Calvinism, God's Mercy

[The Biblicist]

I trusted Christ as my Lord and Savior many years ago and I can safely say I am saved beyond a shadow of a doubt.

But I am not one of His elect. I am not an angel, I am not a Jew, I am not Jesus Christ. I cannot be elect.

I don't doubt your salvation SF. However, let me ask you a simple question. What would be so wrong to find out you were one of God's elect? Would you regard that as demeaning? How do you deal with Romans 8:32? Do you believe that Christ has only justified the Jews?

 

[Steadfast Fred]

I don't doubt your salvation SF. However, let me ask you a simple question. What would be so wrong to find out you were one of God's elect? Would you regard that as demeaning? How do you deal with Romans 8:32? Do you believe that Christ has only justified the Jews?

Romans 8:32 says nothing to indicate Gentiles are elect.

I like what Hamp says concerning Romans...

Part of the challenge of understanding Romans is to recognize that Paul is speaking to the believers in Rome who are both Jewish and Gentile (non-Jewish). We learn that from the way that he addresses his readers: “…the gospel of Christ … is the power of God to salvation for everyone who believes, for the Jew first and also for the Greek.” (Romans 1:16) “Jew and Greek” is a combination that he uses throughout the book, see for example Romans 2:9, 10; 10:12. Romans 2:17 Paul speaks specifically to the Jews “Indeed you are called a Jew, and rest on the law, and make your boast in God, (Romans 2:17) Paul then asks what advantage the Jew has (Rom 3:1) and he answers his question with “Much in every way! Chiefly because to them were committed the oracles of God.” (Rom 3:2) In chapter four Paul speaks of Abraham who was their father according to the flesh “…Abraham our father, as pertaining to the flesh… (Rom 4:1 KJV). Thus, Paul was essentially describing Abraham as: “our genetic (birth) father.” The NET Bible confirms that translation “Abraham, our ancestor according to the flesh” (Rom 4:1 NET) Finally, Paul bridges the apparent polemic between the Jews and Greeks of the Roman church with the following conclusion “For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek, for the same Lord over all is rich to all who call upon Him.” (Romans 10:12) Having seen that the book of Romans was written in large part to the elect, the Jews, (see also Acts 18:2 and Romans 16:3 concerning Roman Jews) as well as Gentiles, we can now see that the many uses of the word “elect” are not references to salvation, predestination etc. Rather they are reference to the Israelites (elected by God) “to whom pertain the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the service of God, and the promises; of whom are the fathers and from whom, according to the flesh, Christ came…” (Rom 9:4-5) Therefore, Paul’s question “Who shall bring a charge against God’s elect?” (Rom 8:33) is not Calvinistic (predestined to eternal life) but is a reference to the elect Jews (see above: 1 Chr 16:13, Ps 33:12, Ps 105:6, Ps 105:43, Ps 135:4, Isa 45:4, Isa 65:9, Isa 65:22). This concept is consistent throughout the book. Romans 9-11 is the great defense of Scripture, par excellence, that God has not cast away His people. Paul begins the section by showing how God began with Abraham and then chose Isaac over Ishmael, and then Jacob over Esau. Speaking of the two nations in Rebecca’s womb, Paul says: “for the children not yet being born, nor having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election [ekloge εκλογη] might stand, not of works but of Him who calls.” (Rom 9:11) The election has nothing to do with Calvinistic predestination but with God choosing Jacob rather than Esau to be the one who would receive the oracles of God etc.

 

[DHK]

Romans 8:32 says nothing to indicate Gentiles are elect.

I like what Hamp says concerning Romans...

Does Hamp know how to write without bias? Terms like predestination, election, etc. are in the Bible. But the word "Calvinist" is not. He can't write an article on election without ranting on Calvinism. I am not a Calvinist and can't read the article without seeing the vitriol against another group of believers which he despises.
If his article was objective he would be able to write it without any reference to the Calvinist position whatsoever. But he doesn't.

 

[The Biblicist]

Romans 8:32 says nothing to indicate Gentiles are elect.

I like what Hamp says concerning Romans...

I don't know what relationship you have with this man called "Hamp." However, his analysis of Romans is completely skewed.

For example Romans 1:18-3:23 is to prove there is NO DIFFERENCE between the Jew and the Gentile in regard to sin.

For example Romans 4 is to prove there is NO DIFFERENCE between the Jew and Gentile in regard to justification (Rom. 4:11).

In Christ there is neither Jew or Gentile.

Romans 8:32 is a real problem for Mr. Hamp. If you simply jerk it out of its context like he does then it is no problem. However, look at the pronouns and development of argument beginning verse 28 as it develops to verse 39. If you limit verse 32 to saved Jews alone then you must limit all of Romans 8:28-39 to saved Jews alone.

 

[savedbymercy]

sf


"

haireomai" in that verse does not mean elect

Yes it does, it means to take for oneself ! It also means to prefer , to choose !

The word is also in the middle voice, meaning that God chose for Himself, or He preferred for Himself.

The same voice and concept is in Eph 1:4

4According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:

The us here is the church, comprised of both jew and gentile !

Now back to that word chosen in 2 Thess 2:13, that same word is also used here

Phil 1:22

22But if I live in the flesh, this is the fruit of my labour: yet what I shall choose I wot not.

Heb 11:25

25 Choosing rather to suffer affliction with the people of God, than to enjoy the pleasures of sin for a season;

Now maybe you fail to understand that God electing and God choosing are one and the same !

 

[HeirofSalvation]

Sorry Steaver:

Apparently you wanted to simply extend a nice :1_grouphug: :love2: :flower: to our Calvinist brethren (something I would never do) you should know better by now. Instead, you brought out the more militant non-Cals.

One can believe there is election/predestination to salvation without being a Calvinist. It is not a slippery slope. I know I are one. There is some serious Scriptural gymnastics going on to deny that (whatever it implies) there is no such thing as individual election.

 

[Yeshua1]

Sorry Steaver:

Apparently you wanted to simply extend a nice :1_grouphug: :love2: :flower: to our Calvinist brethren (something I would never do) you should know better by now. Instead, you brought out the more militant non-Cals.

One can believe there is election/predestination to salvation without being a Calvinist. It is not a slippery slope. I know I are one. There is some serious Scriptural gymnastics going on to deny that (whatever it implies) there is no such thing as individual election.

except that Apostle paul saw the basis of Election on individuals chosen out and marked by God beforehand to receive salvation found by/in Christ, and that the new Covenant is based indivual salvation, not some kind of corporate election!

 

[steaver]

Sorry Steaver:

Apparently you wanted to simply extend a nice :1_grouphug: :love2: :flower: to our Calvinist brethren (something I would never do) you should know better by now. Instead, you brought out the more militant non-Cals.

One can believe there is election/predestination to salvation without being a Calvinist. It is not a slippery slope. I know I are one. There is some serious Scriptural gymnastics going on to deny that (whatever it implies) there is no such thing as individual election.

I have learned about many different views and doctrines throughout the years and some of them are understandable, I can see why they would believe something a certain way even though I believe they have not rightly divided the word of truth on the matter.

But this Hamp following is totally bizzar to say the least. I must say that this doctrine of Hamp's is one of the most egregious and deliberate attacks on the scripture that I have seen among those who are truly Christian. The only reason I can see for Hamp to develope this whackey doctrine is his hatred for calvinism. When you have scripture that is so plain and simple to read and understand that the Elect are all Christians there can be no other conclusion than what I have concluded about Hamp's motive.

One really has to go far out of their way to make some sort of defense for this pov Hamp holds. And I would say the only reason one would do so is because they hate calvinism. There is no other explanation. As one poster put it when I asked why this mattered in our CHristian walk, he answered, "so we can walk in Truth". In others words, there is no reason. It is a worthless pov to hold and is held for the sole purpose of fighting Calvin.

 

[webdog]

Can someone answer how you can admit to having more than one account here...and still not be banned for violating forum rules?

 

[DHK]

Can someone answer how you can admit to having more than one account here...and still not be banned for violating forum rules?

Can anyone answer why it is such an important issue for the average poster to harp on when it isn't the topic of this thread?

 

[webdog]

Can anyone answer why it is such an important issue for the average poster to harp on when it isn't the topic of this thread?

Why is it important that rules are enforced? Oh I don't know...maybe a moderator should? Is anarchy now the norm on this forum?

 

[DHK]

Why is it important that rules are enforced? Oh I don't know...maybe a moderator should? Is anarchy now the norm on this forum?

If you think a particular poster has broken a rule:
First, go that poster in private.
If you are not satisfied, contact a moderator.
If still not satisfied contact an administrator or the administration.

Whatever you do, what is your nefarious reason to bring this in the public and use up valuable bandwith in harping on something that really isn't your business in the first place.

 

[webdog]

If you think a particular poster has broken a rule:
First, go that poster in private.
If you are not satisfied, contact a moderator.
If still not satisfied contact an administrator or the administration.

Whatever you do, what is your nefarious reason to bring this in the public and use up valuable bandwith in harping on something that really isn't your business in the first place.

It was already part of this topic, I wasn't the one to bring it up here, and it was reported...and ignored like the norm. If no rule violation is ever anyones business, remove the report post option. I think its selective mooderating for DaChasers account to be closed for the same reason.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

It was already part of this topic, I wasn't the one to bring it up here, and it was reported...and ignored like the norm. If no rule violation is ever anyones business, remove the report post option. I think its selective mooderating for DaChasers account to be closed for the same reason.

Perhaps its is the "Iteration Process" they are employing :smilewinkgrin:....but anyway, why is it any of your business? do you have proof to totally back up your statements or are you just running your mouth again....as per usual.