Results 1 - 5 of 5
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Mercy Essential? | Rom 9:15 | Morant61 | 13648 | ||
Greetings Lionstrong! You still have one major problem with Rom. 11:32. The word "may" is not in the text as a seperate word. The last phrase literally reads, "...that the all he may have mercy." Here is your problem, the word "may" does not suggest God "may or may not" have mercy. It simply expresses that the purposed action is yet future. "That" tranlates 'hina' which expresses direct purpose. God did this so that He can do that. In this case, He bound all over to disobedience so that He could have mercy on them all. Here is the biggest problem I have with Calvinism. There are countless Scriptures which say that God will save all, that He died for all, that He draws all, that He desires all to be saved. Yet, Calvinist's have to explain everyone of those away by saying, "All only means some." So, let me challenge you (in a friendly manner) to show me one verse which clearly states in Scripture that Christ will only save some. I want one that is just as direct as "God desires all to be saved." The trick is that there is no such verse. There are many that are read that way because of the presuppositions of Calvinism, but there is not one that clearly says God will not save some. There are Scriptures that say that some will not accept. There are Scriptures that say some will continue in unbelief. I bring this up, because Rom. 11:32 is a perfect example. There is no condition in the verse. It simply says that God bound all over to disobedience that He may have mercy on them all. p.s. - Whether we ever agree or not, I appreciate your attitude. You have been a gentleman and a fine example of how two individuals with differing views can converse. Thanks! Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
2 | Mercy Essential? | Rom 9:15 | Lionstrong | 13704 | ||
Dear Tim, After your gracious compliment, I don't mean to insult you, but you ignore the logic of your own position. While you recognize that there are verses which teach that some will be lost because of unbelief, you don't seem to see that this logically implies that not all will be saved. And if you don't have all, you must logically have some. Therefore, it is only necessary to present a verse that says some will be lost to prove that only some (not all) will be saved. But let's stick with the passages at hand, Rom 11:32 and 9:15. What does the verse say? To see better what is does say, look at what it does not say. It does not say that the purpose of the shutting up in disobedience is that God will have mercy on all. And you know from Scripture that some "will pay the penalty of eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His power." So the "may" does not mean "will." So the "may" in this context must mean "to make it possible for." "God did this to make it possible for him to show mercy to all." And this fits with Rom. 9:15 concerning God's prerogative (not necessity) of showing mercy. This is one of many verses that logically says that only some (not all) will be saved. Matt 7:13,14 "Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and THERE ARE MANY who enter through it. For the gate is small and the way is narrow that leads to life, and THERE ARE FEW who find it." (My emphasis) Peace, Lionstrong |
||||||
3 | Mercy Essential? | Rom 9:15 | Morant61 | 13713 | ||
Greetings Lionstrong! No insult taken my friend! However, my position is logical. Here's why: Rom. 11:32 says that it is God's purpose to have mercy on all. However, it never says that all will be saved. There is a difference. Under the system of Arminianism, the offer of salvation is available to all (hence Rom. 11:32), but one must respond to God's mercy in order to be saved. See, Calvinism assumes a limited atonement. If all are not saved, then obviously it was not God's intention to save all. Arminianism assumes an unlimited atonement. Thus, it is God's intention that all be saved, but they have to respond to the offer. Calvinism would make sense, expect for all the verses that clearly say it is God' desire to save all, to have mercy on all, ect.... Concerning "may" in Rom. 11:32, the verb "have mercy" is an Aorist, Active, Subjunctive. The subjuntive mood refers to potential action that has not taken place yet (conditional in other words). The only way to translate that in English is to use "may or might". However, the presence of "may or might" does not indicate doubt, only that the action hasn't occured yet or has yet to occur at the time of the first clause. So, in Rom. 11:32, God had not yet expressed His mercy on all when He consigned them to disobedience. However, that was His purpose and would take place as soon as the conditions were met. To use an English example, it would be like me writting in the future to describe your posts on this thread. I could say, "Lionstrong wrote that he might convince me of the logic of his position." The "might" simply indicates a purpose that you have in mind after you complete the writting. This is the case with Rom. 11:32. "May" is not in the text, but is inserted to indicate a purpose of God that, at the time of the first clause, had not taken place yet. The fact still remains that the verse plainly says it was God's purpose to have mercy on all. God could have said, if that is what He meant, that it was His purpose to have mercy on just the elect. Thanks for your interaction! Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
4 | Mercy Essential? | Rom 9:15 | Lionstrong | 13729 | ||
Dear Tim, Rom 11:32 cannot mean that God will show mercy to all. This is proved in the passage of this thread, 9:15. Man has been shut up in disobedience since the Fall, yet God has not extended mercy to all. Case in point: Pharaoh and Esau: Rom 9:13-18 "Just as it is written, "JACOB I LOVED, BUT ESAU I HATED." What shall we say then? There is no injustice with God, is there? May it never be! For He says to Moses, "I WILL HAVE MERCY ON WHOM I HAVE MERCY, AND I WILL HAVE COMPASSION ON WHOM I HAVE COMPASSION." So then it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy. For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, "FOR THIS VERY PURPOSE I RAISED YOU UP, TO DEMONSTRATE MY POWER IN YOU, AND THAT MY NAME MIGHT BE PROCLAIMED THROUGHOUT THE WHOLE EARTH." So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires." One point of this passage is that in God his sovereign prerogative to have mercy on whom he will, he did not have mercy on these individuals. And he did this so that his "purpose according to His choice would stand" (v.11). And God's ultimate purpose is the manifestation of his glory. Rom 9:16 "So then it (salvation. compare v. 3) does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy." To throw your charge back at you, does your "all" mean all? Peace in the Lamb, Lionstrong |
||||||
5 | Mercy Essential? | Rom 9:15 | Morant61 | 13755 | ||
Greetings Lionstrong! I dealt with some of these questions in my recent post on Rom. 9:10-15, but allow me to briefly address them here. You said that Rom. 11:32 couldn't mean God will show mercy on all because of your understanding of Rom. 9. Here is an example of what I was refering to earlier my friend. We have a clear statement of Scripture that has to be changed to make it fit a different understanding of Rom. 9, which is open to several different interpretations. Perhaps the answer is that Rom. 9 can't possibly mean what you think it means, because Rom. 11:32 clearly says God intends on having mercy on all. In my opinion, your interpretation of Rom. 9 is based upon a faulty understand of "God's purpose according to election" (v. 11). That verse never spells out what God's purpose is in that passage. Hoever, verse 11 is not the complete sentence. Verse 12 continues the sentence and gives God's purpose according to election. It says, "The older will serve the younger.” Thus, the purpose of election refered to in Rom. 9 has nothing to do with the eternal destinies of Jacob and Esau. It has to do with the national destinies of their offspring. Jacob's descendants were part of Israel, while Esau's descendants were not. This is the whole argument that Paul has been making since chapter nine began. Follow the flow: 1) "For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel." - v. 6b 2) "For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel." - v. 7a 3) "On the contrary, ‘‘It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned.” - v. 7b 4) "it is not the natural children who are God’s children, but it is the children of the promise who are regarded as Abraham’s offspring." - v. 8. 5) "For this was how the promise was stated: ‘‘At the appointed time I will return, and Sarah will have a son.”" - v. 9 6) "Not only that, but Rebekah’s children had one and the same father, our father Isaac." - v. 10 7) "Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad—in order that God’s purpose in election might stand:" - v. 11 The topic is not the eternal destinies of individuals. The topic is the method by which membership in Israel is determined. Paul is arguing that it is based upon promise, not birth. There is another problem with your interpretation (in my opinion). The complaint in chapter nine is not that God has withheld His mercy. The complain is that God have overextended His mercy by including people in Israel that are not physical descendants of Abraham. Even in the Potters passage of chapter nine, God's mercy is the complaint. Rom. 9:22 says, "What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction?" Does this verse say that God destroyed these objects? No! It says that He bore them with great patience. I will be posting about Pharoah later today. But concerning Esau. There is not evidence from Scripture that God rejected Esau. The "hate" passage is a quote dealing with Israel and Edom. Concerning your last statement "does your 'all' mean all." I wasn't sure from the context exactly what you were refering to, so I'll make a guess. I believe that God has extended His mercy to "all." So, yes, my all does mean all. He even extended His mercy to Pharoah, but Pharoah rejected it. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||