Foreordained?

[MarkEvan]

Hi Reformationist,

Would you mind my asking why you believe that Romans 9 is literally reffering to Jacob and Esau, you see I had always believed, (due to the context) that it was an allagory, that jacob was the children of the promise while Esau was the children of the flesh?

 

[Reformationist]

So --- God is "partial"? You're saying He is; either "partial" (not-desiring salvation for certain ones), or "impartial" (He welcomes all who come to Him).

Which does Scripture support?

Ben, why is it that you feel the need to engage in strawmen? You're intelligent enough, and familiar enough with the reformed view, that differientiating as you do above is both unnecessary and leading. Our view is that God's intent is specific and invincible. We fully acknowledge that God welcomes all who come to Him. The difference between our view and yours is that we acknowledge that the Bible clearly teaches that only those whom the Father gives to the Son will come.

"Draw", is "helkuo-drag"; it's the same word as in Jn12:32, in the Greek it means "drag-forcibly".

It means "compel" and the meaning is intended to relay the invincible nature of God's call. It doesn't denote a tone that suggests that God forces someone to come to Him, kicking and screaming, against their will.

The rest of your post follows your standard man centered philosophy and I could only offer ungodly comments about it so I'll leave that to those who are better equipped.

God bless

 

[Reformationist]

Hi Reformationist

Hey Mark.

Would you mind my asking why you believe that Romans 9 is literally reffering to Jacob and Esau, you see I had always believed, (due to the context) that it was an allagory, that jacob was the children of the promise while Esau was the children of the flesh?

I don't mind at all. In answer to you question, I don't limit the intent of the passage to a specific reference to the actual persons of Jacob and Esau but neither do I feel the text warrants a strictly allegorical understanding. I believe the point being made, and the primary reason these two men are specifically mentioned, is to stave off any false interpretation based on differences in the men themselves. These two men are of the same line of decent and are, in fact, twins. Additionally, Scripture clearly teaches that God's choice of Jacob and not Esau was not conditioned on anything that could be identified as specific to the children themselves, i.e., no good or evil. That is, Paul is reciting that God chose Jacob in accordance with God's purpose in election, not because there was some intrinsic value in Jacob that happened apart from divine providence.

For the record, I think that these two men are representative of God's government of history on a larger scale than just them personally though, again, I stress that they are also being personally identified. God's love for His elect, those He has ordained unto salvation before the foundations of the world, are represented by Jacob. Those whom God has justly left to atone for their own iniquity are embodied in Esau.

Hopefully that helps you understand how I interpret this passage.

God bless

 

[Elect]

Hi Reformationist,

Would you mind my asking why you believe that Romans 9 is literally reffering to Jacob and Esau, you see I had always believed, (due to the context) that it was an allagory, that jacob was the children of the promise while Esau was the children of the flesh?

Hi MarkEvan,

May I ask you why you believe that Romans 9 is not literal, but figurative?

In Christ,
John

 

[Ben johnson]

Ben, why is it that you feel the need to engage in strawmen? You're intelligent enough, and familiar enough with the reformed view, that differientiating as you do above is both unnecessary and leading. Our view is that God's intent is specific and invincible. We fully acknowledge that God welcomes all who come to Him.

Hi, Don. I think my stated position is not "strawman"; by proposing that "God regenerates a heart, and THEN (irresistibly) that heart wills to follow God", your statement "God welcomes all who come to Him" does not alter your foundation that each's coming is fully (sovereignly) decided by God.

Do I have it "right"?

The difference between our view and yours is that we acknowledge that the Bible clearly teaches that only those whom the Father gives to the Son will come.

Do you accept the proposal that those whom the Father GIVES Jesus, are those who BELONGED to the Father? Isn't that the sense of Lk17:6?

"Father, those Thou hast given Me out of the world --- thine they WERE, and Thou gavest them to Me."

Doesn't "thine they were", precede (and found) "given-to-Jesus"?

Doesn't "thine they were", convey "belief/worship of Father-God"?

It means "compel" and the meaning is intended to relay the invincible nature of God's call. It doesn't denote a tone that suggests that God forces someone to come to Him, kicking and screaming, against their will.

"Compel" is a good word; I'm comfortable with that.

Our difference, is then on what "ALL", means...

The rest of your post follows your standard man centered philosophy and I could only offer ungodly comments about it so I'll leave that to those who are better equipped.

God bless

I think that a heart such as yours, which seeks after God with all its might, is not capable of ungodliness.

 

[Ben johnson]

Helkuo does not mean "drag forcibly." We have evidence to prove otherwise. This mistaken notion comes from the error of word loading.... loading a word with the situation in which it was used.

"Over many years you did draw them, and did warn them by your Spirit through your prophets; yet they would not give ear. Therefore you did give them into the hand of the peoples of the lands." (Nehemiah 9:30 LXX).

"O that you would kiss me with the kisses of your mouth! For your love is better than wine, your anointing oils are fragrant, your name is oil poured out; therefore the maidens love you. Draw me after you, let us make haste. The king has brought me into his chambers. We will exult and rejoice in you; we will extol your love more than wine; rightly do they love you" (Song of Solomon LXX).

"From long ago, the Lord appeared to me, "I have loved you with an eternal love, therefore with lovingkindness have I drawn you" (Jeremiah 31:3 LXX).

Wait --- "HELKUO" (a Greek word), appears on the OLD Testament???

 

[cygnusx1]

Wait --- "HELKUO" (a Greek word), appears on the OLD Testament???

yep , someone is guilty of word unloading , unloading it of it's true meaning

 

[Ben johnson]

yep , someone is guilty of word unloading , unloading it of its true meaning

So --- what is its true meaning? What is the difference between Jn6:44 ("No one comes to Me unless the Father DRAWS"), and Jn12:32 ("I will DRAW all men")?

I'm thinkin' the focus of this discussion isn't "draw", but "all".

Does "all", mean "all", or "only some"?

 

[MarkEvan]

Hi MarkEvan,

May I ask you why you believe that Romans 9 is not literal, but figurative?

In Christ,
John

Hi Elect, if a big purple line appears under the quote sorry bout it, if not then youll know every thing is OK.
Of course you may, what kind of person would I be if I asked questions of others, but would then not allow them to question me!
The reason I believe that it is figurative rather than literal, is I am afraid quite short, its only because that is the context in which Paul gives the statement, the verses imediately preceding these are Paul talking about the children of the promise and the children of the flesh. Also for me this is very similar to Galations 4 where he gives the alagory between Isaac and Ishmael, he uses literal people and places to illustrate a spiritual principle. Here in Romans 9 I believe he is doing the same.
As I said sorry about how short the reply is, if you want me to go into more detail I will, but I believe the above should be sufficient.

Mark .

 

[Ben johnson]

In Genesis "Jacob" and "Esau" represent two peoples...

 

[Reformationist]

Hi, Don.

Hey.

I think my stated position is not "strawman"; by proposing that "God regenerates a heart, and THEN (irresistibly) that heart wills to follow God", your statement "God welcomes all who come to Him" does not alter your foundation that each's coming is fully (sovereignly) decided by God.

There is a significant difference between acknowledging that God's monergistic regeneration invaraiably and invincibly leads to faithful submission and contending that God's limited intent somehow makes Him guilty of not welcoming all who come to Him. Your mistake wasn't in your understanding of reformed theology. You've probably had as many, if not more, discussion on reformed theology than I have. Where you erred, and the strawman you most certainly did create, was in submitting that the two camps are that "God intended to save only the elect" and "God welcomes all who come to Him." The picture you paint, and I'm not quite sure you do so unintentionally, is that God does not welcome certain people who come to Him simply because they happen to have been passed over in His elective decree. It simply isn't so. God does welcome all who come to Him. It's just that only those whom God invincibly regenerates will come to Him.

Do I have it "right"?

Based on my above clarification, you tell me.

Do you accept the proposal that those whom the Father GIVES Jesus, are those who BELONGED to the Father? Isn't that the sense of Lk17:6?

"Father, those Thou hast given Me out of the world --- thine they WERE, and Thou gavest them to Me."

Doesn't "thine they were", precede (and found) "given-to-Jesus"?

Yes to both questions.

Doesn't "thine they were", convey "belief/worship of Father-God"?

LOL! Certainly not. Especially since they were given to Christ, to be His people, before they were ever created.

"Compel" is a good word; I'm comfortable with that.

Oh good.

Our difference, is then on what "ALL", means...

Well, I'm not sure. You don't define the verse in which "all" appears but, for the record, I believe that "all" always means "all of the group of which the text is referring." That is, of course, often limited to a specific group of people. Maybe you could cite a particular "all" and we can discuss its scope?

I think that a heart such as yours, which seeks after God with all its might, is not capable of ungodliness.

Well, I enjoy an equal amount of sincerity in considering your heart. Only you will know how sincere that is.

God bless

 

[Reformationist]

I'm thinkin' the focus of this discussion isn't "draw", but "all".

Does "all", mean "all", or "only some"?

Ben, is it your contention that the word "all" always has the same meaning, regardless of context?

For instance, if I'm at the movie theater with all three of my kids and I say, "Okay, I want all of you to go to the bathroom before the movie starts," do you believe I am speaking to every, single person who ever existed or, just possibly, might I be speaking to a specific group of people?

 

[Reformationist]

In Genesis "Jacob" and "Esau" represent two peoples...

I am amazed at how often people use this equivocation in an attempt to deny the specific nature of God's love. Tell me Ben, if "Jacob and Esau represent two peoples," what are these "peoples" made up of if not individuals?

LOL! Are you so confused that you don't realize that an omniscient God is fully and infallibly cognizant of the individuals that are represented by Jacob and Esau?

 

[Easystreet]

Ben, is it your contention that the word "all" always has the same meaning, regardless of context?

For instance, if I'm at the movie theater with all three of my kids and I say, "Okay, I want all of you to go to the bathroom before the movie starts," do you believe I am speaking to every, single person who ever existed or, just possibly, might I be speaking to a specific group of people?

Helping out a little: In the following context Ben is correct.​

The context: Good - lets see what the context is:​

Here are the verses within their context.
31. "Now judgment is upon this world; now the ruler of this world will be cast out.

If this world is the world of the elect then Satan is only the ruler over the world of the elect. Can't mean that it must be all of it not just part of it.

32. "And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to Myself."

All men in which world - what did the last verse say? I though so, all of it not part of it.

33. But He was saying this to indicate the kind of death by which He was to die.
34. The crowd then answered Him, "We have heard out of the Law that the Christ is to remain forever; and how can You say, 'The Son of Man must be lifted up'? Who is this Son of Man?"
35. So Jesus said to them, "For a little while longer the Light is among you. Walk while you have the Light, so that darkness will not overtake you; he who walks in the darkness does not know where he goes.
36. "While you have the Light, believe in the Light, so that you may become sons of Light." These things Jesus spoke, and He went away and hid Himself from them.
37. But though He had performed so many signs before them, {yet} they were not believing in Him.
38. {This was} to fulfill the word of Isaiah the prophet which he spoke: "LORD, WHO HAS BELIEVED OUR REPORT? AND TO WHOM HAS THE ARM OF THE LORD BEEN REVEALED?"
39. For this reason they could not believe, for Isaiah said again,
40. "HE HAS BLINDED THEIR EYES AND HE HARDENED THEIR HEART, SO THAT THEY WOULD NOT SEE WITH THEIR EYES AND PERCEIVE WITH THEIR HEART, AND BE CONVERTED AND I HEAL THEM."
41. These things Isaiah said because he saw His glory, and he spoke of Him.
42. Nevertheless many even of the rulers believed in Him, but because of the Pharisees they were not confessing {Him,} for fear that they would be put out of the synagogue;
43. for they loved the approval of men rather than the approval of God.
44. And Jesus cried out and said, "He who believes in Me, does not believe in Me but in Him who sent Me.
45. "He who sees Me sees the One who sent Me.
46. "I have come {as} Light into the world, so that everyone who believes in Me will not remain in darkness.

Interesting: everyone implies others so all can't be a part of it but all of it.

47. "If anyone hears My sayings and does not keep them, I do not judge him; for I did not come to judge the world, but to save the world.

Here Jesus is talking about all of it not part of it.
Context love context. No indication that all is restricted to part of it. Therefore, it has to be all of it.

48. "He who rejects Me and does not receive My sayings, has one who judges him; the word I spoke is what will judge him at the last day.

49. "For I did not speak on My own initiative, but the Father Himself who sent Me has given Me a commandment {as to} what to say and what to speak.

The context concerns the World, The word world is all of it. The same one Satan is the ruler over.

The All Men are set in this context. ​

 

[Easystreet]

Mike do you think it's possible that a lot of the confusion stems from man's inability to adequately explain the thoughts of God?  It's very simple to me.  If God truly desires something to come to pass, it does.  If it doesn't come to pass, it wasn't God's desire.  Rather, the word "desire" was man's way of expressing something Divine in human terms.

3. This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior,
4. who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.




Let me see, is the Bible inspired or not?

Who caused these words to be in the Bible?

You say man

I say God

Not surprised: From the very beginning when Calvinism established their belief system based upon philosophical reasoning which they attest too and cast out Biblical reasoning well it is no wonder why they have erred so fare from the truth. ​

The author only recorded what God desired" All Scripture is given by inspiration and ......." I think that verse is still in the Bible unless it has been reasoned out by the philosophic Calvinistic theology.

I have to say you really surprised me on that statement. ​

I will stay with the Bible as God's word. God's desire.

3. This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior,
4. who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.

(wait a min. some one might read this and believe it - Oh no! hurry someone write a creed and publish it now before someone else read and believes)​

Paul speaking here: Tim you know I am not sure how to express this so regardless of how it sounds or comes across I am speaking on my own here. I need to help the Holy Spirit a little to make sure everyone gets it right. When you are preaching and teahing don't say what it says tell them this - you know a creed kinda of thing worded fancy and full of hard to undertand jargo that gets them not to read their bibles or something like that - that way you can become Pope - sorry prophecy kicking in.​

 

[Easystreet]

YOu see a door and it says enter you open it walk in and close it and turn around and it says destined to be inside.

I like that.

God - Christ - Man

Holiness / Solution / Sin

Grace / Salvation / faith

Elect / in Christ / in Christ believe

Desire all / Die for all / not all accept the offer

 

[Reformationist]

What is it with you guys and your incessant need to overformat the text in your posts? You can't possibly think it helps to emphasize any point you are trying to make. It just makes my head hurt and causes me to lose what little desire I have to read what you write.

 

[Reformationist]

For the record, you don't help Ben. You cripple him into thinking that any of his views are actually supported in the Bible, which they aren't.

Either way, I'll try to address the major points of your post, sans all the silly formatting of course:

Here are the verses within their context.

John 12:31
Now judgment is upon this world; now the ruler of this world will be cast out.
If this world is the world of the elect then Satan is only the ruler over the world of the elect. Can't mean that it must be all of it not just part of it.

"World" in this context refers to the race of Adam, i.e., mankind.

​

John 12:32

And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to Myself.

All men in which world - what did the last verse say? I though so, all of it not part of it.

Here is where your anthropocentric philosophy, once again, deviates from both logic and Scripture. The point being made in verse 32 can only truly be determined when we understand what "draw" means. If we are to gain any insight, whatsoever, from verse 32, we must understand that Christ's act of "drawing" has significance. It isn't some ridiculous notion of "wooing" or any other impotent action. IOW, for Christ to "draw" someone, that must mean something. How, pray tell, does your skewed understanding of Scripture allow you to understand the word "draw?"

John 12:46
"I have come {as} Light into the world, so that everyone who believes in Me will not remain in darkness.

Interesting: everyone implies others so all can't be a part of it but all of it.

Here you truly go off the deep end. The text itself is clearly limited. Hello? "Everyone who believes in me.." Ring a bell? Unless your contention is that everyone without exception believes in Christ, "everyone who believes in me" cannot refer to everyone without exception.

John 12:47
If anyone hears My sayings and does not keep them, I do not judge him; for I did not come to judge the world, but to save the world.

Here Jesus is talking about all of it not part of it.

And here Gordo, is the most pitiful aspect of your views. You have no problem contending that Christ purposed to save the world, i.e., all people without exception, while simultaneously acknowledging that He does not realize that purpose. All this despite the fact that the Bible explicitly states that God accomplishes all that He purposes.

 

[cygnusx1]

I am amazed at how often people use this equivocation in an attempt to deny the specific nature of God's love. Tell me Ben, if "Jacob and Esau represent two peoples," what are these "peoples" made up of if not individuals?

LOL! Are you so confused that you don't realize that an omniscient God is fully and infallibly cognizant of the individuals that are represented by Jacob and Esau?

yes you have it bro , we Calvinists are in the wrong because we say God Loved Jacob and hated (rejected ) Esau .......... "Oh NO say our opponents that is horrible and wrong , God loves everyone just the same , Esau and Jacob are tribes not individuals " ..........

mmmmmmm, so God loves Jacobs tribe and hates Esau's tribe !!! surely far from being "problem solved" it is problem exasibated !!

 

[MarkEvan]

Hi Reformationist,
Another question if that is ok, You say the bible explicitly says that all that God purposes comes to pass, I can`t find this passage could you give me the reference so that I can see it in its context, also just a quickie Gods purpose for Israel was that they be a light to the Gentile nations, that they were obedient to Him, yet this was not fulfilled.

Thanx for the explanation of your view on Romans 9, it does clear up where you are coming from for me.

Mark .