Romans 9 doesn't prove Calvinism; it proves the oppositie

[SovereignGrace]

Written to a church. Context matters.

 

[Reformed1689]

Ok, so it says whosoever will, great, who is it that will? None seek God.

 

[Reformed1689]

Written to a church. Context matters.

They dont' care about context. It destroys their humanistic viewpoint.

 

[AustinC]

Your right, I did not chose God. And your right, I did not do anything to earn salvation (that would be salvation by works)

But what you fail to comprehend is, I do not think those things are true either. I recommend instead of assuming you know what people believe. You actually ask them and get to know what they believe.

The biggest gripe I have with this argument on both sides. Is you have people who stereotype the other side. And attack based not on fact. But on what you thin, or what you assume.

There can be no honest. Biblical, brotherly conversation between two groups if this is how both sides are going to treat each other. Look how early you had a non calvinist calling me a calvinist. And you attacking me based on what you think I believe. And both of you are dead wrong.


Yet here you are so indoctrinated in your belief you can not even tell me what I believe, all you have done is give the calvinist argument word for word. No substance, Just tell the same argument and refuse to acknowledge what you say about others is wrong.

This is called a strawman argument my friend. The very argument you use against me can be used against yourself. It does not move the conversation forward. It does not help us understand each other. All it does it puts a wedge between us. And the two sides.

Let me give you a hint brother. Satan loves this, It falls right into his hand,, He uses it. And the world sees it.


Saving grace is offered to all mankind. God who is willing that non should perish, but that all should come to life. He sent his son, that whoever believes will never die, but is born again and this life is Called eternal.


God chose Israel. Jacob did not receive the inheritance. Yes he recieved the blessing But he recieved it because him and his mother plotted a plan to fool their father that he was Esau.

Yet Israel did, The moment Israel walked into Palestine and was given the land.

You need to read the whole story

You want to discuss the word. Let’s discuss the word. You want to act like a proud indoctrinated person who just argues the calvinist story and falsely accuse people. Then I will let you go in peace.

I have better things to do.

The above was a lot of nothing.
First, you misspoke. Jacob is Israel, therefore he received the Inheritance.
The circumstances of how show that Jacob is just as unrighteous as Esau. Therefore, Jacob receiving the inheritance is because God chose to be gracious to him and not to Esau. Read Hebrews 12 to see how God rejected Esau.

Saving grace is an action of God toward a person who does not merit such a kind action. It is not given to all mankind. If it were...then all mankind would, without a shadow of doubt, be eternally saved. God would chose to save them and extract them out of the slavery to sin and place them in servanthood to the King. But, God doesn't choose to save everyone. So, either God is unfair or, God is Sovereign and not obligated to save anyone, yet chooses some to save anyway. In the end salvation is always in God's hand, not in human hands. At some point you have to embrace this Biblical truth.

 

[Reformed1689]

then all mankind would, without a shadow of doubt, be eternally saved.

The key point the other side refuses to acknowledge.

 

[Van]

What part of "two nations" and "two peoples" do you have a hard time understanding?

I reject double predestination. I reject lack of free will. I reject regeneration occurring before justification, which is only accomplished by faith.

are you always argumentative like this? why can't you just ask a person what they believe and stop assuming

Choosing the older to serve the younger referred to the twins, not two peoples. For you to pretend not see that is revolting. Did you agree the election was conditional? Nope.

Stop pretending to find fault in others and look at your own back yard.

Which of the five points of the TULIP do you disavow?

Did Christ die as a ransom for all, or just the elect?

Do lost sinners have the innate ability to seek God and trust fully in Christ?

Does God choose individual for salvation because He credited their faith as righteousness.

 

[Van]

lol

Romans 9 is not about salvation.

Your the one sticking your foot in your mouth trying to make a prophetic saying about two nations mean the election of a kid. Thats really no different than a calvinist would say. They too believe Paul spoke of two kids. Not two nations..

You helping them and their belief, Not hurting them

Did I say the election of the twins was about salvation? Nope.
I said it was a conditional election, and you, despite all the huffing and puffing, have not directly answered that question.

 

[Van]

Stupidity abounds. Van do you even know what you are talking about? You are making absolutely no sense at all.

The Calvinists know the election of the twins demonstrates conditional election to fulfill God's purpose and plan, so they pathetically seek to change the subject.

 

[AustinC]

Choosing the older to serve the younger referred to the twins, not two peoples. For you to pretend not see that is revolting. Did you agree the election was conditional? Nope.

Stop pretending to find fault in others and look at your own back yard.

Which of the five points of the TULIP do you disavow?

Did Christ die as a ransom for all, or just the elect?

The elect

Do lost sinners have the innate ability to seek God and trust fully in Christ?

No, they are not lost, they are enslaved by sin, incapable of seeking. They need a Redeemer.

Does God choose individual for salvation because He credited their faith as righteousness.

No. This is Vanism, not taught in scripture. It has been shown wrong time after time at the BB in many topic threads. Van is the only human believing this falsehood.

God's choice is held to Himself alone. God chose to save and to give this individual the faith that justifies and proves their salvation.
Faith doesn't come before righteousness or before God chooses. Faith is the effect of God's choosing.

Van, this is a tired belief that only you hold, yet you keep trying to introduce it in various sundry ways. No one agrees with you.
(I now expect you to speak to an imaginary third person who doesn't exist in your response to me.)

 

[Reformed1689]

The Calvinists know the election of the twins demonstrates conditional election to fulfill God's purpose and plan, so they pathetically seek to change the subject.

How is that a conditional election? What was the condition?

 

[Van]

The elect
No, they are not lost, they are enslaved by sin, incapable of seeking. They need a Redeemer.
No. This is Vanism, not taught in scripture. It has been shown wrong time after time at the BB in many topic threads. Van is the only human believing this falsehood.
God's choice is held to Himself alone. God chose to save and to give this individual the faith that justifies and proves their salvation.
Faith doesn't come before righteousness or before God chooses. Faith is the effect of God's choosing.
Van, this is a tired belief that only you hold, yet you keep trying to introduce it in various sundry ways. No one agrees with you.
(I now expect you to speak to an imaginary third person who doesn't exist in your response to me.)

Folks my questions were directed at a person who denies being a Calvinist. This response from a Calvinist simply demonstrates the poster is a Calvinist. They advocate obviously false doctrine and claim it has been shown to be true in the unreferenced past. I kid you not...

 

[Van]

How is that a conditional election? What was the condition?

The endless question ploy by claiming if I choose the younger to serve the older, the election is not conditioned on who will be older and who will be younger.

 

[Reformed1689]

The endless question ploy by claiming if I choose the younger to serve the older, the election is not conditioned on who will be older and who will be younger.

Where does it say that the election was BECAUSE he was younger? That would be a conditional election, though it would still be the election of God's choice which is what unconditional election is actually about, but I don't see the text stating that do you?

 

[AustinC]

Folks my questions were directed at a person who denies being a Calvinist. This response from a Calvinist simply demonstrates the poster is a Calvinist. They advocate obviously false doctrine and claim it has been shown to be true in the unreferenced past. I kid you not...

Boom! And there you have it folks. Exactly as I predicted. The person above would not address the person directly, but would imagine he was talking to others and he would bring up an imaginary boogeyman who would act as his crutch to not review his own failed theology.
So, this post mimicks the poster and addresses others who most likely don't care...or they would post their own comments. But hey, when in Vanworld do as Van does...

 

[Revmitchell]

Folks my questions were directed at a person who denies being a Calvinist. This response from a Calvinist simply demonstrates the poster is a Calvinist. They advocate obviously false doctrine and claim it has been shown to be true in the unreferenced past. I kid you not...

Who do you think you are to label someone something by which they reject? Why is it your place to make sure such a label is attached to them?

 

[Eternally Grateful]

Who do you think the elect are?

What context?

Exactly, but who is the none referring to?

Does it really matter. Remember, take this is context of John Again, He did not say the elect

Right, he came for the whoever believes.

He came for all (the world) but only "whoever believes" will receive life.

Who said they are saved already? That's why God is patient so their salvation is sealed.

But does not Calvinism insist their salvation election was from the foundation of the earth. It should not matter them. Because as Calvinism teaches, It is not based on us believing, its based on God regenerating us and giving us the ability to believe.

In other words, For God so loved the elect that he gave his only son to give eternal life to them so they may believe.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

Ok, so it says whosoever will, great, who is it that will? None seek God.

Who is this directed to?

 

[Eternally Grateful]

The above was a lot of nothing.
First, you misspoke. Jacob is Israel, therefore he received the Inheritance.
The circumstances of how show that Jacob is just as unrighteous as Esau. Therefore, Jacob receiving the inheritance is because God chose to be gracious to him and not to Esau. Read Hebrews 12 to see how God rejected Esau.

Saving grace is an action of God toward a person who does not merit such a kind action. It is not given to all mankind. If it were...then all mankind would, without a shadow of doubt, be eternally saved. God would chose to save them and extract them out of the slavery to sin and place them in servanthood to the King. But, God doesn't choose to save everyone. So, either God is unfair or, God is Sovereign and not obligated to save anyone, yet chooses some to save anyway. In the end salvation is always in God's hand, not in human hands. At some point you have to embrace this Biblical truth.

lol.

You mispeak. Jacob never recieved the inheritance (the land of Canaan)

You also do not understand, Jacob NEVER bowed down to esau.

Genesis 32:4
And he commanded them, saying, “Speak thus to my lord Esau, ‘Thus your servant Jacob says: “I have dwelt with Laban and stayed there until now.


Jacob knew who was the lord and who was the servant,

You want to make it the kids. ITS NOT.. Its the familes.

 

[Reformed1689]

Who is this directed to?

Oh I don't remember, apparently it diden't save the quote.

 

[Reformed1689]

Does it really matter. Remember, take this is context of John Again, He did not say the elect

It absolutely matters.