The U In The TULIP Doctrine

Tyndale,

I know what you mean. All Christians are the 'Israel of God.' You are right by what you said. [Galatians 6:16]

Ray

 

All Christians are not the Israel of God. I have posted abundant evidence that Gal 6:16 refers to two groups of people: those who walk by this rule and the Israel of God.

There are plenty of Jews outwardly and there will be since genetic Jews are necessary to fulfill the promises of God.

 

Pastor Larry,

Matthew Henry many times offers good spiritual interpretation, but not always. Being a Calvinist I think you might consider that you might be wrong and he is right.

Speaking of Galatians 6:16 he says,

‘These, He declares, shall be the portion of all the Israel of God, by whom He means all sincere Christians, whether Jews or Gentiles, all who are Israel indeed, who, though they may not be the natural, yet are become the spiritual seed of Abraham; these, being heirs of his faith, are also heirs together with him of the same promise, and consequently entitled to the peace and mercy here spoken of.'

Verse 15 indicates that nationality is unimportant to God; only ‘ . . . a new creation' is his commanding interest toward the lost. [II Cor. 5:17]

Everyone who has a saving faith in Jesus are ‘the Israel of God.' Note Romans 4:16.

‘As many as walk according to this rule . . . ' What rule is the Apostle Paul writing about? The rule that he is writing about is celebrating the Cross and the effects of the atonement, uplifting the most vital truth that Christ can make people ‘a new creation,' by believing and trusting in Jesus.

The New Century Version offers these ideas. 'The important thing is being the new people God has made. Peaceand mercy to those who follow this rule--and to all of God's people.'

Regards,

Ray

 

Pastor Larry,

I have prayed for you today that when you go to the pulpit that you will experience His power in preaching and a real sense of liberty. Guess I should pray for the listeners too, that the ears of their understanding will be opened.

Blessings,

Ray

 

I have cited from others, including FF Bruce (NIGTC) and Burton (ICC), neither of whom are friends of dispensationalism who show that there are indeed two groups of people being talked about here. I don't even read Matthew Henry much any more. He might be a good Calvinist, but he is not much of an exegete. Seriously, I find his writing to be cumbersome with very little help compared to the other stuff available.

I do appreciate your prayers yesterday. We had a good day.

 

Pastor Larry,

I received your post and message.

Ray

 

What tool does God use to regenerate man so that he may believe?

Does God desire that all be saved?
Are God's desires powerless?

What is the effect of the Word of God on the
"unelect"

As I scanned this thread I dont see much discussion on unconditional election - IF I remember the U aright.

Let me answer my own questions to be fair - testimony concerning God. God uses ALL testimony concerning Him to bring sinners unto repentance.

"The heavens declare.... " "The very rocks would speak...." Creation itself acts as a continous regenerative testimony of God. Not as effective as hearing a more detailed Word of God - which NEVER returns void
IF and WHEN election occurs it is Unconditional, but it has a specific purpose - Not to that of the individuals salvation - but to that of the individuals abiltity to reach the greatest number of people at a time. If God hant elected Paul the church would be slightly different.

God does desire that all be saved and He acts on His desires in His love for our and His desire for our love, by electing those who may serve Him.

God's desires are not powerless

It is the same as that of the elect - it is unto repentance unto salvation. To say otherwise is to imply that God damns people to Hell - because of their choices. But I sense you would then argue the L - which is the most offensive piece of hell-spawned doctrine that man ever wrote or spoke.

Limited Atonement - God cannot save everyone, because He has not the power - Christ's blood only goes so far - then the rest of humanity is out of luck. And every time a Christian sins he reduces the number of people who can be saved. Or that very same Christian only has limited blood, and limited grace.

God designed as us His children - We get to make our own choices - "Free" will. He gives to all the regenerative poultice of creation and a few miss out on the super duper a+ poultice of the Bible so that we may REGAIN the ability to choose Him. He gives this to all. He loves all. He can save all!

 

The blood Jesus Christ shed on the cross only went so far because God purposed it to. God's not trying and hoping and waiting for people to come to Him, but He's calling them to Him. God will do all His pleasure. I'm sorry you worship not such a God as mine.

By His grace, Christopher †

 

'Are God's desires powerless?'

God desires everyone to be saved, but has limited His sovereignty by allowing the human being the right to believe unto life or to remain in unbelief and continue to remain lost until the Great White Throne Judgment.

Eve was given the option to either obey God or to listen to the other voice in her head.

Satan was not 'strong-armed' to rebel against Almighty God, he did it by himself. His pride and his will [Isaiah 14:13,l4] In two short verses he asserts his WILL that was given to him by Almighty God. Only 'when iniquity was found in him' did God expel him from Heaven and down to our earthly domain.

Eve, Satan and all of humankind have been given by God, this most powerful entity called the will. God did not autocratically, ordain Eve to fall, Satan to fall from grace, and most of humankind to go to the reality of Hell. A person is the master of his or her destiny by reason of the use of his or her will.

God knows everything and knows who will use their will to rebel against Him and those who will use their will to be attatched forever with Christ and His Kingdom. On this basis He has already ordained the majority to Hell and the remnant to Heaven.

Eve, Satan and humanbeings have 'free agency.'

Dr. Berrian

 

Esau and Jacob were both saved people and presently live in Heaven. [Hebrews 11:20] Jacob an Esau are both listed in this Heroes of Faith chapter.

Study hard!

Respectfully,

Dr. Berrian

 

Tyndale,

In my opinion, which is only one man's view, Augustine and Calvin led a lot of people down the wrong theological path. Romans 9:13 has nothing to do with a autocratic, Lord selecting some for Heaven and the majority for Hell.

God sovereignly chose Jacob over Esau to be the chosen lineage that would lead to the birth of our Lord. Esau was not granted this privilege and God said that He hated Esau. Dr. Strong of the Concordance fame indicates that hated can be interpreted as ‘to love less.' One of the reasons why God chose Jacob was because Jacob married women of Israelite stock. Esau married pagan brides. It is true that Jacob had sexual relations with other maids but none of the women produced sons leading to the lineage and birth of Christ. God desired a pure race as to His own people and sovereignly knew this before their births--meaning Jacob and Esau. Isaac gave Jacob double of what Esau received because Jacob stole the inheritance. God blessed who He wanted to bless; thus, ‘Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honor and another to dishonor.'

If you look closely at the character of Jacob and Esau you will see that Jacob was the sinning saint more than Esau.

Hebrews 11:3-32 gives the list of the bonafide saints who entered Heaven. Sorry, Esau is listed among the children of God. Vs. 13 says, ‘These all died in faith . . . ' And as if to rubber stamp it again, for those who might miss it, God said in vs. 39 ‘And these all, having obtained a good report through faith . . . ' This view is confirmed by Dr. Merrill C. Tenney, Ph.D. from Harvard who wrote, Zondervan Pictorial Bible Dictionary on page 398 under Jacob's Background. Tenney's statement: ‘Jacob and Esau were children of faith, as was their father.' Don't believe quickly all the theology you have been taught; you have to study carefully to find His truth.

Check the Greek, KJV, or whatever and you will find that vs. 22 is purely hypothetical. That is why the Apostle Paul said, ‘What if God was willing to show His wrath, and to make His power known . . . . and that He might make known the riches of His grace . . . .' Only hypothetically could God have autocratically chosen some to Heaven and some to Hell. In His sovereignty He created in each of us a ‘free will' with which we decide our own election [II Peter 1:10].

God does not autocratically damn some and bless His chosen elect. Remember, ‘WHAT IF GOD WISHED TO SHOW HIS WRATH . . . ON THE VESSELS OF WRATH FITTED FOR DESTRUCTION . . . ‘ {could He not do this?} Hypothetically, He could but His standard of justice/fair play, if you will, and His goodness eternally, forbids Him from such an illogical and preposterous decision.

You made the statement to the effect that, 'This does not harmonize with unconditional election, because God hated Esau. Actually, nothing ever will harmonize with the error of unconditional election because it is a forced interpretation of the Word of the Living God.

Respectfully,

Dr. Berrian

 

You have been corrected on this before Ray. Esau was an immoral and godless person (Heb 12:16) who has not yet seen the Lord since "without holiness no one will see the Lord" (Heb 12:14).

Ephesians 5:5 For this you know with certainty, that no immoral or impure person or covetous man, who is an idolater, has an inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God.

Revelation 21:8 "But for the cowardly and unbelieving and abominable and murderers and immoral persons and sorcerers and idolaters and all liars, their part will be in the lake that burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death.

See also Gal 5:19-21; 1 Cor 6:9-10; and host of other verses the directly and explicitly refute your claim. As I have said before, you need to bring your views in line with Scripture.

 

Pastor Larry,

You have been corrected by someone greater than me, namely Dr. Merrill C. Tenney. He was Dean of the Graduate School of Theology--Wheaton College, Wheaton, Illinois.

And as to the ' . . . without holiness no man shall see the Lord,' I guess you are telling me that we are saved by our works and human efffort. I thought you were a Calvinist and a real protector of sovereign grace.

In Hebrews 12:17 Esau lost both his inheritance and Isaac's blessing. His endeavor to try to recapture these two realities ended in frustration on his part. He sought after the inheritance even with tears, but to no avail. This frustration led to tears as noted in Genesis 27:34 & 38. You can't just toss in a verse to try to prove a theology without looking at related chapters such as Genesis 27. I think you know, that all Scripture is supposed to dovetail by way of our understanding.

You try to patch up a sad theology by making those tears sorrow for his fornication. Are you telling me that God doesn't really forgive sins when we call of Him in prayer? According to your view, Esau was so stricken over his fornication that he had tears of repentance for his sin and God refused to forgive him. ' . . . he found no place of repentance.'

I don't hear you mention that both Jacob and Esau had maidens on the side. You will find, if you study, that Jacob had children from those maids. I think this qualifies for adultery. Perhaps, according to your view, Jacob might not have made it to Heaven either. Apparently, in this time era God allowed other partners beyond the wife of marriage.

Since you are trying to make human behavior the benchmark for entering Heaven, you might look closer and see that Esau was more like God than his younger, deceiving brother.

Respectfully,

Dr. Berrian

 

Interesting how you quote Tenney while I quote Paul. You offer absolutely no Scripture in support of your position while I give explicit Scripture that refutes your position. There is definitely something wrong here. You need to agree with God even if it puts you at odds with Tenney. I cannot imagine any reason why Tenney would make such a statement. I stand by what I said: You need to bring your theology in line with God’s revealed truth.

The scriptural evidence from God’s inspired word reveals the sinfulness and godlessness of Esau’s life. Unfortunately I do not have the work here that your reference to see his comments. The author of Hebrews warns the reader that no one will see the Lord without holiness and immediately enters an illustration of Esau, someone who in the words of the text “fell short of the grace of God.” The fact that you read this passage and still maintain that Esau was a believer is beyond the imagination.

You know better. The Scripture teaches that those who are saved are sanctified in their lives (1 Cor 6:11 – you were washed and sanctified – the same word that holiness comes from). You are reaching for straws with this accusation and it is disingenuous at best … dishonest may be more appropriate.

I said no such thing and you know it. Again, you are being dishonest. I have repeatedly said that those tears were over giving away his birthright. He sought to fix the problem, even crying over it but to no avail. It could not be reversed. There is no indication that Esau called on God for forgiveness of fornication. It explicitly said that the tears were in reference to his seeking the blessing.

Apparently you are unable to read the text as well as the previous posts on this topic. Those “maidens” were wives (Gen 30:4, 9). The text that you claim to follow clearly says that. Again, you need to bring your theology in line with the text. Adultery does not take place inside a marriage. It is only outside marriage that it does. Jacob is never held up as a model to be followed. It is never argued that he was perfect.

This is outright lying and deceit. It will not be tolerated. If you persist you will be suspended. You have read enough of my posts to know that I believe no such thing. It makes for a nice sensational argument but it has no basis in reality.

You have offered no Scripture to say that Esau was more like God than his younger brother. Furthermore, you have denied the explicit truth of Heb 12:16 that says that Esau was immoral and godless. God is neither immoral nor godless.

Apparently not since you have lied concerning my post and my position. I expect better from the people in this forum. Please cease this type of argumentation. I have no problem with dissent, even strong dissent. However there is absolutely no excuse for blatant misrepresentation of another person's position. I will neither do it nor tolerate it.

[ March 20, 2002, 08:50 PM: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]

 

Some observations on some of the arguments raised in this thread.

In Hebrews 12, the writer is addressing Christians when he warns them not to be "sexually immoral or godless like Esau". If Esau was an unsaved man, would it not be impossible for a Christian to be "godless like Esau" and the warning therefore unnecessary?

As for the Romans 9 quote, Paul quotes two OT passages in verses 12 and 13.

Verse 12 quotes Gen 25:23. The entire verse reads: And the Lord said to her: Two nations are in your womb, Two peoples shall be separated from your body; One people shall be stronger than the other, And the older shall serve the younger. This passage is clearly speaking of the nations, not the individuals. Even the last phrase "the older shall serve the younger" applies to the nations as Edom served Israel, but Esau was never a servant to Jacob.

Verse 13 is a quote from Malachi 1:2,3. In these verses God is addressing the nation of Israel and God speaks of the nation of Edom in verse 4. Clearly the reference to Jacob and Esau here is to the nations, not the individuals.

If you argue that Paul is using these quotes to speak of individual election then it seems you are arguing that Paul is using the verses differently from their original meaning. This seems like a HUGE hermeneutical problem to me.

Also, the concept of love/hate used Rom 9 does have a precedent for interpreting it other than in an absolute sense. For instance, Jesus said that those who follow him must hate their parents. Surely you interpret that statement with an acknowledgement of a literary device rather than pure literalness.

[ March 20, 2002, 10:39 PM: Message edited by: swaimj ]

 

Romans 9: [9] For this is the word of promise, At this time will I come, and Sara shall have a son. [10] And not only this; but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac; [11] (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 [12] It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger. [13] As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated. [14] What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid. [15] 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. [16] So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.

The story of Jacob and Esau illustrates the sovereignty of God over His creation. Election is unto salvation (2 Thess. 2:13). The perfect illustration of this is the story of Jacob and Esau. Jacob was chosen to be blessed, and Esau was not chosen. Christians are the Jacob in the illustration. We were chosen before the foundation of the world (Eph. 1:4) and blessed with all spiritual blessing in heavenly places (Eph. 1:3).

 

The Author of Hebrews (hereafter AH) is warning his readers against the possibility of falling away and showing themselves to never have been true believers (cf HEb 3:12ff; HEb 6; etc.). Therefore, it would be possible for someone who is in the church and professing faith to fall away into godlessness and thereby show themselves to have never been reconciled to God. There is, all through Scripture, a warning to believers to continue in the faith to make their calling and election sure (not to earn it or keep it).

No matter which way you cut it, it seems to me that Paul was talking about two individuals. After all, had Paul been talking about two nations, he had a very clear way to say that. However, I don't think that your position contributes anything to your side of the argument. Even if it is referring to nations, the point is still God sovereign control. Jacob and Esau are merely illustrations of the author's point.