My writings of my first post are true,
God's impartially is focused on punishment or reward based on behavior/fruit (post in this thread).
That question only makes sense in Calvnism - for the rest of us it is like asking this quesiton
There is a doctor who has a breakfast cereal that cures cancer as long as you eat it every day. He offers it to everyone for free -- but some would complain that those who refuse the breakfast food are not getting a good outcome so maybe we should not tell anyone about the cure for cancer... that question makes no sense at all to us.
But in Calvinism -- the doctor is partial to some cancer patients and ignores others ...so if you are among those he will ignore well then it is not good news for you.
In the Bible of course - "there is no partiality with God" Rom 2:11 and Isaiah 5:4 is true instead of 'never talked about'
=========================== in response to that ... we have this.
Ok but that post above is just the analogy ..
No it's not, you cited scripture, and you proceeded to mishandle Romans 2:11.
So God is only sovereign when it comes to gentiles -- not Jews?
Calvinism is only for gentiles?
Yep.. that's the problem for the model of Calvinism.
hmm now lets take the "only for Jews" gospel idea you suggest
1. seriously? one gospel for jews and another gospel for gentiles - as a defense for Calvinism??
2. New Covenant Jer 31:31-34 "with house of Israel" -- is not for gentiles? as a defense for Calvinism?
3. OT teaching and Gospel teaching of Christ - not for gentiles? as a defense for Calvinism?
4. Are you admitting that the Isaiah 5:4 text does not fit the model for Calvinism and then claiming that this is ok - sinice Calvinism "only applies to gentiles"??? -- is that the defense for Calvinism in the case of Isaiah5:4??
-- in that case under Calvinism: John 3:16 is "not for gentiles" - Christ is speaking "to a Jew " in that chapter. I would reconsider going off that cliff
Are you trying to twist scripture?
In Isaiah 5:3, God clearly identifies the audience being addressed as "inhabitants of Jerusalem and men of Judah", yet it sounds like you are trying to include the Gentiles as part of the identified audience.
Why would you write "one gospel for jews and another gospel for gentiles"? You try not to take what I write out of context. I try not to take your's out of context.
There is one gospel of Christ for both Jew and Gentile!
Ok but that makes Calvinism an even odder-duck than most non-Calvinists would have at first supposed.
BTW - you have "yet" to actually quote Isaiah 5:4 as you continue to not look at what it says. Not actually looking at the text - is not a form of "exegesis" that non-Calvinists are familiar with.
Do you have either limited literary ability or did you not read the post? I quoted the entirety of Isaiah 5:4 in my first post to this thread - the very post to which you replied.
1. Its "two jews" that are standing with Christ in Matt 17 in glory
2. It's "only Jews" that are held up as the giants of faith in Hebrews 11 - still even in the NT they are the esteemed models.
3. There is only "one gospel" Gal 1;6-9 and that "Gospel was preached to Abraham" Gal 3:8 such that "2 For indeed we have had the Gospel preached to us, just as they also;" Heb 4:2
4. And it is "The house of Israel" and the "house of Judah" that get the New Covenant according to both OT and NT -- Jer 31:31-34 and Hebrews 8:8-12
I'm sorry, the speech recognition engine did not place a comma in the sentence in my previous post, let me restate it here:
God impartially declares punishment for the Jews, after all, the Jews rebelled - a damnable behavior/fruit.
(PS, I editted my prior post to now include the comma)
True - no "different gospel" for Jews.
And in Rom 2:13-16 Paul says "the doers of the Law will be justified".. "According to my Gospel"
Applicable to both Jews and gentiles.
agreed.
True - as 1 Cor 12 points out - not all have the same mission the same gift - but God "is not willing for ANY to perish but for all to come to repentance" - 2 Peter 3. Not having the same role/gift is not the same as "God does not love me" or "God is partial".
I am focused on God choosing man rather than man choosing God, hence I mentioned Abraham to demonstrate God's choosing. At this point, I am distinguishing between God choosing versus God granting gifts like speaking in tongues.
Respecting 2 Peter 2:9.
My beloved brother and Apostle Peter wrote to and of the Assembly of God "not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance".
The context which occurs immediately prior, "is patient toward you", speaks loud and clear to the audience, as does the opening of the epistle "Simon Peter, a bond-servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who have received a faith of the same kind as ours, by the righteousness of our God and Savior, Jesus Christ" (2 Peter 1:1). BTW, that "received" contains "siezed by", as in siezed by God, just like the Apostle John wrote with:
"But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, [even] to those who believe in His name, 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)
Please see that "nor of the will of man". See that it is not man's will. Behold children of God are born of God.
Recalling that Peter wrote to and of the Assembly of God as found in 2 Peter 1:1, here is the entirety of 2 Peter 3:9:
The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance.
This Holy Spirit inspired writing contains telling phrases:
- His promise (referring to eternal life in the Lord Jesus Christ)
- is patient toward you (that "you" refers to people who received or [by God's patience] will receive the faith delivered by our God and Savior, Jesus Christ)
- not wishing for any to perish (that "any" refers back to that "you")
- but for all to come to repentance (that "all" refers back to that "any")
The Apostle Peter clearly, absolutely, and literally points to the members of the Assembly of God, the congregation of believers and/or future believers on the Lord Jesus Christ.
The passage has nothing to do with free will; in other words, the verse provides nothing in support of accepting/choosing Jesus.
Agreed. He does not choose one over the other. Rather as Romans 2 points out it is the fruit/deeds that show how the result is determined.
Acts 10
34 Peter said:
âI most certainly understand now that God is not one to show partiality, 35 but in every nation the man who fears Him and does what is right is welcome to Him."
Christ said "not everyone who SAYS" the right gospel words gets to heaven but rather "he who DOES the WILL of the Father" - Matt 7 for "by their fruits you shall know them" - the fruit shows whether the tree is good or bad.
Good works are the result of God's power us believers for our Lord Jesus Christ says "he who practices the truth comes to the Light, so that his deeds may be manifested as having been wrought in God" (John 3:21).
See "wrought in God".
Paul wrote "For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, [it is] the gift of God; not as a result of works, so that no one may boast. For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand so that we would walk in them" (Ehpesians 2:8-10).
That word "workmanship" in Greek looks A LOT like our English word poetry, so Paul wrote that God works in us unto "prepared beforehand" "good works".
Jesus says God works in us.
Good works of we believers are an act of God. To lay claim to good works by a person is to try to steal from God, so BobRyan, that would be a violation of "You shall not steal" (Exodus 20:15).
You quoted "you" just then - and stuck a Bible text after a quote "of you" ... you know that right?
Here we have an example of the 12 disciples chosen for specific ministry in John 15 (Again - "speaking to Jews" - as we note in context)
John 15
16 You did not choose Me but I chose you, and appointed you that you would go and bear fruit, and that your fruit would remain, so that whatever you ask of the Father in My name He may give to you. 17 This I command you, that you love one another.
Disciplesâ Relation to the World
18 âIf the world hates you, you know that it has hated Me before it hated you. 19 If you were of the world, the world would love its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, because of this the world hates you.
Notice - Christ does not say
1. You are the only ones that will be saved.
2. "I chose only you unto salvation - everyone else will be lost"
Do you understand the concept of citing authoritative source for a comment?
It appears you are trying to erase WHOLE SWATHS of the Word of God (John 1:14)!
BTW, BobRyan, you failed to red letter properly.
Lord Jesus says "I chose you out of the world" (John 15:19), and that clearly refers to salvation.
Lord Jesus repeats concept which He says just a moment earlier with "you did not choose Me, but I chose you" (John 15:16).
Christ does declare God's exclusive choosing of man unto salvation while at the same time declaring man's impotence regarding salvation.
Christ does declare the exclusive inherent attribute of God choosing of man unto salvation while at the same time declaring man cannot choose God.
Momentarily, I plan to post a separate response for your assertion.
Yeah that's a big problem for "Calvinism only for gentiles" - and/or "gospel only for gentiles" - notice it is specifically addressing "glory and honor and peace" as the reward of heaven given to both groups
Rom 2
12 For all who have sinned without the Law will also perish without the Law, and all who have sinned under the Law will be judged by the Law; 13 for it is not the hearers of the Law who are just before God, but the doers of the Law will be justified. 14 For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves, 15 in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them, 16 on the day when, according to my gospel, God will judge the secrets of men through Christ Jesus.
25 For indeed circumcision is of value if you practice the Law; but if you are a transgressor of the Law, your circumcision has become uncircumcision. 26 So if the uncircumcised man keeps the requirements of the Law, will not his uncircumcision be regarded as circumcision? 27 And he who is physically uncircumcised, if he keeps the Law, will he not judge you who though having the letter of the Law and circumcision are a transgressor of the Law? 28 For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh. 29 But he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that which is of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter; and his praise is not from men, but from God.
A big problem for you, BobRyan, is that you try to take "for there is no partiality with God" (Romans 2:11) out of context to impose your meaning instead of Paul's meaning.
In Romans 2:11 as the surrounding verses impart context, God impartially executes punishment or reward based on behavior/fruit.
Romans 2:11 does not say that God leaves it to man to choose God.
Scripture cannot be broken (John 10:35), so God does shows favor to some. Consider Abraham - there were many other people on the earth at the time of Abraham!
God is impartial about executing punishment or reward, and exclusively God chooses some unto salvation (John 15:16-19).
