Why do people think Romans 9 is about absolute individual predestination?

[ToBeLoved]

In the original language . . .
1 Timothy 2:4 ὃς πάντας ἀνθρώπους θέλει σωθῆναι καὶ εἰς ἐπίγνωσιν ἀληθείας ἐλθεῖν. (ORIGINAL)

πάντας is the word in the original language translate "all". Its base form is πάs. If you perform an Enlishman's search for the way the term is translated, you will find tha context is used by translators to translate it as "all" or "all manner/types of" or other options. Like "all" in the English language context determines the meaning.

That does not seem to be correct.

I'm looking at the Interlinear Greek for 1 Tim 2:4 here (see link) and it says this: Please note the underlined part it seems the word in Greek used specifically here for "ALL" is "PANTAS" which from the word 'PAS' seems to mean what it says, being "ALL"

1 Timothy 2 - Click for Chapter
4 3739 [e]
4 hos
4 ὃς
4 who
4 RelPro-NMS


3956 [e]
pantas
πάντας
all

Adj-AMP
444 [e]
anthrōpous
ἀνθρώπους
men
N-AMP
2309 [e]
thelei
θέλει
desires
V-PIA-3S
4982 [e]
sōthēnai
σωθῆναι ,
to be saved
V-ANP
2532 [e]
kai
καὶ
and
Conj
1519 [e]
eis
εἰς
to
Prep
1922 [e]
epignōsin
ἐπίγνωσιν
[the] knowledge
N-AFS
225 [e]
alētheias
ἀληθείας
of [the] truth
N-GFS
2064 [e]
elthein
ἐλθεῖν .
to come
V-ANA

 

[msortwell]

That does not seem to be correct.

I'm looking at the Interlinear Greek for 1 Tim 2:4 here (see link) and it says this: Please note the underlined part it seems the word in Greek used specifically here for "ALL" is "PANTAS" which from the word 'PAS' seems to mean what it says, being "ALL"

1 Timothy 2 - Click for Chapter
4 3739 [e]
4 hos
4 ὃς
4 who
4 RelPro-NMS


3956 [e]
pantas
πάντας
all

Adj-AMP
444 [e]
anthrōpous
ἀνθρώπους
men
N-AMP
2309 [e]
thelei
θέλει
desires
V-PIA-3S
4982 [e]
sōthēnai
σωθῆναι ,
to be saved
V-ANP
2532 [e]
kai
καὶ
and
Conj
1519 [e]
eis
εἰς
to
Prep
1922 [e]
epignōsin
ἐπίγνωσιν
[the] knowledge
N-AFS
225 [e]
alētheias
ἀληθείας
of [the] truth
N-GFS
2064 [e]
elthein
ἐλθεῖν .
to come
V-ANA

3956 πᾶς pas pas

including all the forms of declension; adj; TDNT-5:886,795; {See TDNT 604}

AV-all 748, all things 170, every 117, all men 41, whosoever 31, everyone 28, whole 12, all manner of 11, every man 11, no + 3756 9, every thing 7, any 7, whatsoever 6, whosoever + 3739 + 302 3, always + 1223 3, daily + 2250 2, any thing 2, no + 3361 2, not tr 7, misc 26; 1243

1) individually
1a) each, every, any, all, the whole, everyone, all things, everything
2) collectively
2a) some of all types

Spurgeon’s clarification on the meaning of “all.”

18. Now, beloved, when you hear anyone laughing or jeering at a limited atonement, you may tell him this. General atonement is like a great wide bridge with only half an arch; it does not go across the stream: it only professes to go half way; it does not secure the salvation of anyone. Now, I had rather put my foot upon a bridge as narrow as Hungerford, which went all the way across, than on a bridge that was as wide as the world, if it did not go all the way across the stream. I am told it is my duty to say that all men have been redeemed, and I am told that there is a Scriptural warrant for it — “Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.” Now, that looks like a very, very great argument indeed on the other side of the question. For instance, look here. “The whole world is gone after him.” Did all the world go after Christ? “Then all Judea went and were baptized by him in Jordan.” Was all Judea, or all Jerusalem baptized in Jordan? “You are of God, little children,” and “the whole world lies in the wicked one.” Does “the whole world” there mean everyone? If so, how was it, then, that there were some who were “of God?” The words “world” and “all” are used in some seven or eight senses in Scripture; and it is very rarely that “all” means all people, taken individually. The words are generally used to signify that Christ has redeemed some of all sorts — some Jews, some Gentiles, some rich, some poor, and has not restricted his redemption to either Jew or Gentile.

C. H. Spurgeon Sermon No. 181, New Park Pulpit, Vol. 4, p. 135,136. {See Spurgeon_Sermons No. 181, “Particular Redemption” 174 @@ "18."} {See GrkEng 2889}

 

[ToBeLoved]

Spurgeon’s clarification on the meaning of “all.”

18. Now, beloved, when you hear anyone laughing or jeering at a limited atonement, you may tell him this. General atonement is like a great wide bridge with only half an arch; it does not go across the stream: it only professes to go half way; it does not secure the salvation of anyone. Now, I had rather put my foot upon a bridge as narrow as Hungerford, which went all the way across, than on a bridge that was as wide as the world, if it did not go all the way across the stream. I am told it is my duty to say that all men have been redeemed, and I am told that there is a Scriptural warrant for it — “Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.” Now, that looks like a very, very great argument indeed on the other side of the question. For instance, look here. “The whole world is gone after him.” Did all the world go after Christ? “Then all Judea went and were baptized by him in Jordan.” Was all Judea, or all Jerusalem baptized in Jordan? “You are of God, little children,” and “the whole world lies in the wicked one.” Does “the whole world” there mean everyone? If so, how was it, then, that there were some who were “of God?” The words “world” and “all” are used in some seven or eight senses in Scripture; and it is very rarely that “all” means all people, taken individually. The words are generally used to signify that Christ has redeemed some of all sorts — some Jews, some Gentiles, some rich, some poor, and has not restricted his redemption to either Jew or Gentile.

C. H. Spurgeon Sermon No. 181, New Park Pulpit, Vol. 4, p. 135,136. {See Spurgeon_Sermons No. 181, “Particular Redemption” 174 @@ "18."} {See GrkEng 2889}

I don’t get how Spurgeon in this post references the same ‘all’ used in 1 Timothy?

Seems Spurgeon is talking about limited atonement. And atonement in general.

But how does this correlate back to Jesus wanting ALL to be saved?

Atonement is given to us by Christ when we are saved.

 

[msortwell]

I don’t get how Spurgeon in this post references the same ‘all’ used in 1 Timothy?

Seems Spurgeon is talking about limited atonement. And atonement in general.

But how does this correlate back to Jesus wanting ALL to be saved?

Atonement is given to us by Christ when we are saved.

Spurgeon is showing us how understanding the meaning of the term "all" (in the Greek pas) is not a simple task. He points out that this simple word can have one of several meanings, as its translation in the KJV shows.

AV-all 748, all things 170, every 117, all men 41, whosoever 31, everyone 28, whole 12, all manner of 11, every man 11, no + 3756 9, every thing 7, any 7, whatsoever 6, whosoever + 3739 + 302 3, always + 1223 3, daily + 2250 2, any thing 2, no + 3361 2, not tr 7, misc 26

Translators, and interpreters, must read the immediate and broader context and decide how "all/pas" is to be understood.

Is it hyperbole? - "All of the city went out to meet him."

Is it communicating a general truth? - "All (literally understood to man 'all types of') dogs have four legs.

Does it truly mean "all without exception"? - For all have sinned, and fall short . . .

In many, many cases, our theology developed from the broader context of Scripture must be used to help us to understand a particular use of all/pas. Rarely, is it safe to allow the use of the term all/pas in a single declaration formulate a foundational doctrinal position - it simply has too many possible meanings.

 

[ToBeLoved]

3956 πᾶς pas pas

including all the forms of declension; adj; TDNT-5:886,795; {See TDNT 604}

AV-all 748, all things 170, every 117, all men 41, whosoever 31, everyone 28, whole 12, all manner of 11, every man 11, no + 3756 9, every thing 7, any 7, whatsoever 6, whosoever + 3739 + 302 3, always + 1223 3, daily + 2250 2, any thing 2, no + 3361 2, not tr 7, misc 26; 1243

1) individually
1a) each, every, any, all, the whole, everyone, all things, everything
2) collectively
2a) some of all types

Spurgeon’s clarification on the meaning of “all.”

18. Now, beloved, when you hear anyone laughing or jeering at a limited atonement, you may tell him this. General atonement is like a great wide bridge with only half an arch; it does not go across the stream: it only professes to go half way; it does not secure the salvation of anyone. Now, I had rather put my foot upon a bridge as narrow as Hungerford, which went all the way across, than on a bridge that was as wide as the world, if it did not go all the way across the stream. I am told it is my duty to say that all men have been redeemed, and I am told that there is a Scriptural warrant for it — “Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.” Now, that looks like a very, very great argument indeed on the other side of the question. For instance, look here. “The whole world is gone after him.” Did all the world go after Christ? “Then all Judea went and were baptized by him in Jordan.” Was all Judea, or all Jerusalem baptized in Jordan? “You are of God, little children,” and “the whole world lies in the wicked one.” Does “the whole world” there mean everyone? If so, how was it, then, that there were some who were “of God?” The words “world” and “all” are used in some seven or eight senses in Scripture; and it is very rarely that “all” means all people, taken individually. The words are generally used to signify that Christ has redeemed some of all sorts — some Jews, some Gentiles, some rich, some poor, and has not restricted his redemption to either Jew or Gentile.

C. H. Spurgeon Sermon No. 181, New Park Pulpit, Vol. 4, p. 135,136. {See Spurgeon_Sermons No. 181, “Particular Redemption” 174 @@ "18."} {See GrkEng 2889}

The word is Pantas

Originated from Pas as it’s root but not Pas. Please see the Greek post again and review Spurgeon for “Pantas” not Pas

 

[msortwell]

The word is Pantas

Originated from Pas as it’s root but not Pas. Please see the Greek post again and review Spurgeon for “Pantas” not Pas

The term pantas is used because adjectives in biblical Greek are declined and for pas to refer to "men" (which is the direct object in the sentence, and therefore itself in the masculine-accusative-plural form) pas must be in its masculine-accusative-plural form; pantas - to correspond with anthropous (men, being used as the direct object in the sentence). Pantas vs Pas does not determine the meaning of the word. It only identifies the word in the sentence being modified by Pas.

 

[msortwell]

Please allow me to reiterate, the text of Romans 9 itself indicates that election and predestination is a matter of God choosing to save some individuals, while leaving others to their self wrought destruction.

Rom 9:12-15
It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger. As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.What shall we say then? Is thereunrighteousness with God? God forbid. For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.

(v. 15) τῷ γὰρ Μωσῇ λέγει Ἐλεήσω τῷ γὰρ Μωσῇ λέγει Ἐλεήσω ὃν ἂν ἐλεῶ καὶ οἰκτειρήσω ὃν ἂν οἰκτείρω ἐλεῶ καὶ οἰκτειρήσω ὃν ἂν οἰκτείρω

In verse 13, by referencing Esau and Jacob, Paul intimates that election/predestination is individualized. The point is reinforce in verse 15 which, in the Greek shows clearly (ὃν ἂν translated as "on whom" is singular) that God determines to have mercy and compassion on some individuals. He also hardens individuals . . .

Rom 9:18, Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.

ἄρα οὖν ὃν (whom, again - singular) θέλει ἐλεεῖ ὃν δὲ (and whom, again - singular) θέλει σκληρύνει[/QUOTE]

 

[BBAS 64]

Good Day, Timtam

For this is what the promise said: "About this time next year I will return and Sarah shall have a son." And not only so, but also when Rebecca had conceived children by one man, our forefather Isaac,
though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad--in order that God's purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of his call-- she was told, "The older will serve the younger." As it is written, "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated."


Pronoun They refers to whom...?

 

[roman2819]

Please allow me to reiterate, the text of Romans 9 itself indicates that election and predestination is a matter of God choosing to save some individuals, while leaving others to their self wrought destruction.

Rom 9:12-15
It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger. As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.What shall we say then? Is thereunrighteousness with God? God forbid. For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.

(v. 15) τῷ γὰρ Μωσῇ λέγει Ἐλεήσω τῷ γὰρ Μωσῇ λέγει Ἐλεήσω ὃν ἂν ἐλεῶ καὶ οἰκτειρήσω ὃν ἂν οἰκτείρω ἐλεῶ καὶ οἰκτειρήσω ὃν ἂν οἰκτείρω

In verse 13, by referencing Esau and Jacob, Paul intimates that election/predestination is individualized. The point is reinforce in verse 15 which, in the Greek shows clearly (ὃν ἂν translated as "on whom" is singular) that God determines to have mercy and compassion on some individuals. He also hardens individuals . . .

Rom 9:18, Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.

ἄρα οὖν ὃν (whom, again - singular) θέλει ἐλεεῖ ὃν δὲ (and whom, again - singular) θέλει σκληρύνει

[/QUOTE]

Good day @msortwell

I know you are refrring to singular tenses in book of Romans. How would you apply tense explanation to Ephesians: Chptr 2:11: Therefore, remember that formerly you who are Gentiles by birth and called “uncircumcised”

The word "Gentiles" (Ephesians 2:11) is clearly plural. I don't know if "you" is singular or plural, however, but I am guessing it should be plural.

Did Paul use tenses differently in Romans and Ephesians while mentioning "predestination"? Or did Paul refer to predestination of individuals in Romans, and to predestination of people (the Gentiles) in book of Ephesians?

 

[msortwell]

Good day @msortwell

I know you are refrring to singular tenses in book of Romans. How would you apply tense explanation to Ephesians: Chptr 2:11: Therefore, remember that formerly you who are Gentiles by birth and called “uncircumcised”

The word "Gentiles" (Ephesians 2:11) is clearly plural. I don't know if "you" is singular or plural, however, but I am guessing it should be plural.

Did Paul use tenses differently in Romans and Ephesians while mentioning "predestination"? Or did Paul refer to predestination of individuals in Romans, and to predestination of people (the Gentiles) in book of Ephesians?[/QUOTE]

In Romans he was writing on the topic OF election. In that context he explained plainly that election pertained to individuals. In Ephesians, by inspiration of the Spirit, and while expressly addressing the saints (each of whom would be of the elect) he could confidently state that the were all predestined to redemption and glory.

In Romans, it was important to identify that there were among the Jews, only SOME that were saints - only some that were of the elect.

 

[roman2819]

Good day @msortwell

I know you are refrring to singular tenses in book of Romans. How would you apply tense explanation to Ephesians: Chptr 2:11: Therefore, remember that formerly you who are Gentiles by birth and called “uncircumcised”

The word "Gentiles" (Ephesians 2:11) is clearly plural. I don't know if "you" is singular or plural, however, but I am guessing it should be plural.

Did Paul use tenses differently in Romans and Ephesians while mentioning "predestination"? Or did Paul refer to predestination of individuals in Romans, and to predestination of people (the Gentiles) in book of Ephesians?

In Romans he was writing on the topic OF election. In that context he explained plainly that election pertained to individuals. In Ephesians, by inspiration of the Spirit, and while expressly addressing the saints (each of whom would be of the elect) he could confidently state that the were all predestined to redemption and glory.

In Romans, it was important to identify that there were among the Jews, only SOME that were saints - only some that were of the elect.[/QUOTE]

I cannot agree with your explanation but of course, we can agree to disagree.

U see the word "elect" to mean God choose people on individual basis. But "elect" in the Scripture is a word of humility. At that time, even though people made a conscious choice to repent and turn to God, yet they humbly say that God chose them. In biblical times, it would be arrogant to say that they choose God; which would sound like they put themselves above God and choose Him. Instead they said the almighty and merciful God choose them. Today we don't speak this way anymore, hence many people fail to comprehend the spirit of the word "elect", and misinterpret it literally. Translated words from Greek to English does not tell us the spirit or context of the original words.

Back then, Christians and Jews were not he only ones who used humble terms when speaking about God. Many ancient eastern orthodox religions did too. This is something that we do not practice now; people today are less efferent and less fearful towards divine elements, compared to 1000 or 3000. years ago, and this is partly due to progress in science and technology. As people's attitude change, languages change too. Some of the ways we use God's name now, whether in movies or daily conversations, would be unthinkable or even considered heretic in biblical times.

 

[ToBeLoved]

Spurgeon is showing us how understanding the meaning of the term "all" (in the Greek pas) is not a simple task. He points out that this simple word can have one of several meanings, as its translation in the KJV shows.

AV-all 748, all things 170, every 117, all men 41, whosoever 31, everyone 28, whole 12, all manner of 11, every man 11, no + 3756 9, every thing 7, any 7, whatsoever 6, whosoever + 3739 + 302 3, always + 1223 3, daily + 2250 2, any thing 2, no + 3361 2, not tr 7, misc 26

Translators, and interpreters, must read the immediate and broader context and decide how "all/pas" is to be understood.

Is it hyperbole? - "All of the city went out to meet him."

Is it communicating a general truth? - "All (literally understood to man 'all types of') dogs have four legs.

Does it truly mean "all without exception"? - For all have sinned, and fall short . . .

In many, many cases, our theology developed from the broader context of Scripture must be used to help us to understand a particular use of all/pas. Rarely, is it safe to allow the use of the term all/pas in a single declaration formulate a foundational doctrinal position - it simply has too many possible meanings.

Why you are including like 6,000 scripture references when we are talking about one specific verse is beyond me.

You quote Spurgeon dealing with all the references ( and a word as common as ‘all’ to boot) instead of the one verse we are discussing and the context of all.

I feel like I’m in one of those Funhouse trailers with 50 mirrors or something.

Let’s stick to the one verse. No need to daze and confuse me. It’s the weekend.

 

[Albion]

When I read the OP, my first thought was that the questioner wanted to know why one verse should cause us to believe in predestination of the individual person, but that the question overlooks the fact that there are other verses in Scripture which teach individual predestination. So that may be why it was thought necessary to at least make the questioner aware that the one verse is not the "be-all and end-all" of evidence that supports this belief.

 

[msortwell]

Why you are including like 6,000 scripture references when we are talking about one specific verse is beyond me.

You quote Spurgeon dealing with all the references ( and a word as common as ‘all’ to boot) instead of the one verse we are discussing and the context of all.

I feel like I’m in one of those Funhouse trailers with 50 mirrors or something.

Let’s stick to the one verse. No need to daze and confuse me. It’s the weekend.

Extracting a single verse from the broader context of Scripture is fraught with peril. We understand the meaning of many terms by the way that the term is used elsewhere, first by the same author in the same work, next by that author in other works, then by other authors in scripture and how the word is used in extra biblical ancient writings.

With a word like pas this is particularly important because it can mean several different things - with significant theological implications.

At times it will be our broader theology that will "inform" what pas means in a particular application.

 

[BBAS 64]

I've always found it kind of odd how Calvinists hang their hat so to speak, so much on this verse.

Romans 9:22-24 - 22 What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, 23 in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory— 24 even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles?

So there is the verses we are talking about. But I don't see all that many places in the entire Bible that God has hardened many hearts. Yes, He has done it occasionally, with Pharoah, King Saul, possibly Judas and a few other times, but why Calvinists act like this is some regularly occuring theme is beyond me.

IMHO, the verses begin with "What if ...", which in my mind shows more of a hypothetical or something God does not do often.

I'd like Calvinists to say why they think these two words are in this verse and what they think it means

Good Day, TobeLoved

Which Reformed believer "hangs their hat" I would love to read such a hanging can you give me a name.

What if: Verse 22

It is a conjuction used to denote condition. ( whether, that, if,)

Verse 23 the so that is the same (conjuction) it is a chain of logical progression that definitively answers the question in verse 21, Has not?

Hope that helps,


In Him

Bill

 

[msortwell]

In Romans he was writing on the topic OF election. In that context he explained plainly that election pertained to individuals. In Ephesians, by inspiration of the Spirit, and while expressly addressing the saints (each of whom would be of the elect) he could confidently state that the were all predestined to redemption and glory.

In Romans, it was important to identify that there were among the Jews, only SOME that were saints - only some that were of the elect.

I cannot agree with your explanation but of course, we can agree to disagree.

U see the word "elect" to mean God choose people on individual basis. But "elect" in the Scripture is a word of humility. At that time, even though people made a conscious choice to repent and turn to God, yet they humbly say that God chose them. In biblical times, it would be arrogant to say that they choose God; which would sound like they put themselves above God and choose Him. Instead they said the almighty and merciful God choose them. Today we don't speak this way anymore, hence many people fail to comprehend the spirit of the word "elect", and misinterpret it literally. Translated words from Greek to English does not tell us the spirit or context of the original words.

Back then, Christians and Jews were not he only ones who used humble terms when speaking about God. Many ancient eastern orthodox religions did too. This is something that we do not practice now; people today are less efferent and less fearful towards divine elements, compared to 1000 or 3000. years ago, and this is partly due to progress in science and technology. As people's attitude change, languages change too. Some of the ways we use God's name now, whether in movies or daily conversations, would be unthinkable or even considered heretic in biblical times.[/QUOTE]

This notion that humility would drive the use of election in a theological lesson where personal choice is the theological reality seem absurd. Moreover, in the case wherein "tha God's purpose according to election" is used, it is in reference to historical third parties, not the author. Hunility would not seem to be in play.

 

[ToBeLoved]

Good Day, TobeLoved

Which Reformed believer "hangs their hat" I would love to read such a hanging can you give me a name.

What if: Verse 22

It is a conjuction used to denote condition. ( whether, that, if,)

Verse 23 the so that is the same (conjuction) it is a chain of logical progression that definitively answers the question in verse 21, Has not?

Hope that helps,


In Him

Bill

Irresistible grace.

They hang their hat on all who are CHOSEN by God, come to God eventually

 

[BBAS 64]

Irresistible grace.

They hang their hat on all who are CHOSEN by God, come to God eventually

Good day, ToBeLoved

Oh I see I thought you were talking about the construction and exergises of "what if" in Romans.

But you were not doing so.

That would not be the meaning the historic Doctrines of Grace... I think you have election mixed- up have created a big mess that is not accurate historical Christianity at all.

Spurgeon's Defense of Calvinism is a very good short read on the subject, it may assist in clearing it up a bit for you.

How we come, and why we come:

Well that would be John 6:

37 All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out. For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will but the will of him who sent me. And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day. For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day."

The Father Gives (Cause)
We come (Effect )
He (the Son) Raises up, and does not cast out, nor lose nothing ( result/ purpose)

In Him,

Bill

 

[roman2819]

I cannot agree with your explanation but of course, we can agree to disagree.

U see the word "elect" to mean God choose people on individual basis. But "elect" in the Scripture is a word of humility. At that time, even though people made a conscious choice to repent and turn to God, yet they humbly say that God chose them. In biblical times, it would be arrogant to say that they choose God; which would sound like they put themselves above God and choose Him. Instead they said the almighty and merciful God choose them. Today we don't speak this way anymore, hence many people fail to comprehend the spirit of the word "elect", and misinterpret it literally. Translated words from Greek to English does not tell us the spirit or context of the original words.

Back then, Christians and Jews were not he only ones who used humble terms when speaking about God. Many ancient eastern orthodox religions did too. This is something that we do not practice now; people today are less efferent and less fearful towards divine elements, compared to 1000 or 3000. years ago, and this is partly due to progress in science and technology. As people's attitude change, languages change too. Some of the ways we use God's name now, whether in movies or daily conversations, would be unthinkable or even considered heretic in biblical times.

This notion that humility would drive the use of election in a theological lesson where personal choice is the theological reality seem absurd. Moreover, in the case wherein "tha God's purpose according to election" is used, it is in reference to historical third parties, not the author. Hunility would not seem to be in play.[/QUOTE]

You can't use modern logic n English to figure

I cannot agree with your explanation but of course, we can agree to disagree.

U see the word "elect" to mean God choose people on individual basis. But "elect" in the Scripture is a word of humility. At that time, even though people made a conscious choice to repent and turn to God, yet they humbly say that God chose them. In biblical times, it would be arrogant to say that they choose God; which would sound like they put themselves above God and choose Him. Instead they said the almighty and merciful God choose them. Today we don't speak this way anymore, hence many people fail to comprehend the spirit of the word "elect", and misinterpret it literally. Translated words from Greek to English does not tell us the spirit or context of the original words.

Back then, Christians and Jews were not he only ones who used humble terms when speaking about God. Many ancient eastern orthodox religions did too. This is something that we do not practice now; people today are less efferent and less fearful towards divine elements, compared to 1000 or 3000. years ago, and this is partly due to progress in science and technology. As people's attitude change, languages change too. Some of the ways we use God's name now, whether in movies or daily conversations, would be unthinkable or even considered heretic in biblical times.

This notion that humility would drive the use of election in a theological lesson where personal choice is the theological reality seem absurd. Moreover, in the case wherein "tha God's purpose according to election" is used, it is in reference to historical third parties, not the author. Hunility would not seem to be in play.[/QUOTE]

Whether u understand or not, the spirit of words such as Elect as used in biblical times cannot be figured out from modern logic and language..

 

[ToBeLoved]

Good day, ToBeLoved

Oh I see I thought you were talking about the construction and exergises of "what if" in Romans.

But you were not doing so.

That would not be the meaning the historic Doctrines of Grace... I think you have election mixed- up have created a big mess that is not accurate historical Christianity at all.

Spurgeon's Defense of Calvinism is a very good short read on the subject, it may assist in clearing it up a bit for you.

How we come, and why we come:

Well that would be John 6:

37 All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out. For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will but the will of him who sent me. And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day. For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day."

The Father Gives (Cause)
We come (Effect )
He (the Son) Raises up, and does not cast out, nor lose nothing ( result/ purpose)

In Him,

Bill

I was only sharing a Calvinist doctrine they hang their hat on since you commented on my saying that.

I am well versed in Calvinism and have several books and participated in a lot of threads already.

But I might research Spurgeon s specific POV. Was he a 5 pt or a 4 pt Calvinist