Results 1 - 5 of 5
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Holy Spirit's power of Conviction | Rom 5:6 | Reformer Joe | 5795 | ||
Well, in your view of God, you show a lack of understanding of the Reformed position. Let me help: God knows everything possible, but that isn't to say that knowing everything possible means that nothing will go wrong. It still requires God's intervention to some extent. I know you probably believe this, so we disagree as far as the extent to which God intervenes, especially concerning man's supposed "free will." It isn't whether God MUST control everything; but whether he only sits back and steps in where necessary, or that nothing at all exists or happens without his causing it or allowing it. The biblical God is an extremely active God. Now it isn't a question whether he "gives" his creatures free will or not. He indeed did so, and Adam ruined that right quick for us all. Romans 5:12 makes that pretty clear to me. Romans 3:10-18 settles what our true nature is, and the repetition throughout Romans of the unregenerate being slaves to sin reinforces that idea. Therefore, we sold ourselves into sin by breaking our fellowship with God. Bondage and slavery are the exact opposite of freedom, and the human race got itself into that predicament, not God. As far as irresistible grace, the view that God brings man "kicking and screaming" to His side is not the Reformed one, either. Before God changes the elect, we ALL hate God. None seek him. Regeneration is not a process of negotiation or a tug of war, but rather an instantaneous rebirth, a bringing us to life out of spiritual death. God supernaturally changes our hearts so that we do desire him; God does not make us grudgingly accept him even though we would rather go to Hell than do so. Regeneration by necessity must logically precede faith. Does God only have mercy for some? You think that God is required to show mercy to all or none. What does Romans 9:15-18 tell us? Which reflects God's true character? A God "that allows some to be saved and some to be lost" is more of a description of the image of God YOU hold to. First of all, do you disagree that God allows some to be lost? If God did not allow it, it would not happen. People will spend an eternity in Hell, so God does allow some to be lost. Calvinists hold that God does not merely ALLOW men to be saved, but rather that God is the sole and efficient CAUSE of salvation, from start to finish (Romans 8:28-30). Paul addresses irresistible grace in Romans 9:19-23. He addresses unconditional election in Ephesians 1:4-11 and the mercy issue in Romans 9:5-18. Total depravity is Romans 3:10-18,23. Perseverence of the saints is John 6:35-65 and Romans 8:1-2,37-39 and Ephesians 1:13-14. Contrary to your statement, it is not up to man to decide which God is "greater," but rather we need to look to Scripture to see who God truly is. I again ask you to refute the apparently blatant declaration of election in Romans 9:5-23. If there is some alternate explanation that Paul makes room for, I would be more than happy to hear it. So far it has not been forthcoming. By the way, you are right about the preachers: it doesn't sound like election at all! But then again, they aren't Scripture any more than you or I are. --Joe! |
||||||
2 | Holy Spirit's power of Conviction | Rom 5:6 | Chris | 5800 | ||
Paul addresses irresistible grace in Romans 9:19-23. He addresses unconditional election in Ephesians 1:4-11 and the mercy issue in Romans 9:5-18. Total depravity is Romans 3:10-18,23. Perseverence of the saints is John 6:35-65 and Romans 8:1-2,37-39 and Ephesians 1:13-14. Contrary to your statement, it is not up to man to decide which God is "greater," but rather we need to look to Scripture to see who God truly is. Well that grace sounds pretty resistible, vs 20 suggests that someone is questioning GOD, and then says the thing molded cannot question the molder. But he just did!! Paul asks the question, "For who resists His will? On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to GOD? The thing molded will not say to the molder, ‘Why did you make me like this,' will it? Lets see, the thing molded will NOT say to the molder, ‘Why did you make me like this.' Yet, the man IS answering back to GOD. For who resists His will? Apparently, the man that answers back to GOD, do people answer back to GOD in the world today? YES!! Therefore, it would seem to me, that His grace IS resistable. Ephesians 1:4-11, see Robertson's Word in Pictures, "(Having foreordained us) To be taken with ‘chose' either SIMULTANEOUS OR ANTECEDENT (CAUSAL). (The words in caps mean that predestination happened at the same time as or was the cause of His choice. In other words, election did not come before predestination, and predestination comes after foreknowledge (Rm. 8:28), so GOD must have known something else. This is my understanding of this information, please study it and consider it, if I am wrong please correct and censure as necessary. In addition, Dallas The. Sem. has slightly different info, but this work has been more scrutinized.) GOD bless!! I again ask you to refute the apparently blatant declaration of election in Romans 9:5-23. If there is some alternate explanation that Paul makes room for, I would be more than happy to hear it. So far it has not been forthcoming. Is the Reformed theology an ideology that ‘replaces' Israel with the Church? Because as I read the Bible Rm CH. 9-11 are specifically Jewish chapters, so I want to make sure my explanation does not completely contradict your interpretation. |
||||||
3 | Holy Spirit's power of Conviction | Rom 5:6 | Reformer Joe | 5851 | ||
Surely you don't think that Paul hypothetically using the excuse, "Who resists His will?" implies that there is any individual who can answer in the affirmative. This whole chapter is Paul defending divine election against the very accusations that free-will folks make against it. Who resists His will? The understood answer by both the hypothetical question-asker, and also Paul is agreed to be "No one." Read the previous verses to see why anyone would want to use that fact as an excuse. You see, if you sit down and read Romans, Paul uses hypothetical objections to the gospel in the form of questions to expound God's message Let's not change the subject to what Reformed theology believes about Israel. There are plenty of people who hold to Calvin's unconditional election who disagree on this, so it is not germane. In addition, this thread is starting to take up a great deal of my time, and the posts herein are quite sufficient to let others determine who is exegeting correctly. I warmly offer you the last word if you should decide to reply, and thanks for the debate! --Joe! |
||||||
4 | Holy Spirit's power of Conviction | Rom 5:6 | Chris | 5855 | ||
I don't think I've behaved in such a way for you to question my motives. You seem to want to put more words in my mouth than I do yours, so my asking about replacement theology should have been responded to with the same respect our other correspondences have had. The reason I want to know is, as I stated, my interpretation of Rm 9 hinges on an unsaved Jacob. The people of GOD in the O.T. would naturally question GOD saving Gentiles and forfeiting Jews, I think Paul makes it quite clear that this is what he is writing about. I assume from your response you do accept replacement theology, so please try to be open-minded with my interpretation. 1 ¶ I tell the truth in Christ, I do not lie, my conscience bearing witness with me in the Holy Spirit, 2 that my grief is great, and a never ceasing pain is in my heart, 3 for I myself was wishing to be a curse from Christ on behalf of my brothers, my kinsmen according to flesh, 4 who are Israelites, whose are the adoption and the glory, and the covenants, and the Lawgiving, and the service, and the promises; 5 whose are the fathers, and from whom is the Christ according to flesh, He being God over all, blessed forever. Amen. I believe this clearly shows that the following passage is about the unsaved Jews, not Christians. 6 ¶ Not, however, that God's word has failed. For not all those of Israel are Israel, Paul says that GOD's word has not failed, and he is going to justify that comment. 7 nor because they are Abraham's seed are all children, but "In Isaac a Seed shall be called to you." Gen. 21:12 8 That is: Not the children of flesh are children of God, but the children of the promise are counted for a seed. 9 For the word of promise is this, According to this time I will come, and a son will be to Sarah. Gen. 18:10 So, being the son of Abraham does not guarantee the promise, so GOD does not have to save the Jews. The promise went to only Isaac not to Ishmael. |
||||||
5 | Holy Spirit's power of Conviction | Rom 5:6 | Reformer Joe | 5859 | ||
Honestly, Chris, I haven't examined the Reformed arguments for the replacement of Israel. I do know the Dispensationalist argument, albeit without the Scriptural support behind it. I must admit at first glance I have a problem with the notion that the so-called "Church Age" is just a parenthetical period of time in God's larger dealing with Israel, which is most often the way it has been presented to me. God's promise to Abraham was that ALL nations would be blessed through his seed. It doesn't seem that that was some sort of "oh, by the way" kind of thing to me. I also have problems with the opposing notion that the church is identified 100 percent with Israel. What I mean by this is that every promise that was made to the nation of Israel is not something I as a Gentile believer can just claim as my own. It may just be lack of interest on my part in this area (which may be wrong in itself), but most of the "future glory of Israel" stuff is tied in heavily with eschatology, and I have a knee-jerk reaction against majoring in this area, since this is MUCH more speculative in nature and really doesn't occupy a central place in Scripture when compared to the nature of God and the person and work of Christ. I probably should investigate both sides a little more clearly, and look at the Scriptures in this area. Perhaps I will do that soon. The reason I said that I did not think it was germane, however, is that the vessels referred to in Romans 9 are not Israel and the rest of the world, but individuals. If we look at verses 22, 23 and 24, we see that the vessels of honor are plural, and the vessells of wrath are as well. In verse 24 Paul specifies that the vessels refer to us, who are OF the Jews and OF the Gentiles. Even if Paul speaks about the future of ethnic groups in Romans 9-12, I am not convinced that these "vessels" are nations, but rather I hold that they are people (such as the Jewish apostles and the Gentile believers and those from both groups who reject Christ). Sorry if I was too abrupt there. --Joe! |
||||||