes sense —I mean, of course being chosen does not equate to being saved, (at least, not yet); but that Israel is God's "chosen people" doesn't mean that they were chosen for the same purpose as those we now call elect, that were chosen from the foundation of the world to be the members of the Bride, the Body of Christ, God's Dwelling Place— but even if I grant the point, how does that explain how the members of the Bride are random? To say it is "a different argument" is to admit that your post is off point.

B. How would God choose the elect [members] from the foundation of the world, without it being specific?
C. Philosophically speaking —how is it possible for God to create generally, without also creating specifically? You again appeal to mere chance, and there is no such thing.

 

[civic]

But you're not answering.

A. You say, to my question,
makesends said: Are you denying, then, that believers are not individually chosen by God? The members of the Bride of Christ are random?,
civic said: "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 )."

Neverminding that I don't see how that makes sense —I mean, of course being chosen does not equate to being saved, (at least, not yet); but that Israel is God's "chosen people" doesn't mean that they were chosen for the same purpose as those we now call elect, that were chosen from the foundation of the world to be the members of the Bride, the Body of Christ, God's Dwelling Place— but even if I grant the point, how does that explain how the members of the Bride are random? To say it is "a different argument" is to admit that your post is off point.

B. How would God choose the elect [members] from the foundation of the world, without it being specific?
C. Philosophically speaking —how is it possible for God to create generally, without also creating specifically? You again appeal to mere chance, and there is no such thing.

Are you saying being chose, elect. predestined has different meanings with Israel and the church ?

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

Are you saying being chose, elect. predestined has different meanings with Israel and the church ?

Not a fan of context? You know, you keep saying you were once a Calvinist. I find that very difficult to believe.

 

[civic]

Not a fan of context? You know, you keep saying you were once a Calvinist. I find that very difficult to believe.

Ask me any question on the doctrines of grace, sovereignty, election, double predestination etc.... And I will give you Calvins view on them, RC's, Macs, Pipers , Spurgeon, Edwards, Grudems etc...... I have most all of their books and systematic theologies in my library.

I'm not sure you are one. You haven't convinced me with your apologetics.

 

[civic]

But you're not answering.

A. You say, to my question,
makesends said: Are you denying, then, that believers are not individually chosen by God? The members of the Bride of Christ are random?,
civic said: "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 )."

Neverminding that I don't see how that makes sense —I mean, of course being chosen does not equate to being saved, (at least, not yet); but that Israel is God's "chosen people" doesn't mean that they were chosen for the same purpose as those we now call elect, that were chosen from the foundation of the world to be the members of the Bride, the Body of Christ, God's Dwelling Place— but even if I grant the point, how does that explain how the members of the Bride are random? To say it is "a different argument" is to admit that your post is off point.

B. How would God choose the elect [members] from the foundation of the world, without it being specific?
C. Philosophically speaking —how is it possible for God to create generally, without also creating specifically? You again appeal to mere chance, and there is no such thing.

You need to prove that elect/chosen in the NT has a different meaning in the NT. That onus is one you if you are saying they are different.

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

Ask me any question on the doctrines of grace, sovereignty, election, double predestination etc.... And I will give you Calvins view on them, RC's, Macs, Pipers , Spurgeon, Edwards, Grudems etc...... I have most all of their books and systematic theologies in my library.

I'm not sure you are one. You haven't convinced me with your apologetics.

Just because you know the doctrine doesn't mean you every believed it. I doubt you were ever a Calvinist.

 

[civic]

Just because you know the doctrine doesn't mean you every believed it. I doubt you were ever a Calvinist.

It doesn’t matter what you think the people here who know me know I was as we debated together as Calvinists against non Calvinists. @PapaLandShark, @Joe @Predestined @Administrator @TibiasDad @synergy @Rockson @ @dizerner @PeanutGallery @charismaticlady and @makesends know I was from other forums