Brother Knox,
As a recap for anyone reading this post, it started on post #980, where you made the unsupported claim:
"The “inward” call listed in the so called “golden chain of salvation” in Romans 8 teaches, among other things, election unto salvation. We know that everyone does not receive this inward call because all who receive this “call” are in turn justified" -----end of your quote -------
In posts #984 and #1020 I offered exegetical arguments that demonstrated that your statement was not an exegetical established fact, but conditional on loving God in the present (Romans 8:28). Here is a portion of my refute:
"You are stating an assumption as if an established fact. Romans 8 doesn't promise that all who are called will be glorified. Please provide exegetical proof for your assumption. We have been commissioned by God to "rightly divide the Word". There are rules of grammar that must be followed to arrive at a correct interpretation.
A chain is only strong when the links remained locked in place. The foundational chain link is found in verse 28, and it's conditional. That is, while it remains true, the chain links that follow are true. Here is verse 28: "28 And we know that for those who love God [a conditional statement] all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose" (ESV).
The word "love" (verse 28 above) comes from a Greek word that is a present tense participle. Here it described an ongoing activity. Here is the verse with further explanation in brackets: 28 And we know that for those who love God [who are actively loving God in the present is the idea] all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose"
Verses 29-30 are grammatically and contextually dependent on verse 28. So those who are justified and then glorified in verse 30 are those who in the present are actively in love with God.
Those individuals who were in the faith and left the faith are not found in verses 29-30. An elevated structure exists and has functional purpose while the pillars that support it remain in place." ----end of quote---
In this response, instead of providing exegetical evidence to back up your exaggeration, you resorted to unsubstantiated arguments and baseless accusations.
The two most fundamental principles of interpretation are a consideration of a passage's context and grammar. You proceeded to throw the context out.
You are just about to prove yourself wrong. The next paragraph won't even have a verse, so a context is pointless.
Why did you brake the very rule of context you promised to uphold? Not only are verse numbers absent, it's an outright opinion. I asked for exegetical proof. You are describing predestination without acknowledging that it's conditional on loving God in the present (v. 28). You are describing glorification without contextually admitting that it's condition on perseverance (v. 28). I can go on and on. It's a losing cause. Without a consideration of context the Bible becomes a buffet to serve any theology one choses.
And an exegetical examination of the topic of justification indicates it's a past reality (Romans 5:1, etc.), an ongoing process (Romans 3:24, etc.). But it's not a completed action in Scripture. A past historical fact, yes, a present reality, a future hope, yes.
Did you forget already what you stated in post #989, where you agreed that the activity of the golden chain was conditional and not guaranteed. You wrote:
"Verses 29-30 are true while the condition in verse 28 is true." ---end of your quote----
You are minimizing verse 28 for the sake of what your theology allows.
I just posted your quote where you agreed that verses 29-30 where conditional on verse 28. So verse 28 is important. The verses that follow (vs. 29+) are only true if verse 28 is true.
Please back up your claim with facts.
Please back up your accusations with facts.
Please provide proof. Quote me in context or stop making allegations. In this post you were going to provide exegetical proof that perseverance is guaranteed in Romans 8. What happened?
You are now towards the end of chapter 8. But you haven't quoted one verse yet. You have wasted time by not providing valuable substance.
God has assured believers (those who remain in belief) of many good things. We agree on that. Remember, you were supposed to provide exegetical proof that perseverance is guaranteed. Here is your original unsubstantiated claim:
"We know that everyone does not receive this inward call because all who receive this “call” are in turn justified" ----end of your quote-----
So where does Romans 8 say that all who receive the inward call are guaranteed glorification? Your thesis is built on the golden chain which you earlier admitted is not guaranteed (conditional on verse 28).
Thanks for getting back on track
You finally provide verses. But what happened to the proceeding verses for context? Notice how verse 37 begins, linking it to the context of prior verses: "But in all these things ..."
The Bible only has true meaning when understood in context. Just pasting some verses does not prove an argument. But you know these things already. So why do you disregard context when at the beginning of this thread you promised to uphold this vital principle of interpretation?
Thank you. You are 100% correct. The verses that follow Romans 8:28, are only contextually true when verse 28 is true. God promises that those who endure until the end will be saved. But this does not help your thesis does it? You and I agree that perseverance is required. You go one step further by claiming that perseverance is guaranteed. You have yet to offer any contextual and grammatical evidence from Romans 8.
Over and over you make accusations without offering proof. If I have quoted verses out of context, please provide proof.
If you would focus less on reading commentaries of men, and more on what the Bible states in context, you would be better off.
Instead of demonstrating your argument is true based on established rules of hermeneutics, you appeal to a theological arrangement of men for proof. How sad.
You were supposed to offer exegetical proof. But you are too busy making accusations. How sad it is.
You have offered zero proof for your unsupported column that Romans 8 guarantees perseverance.
I called on you to provide exegetical evidence of your exaggerated claim. This is the best you can do?
I will provide a quote of you once more where you admitted (post #989) that the links of the golden chain were conditional on verse 28. And you admitted that verse 28 does not guarantee perseverance. You wrote,
"Verses 29-30 are true while the condition in verse 28 is true." ---end of your quote----
So your point is, well, pointless.
So where is your exegetical proof? You offered no credible substance for your thesis.
There is more evidence in Romans 8 that perseverance is required (which you hold to). But Of course, it's not guaranteed. I won't take time tonight to post it.
In Christ!
