A Very Simple Test - Rom. 9

[Skandelon]

It's not even in the same vein. You're desperate.

If determinists believed in the HUMAN RESPONSIBILITY of believers then this defense might actually help your case...

 

[kyredneck]

Oh, so you are saying the context surrounding that passage matters? And that we should look to other texts to help us understand the intent of the author? Funny how you are willing to do that with my proof text, but not your own.

Calvinists are notorious for negating man's responsibility in many of scriptures analogies. They do it with the need for the veil to be removed, they do it with the invitation of the wedding banquet, they do it with the hardening of the heart, they do it with the giving of a new heart, they do it with the concept of 'spiritual death.' Over and over Calvinists take these biblical analogies and strip the human responsibility out of them. They make (1) their disabled condition ultimately God's doing and (2) their ability to get out of their disabled condition dependent on God alone, leaving all in a hopeless condition and human response meaningless.

What a bunch hogwash diversion; NOTHING on that wild tangent of your's about 'Calvinists' even remotely pertains to me or the topic at hand.

Show exactly where I've ignored the context in Ro 9. Where?

 

[Skandelon]

Show exactly where I've ignored the context in Ro 9. Where?

I wouldn't say 'ignored,' I would say that you are willing to apply certain 'hermeneutical' considerations to one passage to fit your system, but not the other. Responsibility for a believer in the Calvinistic system is just a "predetermined" as the responsibility of a non-believer, so your rebuttal doesn't help you much.

 

[preacher4truth]

P4T, I don't expect you to actually "hear" this because you've clearly stopped even attempting to understand my post a long time ago...but for those who may be reading along.....

Pretend much? I clearly understand your errors and the above post exudes hauteur. We get your teaching, it's clearly erroneous and readily dismantled.

Do you need an audience skan? Any honest person can see that you're in error with your teaching and you're living in a dream world if you think otherwise.

Your post totally abused Scripture (disobeying 2 Timothy 2:15) as is typical and have completely wrested it from its proper context in a feeble attempt to make it fit into your errant view of the Gospel.

That you cannot accept the fact of you wresting Scripture out of context, which is glaringly apparent (as others have pointed out) then you are on a dangerous path.

You still don't get 'not of yourselves' as you unremittingly attempt post after post to prove man had something to do with his salvation.

 

[preacher4truth]

What a bunch hogwash diversion;

This is typical of his responses. Add to what is said, throw in a diversion, pretends he has won, pretends you've made a statement you haven't, tear Scripture from context, acts as if you just cannot understand his posts, and on and on and on.

 

[kyredneck]

If determinists believed in the HUMAN RESPONSIBILITY of believers then this defense might actually help your case...

I wouldn't say 'ignored,' I would say that you are willing to apply certain 'hermeneutical' considerations to one passage to fit your system, but not the other. Responsibility for a believer in the Calvinistic system is just a "predetermined" as the responsibility of a non-believer, so your rebuttal doesn't help you much.

Show me from Romans the human responsibility part that I'm missing. Where is it that Paul speaks your mind on human responsibility?

 

[kyredneck]

I mean like in Ro 9 man is presented as being TOTALLY passive, there IS no responsibility of man pictured there.

 

[Inspector Javert]

Hmm...when God said he hated Essau I think it's a cinch that the latter was most certainly unsaved

No.... That is not a justifiable conclusion. Not at all.
The Scriptures use that language comparatively.

It only sounds like that in your English translations. Not so with the Original languages in which the terms are used in a comparative sense.

 

[Skandelon]

Just so readers are aware, I've chosen to put Preacher4truth on my 'ignore' list because of the lack of substance typical in his post and his somewhat agitated approach. I can see that he has responded, but I can't see the content, that way I'm not tempted to join in the mud slinging, as I don't believe that helps anyone.

I'm sure he is a good guy in person, but sometimes forums like this bring out the worst in people causing them to say and do things they would never do in 'real life.' I hold no hard feelings toward him, but I simply choose not to engage in such meaningless and fruitless banter.

I'll repost this occasionally so readers will know why I'm not responding to his posts. If he happens to make a valid argument worthy of consideration that you'd like to see a response to, then please quote his post and ask for a reply and I'd be happy to oblige.

Thank you.

 

[Skandelon]

Show me from Romans the human responsibility part that I'm missing. Where is it that Paul speaks your mind on human responsibility?

But concerning Israel he says, "All day long I have held out my hands to a disobedient and obstinate people." Rm. 10:21

What then shall we say? That the Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained it, a righteousness that is by faith; 31 but Israel, who pursued a law of righteousness, has not attained it. 32 Why not? Because they pursued it not by faith but as if it were by works. They stumbled over the "stumbling stone." Rom 9:32ff

 

[preacher4truth]

Just so readers are aware, I've chosen to put Preacher4truth on my 'ignore' list because of the lack of substance typical in his post and his somewhat agitated approach. I can see that he has responded, but I can't see the content, that way I'm not tempted to join in the mud slinging, as I don't believe that helps anyone.

I'm sure he is a good guy in person, but sometimes forums like this bring out the worst in people causing them to say and do things they would never do in 'real life.' I hold no hard feelings toward him, but I simply choose not to engage in such meaningless and fruitless banter.

I'll repost this occasionally so readers will know why I'm not responding to his posts. If he happens to make a valid argument worthy of consideration that you'd like to see a response to, then please quote his post and ask for a reply and I'd be happy to oblige.

Thank you.

Now you're grandstanding.

I've made a completely valid argument showing how you misuse Scripture to support your erroneous teaching. Was that 'too harsh'? Such a practice needs to be rebuked and needs to be corrected as is Scriptural.

You've been called out by myself and others in this thread in the SAME manner for tearing Scripture out of context. You simply cannot answer my rebuttals and so you duck and run. And actually, I'd say the exact same things to you in person that I've said on BB and I'd do so nicely just as I have here.

 

[Skandelon]

But concerning Israel he says, "All day long I have held out my hands to a disobedient and obstinate people." Rm. 10:21

What then shall we say? That the Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained it, a righteousness that is by faith; 31 but Israel, who pursued a law of righteousness, has not attained it. 32 Why not? Because they pursued it not by faith but as if it were by works. They stumbled over the "stumbling stone." Rom 9:32ff

and...

12 For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile--the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him, 13 for, "Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved."

and...

11 Again I ask: Did they stumble so as to fall beyond recovery? Not at all! Rather, because of their transgression, salvation has come to the Gentiles to make Israel envious. 12 But if their transgression means riches for the world, and their loss means riches for the Gentiles, how much greater riches will their fullness bring! 13 I am talking to you Gentiles. Inasmuch as I am the apostle to the Gentiles, I make much of my ministry 14 in the hope that I may somehow arouse my own people to envy and save some of them.

and...

23 And if they do not persist in unbelief, they will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again.

 

[kyredneck]

But concerning Israel he says, "All day long I have held out my hands to a disobedient and obstinate people." Rm. 10:21

What then shall we say? That the Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained it, a righteousness that is by faith; 31 but Israel, who pursued a law of righteousness, has not attained it. 32 Why not? Because they pursued it not by faith but as if it were by works. They stumbled over the "stumbling stone." Rom 9:32ff

1 I say then, Did God cast off his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin.
2 God did not cast off his people which he foreknew..... Ro 11

29 For whom he foreknew, he also foreordained to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren:
30 and whom he foreordained, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified. Ro 8

 

[Skandelon]

1 I say then, Did God cast off his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin.
2 God did not cast off his people which he foreknew..... Ro 11

29 For whom he foreknew, he also foreordained to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren:
30 and whom he foreordained, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified. Ro 8

Yes, those are good ones too, but I would have included verse 28 in that last one... Thanks.

 

[kyredneck]

and...

12 For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile--the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him, 13 for, "Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved."

...vessels of mercy, which he afore prepared unto glory, even us, whom he also called, not from the Jews only, but also from the Gentiles

and...

11 Again I ask: Did they stumble so as to fall beyond recovery? Not at all! Rather, because of their transgression, salvation has come to the Gentiles to make Israel envious. 12 But if their transgression means riches for the world, and their loss means riches for the Gentiles, how much greater riches will their fullness bring! 13 I am talking to you Gentiles. Inasmuch as I am the apostle to the Gentiles, I make much of my ministry 14 in the hope that I may somehow arouse my own people to envy and save some of them.

"Save some of them"; do you take that to mean 'to cause some of them to go to heaven instead of hell'?

and...

23 And if they do not persist in unbelief, they will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again.

Grafted into what? What were they broken off from?

 

[Iconoclast]

You can not successfully use the "hardened Jew" to refute Scripture regarding God's purpose in Election. You attempted to use this same "hardened Jew" to refute the appropriate passages in the Gospel of John and failed. Give it up!

Hard to play a symphony with only one string on the instrument, and that string is broken:wavey:

 

[Skandelon]

Hard to play a symphony with only one string on the instrument, and that string is broken:wavey:

Yeah, ya'll are probably right.

What would a doctrine about God's active blinding of his elect nation so as to prevent them from seeing, hearing, understanding and turning to God for healing have to do with soteriology, the nature of man or election?

I'm sure I've just made a much ado about nothing. Go about your normal business of systematizing God into his little deterministic box, giving your pat one liners and congratulating yourselves for your latest debate forum "conquest." I won't bother you anymore with the facts.

 

[Skandelon]

The strongest points are most typically the ones ignored: "But concerning Israel he says, "All day long I have held out my hands to a disobedient and obstinate people." Rm. 10:21

 

[kyredneck]

Yeah, ya'll are probably right.

What would a doctrine about God's active blinding of his elect nation so as to prevent them from seeing, hearing, understanding and turning to God for healing have to do with soteriology, the nature of man or election?

I'm sure I've just made a much ado about nothing. Go about your normal business of systematizing God into his little deterministic box, giving your pat one liners and congratulating yourselves for your latest debate forum "conquest." I won't bother you anymore with the facts.

But Ro 9 is not about Jews only:

...vessels of mercy, which he afore prepared unto glory, even us, whom he also called, not from the Jews only, but also from the Gentiles

 

[Skandelon]

But Ro 9 is not about Jews only:

...vessels of mercy, which he afore prepared unto glory, even us, whom he also called, not from the Jews only, but also from the Gentiles

I never suggested it was. Pick up a commentary...a lot of us 'non-Calvinists' types have published too, believe it or not. I'm not trying to be mean, but you treat me as if this is MY doctrine and this is the first time you've happen to cross it. I may be wrong, but when you say things like this how else am I supposed to take it?