Decisional Regeneration Take 2

With all due respect sky, I haven't seen him be inconsistent with the Calvinistic view but affirm it, and that is fine and does not trouble me as much as your attitude of late.

He might fill up on 'Calvin Juice' but seem to fill up on 'vinger' lately. WHat happened to loving one another with meekness and humbleness of heart and forgiving one another as Christ has forgiven you. Just rethink how you have approached the boards of late and compare that with 5 months back and earlier. Your attitude is not the same my friend.

 

This often humors me when the "free-willer" brings this up. Somehow in their mind they see it better of God chooses a whole people/nation....and not a person.

This would also mean that God hated...or did not choose all the other nations, and this would be based on a region of land.

Please go to Malachi 1 and read it to see what I mean.

Also look for this word......"forever"

 

It is not fairness I look for James. I simply state what I see the scripture expound upon. Gods choosing is not based on fairness but His Sovereign decision to chose those who believe. It is not a fairness gospel but a gospel of grace and if God states it, who am I to argue?
Why should I say to the Potter, No you can't do that!

 

So you want us to believe that no one but the Jews were permitted to be among and counted as Gods people?

Any and all of the Nations COULD have come under the banner Israel and submitted to their God ordained Laws. But they chose not to, albeit some Gentiles did.

God did not choose them to hide on some remote island, and gave them His Law/Word to keep secret from the world. They were to share it but unfortunately for them they did not do it as they should.

 

Not i Allan,

Non Calvinist look at Romans 9 and say as Sky has above, that, as he put it "the Jacob-Essau statements" do not apply to individuals. Now this clearly is not the case if you read the whole chapter, because it talks about at least one individual that could not be taken as a nation. Beyond that, the very wording shows a mother and boys. Yes these boys became great nations, but they started with one boy. From that we added a few more boys, and more and more. Each step of the way their were people..individuals that made up the nation. If you remove the people...or the individuals..what do you have? Well...nothing if they are not a nation. If they are a nation, all that you have left is the land.


Which brings us to Malachi. Now again, it is not I that points to Malachi in order to change the meaning of Romans 9. But to some Malachi brings better understanding. They see God choosing a nation and not individuals. Yet what makes the nation but the people?

Malachi does give good insight to Romans 9. It tells us why God hated some. If you read the 1st few verses it is clear that the point is love of a choosen people.

 

Go back to the story of Esau -- see if you can find where God didn't bless him but hated him. Jacob STEALING the inheritance doesn't count.

Not on region, friend. Esau settled in a region but was still an intact family group among a race. But God did hate "peoples" -- look at the Philistines and Ai, etc. whom the Jews were commanded to slay to the last man! Or Sodom.

Yeah, I see what you mean. He still hates Esau. No doubt they will even yet come against Israel in these last days!

Your post regards an issue we dispute often --- "foreknowledge." You say "predetermined," I say "foresaw." Much hinges then on which interpretation of scriptureS is the correct one, doesn't it.

skypair

 

His "sola scriptura" thread seemed to move him away for a time toward the believer making a decision. Perhaps you weren't in on that one.

Actually, he's been like my wife lately, fussy and unforgiving.

And do you not think that the truth is rightly offensive at times? Yes, I have taken every opportunity I can to try to unify brethren. But such efforts are apparently beyond his capability to discuss -- things like sin nature and belief vs. faith and decisions (though he professes to have taken the path of "decisional salvation" himself, he denies others that choice, that "Way.").

And don't think I'm not offended by that though I never complain or whine about it. :saint:

skypair

 

Yes, it does. It speaks of Jacob and Esau as Nations NOT as individuals. Not in Mal and Not in Rom are they referenced as individuals. The very fact Paul quotes the OT passages of Jacob and Esau in which God Himself tell their mother "there are two Nations fighting within you" establishes it was two Nations being referenced in the two people. And Paul also states the direct OT passage "the elder shall serve the younger". This last passage PROVES even more conclusively it was not speaking of the individuals and even further removes the sense of salvation from the context because Esau NEVER was a servant of Jacob, but his children were.
They were not HATED (as in dispised or detested - regarding Rom 9) but in the same sense of 'prefering one above the other'. Or does scripture mispeak when it states regarding the same sense:

I can think of MANY people in scripture much more deserving of God's hated than Esau and yet we find that Esau is apparently the ONLY man in creation with whom God has a direct Hatred - (detesting or dispising of) BEFORE he ever did ANY good or evil.

But this speaks true to my position on Rom 9. Gods choosing a People or Nation unto Himself. Now - Does the fact they are His chosen People make them all saved. No, it does not because they are not chosen TO salvation (though they can be saved) but for His Purpose of bringing forth Gods Word and His Messiah.

 

Regardless of how 'others act toward us', we are to be consistant (or try to be) in how we act toward them. I had to step away from the BB for a few weeks because I was becoming what I at first detested on here amoung some. I might have to get off here again for a while Just so I can maintain a proper perspective, attitude and love. (not against anyone in particular but keep my focus on God and His word) I think you are seeing a 'fight' only where you are intending one many times. Do you think you can open any mans eyes to see truth? That is Gods domain and He alone has that power. That is why I simply try to use scripture for my arguement and let God (if the person will take time to consider it) do with it what He will. Sometimes what is written is not for the benfit of one one we are corrisponding with but those who come online to just read. Let God be God regarding each persons views - stand on the truth you know and speak it with meekness and humility - and the Lord shall be glorified as He sees fit in all matters.

 

{edit} by author. I actually had some words in response to your offensive statements about me, but I have decided to take it into no account and leave you to Christ and His rule over your life and not my words or rebuke. As such, I am through debating you. I made this decision before but saw a change in your attitude, and consented for a time to come back to conversation with you. I now regret that.

 

I don't mind the debate. I am not saying that man isn't brought by the sole work of God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit to repentance and faith in Christ. I am saying that man does not choose God from a state of unregenerancy and so procure for Himself the new birth. It is not the action of a man of himself to cause Himself by the grace of God to be born again. But, God begets for Himself children through the use of means, the preaching of the Word of God, and so man repents and believes.

Seed, and not seeds. THAT seed is Christ. Gal 3:16. This same promise, that all families of the earth would be blessed in Christ Jesus, was made to Abraham, confimed to Isaac, and to Israel (Jacob). "Which covenant he made with Abraham, and his oath unto Isaac; And confirmed the same unto Jacob for a law, and to Israel for an everlasting covenant: Saying, Unto thee will I give the land of Canaan, the lot of your inheritance:" Psalm 105: 9-11. But Abraham looked for a city whose builder and maker is God. The land, physically speaking, was a type and shadow, and Abraham understood this.

I agree with what your saying here according to the flesh. It is true. But the natural seed is not counted as heirs of the promise. It is in "Isaac shall they seed be called" not they which are the children of the flesh (national Israel) these ARE NOT the children of God, but the children of the promise are--who are the believers in Jesus Christ.

Again, while you are correct acording to the flesh, the greater truth here is according to the promise in Christ.

I have somewhat been introduced to this idea before, and find it most odd. God's purpose is not to salvation in this passage when Christ, the Son of God, is at the heart of it by Covenant promise? This "nation" reasoning makes no sense to me.

The Covenant People of God is in view in this passage through the promise made to the fathers, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. This Covenant People is called by God of Jews and Gentiles. I think brother, your reasoning is refuted in a sentence:

"Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?" Romans 9:24

 

I pitty your wife sir! If I ever say anything about my wife, I pray that it is not a negative thing, but one which would lift her.
Have you ever thought about looking in the mirror as to why your wife may be acting as she has? :tonofbricks:

 

Reformed,

Please consider this if you will.

There are a small handful, on this board, I have come to realize only post in order to cause stiff. To them there is no debate in them unless they can add a dig. However, this is not found in 90% of this board.

I have fallen into their trap before. Maybe its because I do not post as much as I use to post, but for whatever reason, in the last few months, I have managed to stay out of debates when they turn ugly.

Now watch me get right in the middle of the mix tonight.

I wish you to keep posting no matter how rude others become. Many will try their best to run you off, or limit your post. But don’t fear them, if you stand for the truth. They will win if they stop you.

Keep posting no matter what names they call you or lies they tell. No matter how much they misrepresent you, say of focus and post the truth. To take from a moive…”they can’t handly the truth”…therefore their actions.


Till He comes....

 

Good advice Jarth, I will take it under serious consideration. Perhaps I can repond to what isn't personal attacks and so contend earnestly for the faith. I don't want to become quarellsome.

 

You are obviously mistaken.

Like the other comment, I feel sorry for your wife. You should defend her honor and protect her good name, instead you expose her weakness and bring shame to your glory and the name of Jesus.

The truth is offensive, as most clearly evidenced by your vehement attacks on it. You have not worked to unify the brethren, but have become a source of division of them. By your comments to others about me seeks to divided one brother from another, which thing the Lord hates and is an abomination to Him. Given that I have written against any such DR type theology, I will consider your accusation that I am professing it (if I understand your meaning here) a gross misrepresentation of my views.

You ought to be ashamed of giving offense as you do. Yet you persist in arrogance.

 

Unfortunately the context as well as the consistancy of context speaks (IMO) to the contrary, especially in light of verse 8 which identifies who 'the seed' is referring to:

Decendants = seed.

The very verses BEFORE (in 4, 5) speak of the Purpose God has for Israel from His Word to the Coming Messiah. The verse 1-3 speak of Israel from the very beginning in the National sense. Context

Verse 7 explains that not all of Abrahams children (children of the flesh) are children of God because Abrahams FIRST son was Ishmael, but God declared that it was not through Ishmael (through whom the promise SHOULD or Normally had come through) but IN Issac shall thy seed (children of Promise) be called:

'The Seed' Christ paralles 'the seed' from Issac. How? Just as the people of God (in a nationalistic sense) will come from the son of promise, so to will the Son of Promise bring forth a People (in the Salvic sence). Both are both with the purpose of bringing forth a people of and unto God.

Also chapters 9-11 of Romans is about Israel (past, present future) and the Gentiles (present and future)
Ch 9 is about Israels History
Ch 10 is about Israls present situation of being set aside for the Gentiles
Ch 11 is about both the Gentiles and Israels future.

Note that contextually this is true as you read them. To begin dicing it up to pre-formulated thoughts makes the reading of Romans jumpy and disoriented.

It is not saying THEY are the children of God because of blood line. They were chosen BY God to fulfil and bring about His purpose. Verses 4 and 5 establish the promises it is speaking of.

Remember the purpose (in context) is about choosing 'whom' He will/desires to bring about His purposed plan in bringing forth Him a people (His Chosen Nation [Israel] ), His written Word (Pentateuch), and a living Savior.

SIDE NOTE:
There are those who Calvinists I have run into who feel this chapter is dealing with both Groups and Individuals. However if it did deal with both group and individaul, we have the scriptures flip/flopping around like a fish. In one instance you have group, then individuals, then group, - oops - no that should be individuals, and then back to group.
OK BACK AGIAN -

The context is set, and the imagry is ALREADY established as the individuals are representives of their Peoples and this is from the beginning of the chapter and continues on through. Romans 9 Deals with Israels Past, Romans 10 is Israels present (during that Time period) and Gentiles (us), and Romans 11 deals with Israels future and with us and Israel together.

Just compare what I showed to the scripture and see if it does not bear out what I stated. That is all. I know you have another view, but if you do not seriously look at a view OUTSIDE your own theological frame work - HOW my friend, will you be able to see what they are saying until you take of first the glasses you placed on yourself to see no other way but that one??
Is that not the marks of a teachable spirit?

Notice I didn't say put away your understanding and follow blindly. But how will one see unless they have a teachable heart? That means TO ME - I must not use my theology to as the test of truth or error but the scritpure being presented in context of itself FIRST.

I personally believe that though theology is great and helps us become established, but we sometimes make our theology the Word and lean on it more so than the True Word. (not that I'm claiming this of you - just in general) So when others ask us to see what they are saying, our first responce is pre-conditioned to our theological constructs and not always exigetical to the scripture. IMO of course.

Technically it does not matter what I think the scripture says but what the scripture in context and according to its content is saying. In Romans 9 it IS speaking to the whole and NOT individuals, especially when you follow the consistant imagry set forth by Paul. Now if you do not GO BACK (to the OT) and look up what was actaully said and therefore the context in which Paul is using it (via the Holy Ghost who wrote both Testaments) you can make it say whatever you would like.

But I showed where it is speaking expressly of Nations and but another example is the use of Moses since some say He could not be seen in as regarding a Nation. Lets take the dispute back to Ex 33 and get the context of

Just a hint though, Israel got caught in Idolatry (golden calf) and God threatened to consume them if they did not put the ornaments of Idolatry away. God was so mad in fact that He threatened Moses with this:

That set Moses up right I bet after all he went through. Kill everyone and start all over with Moses. But God had mercy and Chapter 33 speaks to the mercy BEING TOWARD A NATION. That is the context. But don't take my word - I'm an idiot most times.
Let God be true and Allan a liar - That is the motto I use in my Bible Study Classes and Preaching.

It is not about salvaiton but about God electing a Nation for/to His purpose. That is what the scripture shows in context NOT eternal salvation of which (I agree would and MUST) deal specifically with individuals.

 

Good point an glad you brought it up, brother.

First, I never stated salvation is not talked about at all, I stated it was not the context of the afore mentioned verses.

Remember, as I stated in a previous post - this in concerning Differing Nations or groups of People. Just as Moses represented Israel and Pharoah, Egypt. It was speaking of God choosing a people and passing over others.

Then vs 19 - Why does God fault, who can resist His will?
Fault with what?
We see previously that God used Pharoah to show forth His power that His name might be proclaim in all the earth. How will that Happen? By Israel leaving there in Power of God and conquering other great Nations in the Power of God. We know this is what happened according to the OT.

So the question is phrased from those whom God used to show forth His power and who His chosen People were. Remember Paul is giving an historical account thus far.
God, why do you find fault - Not individually but against a People. WHo resists His will or purpose.
IOW- Why harden us and then judge us for the sake of your glory, who can go against your purpose or will.

In essense God is stating the Pagan world understood that if God wanted to do something there was nothing that could stop God (unless it be another God - but WE know better ) So why do WHAT He did the WAY He did it?

Answer:

Oh man, who are you to question God? Shall that which is made say to the potter "why did you make me like this".

First - Again remember this is refering to a Nation or group of people not individuals.
The "man" spoken of, depending on context CAN mean single person, OR mankind in the plural form. Since scripture is speaking in a National or group sense it is used in the plural to be "mankind"; something distinct from God.

Why did you make me like this?
Much like Pharoah the representitive of Egypt who was 'raised up' or allowed to come into being (with God KNOWING what they would choose to do and be), we see them questioning God for making them KNOWING the way they are, and not in a way they would have choosen so they could be used of God to in a positive sense. And in God doing so, they complain He still finds fault with them doing just what He knew they would.
However, It's not about salvation but how they are used for Gods purposes to establish and bring forth His plan into being.
(remember earlier, in the national sense, [it is] not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy) And that is the answer God replies back.

Can the Potter not make the vessels in line with His choosing, to be used for His purpose. One unto Honor (Chosen By God for His purpose - Israel) and another to dishonor (rejected by God for His purpose - all others being the Gentile World). Note the vessels HERE are in the singlar.

The Gods plan is more than a one moment thing as Paul speaks to "if God endured" (carried along) with great patience the vessels of wrath fitted (completely worthy or made worthy) to destruction.
Here is a very odd thing. God carries these rebellious people along (allows them to be) until they are have completely rendered themselves absolutely and completely worthy of destruction. He made them knowing what they WILL do but God "raised them up" for a purpose as well - Just as He will show forth His glory in Israel, He will do the same in them.
This played out in the next verse:

Now the temporal sense is in view but that doesn't negate the eternal which is implied in both cases regarding God glorifying Himself in both vessels. But again here it's not salvation but speaking specifically to the purpose of God concerning Israel. We see this is STILL the view as we continue.

Now taken by itself, you would almost have a case. However verse 23 and 24 are actually ONE Sentence. So let us place them together and see what it states more plainly:
Rom 9:23 & 24 -

Now WHO is the "us" in this portion?
It's the vessels of mercy as stated consistantly above, is Israel. Paul is speaking as a Jew NOT a Christian and you see that in the context. "even us (Israel) whom He called, NOT THE JEWS ONLY but the Gentiles. This calling still has to do with Israel as a Nation in the past NOT present. We KNOW in the OT that God called to the gentiles also.ie. Ninivah, Babylon and others. Scripture even states in the later times Egypt will be one of Gods people.
Anyway as we keep going you see this is still in a national sense of God dealing with the Nation. Look and see:

The prophesy:

Who are those NOT His People in the Prophesy here; Look:

Also reference by God is the wife issue:

This is without a doubt about Israel in a National sense and NOT NT believers.

 

RB :
Much of this I have spoke of in other threads. And what is below is basically a cut and paste so you can see where I am coming from.
That said
Here is the beginning of of Chapter 9 after Paul laments Israel and back to the original verse 9 I began on:

Here we see of whom Paul will be addressing, his brethren and kinsman according to the flesh. In Other Words - Israelites. We know this because the next verse declares this to be the case.

Now why didn't Paul say Jews?? Because he is about to expound on the history of Israel and it does not concern only Jews by blood who are Israelites. ALL Israelites pertain to the adoption, glory (honor), the convenants, the giving of the Law, service of or for God, and His promises. (and in verse 5 - the giving of Christ in the flesh - through THAT NATION)

All of these things are to the NATION (the people of, and those who left their peoples [Gentiles] and came to be among the Jews) and it was through the NATION these things came forth. Go back and look to whom the promises spoken of here are to in verse 4 and 5, NOT an individual but to a Nation of people whom God hath called out and chosen to Himself. Even the promise of the Messiah was a promise to come through the line or lineage of Abraham, Isaac, and of Jacob (meaning of their desendents or people - thus it is called a Nation)

Paul is not speaking spiritually or allegorically here because context does not show him doing so. He is literally addressing the fact that some Jews or even Gentiles CAN refute that everyone who makes up Israel is NOT of Israeli desent. We KNOW scripturally that Gentiles came to be of Israel and a couple are even in the lineage of Jesus Himself. Not all Israel are OF Israel.

Knowing that Israel is the line of decent from Abraham, Paul also address the fact that not all of Abraham's seed or decendants are Israel either. But only the children of promise who bring forth His Chosen People or Nation.
Which brings us directly to the point I began exegeting the passage in its context where it speaks concerning the History of Israel through its designated heads as representitors of the people through which God used them to bring to pass the elected purposes He set forth upon men. The people whom God chose were the purveyors of His promise to bring forth a people (Nation), show forth His glory, bring forth the Law, and the Savior. It starts with Israel, speak of Israel in the middle and concludes with Isreal (in chapter 9 of which we are addressing)
I discussed this more in post # 158

And so begins the account of Israels history...

Chapter 9 IS about Gods Sovereignty but it is not about Gods soveriegnty in salvation but whom He will choose to do any and all His purposes as He decrees. Though Salvation is apart of His purposes through which the scope of His plan is revealed, it is not the main point being brough forth by Paul.

God will chose whom He will, to use as He chooses, for the fulfillment of His Purpose that His Plan may bring forth all things to His good pleasure.