Eph 1:5

James:

I was wrong. My mistake. I thought the comments were the conclusion of TexasSky and so authored by her. That is why I mentioned about the "he/she"

You have shown nothing to show I added to what anyone has said. Why do you make those accusations when there is no evidence to show that? It would be easy enough to quote my words to show were I to add to what another has said. Be honest about these things. My comments and disagreement of the words stand. I see no reason to retract anything I said about the comments. I don't care at all about your feelings regarding these things but if you want to deal with fact there could be some benefit. The comments as they are posted appear to be doubletalk and I have given reason why I say that. Feelings are not a test of fact.

By grace,
Bob Krajcik
Mansfield, Ohio

 

James, my words were followed by a question mark. A statement is followed by a period. I asked for clarification, that’s what the question mark was for, and you gave it. Perhaps I should have said, "So, You imagine salvation is based on a judicial act, man having done the right thing being the essential cause of salvation." You would have valid reason to say I added to what you said, for ending that with a period says one thing, but using a question mark as I did originally means something different. No, I did not add. Thank you for clearing this up, because I could not see why you thought I was adding to your words. If you understand I added, then you are welcomed to be wrong about that. No argument from me.

 

peace brother bob

often times words come across in the wrong way in this fourm. I know your views..i have read them many times..i should have known you meant nothing wrong by your reply.

see how long it takes ME to say i was wrong? many lines i type...yet..i must say..

I was wrong bob..

go with God...

In Christ...James

 

Say, no problem. I'll try to be more clear. I don't want to bring grief over this, just trying to understand. There are times I get going the wrong direction, and appreciate being turned about. There is enough grief in this world. Thanks again for clarifying and being gracious. If I would have worded better, in seeking clarification perhaps this wouldn't have been such a mess.

Thanks again for the gracious way you replied. I hope this is past...

 

Can we get this thread back on topic?

 

Way to Go Sal! Ya jumped right out of the fryin' pan into the fire!

 

To "TRUST" fully indicates a "WILL" that could also "mistrust

To belive also indicates a will that is capable of unbelief, which multiple scriputres deal expressly with


You didn't quite get the verse before it did you.
All of these verses are UNDER the arch of God's purpose and predestining will.

If it is in God's soveriegn will for those being written to, to believe, they WILL. So your point of not believing is pointless.

The redeemed. Those whom Christ Died For. His Sheep. The called out ones, the elect before time began the plan of redemtion was in place and the people chosen for that redemption was in place.

 

Way to Go Sal! Ya jumped right out of the fryin' pan into the fire! </font>[/QUOTE]Ooooooooo! I'm shaking in my boots and wringing my hands like a wet rag!

I'm not "afraid" of any frying pan the Calvinist has, I have the Authoritive Word of God and it's Author for my defense, (and my heat sheild).

Simply put, Calvinism only does one thing, create more Calvinists. Calvinists do not grow, they intermingle and eventually dry up and blow away, until some "new doctrine" comes along and they are duped into believing that one as well.

Read your Bible coupled with the Spirit of Promise

II Peter 3:9 </font>[/QUOTE]This post smacks of your lack of knowledge regarding church history.

 

Romans 9:11 though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad - in order that God's purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of his call -

3 As it is written, " Jacob I loved , but Esau I hated."

Do you not understand the PRINCIPLE of Paul's whole argument? God LOVED Jacob BEFORE he was born... This is the essence and purpose of the promise.

Jacob not ELECT? The word Love is in the indicative VERB. The same EXACT way it is used in the same context in Chapt 8. Those God "foreKNEW". It is not a NOUN of God seeing into the future but is showing He chose to enter into a RELATIONSHIP with those He foreLOVED.... And those he foreloved he PREDESTINED AND THOSE HE PREDESTINED HE CALLED AND THOSE HE CALLED HE JUSTIFIED AND GLORIFIED.

The LOVE of Jacob IS exegetically consistent with chapt 8. He "chose" Jacob and not Esau. This is the very definition of election.

 

FYI, I wasn't specificly talking about Calvin, and your post suggested that Calvinists just dry up and blow away. Historically this simply is not the case.

 

My definition came from the CONTEXT of the topic! The election was BEFORE the birth. This is stated IN THE TEXT! You decided to whither and dry up and run from the debated text not I.

Exegete and let the text say what is implied. Don't run from it. WHY was Jacob loved? So the PURPOSE of ELECTION might STAND! The very reason Paul used Jacob was an example of what was being defined which was the purpose of ELECTION! It is inherent IN THE TEXT.

 

Hello Salamander.

Romans 9:11 Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad--in order that God's purpose in election might stand: 12 not by works but by him who calls--she was told, "The older will serve the younger." 13 Just as it is written: "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated."

The passage above clearly says that in order that God's purpose might stand: What purpose? The purpose of election. Jacob God loved and Esau God hated. Why? To show us that it is nothing we do that causes us to be in Heaven or in Hell but God's choice.

Why do you not believe that Jacob is elect of God and Esau was not elect of God? It's explicit in the text.


john.