Romans 8:29-30 exposition

[Covenanter]

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 you, S-D, deny the election of Israel?

All S-D's words are to avoid answering that simple question.

[Covenanter]

All the arguments against election (aka "Calvinism") apply to the election of Israel. Do you, S-D, deny the election of Israel?

All S-D's words are to avoid answering that simple question.

No specific answer, S-D? Does this apply to you:

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.

[Seth Doty]

Covenanter, you have a contentious attitude and as such it is not worth while to answer your question. Why should I explain that which your not interested in hearing anyway? For one thing If I explained it you would just argue with it and I already stated I was tired of arguing back and forth with the Calvinists on this thread. I know you have been attempting to provoke me into debating further with you but I am not that easy to provoke with taunts or by the intentional twisting of my words. Sometimes I think far to many words and to much time is wasted trying to convince people who do not deserve an answer to their questions anyway. That is probably true for most of this thread. I am content to let Matthew 15:14 and 1 Corinthians 14:38 apply. If you want to pat yourself on the back and proclaim that I "can't" answer you go ahead, that is typical, but wisdom is justified of all her children. :icon_mrgreen:

[Invicta]

Covenanter, you have a contentious attitude and as such it is not worth while to answer your question.

I think you also have a contentious attitude. When my daughter visited and read some of the threads, she said "Dad, I don't think you should go on that site, they are horrible to each other." Edited June 25, 2011 by Invicta

[Covenanter]

Covenanter, you have a contentious attitude and as such it is not worth while to answer your question. Why should I explain that which your not interested in hearing anyway? For one thing If I explained it you would just argue with it and I already stated I was tired of arguing back and forth with the Calvinists on this thread. I know you have been attempting to provoke me into debating further with you but I am not that easy to provoke with taunts or by the intentional twisting of my words. Sometimes I think far to many words and to much time is wasted trying to convince people who do not deserve an answer to their questions anyway. That is probably true for most of this thread. I am content to let Matthew 15:14 and 1 Corinthians 14:38 apply. If you want to pat yourself on the back and proclaim that I "can't" answer you go ahead, that is typical, but wisdom is justified of all her children.

I don't need an explanation nor a long post, just a "Yes" or "No" to the question:

All the arguments against election (aka "Calvinism") apply to the election of Israel. Do you, S-D, deny the election of Israel?

If you cannot answer, it will be evident to all that, in your own words, you are "just wishy washy and doubleminded."

[Seth Doty]

I don't need an explanation nor a long post, just a "Yes" or "No" to the question:

You just don't want to let this drop do you. Lets see if the "simple" answer you say will satisfy you actually does. The simple answer is collectively no individually yes. Same thing would apply to Christianity. What? that doesn't satisfy you and you now need more detail? :bonk:

[JerryNumbers]

I don't need an explanation nor a long post, just a "Yes" or "No" to the question:


If you cannot answer, it will be evident to all that, in your own words, you are "just wishy washy and doubleminded."

Sorry to say, the evidence is piling up against you and your Calvinism teachings.

[John81]

You just don't want to let this drop do you. Lets see if the "simple" answer you say will satisfy you actually does. The simple answer is collectively no individually yes. Same thing would apply to Christianity. What? that doesn't satisfy you and you now need more detail?

I don't want to get in the middle of the two of you and your fun, but what does this mean?

[Seth Doty]

I don't want to get in the middle of the two of you and your fun, but what does this mean?

I tried to pm you a response but kept getting error messages. I guess I will post the short version here.

In short it means that that God has ordained and chosen to do certain things with certain groups, but he did not select who could or could not be in those groups. For example Christians are predestinated to be conformed into the image of Christ, but who is and who is not a Christian has nothing to do with predestination. In the OT anyone could become a Jew if they chose(so could they today I suppose, though there is no real reason for it now), in the NT anyone can become a Christian if they choose. Likewise you could be born a Jew in the OT and go to hell if you did not have faith toward God. Being born a Jew did not save you. Calvinism would teach that individuals are elect before the foundation of the world, and have zero control over it. Commonly they misuse verses like "Jacob have I loved Esau have I hated" etc. to support their position. The scriptural position though is that believers become elect through salvation, they don't start out elect. The whole difference between individual and group election is why Jews can be enemies of the gospel, but yet it still be true "as touching the election, they are beloved for the fathers sakes." The individuals that reject the gospel are going to hell, yet there is an eventual plan for the group that results in all Israel(the survivors anyway) being saved. Edited June 30, 2011 by Seth-Doty

[Wilchbla]

In short it means that that God has ordained and chosen to do certain things with certain groups, but he did not select who could or could not be in those groups. For example Christians are predestinated to be conformed into the image of Christ, but who is and who is not a Christian has nothing to do with predestination.

Bingo! This is what I was getting at a few posts ago but you put it in words better than I could. Predestination is what God purposed in his will but for someone to be predestined (for it to be actualized in their life) they still have to excercise freewill and place their faith in Christ as Savior. Then they become part of the purpose of God. This is what I meant when I said that predestination kicks in after a man gets saved. Foreknowledge doesn't effect this one way or another.

Very good post. Edited June 30, 2011 by Wilchbla

[Invicta]

It seems from history, you were either a Calvinist or a Catholic.

[Invicta]

Why did Jesus preach in parables to stop people believing?

[John81]

I tried to pm you a response but kept getting error messages. I guess I will post the short version here.

In short it means that that God has ordained and chosen to do certain things with certain groups, but he did not select who could or could not be in those groups. For example Christians are predestinated to be conformed into the image of Christ, but who is and who is not a Christian has nothing to do with predestination. In the OT anyone could become a Jew if they chose(so could they today I suppose, though there is no real reason for it now), in the NT anyone can become a Christian if they choose. Likewise you could be born a Jew in the OT and go to hell if you did not have faith toward God. Being born a Jew did not save you. Calvinism would teach that individuals are elect before the foundation of the world, and have zero control over it. Commonly they misuse verses like "Jacob have I loved Esau have I hated" etc. to support their position. The scriptural position though is that believers become elect through salvation, they don't start out elect. The whole difference between individual and group election is why Jews can be enemies of the gospel, but yet it still be true "as touching the election, they are beloved for the fathers sakes." The individuals that reject the gospel are going to hell, yet there is an eventual plan for the group that results in all Israel(the survivors anyway) being saved.

Thank you for explaining. I get what you are trying to say though I think your example with regards to Jews is really stretched. Not anyone could become a Jew, especially the bulk of the people around the world that had never even heard of Jews.

In any event I get your meaning. Thanks.

[anime4christ]

My, I wonder why Apostle Paul chose (pun intended) to write his letters in such a misleading way. Couldn't he have written plainly that God isn't sovereign over man's will? I'm going to have a serious talk with him when I get to heaven. /sarcasm

No, but seriously, why are we called chosen and elect instead of being called choosing and electing. That fits far better with the theology that man is in control of his own destiny. Why does it have to be so complex and can only be explained correctly by a very careful redefining of terms and phrases the Bible use to make it sound just not like it seems to be saying.

I mean like even Spurgeon's words are twisted to try to say that he didn't really believe that God predestined people to salvation when he clearly did. Why not forget everything you have been taught about the Bible and what your emotions say and start from scratch, look at the Bible objectively, and see what it plainly states, whether you like it or not. Just try the experiment. You don't have to believe what you find, but just try it. Try a detached reading of the Bible and then make your conclusions (by detached I mean detached from your feelings and understanding and senses). This might sound like a horrible suggestion, but I suggest it because our hearts are very prone to lying to us (Bible says so).

Edited July 1, 2011 by anime4christ

[Wilchbla]

It seems from history, you were either a Calvinist or a Catholic.

Who are you talking to? If you are talking to me I was a Mormon but not really a practicing one.