John 3:18 says you're wrong. John 5:24 says you're wrong.
Paul assured him if he believes (without choosing to in the flesh) he will be one of the lucky ones.
I see. You've switched to a different issue.
The answer to your question here is "yes." Bear in mind that when we say "Calvinist," that's a fairly broad term and there are people of different slants on this subject who all call themselves Calvinist.
Truly I have no idea what this has to do with what I posted.Romans 9
Paul uses two teaching methods throughout Romans even secular philosophy classes will use Romans as the best example of these methods. Paul does an excellent job of building one premise on the previous premises to develop his final conclusions. Paul uses an ancient form of rhetoric known as diatribe (imaginary debate) asking questions and most of the time giving a strong “By no means” and then goes on to explain “why not”. Paul’s method goes beyond just a general diatribe and follows closely to the diatribes used in the individual laments in the Psalms and throughout the Old Testament, which the Jewish Christians would have known extensively. These “questions or comments” are given by an “imaginary” student making it more a dialog with the readers (students) and not just a “sermon”.
The main topic repeated extensively in Romans is the division in the Christian house churches in Rome between the Jews and Gentile Christians. You can just look up how many times Jews and gentiles are referred to see this as a huge issue.
The main question (a diatribe question) in Romans 9 Paul addresses is God being fair or just Rms. 9: 14 What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all!
This will take some explaining, since just prior in Romans 9, Paul went over some history of God’s dealings with the Israelites that sounds very “unjust” like “loving Jacob and hating Esau” before they were born, but remember in all of Paul’s diatribes he begins before, just after or before and just after with strong support for the wrong answer (this makes it more of a debate and giving the opposition the first shot as done in all diatribes).
Who in Rome would be having a “problem” with God choosing to work with Isaac and Jacob instead of Ishmael and Esau? Would the Jewish Christian have a problem with this or would it be the Gentile Christians?
If God treaded you as privileged and special would you have a problem or would you have a problem if you were treated seemingly as common and others were treated with honor for no apparent reason?
This is the issue and Paul will explain over the rest of Romans 9-11.
Paul is specific with the issue Rms. 9: 19 One of you will say to me: “Then why does God still blame us? For who is able to resist his will?”
Who is the “one of you” is this Jewish Christian (elect) or Gentile Christian (elect) or is this “non-elect” individual (this “letter” is written to Christians and not non-Christians)?
Can Jews say they cannot be blamed for failing in their honored position or would it be the Gentiles that would say they cannot be blamed since they were not in the honored position?
Is it really significant when it comes to what really counts, if you are born a gentile or Jew in first century Rome?
Are there issues and problems with being a first century Jew and was this a problem for Paul?
The Jews were created in a special honorable position that would bring forth the Messiah and everyone else was common in comparison (the Gentiles).
How do we know Paul is specifically addressing the Jew/Gentile issue? Rms. 9: 30 What then shall we say? That the Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained it, a righteousness that is by faith; 31 but the people of Israel, who pursued the law as the way of righteousness, have not attained their goal. 32 Why not? Because they pursued it not by faith but as if it were by works. They stumbled over the stumbling stone.
Paul is showing from the position of being made “common” vessels by God the Gentiles had an advantage over the born Israelites (vessels of honor) that had the Law, since the Law became a stumbling stone to them. They both needed faith to rely on God’s Love to forgive them.
Without going into the details of Romans 9-11 we conclude with this diatribe question: Romans 11: 11 Again I ask: Did they stumble so as to fall beyond recovery? Not at all! Rather, because of their transgression, salvation has come to the Gentiles to make Israel envious. 12 But if their transgression means riches for the world, and their loss means riches for the Gentiles, how much greater riches will their full inclusion bring!
The common vessels (gentiles) and the vessels of honor (Jews) are equal individually in what is really significant when it comes to salvation, so God is not being unjust or unfair with either group.
If there is still a question about who is being addressed in this section of Rms. 9-11, Paul tells us: Rms. 11: 13 I am talking to you Gentiles. Inasmuch as I am the apostle to the Gentiles, I take pride in my ministry 14 in the hope that I may somehow arouse my own people to envy and save some of them.
Rm 9: 22 What if God, although choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction?
This verse is not saying all the “vessels” created for a “common purpose” were created for destruction (they were not made from the start by the Potter “clay pigeons”). Everything that leaves the potter’s shop is of great quality. Those vessels for destruction can come from either the common group or the honor group, but God is being patient with them that will eventually be destroyed. The vessels God does develop great wrath against, will be readied for destruction, but how did they become worthy of destruction since they left the potter’s shop with his mark on them? Any vessel (honorable or common) that becomes damaged is not worthy of the potter’s signature and He would want it destroyed.
To understand this as Common vessels and special vessels look at the same idea using the same Greek words of Paul in 2 Tim 2: 20. There Paul even points out the common can become the honored vessel.
2 Tim. 2: 20 In a large house there are articles not only of gold and silver, but also of wood and clay; some are for special purposes and some for common use. 21 Those who cleanse themselves from the latter will be instruments for special purposes, made holy, useful to the Master and prepared to do any good work.
Important to note is the fact: the dishonorable vessel can cleanse themselves and become vessels of honor.
That is a short explanation, since you really need to study all of Romans especially chapters 9, 10 and 11. Also please look at individual laments in the Psalms and diatribes in general, I really cut those short.
Actually the teaching from that parable is there is only one kind of soil that produces. The soils are as they are when the sower sows the seed.Scripture indicates you can choose to be good soil, or bad.
What we can derive from Holy Scriptures is that God Sovereignly elects. Some are elect and some are not. Now when Paul in Romans 9 makes his proposition of the one who would rail against God doing such a thing, he rebukes such thought as fallen human thought on how God should be more just according to man's concept of justice.
That's just ridiculous.If Paul was a Calvinist, he would have told the Philippian jailor "Be thou elect, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house" when he asked him, "What must I do to be saved?"
There's no point of having faith because it is God working within a person whether it's against their own will or not because there is no free will in Calvinism.
Please address the thematic. I did not quote Calvin. The answer to your question is in the Biblical thematic I posted. Here it is again:Calvin completely missed the message in Romans 9. Paul is writing about God choosing to give mercy to the Gentiles. The Jews are the vessel for wrath and the Gentiles are the vessel for honor. Please read the lower portion carefully as I have pasted the two scriptures in Romans 9 together to make it more clear.
“What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction? And He did so to make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy, which He prepared beforehand for glory, even us, whom He also called, not from among Jews only, but also from among Gentiles. As He says also in Hosea, "I WILL CALL THOSE WHO WERE NOT MY PEOPLE, ' MY PEOPLE,' AND HER WHO WAS NOT BELOVED, ' BELOVED.'" " AND IT SHALL BE THAT IN THE PLACE WHERE IT WAS SAID TO THEM, ' YOU ARE NOT MY PEOPLE,' THERE THEY SHALL BE CALLED SONS OF THE LIVING GOD." Isaiah cries out concerning Israel, " THOUGH THE NUMBER OF THE SONS OF ISRAEL BE LIKE THE SAND OF THE SEA, IT IS THE REMNANT THAT WILL BE SAVED; FOR THE LORD WILL EXECUTE HIS WORD ON THE EARTH, THOROUGHLY AND QUICKLY." And just as Isaiah foretold, " UNLESS THE LORD OF SABAOTH HAD LEFT TO US A POSTERITY, WE WOULD HAVE BECOME LIKE SODOM, AND WOULD HAVE RESEMBLED GOMORRAH." What shall we say then? That Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, attained righteousness, even the righteousness which is by faith; but Israel, pursuing a law of righteousness, did not arrive at that law. Why? Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as though it were by works. They stumbled over the stumbling stone,” (Notice how this compares to “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.”)
Romans 9:22-32 NASB
Another unfounded ridiculous claim.That's exactly the sum of Calvinism. Faith = works therefore faith is pointless entirely.
God chooses according to His will and purpose. More accurately "according to the kind intention of His will, to the praise of the glory of His grace, which He freely bestowed on us in the Beloved."So how does he choose then? I kind of thought unconditional meant unconditional.
Huh? God sending His only Son to die for our sins and rise from the dead to justify us is Love. As the Apostle John said God first loved us.Then you can be saved without love?
Other than "He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the kind intention of His will, to the praise of the glory of His grace, which He freely bestowed on us in the Beloved."Unconditional means without reference to that person's works or anything else that he will do. God does not, IOW, choose someone because he knows how he will turn out and likes what he sees, so he writes that name in the book of life. That wouldn't be predestination. How God makes his choices has not been given to us to know.
Please address the thematic. I did not quote Calvin. The answer to your question is in the Biblical thematic I posted. Here it is again:
What we can derive from Holy Scriptures is that God Sovereignly elects. Some are elect and some are not. Now when Paul in Romans 9 makes his proposition of the one who would rail against God doing such a thing, he rebukes such thought as fallen human thought on how God should be more just according to man's concept of justice.
So your demand in asking another human being if those who are not Sovereignly elected by God "were never capable of meeting God's expectations" the Biblical answer is no human born in sin throughout the history of creation are/were ever capable of meeting God's expectations. Only Jesus Christ met God's expectations for Perfection and Holiness. That is why God in love and in his mercy sent His only begotten son to take on flesh (Incarnation), suffer for our sins, die for our sins, buried and risen again so that we may have life eternally with Him.
The second part of this is your question of election. Sovereign Election is Biblical. God does not explain why some are elect and some are not other than telling us in John 10 that the Father gives His sheep to the Son and the Son keeps them, lays down His life for them and they will never perish. And with the Apostle Paul showing that God chooses His people before the foundation of the earth (before space, time and matter aka before Creation).
Now the shadow/type for God's election is in the OT. He sought out individuals and by extension a nation to be set aside to be Holy. I guess using this type and shadow one could ask or rail against God on why were the Syrians not offered the same deal as Israel? Why not the Russians? The Chinese? Why not the Saxons? How about the Ukrainians? They got a raw deal?
What we do know is God chose according to His will and purpose; His will and purpose will not be thwarted; and He did so for His Name and Glory. With His choosing He was very possessive of and "jealous" against anything or anyone who got in the way of His relationship with His chosen people.
We see the same thematic election in the NT as well. But under a better covenant in the Blood of Jesus Christ. I already posted Ezekiel 36:22-32 which gives us the foreshadowing of the New Covenant, and also posted Ephesians chapters 1 and 2, Romans 9-11, and will add now the entire book of Hebrews (which discusses the New Covenant compared with the Old) showing this thematic relationship of a Sovereign God who chooses, elects, and Saves according to His will and purpose for His Name and for His Glory.
This 'thematic' is what you and some others are arguing against. Not Calvinism but the very Holy Scriptures which reveal the thematic.
What was chosen? What was according to his will? That redemption would be available to those who believe.God chooses according to His will and purpose. More accurately "according to the kind intention of His will, to the praise of the glory of His grace, which He freely bestowed on us in the Beloved."
'Strong' tradition 'required' for doctrine not in harmony with all Scripture ?Why do Calvinists and the like like to keep saying that? Can you please show us one person here that ever said we could gain salvation through works?
It's a common and untrue statement, just the kind of statements that are necessary to defend what is untrue.
That God wants us to do good works and always has is not in question. This verse doesn’t say HOW we are saved in terms of God’s part nor show that He selected some and not others.
The question is whether or not Calvinism teaches that it is arbitrary. No, Calvinism doesn't.Then how do you know it's not arbitrary? In Calvinist theology, it is in fact, arbitrary, as far as they can understand it
That’s not what he wrote. He himself, when he lay dying, wasn’t sure he was saved.Correct. Calvin understood that eternal life is not a matter of what you do, but Whom you know.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?