Romans 9

[shturt678]

1 John 4:8
Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love.

agapē----love

Some Dictionaries: Agape: Spontaneous, altruistic love (unselfishness)
Love: Affection
Some Lexicons: Agape: Love, generosity
MY definition: Most could care less and understand why thus take your pick, not negating all the other definitions including yours

Just ol' old inconvenient Jack

 

[janxharris]

Jesus said; 'True religion is this; that you visit the widows, and feed the orphans.'
James 1:26-27

Indeed. Also:

Matthew 5:43-48
“You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

Did God set an example for us when He invited all men alike, even those for whom He designed the call to be a savour of death, and the ground of a severer condemnation?

Am I to be perfect, just like this?

 

[janxharris]

.

 

[harrisrose77]

Indeed. Also:

Matthew 5:43-48
“You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

Did God set an example for us when He invited all men alike, even those for whom He designed the call to be a savour of death, and the ground of a severer condemnation?

Yes, indeed pray for our enemies, but some questions still remain hard to answer, especially to those who don't believe the severity of God's need to judge His enemies, and they come in human form. Discernment in The Father through Christ is important for the growing into adult believer. 'Suppers ready', with steak, only to those who no longer need milk . God's judgement is Love, His Love, (agape) righteousness and just.

 

[harrisrose77]

Indeed. Also:

Matthew 5:43-48
“You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

Did God set an example for us when He invited all men alike, even those for whom He designed the call to be a savour of death, and the ground of a severer condemnation?

Yes, indeed pray for our enemies, but some questions still remain hard to answer, especially to those who don't believe the severity of God's need to judge His enemies, and they come in human form. Discernment in The Father through Christ is important for the growing into adult believer. 'Suppers ready', with steak, only to those who no longer need milk . God's judgement is Love, His Love, (agape) righteousness and just. It's a hard teaching, and not for the faint hearted, lest God has prepared the heart to receive it....

 

[harrisrose77]

Indeed. Also:

Matthew 5:43-48
“You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

Did God set an example for us when He invited all men alike, even those for whom He designed the call to be a savour of death, and the ground of a severer condemnation?

Am I to be perfect, just like this?

Perfection is not attainable by self, but it's understanding that Christ has earnt us His perfection, for our sin. If we draw close to Him in personal relationship, believing this and wanting to obey His Truth & His work in US, then we are being perfected. Becoming like Him, wanting for nothing....abiding in the vine. He is the vine.

 

[FreeGrace2]

There is an universal call, by which God, through the external preaching of the word, invites all men alike, even those for whom he designs the call to be a savor of death, and the ground of a severer condemnation.

This makes absolutely no sense. Why would He do that? No one has given a reasonable answer.

Specifically, WHY call someone who He has not chosen? It is senseless.

Besides this there is a special call which, for the most part, God bestows on believers only, when by the internal illumination of the Spirit he causes the word preached to take deep root in their hearts.

Why is there no clear and unambiguous verses that teach this?

Sometimes, however, he communicates it also to those whom he enlightens only for a time, and whom afterwards, in just punishment for their ingratitude, he abandons and smites with greater blindness. Institutes 3.24.8

What does "ingratitude" have to do with anything, if it all up to God who will believe or not? Again, this isn't making any sense.

So Calvin did NOT teach that God calls all men to salvation as Calvinists erroneously teach.

Wait. The beginning of the quote from the "Institutes" noted "There is an universal call, by which God, through the external preaching of the word, invites all men alike, even those for whom he designs the call to be a savor of death, and the ground of a severer condemnation." Looks as though he did. But for no apparent reason.

Third, John Gill denied the "general call" doctrine. I know of no Calvinist who who accuses Gill of being a hyper-Calvinist. Gill taught that God calls only those who are thirsty to come.

The Calvinist's "general call" doctrine is absurd and thoroughly contradictory!

Thanks for the information. It certainly doesn't make any sense for a Calvinist to claim that there is a general call to the non-elect.

 

[Jack Terrence]

This makes absolutely no sense. Why would He do that? No one has given a reasonable answer.

Specifically, WHY call someone who He has not chosen? It is senseless.

I agree. God does NOT call the non-elect at all. I have said many times here that God leaves the non-elect alone. God doesn't even bother with them. The gospel goes right over their heads.

I was citing Calvin only to show that his "universal call" doctrine does not resemble the "general call" doctrine that modern Calvinists teach.

John Gill had it right. There is no universal call to all men to be saved. God calls only those who thirst.

No one has given a reasonable answer.

There is no reasonable answer. God would not call those He has no intention of saving as modern Calvinists teach. And He would not call them to increase their condemnation as Calvin taught. Eternal damnation is eternal damnation.

 

[Episcopius]

God does NOT call the non-elect at all.

Then how can God, as wisdom personified, say:

Proverbs 1:24 “Because I called and you refused,
I stretched out my hand and no one paid attention;
25 And you neglected all my counsel
And did not want my reproof;

And in Romans 10:21 But as for Israel He says, “All the day long I have stretched out My hands to a disobedient and obstinate people.

 

[janxharris]

I agree. God does NOT call the non-elect at all. I have said many times here that God leaves the non-elect alone. God doesn't even bother with them. The gospel goes right over their heads.

I was citing Calvin only to show that his "universal call" doctrine does not resemble the "general call" doctrine that modern Calvinists teach.

John Gill had it right. There is no universal call to all men to be saved. God calls only those who thirst.

There is no reasonable answer. God would not call those He has no intention of saving as modern Calvinists teach. And He would not call them to increase their condemnation as Calvin taught. Eternal damnation is eternal damnation.

Jesus said these words to Jews who had just attempted to stone him:

John 10:37,38
Do not believe me unless I do the works of my Father. But if I do them, even though you do not believe me, believe the works, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father.​

Jesus certainly does appeal, even to such men, that they believe. It demonstrates that the call is to all men.

John 6:47-51
Very truly I tell you, the one who believes has eternal life. I am the bread of life. Your ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness, yet they died. But here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which anyone may eat and not die. I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats this bread will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.​

We know it is only the hardness of men's hearts that causes them to stumble:

Matthew 13:14,15
In them is fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah: “‘You will be ever hearing but never understanding; you will be ever seeing but never perceiving. For this people’s heart has become calloused; they hardly hear with their ears, and they have closed their eyes. Otherwise they might see with their eyes, hear with their ears, understand with their hearts and turn, and I would heal them.’​

 

[janxharris]

There is no reasonable answer. God would not call those He has no intention of saving as modern Calvinists teach. And He would not call them to increase their condemnation as Calvin taught. Eternal damnation is eternal damnation.

How do you make congruous the fact that God is love whilst also claiming that God does not call those you claim he actually has no intention of saving? Is God love tb?

How do you account for Judas? He was given to know the secrets of the kingdom of heaven, whilst others had such understanding withheld from them. Indeed, the Canons of Dordt cite Matthew 13 as evidence of the doctrines of election and reprobation; and they do so despite Judas being grouped with the 'elect'. He is in the wrong group. The truth is, is that Jesus did not teach such election/reprobation. On the contrary, he explicitly says:

John 6:50 But here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which anyone may eat and not die.

To make such an assertion when, all the while, some men are consigned to eternal damnation such that they are not even called makes Jesus guilty of the worst case of disingenuity in history. Indeed, what could be worse than to seemingly offer eternal life to all men? For we know that death is man's greatest fear. This is baffling tb.

The Boxer, is it the case that anyone may eat the bread that came down from heaven and not die?

 

[janxharris]

We know from Galatians 4:22-31 that Hagar and Sarai allegorically represent two covenants: Hagar the covenant of the law and Sarai that of the promise.

Galatians 4:23,24,28
His son by the slave woman was born according to the flesh, but his son by the free woman was born as the result of a divine promise. These things are being taken figuratively: The women represent two covenants. One covenant is from Mount Sinai and bears children who are to be slaves: This is Hagar. Now you, brothers and sisters, like Isaac, are children of promise.​

So, in Romans 9:6b ('For they are not all Israel which are of Israel') it is clear that those that are the children of promise are true Israel, whilst those that are the children of the flesh are not. It is also clear that the additional examples of Jacob and Esau are not to be taken literally but allegorically.

Romans 9:10-13
And not only this; but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac; ( For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth; ) It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger. As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.​

Paul is asserting that his fellow Israelites must be as (like) Isaac (children of promise) rather than like Ishmael (children of the flesh). Paul is not averring that Isaac was eternally saved and Ishmael was not. They allegorically represent the two covenants.

When Paul asks if God is unjust, he is asking if God is unjust to exclude the children of the flesh (those that pursue righteousness through the law) from being his children. In the very next chapter, Paul explicitly talks about this pursuit of righteousness:

Romans 10:1-4
Brethren, my heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved. For I bear them record that they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge. For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God. For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone that believeth.​

God has mercy on whomsoever he wishes - that is, God provides the mercy - Jesus Christ - and anyone who puts their faith in Him is adopted as a Son.

Paul's conclusion is telling (v.30-32). It confirms that God does not foreordain some to eternal life and others to eternal damnation.

 

[shturt678]

We know from Galatians 4:22-31 that Hagar and Sarai allegorically represent two covenants: Hagar the covenant of the law and Sarai that of the promise.

Galatians 4:23,24,28
His son by the slave woman was born according to the flesh, but his son by the free woman was born as the result of a divine promise. These things are being taken figuratively: The women represent two covenants. One covenant is from Mount Sinai and bears children who are to be slaves: This is Hagar. Now you, brothers and sisters, like Isaac, are children of promise.​

Posting only for cleanups in the minors, ie, we agree pretty much in the majors, eg, you could care less what agape truly means (not a put down as most could care less in today's time); however areas that those that agree to disagree can present a good argument pulling out the sand where our building topples (in the majors that we do agree upon).

For openers, Gal.4, "Things of this character have been spoken conveying (also) another meaning....." My ol' buddy Mr. Luther was close in his German rendering, and Mr. Chemnitz with others cleaned it up to where I shared their collective rendition.

Even Philo, the past master of allegory, called whate he found in this passage, not allegory, but in a spiritual sense. Keeping this brief only to give you a head's up that there is a necessary cleanup needed in the minors.

So, in Romans 9:6b ('For they are not all Israel which are of Israel') it is clear that those that are the children of promise are true Israel, whilst those that are the children of the flesh are not. It is also clear that the additional examples of Jacob and Esau are not to be taken literally but allegorically.

No allegory here either, ie, spiritual as in Gal.4:24.

Romans 9:10-13
And not only this; but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac; ( For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth; ) It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger. As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.​

"...Jacob have I agaped,..." Using the English structure of thoughts regarding the concept of "love," as compared to the Greek "agape," perverts this passage along with about hundreds of others. Already addressed this many times previously.

Paul is asserting that his fellow Israelites must be as (like) Isaac (children of promise) rather than like Ishmael (children of the flesh). Paul is not averring that Isaac was eternally saved and Ishmael was not. They allegorically represent the two covenants.

No allegory.

When Paul asks if God is unjust, he is asking if God is unjust to exclude the children of the flesh (those that pursue righteousness through the law) from being his children. In the very next chapter, Paul explicitly talks about this pursuit of righteousness:

Romans 10:1-4
Brethren, my heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved. For I bear them record that they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge. For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God. For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone that believeth.​

God has mercy on whomsoever he wishes - that is, God provides the mercy - Jesus Christ - and anyone who puts their faith in Him is adopted as a Son.

Paul's conclusion is telling (v.30-32). It confirms that God does not foreordain some to eternal life and others to eternal damnation.

Agreed!

Just ol' old Jack trying to dial in the minors

 

[janxharris]

Posting only for cleanups in the minors, ie, we agree pretty much in the majors, eg, you could care less what agape truly means (not a put down as most could care less in today's time); however areas that those that agree to disagree can present a good argument pulling out the sand where our building topples (in the majors that we do agree upon).

For openers, Gal.4, "Things of this character have been spoken conveying (also) another meaning....." My ol' buddy Mr. Luther was close in his German rendering, and Mr. Chemnitz with others cleaned it up to where I shared their collective rendition.

Even Philo, the past master of allegory, called whate he found in this passage, not allegory, but in a spiritual sense. Keeping this brief only to give you a head's up that there is a necessary cleanup needed in the minors.



No allegory here either, ie, spiritual as in Gal.4:24.



"...Jacob have I agaped,..." Using the English structure of thoughts regarding the concept of "love," as compared to the Greek "agape," perverts this passage along with about hundreds of others. Already addressed this many times previously.

Paul is asserting that his fellow Israelites must be as (like) Isaac (children of promise) rather than like Ishmael (children of the flesh). Paul is not averring that Isaac was eternally saved and Ishmael was not. They allegorically represent the two covenants.

No allegory.



Agreed!

Just ol' old Jack trying to dial in the minors

Sorry, but I don't understand you.

 

[shturt678]

Sorry, but I don't understand you.

Have to fault myself as have others around me that, at too many times, have to render over my views so lucid for others, ie, not that my views are all valid.

Let's let this one go as appreciate this thread, you and your words. Thank you again.

Just ol' old Jack your freind

 

[FreeGrace2]

I agree. God does NOT call the non-elect at all. I have said many times here that God leaves the non-elect alone. God doesn't even bother with them. The gospel goes right over their heads.

I was citing Calvin only to show that his "universal call" doctrine does not resemble the "general call" doctrine that modern Calvinists teach.

John Gill had it right. There is no universal call to all men to be saved. God calls only those who thirst.

There is no reasonable answer. God would not call those He has no intention of saving as modern Calvinists teach. And He would not call them to increase their condemnation as Calvin taught. Eternal damnation is eternal damnation.

I believe there is just one call; to mankind. Some respond, while others reject.

 

[janxharris]

I believe there is just one call; to mankind. Some respond, while others reject.

The Boxer has said that the elect are regenerated in the womb - so they are primed to be 'thirsty' for the gospel.

 

[Hammster]

The two parables are both about the unfaithful stewardship of the Jewish leaders. Both parables are against them. Btw, you also read things into the text that aren't there. The parable does NOT teach a "general call" of salvation to all men. It says that many are called and not that all are called. You have been conditioned to see things that aren't there.

Actually, I don't assume that. I've conceded the point for the sake of argument. Because the invitation went out through the kingdom, "many" could mean all, but it doesn't have to.

First, my statement "Let's call these too" was ad-libbing on my part. The servants clearly called some whom they were not authorized to invite. Explain why one who was not clothed properly was invited?

Thanks for admitting that you added to scripture to further your view. There's nowhere in the parable that says that, or that they invited some whom they weren't authorized to invite. The man was there for the same reason a lot of people are in church. He was looking for what God could give, not God himself. The fact that he wasn't clothed in the kings garments attests to that.

Second, Calvin himself did not teach that God calls all men to salvation. He said that God brings the gospel to them to further condemn them. In commenting on Jesus’s statement that many are called but few are chosen Calvin said,

[T]here is an universal call, by which God, through the external preaching of the word, invites all men alike, even those for whom he designs the call to be a savor of death, and the ground of a severer condemnation. Besides this there is a special call which, for the most part, God bestows on believers only, when by the internal illumination of the Spirit he causes the word preached to take deep root in their hearts. Sometimes, however, he communicates it also to those whom he enlightens only for a time, and whom afterwards, in just punishment for their ingratitude, he abandons and smites with greater blindness. Institutes 3.24.8

So Calvin did NOT teach that God calls all men to salvation as Calvinists erroneously teach.

All I've said is that a call (external) goes out. In other words, the preaching of the gospel.

Third, John Gill denied the "general call" doctrine. I know of no Calvinist who who accuses Gill of being a hyper-Calvinist. Gill taught that God calls only those who are thirsty to come.

Actually, there are some who have said that he leans towards hyper-Calvinism.

The Calvinist's "general call" doctrine is absurd and thoroughly contradictory!

No, it's not. And if you understood what Calvin said in his quote, you wouldn't make that statement.

 

[FreeGrace2]

The Boxer has said that the elect are regenerated in the womb - so they are primed to be 'thirst' for the gospel.

Interesting theory. Where does he get his "material"?

 

[Hammster]

I agree. God does NOT call the non-elect at all. I have said many times here that God leaves the non-elect alone. God doesn't even bother with them. The gospel goes right over their heads.

I was citing Calvin only to show that his "universal call" doctrine does not resemble the "general call" doctrine that modern Calvinists teach.

John Gill had it right. There is no universal call to all men to be saved. God calls only those who thirst.

There is no reasonable answer. God would not call those He has no intention of saving as modern Calvinists teach. And He would not call them to increase their condemnation as Calvin taught. Eternal damnation is eternal damnation.

General call = universal call.