All of creation is intended to glorify God. He will receive the glory. Whether through vessels of honor, or through dishonor. God is just even though He has set aside objects for His wrath to demonstrate His glory. Election is such a small piece to God's faithfulness and compassion to redeem man, that it is overtaught I think. I don't think Calvanists should be so proud as to capitalize on this small point to prove God's Almighty-ness. Further, although the points of Calvanism are Biblical, they misrepresent God's redemptive plan for mankind to prove that God is in fact God. Well, God gave us Christ instead of death, a death which we deserved in order to glorify God due to His right hand and His righteous requirements. That's my take. I'm an undergraduate Theology student at Criswell College.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Elect does not mean "saved at birth"
- Thread starter Dale-c
- Start date
Jarthur001
Active Member
Yes indeed I do..and this would be the point.webdog said:i believe providing Scripture was a reply.
You don't let Bible interpret Bible? Truly sad....
"
Do you have any idea what this means? You use this a lot, but most of the time you use at the wrong moment.
Scripture should be interpreted grammatically, contextually and historically. When people say let the Bible interpret the Bible, this is within the context. This means if you look inside the context of the passage you will find the right meaning. They say this so that people do not jump all over the Bible trying to explain it...just as you did.
In other words you do not interpret John with Job. You interpret John with John...in the same book. This is not to say one cannot gain insight from another book about the words used and the like. However, you cannot use another book to interpret the book you are looking at. There is history, subject matter, figures of speech, drama of the passage, the narrative and much more you must think of.
Please read a book on Bible study.
Last edited by a moderator:
"Elected" to blindness? As a nation? Then how come some accept Christ?Jarthur001 said:today?
why is the Jewish nation still blinded. The passage clearly tells us they are blinded. The passage is speaking of a nation..i agree. What is the nation blinded from?
2nd...
The passage tells us....
ELECTION....ding ding ding
I'm sure I'm missing your point. What is it?
skypair
I say correct.
Paul refers to an "Israel within an Israel" in Romans 9.
Further, verses 9-13 are very important with regard to this question. Showing how, before either son in the womb had a chance to choose right or wrong, God had already purposed their lives. Jacob I loved. But Esau I hated. These sons are also figurative to nations, although I am not sure if that is in the scope of Romans Chapter 9. If it is, then I'd say Jarthur has what he needs to prove his argument.
Jarthur001
Active Member
:BangHead: :BangHead: :BangHead: :BangHead:skypair said:
skip it
Jarthur001
Active Member
mmetts said:
I agree.
IMHO, the point of Romans 9 is not if it is a nation or a person. The point is election is of God and By God.
He elects who he wills.
Jarthur001
Active Member
ok...what is the subject of romans 9webdog said:
Jarthur001
Active Member
what is the jewish problem?webdog said:
Jarthur001
Active Member
webdog said:
You said something that does not make a bit of sense. Please help me understand. Teach me webdog
You said this was the meaning of romans 9...
Is this another joke, or did you mean this?
I'm asking....what is the jewish problem?
3 times in one line....so what is the jewish problem?
Jarthur001
Active Member
That is just what I thought.webdog said:
nothing
any time you get pinned down...you have nothing
oh well...maybe next time
Gow up James. Try acting like an adult...
The jewish problem is dealing with the fact that they believed Jesus is not the promised Messiah, or if He were, the promises of God to Israel have failed. Paul's letter dealt with this problem in chapters 9 - 11.
The jewish problem is dealing with the fact that they believed Jesus is not the promised Messiah, or if He were, the promises of God to Israel have failed. Paul's letter dealt with this problem in chapters 9 - 11.
Last edited by a moderator:
Jarthur001
Active Member
webdog said:
humm...
This is what you 1st said...
anyway...
I feel like Romans as a whole is addressed to Gentile believers as is evidenced by Paul’s statements to that effect in 1:5, 13-14 and the text you are talking about..11:13
It does touch on the Jewish state, but this is from the Gentile point of view and not the Jewish.
what is your support verse for this outline you give? In other words...your key verse of each chapter. and why again does chapter nine not include election,,,as far as how you see it?
Last edited by a moderator:
Jarthur001
Active Member
just to let you know...this would be close to my outline...
Romans 9
1) Paul’s speaks of Israel’s great privileges 1-5
2) grace of God’s Election 6-29
a. Election in Israel’s past 6-13
b. Election as seen over all 14-29
3) The Nation’s Rejection of the Messiah --- Legalism 30-33
Do you disagree?
Romans 9
1) Paul’s speaks of Israel’s great privileges 1-5
2) grace of God’s Election 6-29
a. Election in Israel’s past 6-13
b. Election as seen over all 14-29
3) The Nation’s Rejection of the Messiah --- Legalism 30-33
Do you disagree?
I don't think you can easily argue if Romans was for Jews or Gentiles. The diatribe style that Paul is a reference to Jews (Romans 2:17), but he is writing concerning the problem within the church of Rome of Gentile salvation. He spends Romans 1 & 2 with an assault against the Jews, brings them back their recognition in chapter 3 (and touches on these advantages later in 11 or 12) and by chapter 5 he is using the pronoun "we", feeling he has successfully reconciled the division in the church.
Romans 3:10-11 work nicely to illustrate the purpose of the letter, which is written for both Jews and Gentiles because there were both Jews and Gentiles in the Church at Rome. If you were to apply a historical setting to the book (which seems to be Jarthur's goal - a historical-grammatical interpretation), you'd see that there was a minority of Jews in the Church of Rome among a majority of Gentiles.
I came to Faith in Christ in a charismatic church before beginning theolgy studies at an SBTC college. When you interpret scripture iin a grammatical-historical way, you really allow for the best results. Sadly, some do not interpret this way and are really robbed of great riches within the Words of Our Lord and Savior. Needless to say, since I began work on my degree, I've reread the NT and it means something entirely different to me than Acts 2 & 9 and chapters 12-14 of 1st Corinthians (pray for the Charismatics and their doctrines of sensationalism and emotionalism).
Romans 3:10-11 work nicely to illustrate the purpose of the letter, which is written for both Jews and Gentiles because there were both Jews and Gentiles in the Church at Rome. If you were to apply a historical setting to the book (which seems to be Jarthur's goal - a historical-grammatical interpretation), you'd see that there was a minority of Jews in the Church of Rome among a majority of Gentiles.
I came to Faith in Christ in a charismatic church before beginning theolgy studies at an SBTC college. When you interpret scripture iin a grammatical-historical way, you really allow for the best results. Sadly, some do not interpret this way and are really robbed of great riches within the Words of Our Lord and Savior. Needless to say, since I began work on my degree, I've reread the NT and it means something entirely different to me than Acts 2 & 9 and chapters 12-14 of 1st Corinthians (pray for the Charismatics and their doctrines of sensationalism and emotionalism).