Romans 8:29-30 exposition

[Covenanter]

Seems as if I do write in invisible ink.

Romans 8 follows Rom. 1-7 & is followed by Rom. 9-16.

Paul has established the lost condition of all mankind, & salvation by faith in Christ. The same faith for Jew &
Gentile. Also he has established that being a Jew ethnically & physically is worthless without faith.

Rom 2:28 For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither [is that] circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: 29 But he [is] a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision [is that] of the heart, in the spirit, [and] not in the letter; whose praise [is] not of men, but of God.

5:1 ¶ Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ:

The verses in the OP show the chain of God's work & plan for those he foreknows. Does that foreknowledge simply result from God's omniscience, or is it an active foreknowledge? Rom. 9-11 show how it is active. He bases his teaching of purposeful election of all believers on the election & calling of the patriarchs.

Rom 9:6 ¶ Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they [are] not all Israel, which are of Israel: 7 Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, [are they] all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called. 8 That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these [are] not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.
9 For this [is] the word of promise, At this time will I come, and Sara shall have a son.
10 And not only [this]; but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, [even] by our father Isaac; 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;) 12 It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger. 13 As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.

Paul teaches specific, personal election of the patriarchs, & rejection of the non-elect.

He writes of the Jewish remnant in Elijah's day, & in his own: Rom 11:1 ¶ I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, [of] the tribe of Benjamin.
2 God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew. Wot ye not what the scripture saith of Elias? how he maketh intercession to God against Israel, saying, 3 Lord, they have killed thy prophets, and digged down thine altars; and I am left alone, and they seek my life.
4 But what saith the answer of God unto him? I have reserved to myself seven thousand men, who have not bowed the knee to [the image of] Baal.
5 Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace.

All the arguments against election (aka "Calvinism") apply to the election of Israel. Do any here impugn the God of Israel as:

"God is a liar ... closer to a thug and a bully than the righteous judge scripture declares him to be and there would be nothing to morally recommend him over the devil." ?"

[John81]

Not speaking with regards to this forum or thread...

One of the problems I've had when looking into this debate (Calvinism vs. non-Calvinism) is that so often it seems each side will list their "top ten reasons our view is right" but when they put forth a counter to the other side they only address a few of their reasons but not all ten. I've seen this not only in online forums, but also in books and articles dealing with the subject.

This leaves one to wonder if they are just that sloppy in their approach, that they miss addressing several points (not likely, at least most of the time), or do they have no sound rebuttal to some of the points so they just ignore them, or have they simply failed to actually study the matter out fully so they really don't know what to say and they are unwilling to study those points in order to know whether they are valid or not.

In any event, it's rather frustrating to see ten "proofs" put forth and then continually see the opposition only address the same six over and over again while rarely, if ever, addressing the other four. A solid conclusion can't properly be arrived at under such conditions and is especially confusing to those new to the subject.

[anime4christ]

Not speaking with regards to this forum or thread...

One of the problems I've had when looking into this debate (Calvinism vs. non-Calvinism) is that so often it seems each side will list their "top ten reasons our view is right" but when they put forth a counter to the other side they only address a few of their reasons but not all ten. I've seen this not only in online forums, but also in books and articles dealing with the subject.

This leaves one to wonder if they are just that sloppy in their approach, that they miss addressing several points (not likely, at least most of the time), or do they have no sound rebuttal to some of the points so they just ignore them, or have they simply failed to actually study the matter out fully so they really don't know what to say and they are unwilling to study those points in order to know whether they are valid or not.

In any event, it's rather frustrating to see ten "proofs" put forth and then continually see the opposition only address the same six over and over again while rarely, if ever, addressing the other four. A solid conclusion can't properly be arrived at under such conditions and is especially confusing to those new to the subject.

John, I think you're the most neutral in this debate, so would you like to act as moderator and tell us where we have failed to address each other's points, so that we would attempt to satisfy the wanting points instead of running around in circles? :)

[Invicta]

The "last day", is not speaking of a day which is the last "day" period, rather it is a term that describes the harvest, rapture, etc.

That is a strange teaching. The last day means the last day.

[Seth Doty]

Seems as if I do write in invisible ink.

It isn't so much that you "write invisible" or that I was somehow avoiding your arguments(after all they are the same passages Calvinists always bring up and I have dealt with them in the past) as it is I was already arguing with several other people at the same time on the same thread so I obviously ended up completely or partially ignoring many posts/posters. Anyway, the entire Calvinism debate has been frequently and thoroughly hashed out since the days of John Calvin. If I say something in rebuttal to the Calvinist position, then the Calvinists say I was wrong, unbiblical, and illogical. Then I say no they are wrong, unbiblical and illogical. Ad nauseum, round and round in circles without point or accomplishment. It serves as nothing but the outpouring of vain words. Several verses about that came to mind today but none of them complimentary so I shall not share them since I think they were brought to mind for my own guidance rather than as something to share with others. I think that in this particular discussion that the vast majority(if not all) have firmly made up their minds(most long ago) and are pretty much unshakeable. If anyone has not by this point they are probably just wishy washy and doubleminded as there is no reasonable excuse not to have a firm position on the subject. It isn't as if there are insufficient scriptures to consider. Therefore I shall not be a fool and beat the air further on this thread just for the sake of a debate which accomplishes nothing and that no one can ever win be they right or wrong. If Calvinists want to spout that which is both heresy and foolishness on this forum certainly God did not appoint me as his messenger to rebuke bad doctrine were ever it be found. Let God plead his own cause and defend his own name if he sees fit and in the manner he sees fit.

Grace be with all them that love our Lord Jesus Christ in sincerity. Edited June 21, 2011 by Seth-Doty

[Revelation3:20]

Do any here impugn the God of Israel as:

Your twisting the statement and you know it. You might want to think about Proverbs 10:18

[John81]

It isn't so much that you "write invisible" or that I was somehow avoiding your arguments(after all they are the same passages Calvinists always bring up and I have dealt with them in the past) as it is I was already arguing with several other people at the same time on the same thread so I obviously ended up completely or partially ignoring many posts/posters. Anyway, the entire Calvinism debate has been frequently and thoroughly hashed out since the days of John Calvin. If I say something in rebuttal to the Calvinist position, then the Calvinists say I was wrong, unbiblical, and illogical. Then I say no they are wrong, unbiblical and illogical. Ad nauseum, round and round in circles without point or accomplishment. It serves as nothing but the outpouring of vain words. Several verses about that came to mind today but none of them complimentary so I shall not share them since I think they were brought to mind for my own guidance rather than as something to share with others. I think that in this particular discussion that the vast majority(if not all) have firmly made up their minds(most long ago) and are pretty much unshakeable. If anyone has not by this point they are probably just wishy washy and doubleminded as there is no reasonable excuse not to have a firm position on the subject. It isn't as if there are insufficient scriptures to consider. Therefore I shall not be a fool and beat the air further on this thread just for the sake of a debate which accomplishes nothing and that no one can ever win be they right or wrong. If Calvinists want to spout that which is both heresy and foolishness on this forum certainly God did not appoint me as his messenger to rebuke bad doctrine were ever it be found. Let God plead his own cause and defend his own name if he sees fit and in the manner he sees fit.

Grace be with all them that love our Lord Jesus Christ in sincerity.

You stated, "there is no reasonable excuse not to have a firm position on the subject", while saying those who hold to Calvinism speak "heresy and foolishness" yet you proclaim those who don't hold a "firm position" are "probably just wishy washy and doubleminded". That really leaves no room for anyone to stand uncondemned unless they hold to the view you hold.

I know where I stand, but I also know that greater minds and saints have wrestled with this and come down on both sides; and even some who never came to a firm conclusion.

To be honest, based solely upon the posts in this thread, I wouldn't say either side has made a compelling enough case for someone to hold a firm position on.

[Seth Doty]

You stated, "there is no reasonable excuse not to have a firm position on the subject", while saying those who hold to Calvinism speak "heresy and foolishness" yet you proclaim those who don't hold a "firm position" are "probably just wishy washy and doubleminded". That really leaves no room for anyone to stand uncondemned unless they hold to the view you hold.

I agree. I make no secret of the fact that I believe both Calvinists and those who say basically "both sides have good arguments" or "neither side can be sure" are wrong. On such a serious doctrine as this I believe James 1:8 applies.

[John81]

I agree. I make no secret of the fact that I believe both Calvinists and those who say basically "both sides have good arguments" or "neither side can be sure" are wrong. On such a serious doctrine as this I believe James 1:8 applies.

When does James 1:8 come into effect? After a person has read through the Bible once? After their first hearing about Calvinism or non-Calvinism? After studying the issue themselves for a couple of days? After spending a year reading and studying all they can lay their hands upon? Just when over the course of a persons life does James 1:8 kick in with regards to this subject?

I would think James 1:8 more appropriately applies to the topic it addresses in its context.

I was a Christian for many years before I ever even hard of the Calvinist vs. non-Calvinist debate. Also, I will readily admit when I first encountered the debate it was confusing because both sides were trying to claim Spurgeon as their own. Matters were further complicated for me by what I posted about previously with regards to both sides seeming unwillingness to address all the "proofs" of the other side.

As I've stated, I know where I now stand but considering the fact greater men of God than I have wrestled so hard with this, with some coming down on one side, some on the other, I'm open to the possibility God has more to teach me in this area. That hardly means I'm double-minded or wishy-washy. I stand firm here but I keep an open mind when reading debates on the topic and if God were to drop a bridge leading me differently then I want to be open to that. If God drops no bridge leading me elsewhere, I'm content to stand firm right here.

At the same time, I can't condemn all those who have proven to be great men of God just because they come down on one side or the other. Whitefield and Wesley, for example, were in opposite camps on this yet both were greatly used of God.

[Seth Doty]

When does James 1:8 come into effect? After a person has read through the Bible once? After their first hearing about Calvinism or non-Calvinism? After studying the issue themselves for a couple of days? After spending a year reading and studying all they can lay their hands upon? Just when over the course of a persons life does James 1:8 kick in with regards to this subject?

I would think James 1:8 more appropriately applies to the topic it addresses in its context.

"Isaiah 28:9 Whom shall he teach knowledge? and whom shall he make to understand doctrine? them that are weaned from the milk, and drawn from the breasts." I am more than willing to make allowances for Spiritual babes in Christ as is true in many areas but once a Christian has matured they should be able to discern between good and evil.

I was a Christian for many years before I ever even hard of the Calvinist vs. non-Calvinist debate. Also, I will readily admit when I first encountered the debate it was confusing because both sides were trying to claim Spurgeon as their own. Matters were further complicated for me by what I posted about previously with regards to both sides seeming unwillingness to address all the "proofs" of the other side.

Maybe you see that, but I never have. Calvinists and non-Calvinists have addressed virtually every possible point or verse that could be raised by the other side at one time or another. Whether or not you accept the answer is something else, but there is no lack of answers.

As I've stated, I know where I now stand but considering the fact greater men of God than I have wrestled so hard with this, with some coming down on one side, some on the other, I'm open to the possibility God has more to teach me in this area. That hardly means I'm double-minded or wishy-washy. I stand firm here but I keep an open mind when reading debates on the topic and if God were to drop a bridge leading me differently then I want to be open to that. If God drops no bridge leading me elsewhere, I'm content to stand firm right here.

At the same time, I can't condemn all those who have proven to be great men of God just because they come down on one side or the other. Whitefield and Wesley, for example, were in opposite camps on this yet both were greatly used of God.

This argument I do not feel holds water. David was a man after Gods own heart yet he fell into sin with another mans wife, then murdered that man. Does the fact that he was a great man of God mean we can't condemn his sin because he was otherwise a great man of God? Likewise Solomon had great wisdom from God, yet he took a huge number of wives(not wise) and eventually even ended up building temples to other gods etc. Does that mean others are excused if they were to fall for the same thing? Sometime what Elihu said is true: "Job 32:9 Great men are not always wise: neither do the aged understand judgment." I will condemn the sin of David though he was a great man, and I will condemn Calvinists for their calvinism even if they are otherwise good men that are used of God. Most of the time error(except for the grace of God) has consequences in some form though.

[John81]

"Isaiah 28:9 Whom shall he teach knowledge? and whom shall he make to understand doctrine? them that are weaned from the milk, and drawn from the breasts." I am more than willing to make allowances for Spiritual babes in Christ as is true in many areas but once a Christian has matured they should be able to discern between good and evil.



Maybe you see that, but I never have. Calvinists and non-Calvinists have addressed virtually every possible point or verse that could be raised by the other side at one time or another. Whether or not you accept the answer is something else, but there is no lack of answers.



This argument I do not feel holds water. David was a man after Gods own heart yet he fell into sin with another mans wife, then murdered that man. Does the fact that he was a great man of God mean we can't condemn his sin because he was otherwise a great man of God? Likewise Solomon had great wisdom from God, yet he took a huge number of wives(not wise) and eventually even ended up building temples to other gods etc. Does that mean others are excused if they were to fall for the same thing? Sometime what Elihu said is true: "Job 32:9 Great men are not always wise: neither do the aged understand judgment." I will condemn the sin of David though he was a great man, and I will condemn Calvinists for their calvinism even if they are otherwise good men that are used of God. Most of the time error(except for the grace of God) has consequences in some form though.

There is a difference between condemning sin and condemning the person. Some make the distinction to specifically condemn the sin while many more condemn the person along with the sin. I've encountered many anti-Calvinists who declare that anyone who believes in Calvinism can't be saved.

When does a Christian reach the proper level of maturity to be able to discern this doctrine? We all mature at different rates and the Lord deals with different aspects at different times for each of us. What might have come simple for me or you may be something another won't grasp for several more years. An issue the Lord dealt with one of us over early one may be an issue the Lord doesn't deal with another on until later in their life. Some Christians mature quickly while some take many years. Some Christians reach finally reach a mature level but don't mature beyond that for some time. No doubt, in some cases it's due to the person, but in some cases it has to do with how the Lord chooses to deal with them, at what time, and what areas the Lord chooses to deal in what order.

Back to the example of Wesley and Whitefield. Both were mature Christians yet both came down on opposite sides of this issue. Does that mean one of them wasn't able to discern good from evil?

In my time here on OB I've seen several times where someone will post a verse, verses, a link to a sermon or article which addresses a particular "proof" and the other side never addresses it. I've seen many questions go unanswered. I've seen points or quetions put forth and the only reply is "it's been addressed elsewhere, or a couple years ago, or has been written of during the past few hundred years"; which really isn't an answer and not helpful to the one who has not read those.

Please don't misunderstand my post, I'm not addressing any of this specifically to you, these are general observations, I don't want you to think that I believe you yourself should reply to every post, point by point, in every thread or anything like that.

In any event, I don't know that anyone posting in this thread is undecided, but there may be lurkers who are or those who will read this thread at a later date who are. As I said, from what I've read in this thread, if I was undecided I would not find enough here to convince me of either argument.

[Seth Doty]

men of God than I have wrestled so hard with this, with some coming down on one side, some on the other, I'm open to the possibility God has more to teach me in this area. That hardly means I'm double-minded or wishy-washy. I stand firm here but I keep an open mind when reading debates on the topic and if God were to drop a bridge leading me differently then I want to be open to that. If God drops no bridge leading me elsewhere, I'm content to stand firm right here.

Realized I wanted to say something else about this. I disagree with your position to truly be "standing firm" while being "open to the possibility of something it is at total odds with. Take an example where I am sure we both agree, say someone was to say "I stand firm on the fact that salvation is through repentance, faith, and the blood of Christ alone, but I know many good people that believe otherwise so I keep an open mind and if God were to drop a bridge leading me differently I want to be open to that." Is that standing firm or being wishy washy?

I think it is being wishy washy since Gods truth on the matter is revealed in scripture and being "open to another possibility" means your not fully persuaded your position is the truth. On some topics that is acceptable, but Calvinism vs. free will is a fundamental argument over what the character of the God we worship is. If your not TOTALLY sure of that how could you have a right relationship with someone your not sure you know the character of? Was Christs death on the cross accomplished because God cared for mankind or was it done only because God thought it would give him "more" glory? That is a very important doctrinal question about who God really is. As for me, I am not "open" to being "led differently" on Calvinism as having looked at the scriptures I am fully persuaded that the bible does not teach it. It would take a situation like Paul had on the road to Damascus to change my mind and even then I would have to be extremely sure it wasn't the devil masquerading as an angel of light. That is how sure I am.

[John81]

Realized I wanted to say something else about this. I disagree with your position to truly be "standing firm" while being "open to the possibility of something it is at total odds with. Take an example where I am sure we both agree, say someone was to say "I stand firm on the fact that salvation is through repentance, faith, and the blood of Christ alone, but I know many good people that believe otherwise so I keep an open mind and if God were to drop a bridge leading me differently I want to be open to that." Is that standing firm or being wishy washy?

I think it is being wishy washy since Gods truth on the matter is revealed in scripture and being "open to another possibility" means your not fully persuaded your position is the truth. On some topics that is acceptable, but Calvinism vs. free will is a fundamental argument over what the character of the God we worship is. If your not TOTALLY sure of that how could you have a right relationship with someone your not sure you know the character of? Was Christs death on the cross accomplished because God cared for mankind or was it done only because God thought it would give him "more" glory? That is a very important doctrinal question about who God really is. As for me, I am not "open" to being "led differently" on Calvinism as having looked at the scriptures I am fully persuaded that the bible does not teach it. It would take a situation like Paul had on the road to Damascus to change my mind and even then I would have to be extremely sure it wasn't the devil masquerading as an angel of light. That is how sure I am.

I didn't say I was open to correction because of what other people believe, only that I'm open to correction from the Lord.

This is similar to the discussion regarding remarriage. I know where I stand, but I've read the views of the one who holds a different position and I hope that I'm open enough to the Lord that if He said this guys right, you had it wrong, I would listen.

Now, if we were discussing Ephesians 2:8, 9, again I know where I stand and I don't believe it's possible to refute that yet if God suddenly opened my eyes to several verses that shed new light for me on that, then I would follow God. Of course having studied this enough over the years and looked at opposing views, I don't see that ever happening.

I'm probably not explaining this well, would be much easier in person and if I were not in a bit of a hurry here.

Suffice to say, I'm only saying I'm open to the leading of the Lord, not persuasion of man or belief by popular concent.

Maybe this is a better example (maybe not), but many years ago I had settled on the NASB, primarily because it was an "American" Bible. However, a year or so after that the Lord specifically called me to the KJB and I'm still KJB.

I believe the Bible teaches "once saved, always saved" yet over the years I've heard many say, and read many proclaiming otherwise. Some have even presented some pretty good arguments for their side. Regardless of how well their arguments were, the Lord has never gave me any indication that they are right so here I stand on "once saved, always".

[Seth Doty]

There is a difference between condemning sin and condemning the person. Some make the distinction to specifically condemn the sin while many more condemn the person along with the sin. I've encountered many anti-Calvinists who declare that anyone who believes in Calvinism can't be saved.

I believe you can be a Calvinist and be saved, however I think they suffer under a very serious misunderstanding of who God is. I also believe many Calvinists are not saved(no doubt the same is true of those who hold to free will but for different reasons). For example one man who visited the church I am a member of one time when asked about his salvation stated that he was one of the "elect". When pressed further he said he had "always" believed in God and had "always" known he was "elect". I think I can safely say he was not "elect" as he thought and was not saved.

Back to the example of Wesley and Whitefield. Both were mature Christians yet both came down on opposite sides of this issue. Does that mean one of them wasn't able to discern good from evil?

Yes, probably both actually, though in different areas due to different weaknesses and failures.

In my time here on OB I've seen several times where someone will post a verse, verses, a link to a sermon or article which addresses a particular "proof" and the other side never addresses it. I've seen many questions go unanswered. I've seen points or quetions put forth and the only reply is "it's been addressed elsewhere, or a couple years ago, or has been written of during the past few hundred years"; which really isn't an answer and not helpful to the one who has not read those.

I wasn't speaking of OB specifically, I assume if someone is genuinely wanting an answer and do not get a reply on OB that will not be the end of their search. If it is I don't think they want it very bad as they are not willing to show much diligence or go to much effort. They probably don't even deserve one if they are completely unwilling to put effort into finding an answer. As God does not instantly answer every question asked him, even if it is genuine, likewise people sometimes need to both wait and work to get answers from other sources.

[John81]

I believe you can be a Calvinist and be saved, however I think they suffer under a very serious misunderstanding of who God is. I also believe many Calvinists are not saved(no doubt the same is true of those who hold to free will but for different reasons). For example one man who visited the church I am a member of one time when asked about his salvation stated that he was one of the "elect". When pressed further he said he had "always" believed in God and had "always" known he was "elect". I think I can safely say he was not "elect" as he thought and was not saved.



Yes, probably both actually, though in different areas due to different weaknesses and failures.



I wasn't speaking of OB specifically, I assume if someone is genuinely wanting an answer and do not get a reply on OB that will not be the end of their search. If it is I don't think they want it very bad as they are not willing to show much diligence or go to much effort. They probably don't even deserve one if they are completely unwilling to put effort into finding an answer. As God does not instantly answer every question asked him, even if it is genuine, likewise people sometimes need to both wait and work to get answers from other sources.

That was kind of my point, one can be a mature Christian and yet be wrong in some areas or not yet enlightened.

One of the difficulties in dealing with the Calvinism issue is that there are so many "varieties" of Calvinist. I know they exist, but I've never met any of the "I'm an elect" sort or those who don't believe in witnessing. Most I know would probably be a Calvinist along the lines of Spurgeon.

Sorry to cut this short, but my wife wants me. :icon_smile: