Search results

I'll allow my comment on Rom 9 in the other thread suffice...

Well, its that 'package of promises' made to Israel, His elect nation, that is in question in this chapter. Paul is going through those promises to show that God's purposes in electing Israel will stand, and he shows how they will stand. He elected Israel to bring the messiah, to bring about...

So, those Jews who didn't shave their beard, in accordance with the law, didn't provide the proper response to that law? Those who tithed didn't provide the proper response? Ironic you say that because my view of sin and sinners seems to be far worse and deep than yours. Allow me to explain...

Ok, so the first phrase wasn't so much incorrect as it was incomplete in your estimation, right? So it is true, that from your perspective the law does reveal man's inability to attain righteousness by law through works, but in addition it reveals why they can't attain righteousness by law...

Thanks, maybe that's why it was ignored? ;)

So are you saying, Jacob, and his posterity, wasn't chosen for that purpose, or are you just saying that this context isn't ABOUT that choice? Because he starts this chapter referencing this very issue, "For I could wish that I myself were cursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my...

You are avoiding the question I asked you. Romans 9-11 is being discussed elsewhere. Do you believe God has sovereign control over the consequences of sin or the enabling power of his revelation or don't you? To say that total inability is merely an inherent or natural essence of sin doesn't...

I argued that the gospel was sent for the purpose of making an appeal or offer to all people...and you replied.. But after reading MacArthur's rebuke you write instead: You shifted the purpose of the gospel to being a 'conditional offer.' So, it is not 'only declarative' as you first stated...

I apologize. It sounded like you were denying that the gospel was an offer meant for all, and instead was only 'declarative.' Was I mistaken, because if you go back and read that post, that is precisely what you wrote. Maybe you meant it differently than it came across?

Chosen for what? To be effectually called and saved? Or to be used in the lineage of the Messiah, a "noble purpose" indeed? Surely you aren't suggesting that only those in Christ's lineage were saved throughout the OT are you? Yet, that is what is unique to these individuals being chosen for...

Oh, and what does Paul mean by 'God bound all men over to disobedience' if not His binding men over to their fallen sinful natures?

Ok, so do you believe sin and its consequences are beyond the reach of our sovereign God? That God could not enable men to respond with revelation even if He wanted to because sin is what it is and apparently the 'inherent essence' of sin is just too big for God to overcome, (unless he does so...

It doesn't fit the Calvinistic system imposed onto this text and thus the lenses with which you read it. The question is normally asked, "Is this corporate or individual?" Some insist this must be corporate only, or like you above, its about individuals only. I insist it is both. There are...

Listen, this is real simple. Either you believe God has the ability to control the consequences of sin and the enabling power of His revelation, or you don't. Is it your view that God could not help man's disability resulting from the fall? Or just that he chose NOT to help it? Likewise, is...

Consequences of sin. Punishment for sin. Try to stay on topic bro. We could discuss our views of sins origin, as I have some strong objections to the Calvinistic approach to that as well, but that isn't what we are addressing here.

The anticipated opponent of Paul's diatribe is not an "Arminian," far from it. It is a hardened Jew, one who has grown calloused to the revelation of God despite His 'holding out his hands to them all day long.' (Rm. 10:21), But God is now temporarily blinding the Jews from the clearly revealed...

Who ever said Esau was hardened before birth? Judicial hardening is NOT God's causing people to sin (surely one who is denying the divine design of total inability, wouldn't deny this). Judicial hardening is God using someone who is already in rebellion to accomplish a greater redemptive...

Please heed the rebuke from Phil Johnson/John MacArthur about this hyper-Calvinistic view of yours...didn't know if you saw that post. Read what he goes on to say about 'the rest' and my point will be made clear. The rest, are stumbling but not beyond recovery. The rest are hardened but...

no, no, no I'm seeing more and more how you view our system. No wonder you have rejected it. I would too if I thought what you did. In our system, the nature of man doesn't change until after he comes. He turns to have the veil removed. He is regenerated after he believes. He is forgiven...

And who, if not God, decides the reaping of what is sown? Who decides the consequences, the punishments, if not God? That is fine. But who 'wrote' the Law of sin, if not God? Who designed it to be where man could not please God due to the fall? Mother nature? Satan? Who? That is the same...