How do you understand John 1:12-13

[Gillian]

I think I am beginning to understand now.  The text book of Calvinism is written by Spurgeon.  You might be better off choosing the Bible for your text book. 

I know you are a man of some measure of intelligence, but this is a ridicules statement.

Did you miss something?

Now, onto the textbook...............  Like your friend said, you would do well to read before you speak (John 9) and at the end of the post you just commented to, here once again are my last words:

Now, onto the textbook..............

[Gillian]

I think I am beginning to understand now.  The text book of Calvinism is written by Spurgeon.  You might be better off choosing the Bible for your text book. 

No, your understanding is incorrect, keep trying, you will get it.

[Jimmy]

I think I am beginning to understand now.  The text book of Calvinism is written by Spurgeon.  You might be better off choosing the Bible for your text book. 

No, your understanding is incorrect, keep trying, you will get it.

Yes I do consider myself to be of man of some intelligence, not much but some.  And even that little bit will never allow me to come your Calvinistic conclusions.

I can see by what you have posted already, for example, Romans 9:15-32, that you do not understand the difference of election for service and election for salvation.  But that is not likely to change by anything I say, so I will just leave you with it.  And pity you even a little bit more.

[Bon Voyage]

I think I am beginning to understand now.  The text book of Calvinism is written by Spurgeon.  You might be better off choosing the Bible for your text book. 

No, your understanding is incorrect, keep trying, you will get it.

Yes I do consider myself to be of man of some intelligence, not much but some.  And even that little bit will never allow me to come your Calvinistic conclusions.

I can see by what you have posted already, for example, Romans 9:15-32, that you do not understand the difference of election for service and election for salvation.  But that is not likely to change by anything I say, so I will just leave you with it.  And pity you even a little bit more.

Election for service vs. election for salvation?

[yogi bear]

I don't know call me a man of no understanding if you will but I think Jimmy is on to something here with his "Election for service vs. election for salvation". I do think that there is a difference. I however can not draw the picture to where one can identify the difference so I will leave that to Jimmy.

[Bon Voyage]

I don't know call me a man of no understanding if you will but I think Jimmy is on to something here with his "Election for service vs. election for salvation". I do think that there is a difference. I however can not draw the picture to where one can identify the difference so I will leave that to Jimmy.

What about election for damnation?  That it talked about in that passage as well.

[Gillian]

I think I am beginning to understand now.  The text book of Calvinism is written by Spurgeon.  You might be better off choosing the Bible for your text book. 

No, your understanding is incorrect, keep trying, you will get it.

Yes I do consider myself to be of man of some intelligence, not much but some.  And even that little bit will never allow me to come your Calvinistic conclusions.

I can see by what you have posted already, for example, Romans 9:15-32, that you do not understand the difference of election for service and election for salvation.  But that is not likely to change by anything I say, so I will just leave you with it.  And pity you even a little bit more.

Ok, well since it is such an important issue, and it is, please explain. And please explain, not in your words which you have done so far, but, with scripture in its context. 

As of now this is considered an :Empty statement, An empty statement is represented as (void)0.

Teach me, and explain, the difference between: election for service and election for salvation. In Romans 9:15-32.

[yogi bear]

I don't know call me a man of no understanding if you will but I think Jimmy is on to something here with his "Election for service vs. election for salvation". I do think that there is a difference. I however can not draw the picture to where one can identify the difference so I will leave that to Jimmy.

What about election for damnation?  That it talked about in that passage as well.

Ok I must confess it has been sometime since a passage was quoted so which one is in question?
I must have missed it. I only see opinions being discussed.

[Bon Voyage]

I don't know call me a man of no understanding if you will but I think Jimmy is on to something here with his "Election for service vs. election for salvation". I do think that there is a difference. I however can not draw the picture to where one can identify the difference so I will leave that to Jimmy.

What about election for damnation?  That it talked about in that passage as well.

Ok I must confess it has been sometime since a passage was quoted so which one is in question?
I must have missed it. I only see opinions being discussed.

Romans 9:15-32.  I posted 19-24 in reply #89 in this thread earlier today.

[Gillian]

  But that is not likely to change by anything I say, so I will just leave you with it.  And pity you even a little bit more.

Thats not very Christlike!
Actually, I would change and believe what you teach if I see it as truth. You being a Christian should have the desire for all to believe the word of God in truth? I have thrown out mush luggage in the past couple years and replaced it with truth, and will by God's grace continue to do so. So I genuinely ask, show me.

[Terrence]

Question: Why did God allow someone he knew that would never repent and choose Christ to be born?

Because God does not control the reproductive processes on an individual basis.  He put the the process into play at the time of creation with the laws of physics, chemistry, biology etc.  Any intervening which He may choose to deal with individually represents a special case and not the general process.

No my friend. The God of the Bible is in control of everything. He is the God who not only upholds all things by the word of His power (Heb 1:3), but the God who works all things "according to the council of his own will" (Eph 1:11). God is the one who allows someone to be born; if He doesn't the mother will be barren. God is the one to give the ability to get wealth, beauty, etc. God is the one to make it rain, snow, sleet, etc. God is the one tho feed the animals. God is the one to make a person born to a particular family, country, ande situation, whether rich or poor. God is actually God. I know you may not agree, but I implore you: Read theological books that show the "bigness" of our God.

[Gillian]

Question: Why did God allow someone he knew that would never repent and choose Christ to be born?

Because God does not control the reproductive processes on an individual basis.  He put the the process into play at the time of creation with the laws of physics, chemistry, biology etc.  Any intervening which He may choose to deal with individually represents a special case and not the general process.

No my friend. The God of the Bible is in control of everything. He is the God who not only upholds all things by the word of His power (Heb 1:3), but the God who works all things "according to the council of his own will" (Eph 1:11). God is the one who allows someone to be born; if He doesn't the mother will be barren. God is the one to give the ability to get wealth, beauty, etc. God is the one to make it rain, snow, sleet, etc. God is the one tho feed the animals. God is the one to make a person born to a particular family, country, ande situation, whether rich or poor. God is actually God. I know you may not agree, but I implore you: Read theological books that show the "bigness" of our God.

Amen!

[Terrence]

Jimmy wrote:

There may be some subtle difference from the dipiction that I laid out above.  But it is subtle.  Your position still is that God chooses those who will be saved and those who will not be saved.  Free choice however you have defined it can have no influence one way or the other on that decision.  Thus by default, God has choosen in advance who He will condemn to hell.  That is unacceptable and loathsome.

In attempt to show that all of us believes that God has "chosen in advance who will go to hell," I asked the question:

Why did God allow someone he knew that would never repent and choose Christ to be born?

You see, whether you agree with Calvinism or not, you all know that God chose to let people whom he already knew would not believe to be born. And why? Why does God do anything? God does EVERYTHING he does for His own name's sake...that he might bring glory to His name. And like I said before: Since "none seek after God" (Rom 3:11), God saved some to receive glory in His grace (Eph 1:6), and left others to their choice of not coming to Christ that he might get glory in His justice and wrath (Prov 16:4). If God didn't grant faith to some, NONE would come to Christ, because ALL hate God.

[Jimmy]

Question: Why did God allow someone he knew that would never repent and choose Christ to be born?

Because God does not control the reproductive processes on an individual basis.  He put the the process into play at the time of creation with the laws of physics, chemistry, biology etc.  Any intervening which He may choose to deal with individually represents a special case and not the general process.

No my friend. The God of the Bible is in control of everything. He is the God who not only upholds all things by the word of His power (Heb 1:3), but the God who works all things "according to the council of his own will" (Eph 1:11). God is the one who allows someone to be born; if He doesn't the mother will be barren. God is the one to give the ability to get wealth, beauty, etc. God is the one to make it rain, snow, sleet, etc. God is the one tho feed the animals. God is the one to make a person born to a particular family, country, ande situation, whether rich or poor. God is actually God. I know you may not agree, but I implore you: Read theological books that show the "bigness" of our God.

That is not the bigness of God.  That isn't even a very high view of God.  You would make Him into little more than a puppet master.  That is the same view of their god that the Pagans display.  Again I can only feel remorse for you in your belittling of God the Father.

[Gillian]

Question: Why did God allow someone he knew that would never repent and choose Christ to be born?

Because God does not control the reproductive processes on an individual basis.  He put the the process into play at the time of creation with the laws of physics, chemistry, biology etc.  Any intervening which He may choose to deal with individually represents a special case and not the general process.

No my friend. The God of the Bible is in control of everything. He is the God who not only upholds all things by the word of His power (Heb 1:3), but the God who works all things "according to the council of his own will" (Eph 1:11). God is the one who allows someone to be born; if He doesn't the mother will be barren. God is the one to give the ability to get wealth, beauty, etc. God is the one to make it rain, snow, sleet, etc. God is the one tho feed the animals. God is the one to make a person born to a particular family, country, ande situation, whether rich or poor. God is actually God. I know you may not agree, but I implore you: Read theological books that show the "bigness" of our God.

That is not the bigness of God.  That isn't even a very high view of God.  You would make Him into little more than a puppet master.  That is the same view of their god that the Pagans display.  Again I can only feel remorse for you in your belittling of God the Father.

Jimmy all I have seen you do as of yet is bash many posts, even though many have used scriptures to support their beliefs. You have used none, but instead have judged everything according to your personal opinions which amounts to nothing, if it is not backed with scripture, this is the way the world argues about the bible.  I am not sure why. Maby the meat you have been served you haven't developed the teeth to chew it yet, this is ok and understandable.
Keep in mind, we all learn from each other, through fellowship. Your opinion in spiritual matters counts, just bring it with scripture.

God Bless.   

[Terrence]

Question: Why did God allow someone he knew that would never repent and choose Christ to be born?

Because God does not control the reproductive processes on an individual basis.  He put the the process into play at the time of creation with the laws of physics, chemistry, biology etc.  Any intervening which He may choose to deal with individually represents a special case and not the general process.

No my friend. The God of the Bible is in control of everything. He is the God who not only upholds all things by the word of His power (Heb 1:3), but the God who works all things "according to the council of his own will" (Eph 1:11). God is the one who allows someone to be born; if He doesn't the mother will be barren. God is the one to give the ability to get wealth, beauty, etc. God is the one to make it rain, snow, sleet, etc. God is the one tho feed the animals. God is the one to make a person born to a particular family, country, ande situation, whether rich or poor. God is actually God. I know you may not agree, but I implore you: Read theological books that show the "bigness" of our God.

That is not the bigness of God.  That isn't even a very high view of God.  You would make Him into little more than a puppet master.  That is the same view of their god that the Pagans display.  Again I can only feel remorse for you in your belittling of God the Father.

Speaking about God is a fearful thing! Every idol words a man speak, whether about God or not, will be bought to attention when God judges a man. This is fearful! If I am belittling God in what I've said, please know that God will judge and his judgments are awful. If you believe me to be in error, please pray that God might correct my understanding. If however I am correct in what I'm saying, there's responsibility on your part to humble yourself and find out if these things are true.

[Jimmy]

Question: Why did God allow someone he knew that would never repent and choose Christ to be born?

Because God does not control the reproductive processes on an individual basis.  He put the the process into play at the time of creation with the laws of physics, chemistry, biology etc.  Any intervening which He may choose to deal with individually represents a special case and not the general process.

No my friend. The God of the Bible is in control of everything. He is the God who not only upholds all things by the word of His power (Heb 1:3), but the God who works all things "according to the council of his own will" (Eph 1:11). God is the one who allows someone to be born; if He doesn't the mother will be barren. God is the one to give the ability to get wealth, beauty, etc. God is the one to make it rain, snow, sleet, etc. God is the one tho feed the animals. God is the one to make a person born to a particular family, country, ande situation, whether rich or poor. God is actually God. I know you may not agree, but I implore you: Read theological books that show the "bigness" of our God.

That is not the bigness of God.  That isn't even a very high view of God.  You would make Him into little more than a puppet master.  That is the same view of their god that the Pagans display.  Again I can only feel remorse for you in your belittling of God the Father.

Jimmy all I have seen you do as of yet is bash many posts, even though many have used scriptures to support their beliefs. You have used none, but instead have judged everything according to your personal opinions which amounts to nothing, if it is not backed with scripture, this is the way the world argues about the bible.  I am not sure why. Maby the meat you have been served you haven't developed the teeth to chew it yet, this is ok and understandable.
Keep in mind, we all learn from each other, through fellowship. Your opinion in spiritual matters counts, just bring it with scripture.

God Bless.   

In all honesty, I have come to believe that dealing with Calvinists is a bit like trying to train a one legged place kicker for an NFL football team.  It probably could be done, but I just don't think I have the patience for it.  Because you see it isn't about scripture, it is about how two different people interpret the same scripture.  The Calvinist is so deeply seated into the whole TULIP thing as the foundational basis of interpretation.

But it is like the Posting of Romans 9:15-32.  The whole section deals with Paul's addressing the Jewish question of whether God is in the right to have "chosen" Israel as His people not saved them.  The point that Paul is arguing is that God didn't choose them for salvation, He chose them for a particular service in bringing in His plan of salvation.  Paul's argument in the paragraph of vvs. 14-18 has to do with God's right to choose and use people without saving them.  He quotes Moses in v. 15.  In doing so the OT context is important.  Why did God originally make this statement?  Why did He say what He said to Moses? Was that strictly to deal with Moses?  Was it broader in scope to include the Nation Israel.  But the point is that it was not addressing the salvation of the Nation Israel of individual Jews.  And Paul's use of the OT quotation is here is to be noted in the context and meaning of the overall argument in Romans 9.  At stake is the righteousness or faithfulness of God in relation to Israel.  The question before us which Paul is addressing is whether God in choosing Israel for covenant service imply that all Jewish people should be saved?  Paul says, No.  And he refers then to the choosing of Isaac and Jacob.  God chooses who He pleases.  He can and did choose people, including the whole Nation Israel, whether they are saved or not.

So it is not a kind of sovereignty by which God chooses some for salvation and condemns others to hell.  Rather the issue is His sovereignty in choosing one  (Isaac, Jacob v. 7-13) rather than another (Ishmael, Esau) for a role of service and the issue in the chapter as a whole is his sovereignly in choosing and using the Nation Israel apart from the promise of individual salvation.  Such choosing of Isaac, Jacob and Nation Israel was a matter of mercy and favor.  But the not choosing of Ishmael and Esau was not in and of itself an act of eternal condemnation.

So Paul is not addressing the eternal salvation of individuals here at all.  Any attempt to point Paul's words in that direction is wholly and completely inappropriate.

There is a lot more that can be said in relation to this passage, but I will just leave it there.  Except to note that Paul reinforces this argument by pointing to God's use of Pharaoh.  The point is not Pharaoh's salvation but rather Pharaoh's being selected for service totally apart from any issue of salvation.  And that is the thrust of Paul's argument to the Jews who wished to see themselves in a special light with respect to salvation.  Paul says to them, God's election for service is unencumbered by any election for salvation.

The reference to the potter and the lump of clay formed for noble purpose or for common use further reinforces Paul's argument.

There is enough meat in chapter 9 alone to fill pages and pages,  And none of it need be seen through the eyes of the Calvinist to see what Paul is saying to us there.

And I have already spent more time on the one legged place kicker than I intended.

So you take care.  I shall probably continue to simply heckle from time to time.  I think that it is important to do so.  There is virtually no chance that you will ever come to see things except through your Calvinist eyes, but still I feel the need to remind you every once in a while that is what you are doing and changing the meaning in the process.

[Terrence]

Question: Why did God allow someone he knew that would never repent and choose Christ to be born?

Because God does not control the reproductive processes on an individual basis.  He put the the process into play at the time of creation with the laws of physics, chemistry, biology etc.  Any intervening which He may choose to deal with individually represents a special case and not the general process.

No my friend. The God of the Bible is in control of everything. He is the God who not only upholds all things by the word of His power (Heb 1:3), but the God who works all things "according to the council of his own will" (Eph 1:11). God is the one who allows someone to be born; if He doesn't the mother will be barren. God is the one to give the ability to get wealth, beauty, etc. God is the one to make it rain, snow, sleet, etc. God is the one tho feed the animals. God is the one to make a person born to a particular family, country, ande situation, whether rich or poor. God is actually God. I know you may not agree, but I implore you: Read theological books that show the "bigness" of our God.

That is not the bigness of God.  That isn't even a very high view of God.  You would make Him into little more than a puppet master.  That is the same view of their god that the Pagans display.  Again I can only feel remorse for you in your belittling of God the Father.

Jimmy all I have seen you do as of yet is bash many posts, even though many have used scriptures to support their beliefs. You have used none, but instead have judged everything according to your personal opinions which amounts to nothing, if it is not backed with scripture, this is the way the world argues about the bible.  I am not sure why. Maby the meat you have been served you haven't developed the teeth to chew it yet, this is ok and understandable.
Keep in mind, we all learn from each other, through fellowship. Your opinion in spiritual matters counts, just bring it with scripture.

God Bless.   

In all honesty, I have come to believe that dealing with Calvinists is a bit like trying to train a one legged place kicker for an NFL football team.  It probably could be done, but I just don't think I have the patience for it.  Because you see it isn't about scripture, it is about how two different people interpret the same scripture.  The Calvinist is so deeply seated into the whole TULIP thing as the foundational basis of interpretation.

But it is like the Posting of Romans 9:15-32.  The whole section deals with Paul's addressing the Jewish question of whether God is in the right to have "chosen" Israel as His people not saved them.  The point that Paul is arguing is that God didn't choose them for salvation, He chose them for a particular service in bringing in His plan of salvation.  Paul's argument in the paragraph of vvs. 14-18 has to do with God's right to choose and use people without saving them.  He quotes Moses in v. 15.  In doing so the OT context is important.  Why did God originally make this statement?  Why did He say what He said to Moses? Was that strictly to deal with Moses?  Was it broader in scope to include the Nation Israel.  But the point is that it was not addressing the salvation of the Nation Israel of individual Jews.  And Paul's use of the OT quotation is here is to be noted in the context and meaning of the overall argument in Romans 9.  At stake is the righteousness or faithfulness of God in relation to Israel.  The question before us which Paul is addressing is whether God in choosing Israel for covenant service imply that all Jewish people should be saved?  Paul says, No.  And he refers then to the choosing of Isaac and Jacob.  God chooses who He pleases.  He can and did choose people, including the whole Nation Israel, whether they are saved or not.

So it is not a kind of sovereignty by which God chooses some for salvation and condemns others to hell.  Rather the issue is His sovereignty in choosing one  (Isaac, Jacob v. 7-13) rather than another (Ishmael, Esau) for a role of service and the issue in the chapter as a whole is his sovereignly in choosing and using the Nation Israel apart from the promise of individual salvation.  Such choosing of Isaac, Jacob and Nation Israel was a matter of mercy and favor.  But the not choosing of Ishmael and Esau was not in and of itself an act of eternal condemnation.

So Paul is not addressing the eternal salvation of individuals here at all.  Any attempt to point Paul's words in that direction is wholly and completely inappropriate.

There is a lot more that can be said in relation to this passage, but I will just leave it there.  Except to note that Paul reinforces this argument by pointing to God's use of Pharaoh.  The point is not Pharaoh's salvation but rather Pharaoh's being selected for service totally apart from any issue of salvation.  And that is the thrust of Paul's argument to the Jews who wished to see themselves in a special light with respect to salvation.  Paul says to them, God's election for service is unencumbered by any election for salvation.

The reference to the potter and the lump of clay formed for noble purpose or for common use further reinforces Paul's argument.

There is enough meat in chapter 9 alone to fill pages and pages,  And none of it need be seen through the eyes of the Calvinist to see what Paul is saying to us there.

And I have already spent more time on the one legged place kicker than I intended.

So you take care.  I shall probably continue to simply heckle from time to time.  I think that it is important to do so.  There is virtually no chance that you will ever come to see things except through your Calvinist eyes, but still I feel the need to remind you every once in a while that is what you are doing and changing the meaning in the process.

If what you say is true, i.e., God is choosing one over another for work and not for salvation, why is Paul sad and grieved stricken? Who gets sad and wishes themselves accursed because God chose one over another to do a job?

"I am speaking the truth in Christ—I am not lying; my conscience bears me witness in the Holy Spirit—that I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart. For I could wish that I myself were accursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, my kinsmen according to the flesh." (Romans 9:1-3)

[Gillian]

Question: Why did God allow someone he knew that would never repent and choose Christ to be born?

Because God does not control the reproductive processes on an individual basis.  He put the the process into play at the time of creation with the laws of physics, chemistry, biology etc.  Any intervening which He may choose to deal with individually represents a special case and not the general process.

No my friend. The God of the Bible is in control of everything. He is the God who not only upholds all things by the word of His power (Heb 1:3), but the God who works all things "according to the council of his own will" (Eph 1:11). God is the one who allows someone to be born; if He doesn't the mother will be barren. God is the one to give the ability to get wealth, beauty, etc. God is the one to make it rain, snow, sleet, etc. God is the one tho feed the animals. God is the one to make a person born to a particular family, country, ande situation, whether rich or poor. God is actually God. I know you may not agree, but I implore you: Read theological books that show the "bigness" of our God.

That is not the bigness of God.  That isn't even a very high view of God.  You would make Him into little more than a puppet master.  That is the same view of their god that the Pagans display.  Again I can only feel remorse for you in your belittling of God the Father.

Jimmy all I have seen you do as of yet is bash many posts, even though many have used scriptures to support their beliefs. You have used none, but instead have judged everything according to your personal opinions which amounts to nothing, if it is not backed with scripture, this is the way the world argues about the bible.  I am not sure why. Maby the meat you have been served you haven't developed the teeth to chew it yet, this is ok and understandable.
Keep in mind, we all learn from each other, through fellowship. Your opinion in spiritual matters counts, just bring it with scripture.

God Bless.   

In all honesty, I have come to believe that dealing with Calvinists is a bit like trying to train a one legged place kicker for an NFL football team.  It probably could be done, but I just don't think I have the patience for it.  Because you see it isn't about scripture, it is about how two different people interpret the same scripture.  The Calvinist is so deeply seated into the whole TULIP thing as the foundational basis of interpretation.

But it is like the Posting of Romans 9:15-32.  The whole section deals with Paul's addressing the Jewish question of whether God is in the right to have "chosen" Israel as His people not saved them.  The point that Paul is arguing is that God didn't choose them for salvation, He chose them for a particular service in bringing in His plan of salvation.  Paul's argument in the paragraph of vvs. 14-18 has to do with God's right to choose and use people without saving them.  He quotes Moses in v. 15.  In doing so the OT context is important.  Why did God originally make this statement?  Why did He say what He said to Moses? Was that strictly to deal with Moses?  Was it broader in scope to include the Nation Israel.  But the point is that it was not addressing the salvation of the Nation Israel of individual Jews.  And Paul's use of the OT quotation is here is to be noted in the context and meaning of the overall argument in Romans 9.  At stake is the righteousness or faithfulness of God in relation to Israel.  The question before us which Paul is addressing is whether God in choosing Israel for covenant service imply that all Jewish people should be saved?  Paul says, No.  And he refers then to the choosing of Isaac and Jacob.  God chooses who He pleases.  He can and did choose people, including the whole Nation Israel, whether they are saved or not.

So it is not a kind of sovereignty by which God chooses some for salvation and condemns others to hell.  Rather the issue is His sovereignty in choosing one  (Isaac, Jacob v. 7-13) rather than another (Ishmael, Esau) for a role of service and the issue in the chapter as a whole is his sovereignly in choosing and using the Nation Israel apart from the promise of individual salvation.  Such choosing of Isaac, Jacob and Nation Israel was a matter of mercy and favor.  But the not choosing of Ishmael and Esau was not in and of itself an act of eternal condemnation.

So Paul is not addressing the eternal salvation of individuals here at all.  Any attempt to point Paul's words in that direction is wholly and completely inappropriate.

There is a lot more that can be said in relation to this passage, but I will just leave it there.  Except to note that Paul reinforces this argument by pointing to God's use of Pharaoh.  The point is not Pharaoh's salvation but rather Pharaoh's being selected for service totally apart from any issue of salvation.  And that is the thrust of Paul's argument to the Jews who wished to see themselves in a special light with respect to salvation.  Paul says to them, God's election for service is unencumbered by any election for salvation.

The reference to the potter and the lump of clay formed for noble purpose or for common use further reinforces Paul's argument.

There is enough meat in chapter 9 alone to fill pages and pages,  And none of it need be seen through the eyes of the Calvinist to see what Paul is saying to us there.

And I have already spent more time on the one legged place kicker than I intended.

So you take care.  I shall probably continue to simply heckle from time to time.  I think that it is important to do so.  There is virtually no chance that you will ever come to see things except through your Calvinist eyes, but still I feel the need to remind you every once in a while that is what you are doing and changing the meaning in the process.

Well I have to hand it to you, spoken like a true Arminian. This one legged kicker to a one armed outfielder, who can throw but cant catch, you missed a couple verses, verse 24 being one. And you have separated the book of Romans, or at least chapter nine, from the rest of scripture. I understand, been there.
The Calvinist who is so deeply seated in the T.U.L.I.P thing has done his homework, do you know how these "5 points" came about? Did you ever hear about the council of Dort?
Have you ever heard the "5 points" of Arminianism?
1) Free will or Human ability
2) Conditional election
3) Universal election or General Atonement
4) The Holy Spirit can be: Effectually Resisted
5) Fallen from grace

When you have some spare time to heckle, please clarify these with scripture. I have tried for twenty years.

God Bless.   

[Jimmy]

Well I have to hand it to you, spoken like a true Arminian. This one legged kicker to a one armed outfielder, who can throw but cant catch, you missed a couple verses, verse 24 being one. And you have separated the book of Romans, or at least chapter nine, from the rest of scripture. I understand, been there.
The Calvinist who is so deeply seated in the T.U.L.I.P thing has done his homework, do you know how these "5 points" came about? Did you ever hear about the council of Dort?
Have you ever heard the "5 points" of Arminianism?
1) Free will or Human ability
2) Conditional election
3) Universal election or General Atonement
4) The Holy Spirit can be: Effectually Resisted
5) Fallen from grace

When you have some spare time to heckle, please clarify these with scripture. I have tried for twenty years.

God Bless.   

I really don't care about any council of Dort.  I don't really care about Arminianism either.  I don't care how many points Arminius made.  However, if you are really interested in clarification of any of those points, there are books upon books that you can go to which will take you through all of the scriptural basis for them.  They are considerably easier to grasp that the corresponding counter points of Calvin.  But that really isn't your point at all, is it?

And as far as your twenty years are concerned, that pretty much makes you a light weight, at least in the amount of time you have spent.

And no, I didn't miss v.24.  The main point of that verse is that the vessels of mercy was not constrained one way or the other to the ethnic Israel,  But from the election for service of the Nation Israel, there was but a remnant (v.27) of Jews and Gentiles who would constitute Spiritual Israel, the Church.  It indeed lays force to the very point that I made;  (S)election for service is different from (s)election for salvation.  The entire Nation Israel was selected to service.  Only a remnant was elected for salvation.

[Terrence]

Jimmy,

Could you please provide an answer for two questions concerning your understanding of Romans 9? Here they are:

1. Romans 9 picks up where Romans 8 leaves off - namely on the subject of predestination to salvation - verses 28 onward. When does Paul stop talking about Election to Salvation in Romans 8 and start talking about election to works in Romans 9?

2. If God is talking about election to works in Romans 9, why is Paul sad and grieved stricken and wishing himself accursed?

2b. Is Paul sad and grieved because God chose one person to a particular job over another?

[Jimmy]

Jimmy,

Could you please provide an answer for two questions concerning your understanding of Romans 9? Here they are:

1. Romans 9 picks up where Romans 8 leaves off - namely on the subject of predestination to salvation - verses 28 onward. When does Paul stop talking about Election to Salvation in Romans 8 and start talking about election to works in Romans 9?

2. If God is talking about election to works in Romans 9, why is Paul sad and grieved stricken and wishing himself accursed?

2b. Is Paul sad and grieved because God chose one person to a particular job over another?

Paul in chapter 8 has just established that salvation is by grace and not by Law.  He now in chapter 9 (Actually 9:1 -11:32) deals with the problem of God's faithfulness in His dealings with the Jews.  The question that he is dealing with is whether or not the Jews by virtue of their relationship with God as a chosen people have any special blessings coming to them.  Paul presents an argument against the anticipated complaint by the Jews that they are God's chosen people and God owes them something as a result of that.

Paul launches into that discussion by noting at the outset that they are accursed.  He is in anguish (v.2) and would trade places if he could do that for his bothers (v.3).  He then notes that, even though they are cursed, i.e., separated from Christ, there are tremendous advantages that accrue to the Jews through the relationship.  Basically Paul says that it is through the Jews that we have the covenants, the word(giving of the law) and even  Christ himself (vvs. 4-5)

He then proceeds to detail the distinction between Ethnic or National Israel and Spiritual Israel.  He proceeds to show why God's faithfulness is not abrogated simply because He chose ethnic Israel as the route through which He would establish spiritual Israel. (vvs. 6-29)  He notes God's choices for Isaac and Jacob in this regard (vvs. 6-13)  And please note that in this Paul is not talking about the salvation of either Isaac or Jacob (or any implied condemnation of Ishmael or Esau for that matter).  

Paul explains God's right to choose and use people completely apart from saving them (vvs. 14-18); and proceeds to show how God used ethnic Israel to produce spiritual Israel. (vvs. 19-29)  Again here the issue is election or choice of ethnic Israel to service not salvation.  It is spiritual Israel that makes up the saved not ethnic Israel.

Paul continues to expand on that theme of spiritual Israel through chapters 10 and 11 culminating with God's plan for salvation (11:25-32).  Paul wraps up the section with the doxology proclaiming that God's way is right (11:33-36)

[Terrence]

Jimmy,

Could you please provide an answer for two questions concerning your understanding of Romans 9? Here they are:

1. Romans 9 picks up where Romans 8 leaves off - namely on the subject of predestination to salvation - verses 28 onward. When does Paul stop talking about Election to Salvation in Romans 8 and start talking about election to works in Romans 9?

2. If God is talking about election to works in Romans 9, why is Paul sad and grieved stricken and wishing himself accursed?

2b. Is Paul sad and grieved because God chose one person to a particular job over another?

Paul in chapter 8 has just established that salvation is by grace and not by Law.  He now in chapter 9 (Actually 9:1 -11:32) deals with the problem of God's faithfulness in His dealings with the Jews.  The question that he is dealing with is whether or not the Jews by virtue of their relationship with God as a chosen people have any special blessings coming to them.  Paul presents an argument against the anticipated complaint by the Jews that they are God's chosen people and God owes them something as a result of that.

Paul launches into that discussion by noting at the outset that they are accursed.  He is in anguish (v.2) and would trade places if he could do that for his bothers (v.3).  He then notes that, even though they are cursed, i.e., separated from Christ, there are tremendous advantages that accrue to the Jews through the relationship.  Basically Paul says that it is through the Jews that we have the covenants, the word(giving of the law) and even  Christ himself (vvs. 4-5)

He then proceeds to detail the distinction between Ethnic or National Israel and Spiritual Israel.  He proceeds to show why God's faithfulness is not abrogated simply because He chose ethnic Israel as the route through which He would establish spiritual Israel. (vvs. 6-29)  He notes God's choices for Isaac and Jacob in this regard (vvs. 6-13)  And please note that in this Paul is not talking about the salvation of either Isaac or Jacob (or any implied condemnation of Ishmael or Esau for that matter). 

Paul explains God's right to choose and use people completely apart from saving them (vvs. 14-18); and proceeds to show how God used ethnic Israel to produce spiritual Israel. (vvs. 19-29)  Again here the issue is election or choice of ethnic Israel to service not salvation.  It is spiritual Israel that makes up the saved not ethnic Israel.

Paul continues to expand on that theme of spiritual Israel through chapters 10 and 11 culminating with God's plan for salvation (11:25-32).  Paul wraps up the section with the doxology proclaiming that God's way is right (11:33-36)

Jimmy -

You didn't answer the question bro. In Chapter 8 of Romans, Paul ends his letter talking about God's elect. Chapter 9 begins where Paul is grieved and wishing himself accursed for the sake of his people. Again, when did Paul stop talking about God's election to salvation in Romans 8, and begin talking about God's election to works in Romans 9. Also, if Paul is talking about election to a particular calling or job, as you believe, why is he sad and grieved and wishing himself accursed? Would you be upset and wish yourself accursed if God picked me over you to do a particular work?

[da525382]

Question: Why did God allow someone he knew that would never repent and choose Christ to be born?

The 64 million dollar question.

Thats not to difficult of a question. As with any questions you refer to the text book.

Well, then why don't you refer to the text book for us and answer this simple question?

How could I forget, yes of course!

First let me say this: Men are sent to hell out of pure, holy and unfettered justice that demands the punishment of their vile sins. God is under no compulsion or obligation to show mercy, grace or redeeming love to any person. There is a single "five letter word" that will separate the worst sinner from the parapet of hell and the most adoring saint in heaven: GRACE. Nothing else. And if grace is only effective on the willing, what does grace become? A mere wooing force.

In the Arminian view, God wants to save every person ever born but is incapable of doing so. God loves every person equally, and despite this love and all He has done to save every person, millions will perish. I could easily argue that a God who created so many millions and millions of people, well knowing, that the final outcome millions of these objects of His love will end up in eternal punishment, and all His best efforts being frustrated, this would not be a very wise, powerful or loving God. Why would such an infinetly wise, God create and set His love on creatures that He knows will resist Him, and thwart His every effort to save them?
Being an Arminian, You don't believe in (The reformed doctrine of) limited Atonement. But actually Arminians limits the atonement not Calvinists.

Here are some words from Spurgeon:
Arminians say, Christ died for all men, what do you mean by this? did Christ die as to secure the atonement of all men? Arminaians say: No, certainly not! Next question: Did Christ die as to secure the atonement of any man in particular? The Arminian has to say no, if they want to stay consistent. Arminians say: "Christ has died that any man may be saved if" - and then follow certain conditions of salvation.
Now, who is it that limits the death of Christ? Why you (Arminians), You say that Christ did not die so as infallibly to secure the salvation of anybody. We (Calvinists) beg your pardon, when you say we limit Christ's death; we say. "No. my dear sir, it is you that do it!" We (Calvinists) say Christ so died the He infallibly secured the salvation of a multitude that no man can number, who through Christ's death not only may be saved, but are saved and cannot by any possibility run the hazard of being anything but saved. You are welcome to your atonement; you may keep it. We will never renounce ours for the sake of it..... Charles Spurgeons comments. 

Now, onto the textbook..............

Hey, Gillian,

Thanks for this response and your subsequent post to this as well....I am sorry, but my initial thought was that you were coming from the other side of the fence.  I am completely on board with everything you are saying, and I appreciate the great time you spent, thank you very much.
By the way, Romans 9 is a no-go with Jimmy, I've been there, done it before, there's no real engagement with scripture with him, that's the bottom line..........

[da525382]

God chose to create us and give us free will, knowing that some of us would choose that free will to reject him.  Yet God still made that choice, and he still chooses to lavish his grace on all those who choose to come to him through the Son.

Spurly,

Thank you for the response, sorry for my lateness in getting back.....I really feel you have not followed through with your original response as I asked, and I therefore feel this statement above continues to be unresponsive.  But you apparently feel you have been responsive, so that is fine.

However, you originally stated "because God chose to" in response to a question about Him creating people to not ever believe in Him.  Instead of badgering you with yet another question, my point of distinction scripturally with you is as follows:

There is no scriptural basis to flippantly or arbitrarily just state God created certain men for destruction over others, yet there is sure scripture to declare his right to create vessels of destruction, as you know, in Romans.  In the final analysis, all of his creation ended up in self-destruction, separated from Him. There was therefore just one group He created, in a sense.  Yet, in his own will, and because and to His own glory, it is His decision to pass over most of those, for reasons we will never fully comprehend, in His eternal purpose to redeem His own back to Him.  It is those whom he elected before the foundation of the world and wrote into that book of life with the seven seals that we are talking about. 

God is a God of passover.  He has passed over millions throughout history in lieu of those He himself has chosen, and this is dealt with superbly in Revelation.  The choice I therefore refer to is His choice, which I feel anyway, you seem to reject in your theology, instead touting man's own choice.  Our salvation is indeed conditioned on our faith, that is our choice of it, but our faith scripturally is conditioned on our election, and as I said, I feel you simply reject this scriptural notion in your theology, or at the least, you are quite confused about it.  Anyway, that is simply my take on what you have presented here...............

[Jimmy]

Jimmy -

You didn't answer the question bro. In Chapter 8 of Romans, Paul ends his letter talking about God's elect. Chapter 9 begins where Paul is grieved and wishing himself accursed for the sake of his people. Again, when did Paul stop talking about God's election to salvation in Romans 8, and begin talking about God's election to works in Romans 9. Also, if Paul is talking about election to a particular calling or job, as you believe, why is he sad and grieved and wishing himself accursed? Would you be upset and wish yourself accursed if God picked me over you to do a particular work?

I thought that I did.  With the rather brief outline of the subject matter of chapter 9 that I gave I thought it would be apparent.  In chapter 8, Paul has been speaking of salvation through Grace and not through Law.  In chapter 9 he anticipates the argument by the Jews that if salvation is not through the Law, then God has not been faithful in His promises to Israel.  Paul presents the argument in chapters 9-11 to show that God's faithfulness is not in question because Israel was God's chosen people for service not for salvation.  So I guess the answer to your question is that with his statement,  "I am telling the truth in Christ, I am not lying, my conscience testifies with me in the Holy Spirit,  that I have great sorrow and unceasing grief in my heart, "   Paul switches to a discussion of the old covenant as a covenant for service not salvaton.  The reason he is grieved is that many of his kinsmen according to the flesh have not been saved as they might have assumed due to their special covenant relationship with God.  But as Paul tells them their having been chosen by God did not bring them salvation, because they were chosen for service and not salvation.

I hope that helps clarify the meaning of Romans, chapter 9; actually chapters 9-11.

[Jimmy]

Hey, Gillian,

By the way, Romans 9 is a no-go with Jimmy, I've been there, done it before, there's no real engagement with scripture with him, that's the bottom line..........

Hey da,

Did it ever occur to you that it is not with scripture but with you that I have no interest in any engagement?  Probably not.  But this should serve to let you know that.

[Terrence]

Jimmy -

You didn't answer the question bro. In Chapter 8 of Romans, Paul ends his letter talking about God's elect. Chapter 9 begins where Paul is grieved and wishing himself accursed for the sake of his people. Again, when did Paul stop talking about God's election to salvation in Romans 8, and begin talking about God's election to works in Romans 9. Also, if Paul is talking about election to a particular calling or job, as you believe, why is he sad and grieved and wishing himself accursed? Would you be upset and wish yourself accursed if God picked me over you to do a particular work?

I thought that I did.  With the rather brief outline of the subject matter of chapter 9 that I gave I thought it would be apparent.  In chapter 8, Paul has been speaking of salvation through Grace and not through Law.  In chapter 9 he anticipates the argument by the Jews that if salvation is not through the Law, then God has not been faithful in His promises to Israel.  Paul presents the argument in chapters 9-11 to show that God's faithfulness is not in question because Israel was God's chosen people for service not for salvation.  So I guess the answer to your question is that with his statement,  "I am telling the truth in Christ, I am not lying, my conscience testifies with me in the Holy Spirit,  that I have great sorrow and unceasing grief in my heart, "   Paul switches to a discussion of the old covenant as a covenant for service not salvaton.  The reason he is grieved is that many of his kinsmen according to the flesh have not been saved as they might have assumed due to their special covenant relationship with God.  But as Paul tells them their having been chosen by God did not bring them salvation, because they were chosen for service and not salvation.

I hope that helps clarify the meaning of Romans, chapter 9; actually chapters 9-11.

Thanks Jimmy!

You know, I believe that Romans 9 is one of those clear scriptures that mean what they say and say what they mean. Case in point, note Paul's anticipated response: "You will say to me then, 'why does he still find fault? For who has resisted his will?'" - v 19.  Honestly speaking, Jimmy, who understanding the scriptures as you - this is to say they believe God is electing people to a job and not to salvation - would object and give the response of verse 19?

Does not Paul's anticipated response prove the subject matter? To get that God chose a people for a particular work involves much scriptural gymnastics (in my opinion). But, to get a response like verse 19, you only need to let the scripture speak for itself. And therein lies the problem for many who don't understand sovereign grace. They think it unfair.

[da525382]

Hey, Gillian,

By the way, Romans 9 is a no-go with Jimmy, I've been there, done it before, there's no real engagement with scripture with him, that's the bottom line..........

Hey da,

Did it ever occur to you that it is not with scripture but with you that I have no interest in any engagement?  Probably not.  But this should serve to let you know that.

My comment was not directed to your interest at all, Dream, it was directed to your lack of capacity, your incapability. 

[Jimmy]

Jimmy -

You didn't answer the question bro. In Chapter 8 of Romans, Paul ends his letter talking about God's elect. Chapter 9 begins where Paul is grieved and wishing himself accursed for the sake of his people. Again, when did Paul stop talking about God's election to salvation in Romans 8, and begin talking about God's election to works in Romans 9. Also, if Paul is talking about election to a particular calling or job, as you believe, why is he sad and grieved and wishing himself accursed? Would you be upset and wish yourself accursed if God picked me over you to do a particular work?

I thought that I did.  With the rather brief outline of the subject matter of chapter 9 that I gave I thought it would be apparent.  In chapter 8, Paul has been speaking of salvation through Grace and not through Law.  In chapter 9 he anticipates the argument by the Jews that if salvation is not through the Law, then God has not been faithful in His promises to Israel.  Paul presents the argument in chapters 9-11 to show that God's faithfulness is not in question because Israel was God's chosen people for service not for salvation.  So I guess the answer to your question is that with his statement,  "I am telling the truth in Christ, I am not lying, my conscience testifies with me in the Holy Spirit,  that I have great sorrow and unceasing grief in my heart, "   Paul switches to a discussion of the old covenant as a covenant for service not salvation.  The reason he is grieved is that many of his kinsmen according to the flesh have not been saved as they might have assumed due to their special covenant relationship with God.  But as Paul tells them their having been chosen by God did not bring them salvation, because they were chosen for service and not salvation.

I hope that helps clarify the meaning of Romans, chapter 9; actually chapters 9-11.

Thanks Jimmy!

You know, I believe that Romans 9 is one of those clear scriptures that mean what they say and say what they mean. Case in point, note Paul's anticipated response: "You will say to me then, 'why does he still find fault? For who has resisted his will?'" - v 19.  Honestly speaking, Jimmy, who understanding the scriptures as you - this is to say they believe God is electing people to a job and not to salvation - would object and give the response of verse 19?

Does not Paul's anticipated response prove the subject matter? To get that God chose a people for a particular work involves much scriptural gymnastics (in my opinion). But, to get a response like verse 19, you only need to let the scripture speak for itself. And therein lies the problem for many who don't understand sovereign grace. They think it unfair.

I do think that you are misreading what Paul is saying there.  Paul is responding to why their being chosen by God as a special people does not grant them salvation.  That was certainly the mindset of the Jews.  They thought that salvation was in the restoration of the Nation Israel.  Let's face it.  That was the point of the apostles question to Jesus in Acts 1:6.  It didn't dawn on them that their election would not do that for them.  After all, they were descendants of Abraham.  As far as they were concerned God owed it to them.  Hence Paul's response.  Paul says that it is God right to use them as he sees fit.  It is not about salvation per se at all.

[Jimmy]

Hey, Gillian,

By the way, Romans 9 is a no-go with Jimmy, I've been there, done it before, there's no real engagement with scripture with him, that's the bottom line..........

Hey da,

Did it ever occur to you that it is not with scripture but with you that I have no interest in any engagement?  Probably not.  But this should serve to let you know that.

My comment was not directed to your interest at all, Dream, it was directed to your lack of capacity, your incapability. 

And I just marvel at your magnificence as well.  You are magnificent aren't you?

[Harold]

"But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God." - John 1:12-13

How were all the people who received and believed in Jesus' name "born again" according to this scripture? If those who believed in Jesus were born again by God's will and/or decision, how could you say man made the first choice?

It is tough to make a stand on a interpretation from one or two verses. But I will try.

People who received Him and believed in Him (heard the gospel?), they became God's children. It obviously has nothing to do with mans physical being, including his own mind (insight)"not of blood nor of the will of the flesh".
After all of the above , It had to be God's doing. God's will?
Again, two verses?
Can you show any support for this? assuming (I believe) this is what you mean.
I cant deny (to my understanding) this is what these two verses mean, it is only obvious. But I have read many cults and false religions use this "one or two verse" thing and build a doctrine around it.

Whoa! It was so refreshing to read such an honest assessment! I know you don't agree, but it was SO GOOD to see a fair and honest and humble reply. Whoa! OK...yeah, sure...I can support my claim, from scripture, that "all those who believe do so because God made it happen." Consider 2 Thes 2:13-14.

Read how God "chose a people to believe" and then summoned or "called" them through the means by which they will believe, namely the gospel.

That was an easy one, certain verses or are quite clear especially those. . .To deny what these verses literally say would be lying to one's self.

Unless you literally read them back wards. Then cause yourself to be in a state of confusion.

FTL

[da525382]

Hey, Gillian,

By the way, Romans 9 is a no-go with Jimmy, I've been there, done it before, there's no real engagement with scripture with him, that's the bottom line..........

Hey da,

Did it ever occur to you that it is not with scripture but with you that I have no interest in any engagement?  Probably not.  But this should serve to let you know that.

My comment was not directed to your interest at all, Dream, it was directed to your lack of capacity, your incapability. 

And I just marvel at your magnificence as well.  You are magnificent aren't you?

There is only one Magnificence, those here at this forum recognize its essence as diametrically apart from themselves.  Yours is a most sad and tragic testimony, Dream.

[Jimmy]

Hey, Gillian,

By the way, Romans 9 is a no-go with Jimmy, I've been there, done it before, there's no real engagement with scripture with him, that's the bottom line..........

Hey da,

Did it ever occur to you that it is not with scripture but with you that I have no interest in any engagement?  Probably not.  But this should serve to let you know that.

My comment was not directed to your interest at all, Dream, it was directed to your lack of capacity, your incapability. 

And I just marvel at your magnificence as well.  You are magnificent aren't you?

There is only one Magnificence, those here at this forum recognize its essence as diametrically apart from themselves.  Yours is a most sad and tragic testimony, Dream.

Thanks George, I sense your Christian demeanor here and appreciate your concern.