Freewill bites the dust

You are grasping for straws but none avail you.
All concerning the nation not individuals. Remember they are all bound over yet we KNOW there were thousands of Jews who were saved after the resurrection and thousands more throughout the centuries. However as a nation they do not recongnize Jesus and therefore it will be desolate or in ruin until that day comes. Context man, keep it in context.

I do not see where I placed a 'their' in anything??
I understand, but you keeping sliding on your own thin ice. The sin they are bound over to AS A NATION and not individuals is rejection of Jesus as their Messiah. It is for THAT reason the promise is extended toward the gentiles and yet God will not leave Israel without hope for He will bring them back unto Himself.

 

Somebodies house was left desolate wasn't it? Whose house was left desolate Allan? Whose great grandchildren and their off spring was cut off, no one's?

and then verse 32 speaking of Him having bound them over to their disobedience... Post #239.

john

 

so then no should have EVER been saved after the resurrection of Jesus since the Jews were now cut off from salvation. Right?

So then how come there have been hundreds of thousands if not millions of Jews who have believed over the last 2000 years? Granted in that kind of time span it is not much but such is the remnant which God saves till that time and hour where He will bring them back.

Oh, that was actually still part of the quote from Jamison-Faust. How the sentence structure still supports in context the 'their' they placed within it.

Scripture has multiple examples of God turning people over to the disobedience and rejection of truth. This is the same in relation to the whole of Gods words also.

 

Allan.

My question was: Somebodies house was left desolate wasn't it? Whose house was left desolate Allan? Whose great grandchildren and their off spring was cut off, no one's?

Answer my question please.

RO 9:6 It is not as though God's word had failed. For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel. (There's a clue there.)

You used it. Adding 'their' to the scripture implies a giving over as you are trying to and it changes the meaning. Now the new improved Romans 11:32 should read: God does not bind anyone over sin but gives them over to their own nature. God binds no one and no one is cut off? No one's house is left desolate.

This is what you are forcing scripture to say but the binding over is an active thing, it causes sin, it doesn't take advantage of existing sin. Why bind someone over to do that which they will do anyway?

You're using English incorrectly.

Have you asked that question yet? Why does God still blame us for who resists His will? (Also from Romans.)

john.

 

I have already answered you, you just don't want to take things in context.
Israel was was the ones whos house laid desolate. Israel as a NATION not the Jewish individuals.

Yes, I know...Gentiles as I said earlier.

Of course I did, and stated that their use of it corrisponds with the sentence structure and context thereby making its inclusion synonomys with its content. You may not agree but that is because you don't agree with it's content.

No, it personifies the meaning. God gave them over, bound them over because of their unbelief as says the gospels and Isaiah from whom the prophesy came to Israel due to their unbelief!

You funny man - as the comedian says. God binds them over so the state they are already in does not change. In other words He says if that is where you (the nation) wants to be then that is where you will stay intil I bring you back as I have promised.

Of course it is active since He is the one causing them to stay where they chose be.

And so is everyone else who does not hold to your view.

Yes, and the context is clear.
The objection is founded on ignorance or misconstrued notion of the relation between God and sinful creatures; supposing that He is under obligation to extend His grace to all, whereas He is under obligation to none. All are sinners, and have forfeited every claim to His mercy; it is therefore perfectly competent to God to spare one and not another, to make one vessel to honor and another to dishonor. But it is to be borne in mind that Paul does not here speak of God's right over His creatures as creatures, but as sinful creatures: as he himself clearly intimates in the next verses. It is the cavil of a sinful creature against his Creator that he is answering, and he does so by showing that God is under no obligation to give His mercy to any, but is as sovereign as in fashioning the clay" [HODGE].

But remember this is not about salvation but God's purpose. Mercy is about purpose, Grace is about salvation.

 

How does Chapter 11:32 fit with respect of the preceding verses and chapters?

I have my take on it but what is your?

 

If you are asking me, I answered it in a previous post.

God concluded All of Israel (nationally) in unbelief that God might have mercy upon All (the Jews and Gentiles in the last days bringing His plan to fulfillment concerning all or both of the groups that Paul was dealing with)
>>>Edited In<<<
Not for universal salvation but that mercy might abound to both groups that are in sin.

I find it maintains cohesiveness and clarity of Paul continuous though from chapter 9 (Israels Past - concerning election) Chapter 10 (their present situation due to their unbelief) Chapter 11 (their future promise of restoration and combining or both groups)

 

You don't. The passage in question is telling the reader the REASON God has bound all [Jews and Gentiles alike] over to disobedience - to demonstrate His mercy to them all [Jews and Gentiles alike, not all as in universal salvation]. God cannot display mercy to His creatures unless He first creates a reason for showing it. No sin, no need for mercy.

 

I agree with your statement. Do you see this verse as the summery statement of the previous verses and chapters?

 

Do you also agree that God MADE them sin? That is his and Johnp's stance in case you didn't know.

 

Interesting view but no in my view God did not make us sin but we sin because we are in Adam per the blood line. We receive the sin nature and because of this we sin.

 

No matter how you look at it, God is still the first cause. God could have done any number of things to prevent the fall, such as not put the forbidden tree there, not allow satan into the garden, etc. The fall was a deliberately preordained event AND God deliberately ensured that sin would enter the world through Adam AND Adam is personally responsible for causing the fall AND we are personally responsible for our sin. All these things are true.

 

Allan.

Rom 11:32 ...so that he may have mercy on them all. The reason He bound all men over.

What is a nation without individuals? The nation of Israel was cut off, this involves the individuals that make up the nation doesn't it? I would remind you that Israel was a nation before it had borders.

If by 'God gave them over' you mean God bound them over then I would agree with you if you believe 'bound over' is compulsion to disobedience.

Cool man. That's the impression I'm getting. You deny God compels anyone don't you? If you say yes then you change the meaning of scripture. To be bound over is to be compelled into an action. That's the meaning of the expression and the only meaning. God compelled all men to sin so that... is the paraphrase. Jews and Gentiles. There are no other groups are there?

That's what you say but the scripture says: Rom 11:32 For God has bound all men over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all.

So again you say He did not bind over? I know you don't want to know that but I see no reason to leave this point. The thought occured that you are telling me the Judge has told men they can carry on as they are because He wants to have mercy on them?
The criminal in the dock is released and ordered to carry on as normal?

Looping the loop? But if God causes them to stay as they choose, in disobedience, then they will never repent because they are held in their own decisions made once in the past. I'll have some of that. Free will vanishes again.

Come on lads, pull yourself together.

There you go again. How can one forfeit mercy, that's what the word means, no claim. We have no claim to mercy thank God. He gives us the right to become Children of His, we have no claims before we are His.
Hodge is wrong isn't he? But it is to be borne in mind that Paul does not here speak of God's right over His creatures as creatures, but as sinful creatures

Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad--in order that God's purpose in election might stand: Rom 9:11.

Is he one of those great Calvinists theologians I'm supposed to listen to?

john.

 

You still didn't answer me. If they ALL are cut off (as individuals) then God lied when even ONE Jew became saved as ALL the 'individual' Jews are cut off. So then How could any of them get saved, if not hundreds of thousands who have been saved over the last 2000 years? According to you every individual has been cut off.

I do mean that but not that it is compulsuary. (as in God makes them be disobedient) I am not however going to argue it with you because it is a false view. Stand where you want, that discussion is over.

God compels no man TO sin, period. He keeps them in their state of unbelief they have chosen. Read Rom 1 (and 2, 3, and 4) You will see God 'gives them over' to their unbelief because they rejected His revealed truth.

Yes that is what I say according to the context of scripture. You can presume all manner of things as you choose.

No, the judge told them they can carry on as they are because they already REFUSED His truth and mercy.

You bet. They choose to reject truth and God can at any time seal them in their choice for sin. God is not bound to give anything to ANY man - but does so of His own pleasure and by His own word. Yet He is not bound to continue reaching out (as He did with Israel, who desired to resist His calling by Him back unto Him) to anyone and at any time according to His own counsil can stop His reaching and seal them to codemnation.

Sorry, It is still there I'm afraid.

I agree that we have no claim to mercy but we are not bound to accept His mercy offered either. God offered mercy repeatedly to Israel If they will but return...repent...turn away...put away...come back to Him and He will heal them, their lands. He would make thier name great again,ect... yet they repented not nor did they turn to His outstretched arm of mercy but resisted Him. As says the scriptures.

[/quote]He gives us the right to become Children of His, we have no claims before we are His.
Hodge is wrong isn't he? But it is to be borne in mind that Paul does not here speak of God's right over His creatures as creatures, but as sinful creatures

Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad--in order that God's purpose in election might stand: Rom 9:11.

Is he one of those great Calvinists theologians I'm supposed to listen to?[/QUOTE]
Yes, he is a Calvinist, just as Jamison and Faust are as a matter of fact.
Yet, then against you can believe what you like for you are FREE to do so.

 

Hello Allan.

I did answer you. RO 9:6-8 It is not as though God's word had failed. For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel...

Who actually got cut off, nobody?

God ends that argument: Romans 11:32 For God has bound all men over to disobedience...
Ex 4:21 ...But I will harden his heart so that he will not let the people go.
2 Sam 16:11 ...Leave him alone; let him curse, for the LORD has told him to.
1KI 22:23 "So now the LORD has put a lying spirit in the mouths of all these prophets of yours. The LORD has decreed disaster for you."
Acts 2:23 This man was handed over to you by God's set purpose and foreknowledge...

It is clear God does compel men to sin and it is obvious that you don't care for that.

By keeping it in context then you have managed to prove to me that God binds no one over to sin? Cool. Thanks, for nothing.

Matt 1:21 She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus, because he will save his people from their sins."

His people, the elect, the lost sheep, He will find and bring home.

Dirty sell outs then aren't they? I didn't ask if he was a Calvinist did I? I asked you if he was one of those you think I should listen to, if so why? Do you listen to him?

john.

 

We are not are not Israel.
That passage (again, in context) is referning to those who were Israelites that were not of Jewish decent at that time in early Israel history. Because the very next verse speaks to the same. Not every one from Abraham we to be God chosen people "But in Isaac shall thy seed be called". Who else was there to claim the promise of being God people according to the convenant. - Ishael, the first born son! But the cutting off was not regarding Rom 9, you take blind leaps with crooked feet to try to land that statement safely. The context regards Israel and its history. Stop ADDING for you theology.

Do you thing that if God had not hardened Pharoahs heart that when Moses had come before him and said let my people Go, that Pharaoh would have jumped up. That he would have cleared his throat and said "your right Moses, the one million plus slave work force I have is not right. Take your people and our gold and go in good health. ABSURD!! The Lord hardened Pharaohs heart (which was already wicked by choice) because if God had not Pharaoh would have buckled under the first one or two plagues and the God would not be known throught the land as the deliver of Israel to be feared. No God or Kingdom can withstand Him.

You need to go back and look at context. The Samuel passage doesn't say God made him but that God told him what to say. He willingly said it!
Then is states:

The cursing was just and David hopes the Lord will see his hardships due to the cursing and bless him instead. And we see in Chapter 19 Shemie being blessed by David FOR his cursing by saving his life and that of Sauls heir-aparent.

The Kings passage is about the ALREADY lieing or false prophets whom God who now use for His glory. They were already in sin doing evil in the name of the Lord God. God brought forth His judgement on them all and the king who listened to them rather than the truth prophet of God sent to him.

The Acts passage does not say God made them take Jesus. God handed Him over to them... God let them do what THEY wanted to do to Him; Kill Him in the most horrible ways.

Only in your mind!
Scripture does not state such drival and therefore I don't believe the garbage you hold to.

Again, CONTEXT is KEY. This is fulfillment of prophesy concerning ISRAEL. You have to super-impose your presupposition into the text to mean anything else. Yes, Jesus will save all those whom the Father gives Him. But this speaks SPECIFICALLY to Israel. Just as Jesus saying "I have come to seek and save that which is lost" is SPECIFICALLY about Israel! Though the principle is there for all the lost it is specific to prophesy concerning Israel.

[/quote]I asked you if he was one of those you think I should listen to, if so why? Do you listen to him?[/QUOTE]For the same reason you are listening to me. They have a great deal of knowledge to be learned even though we don't see eye to eye on all things (mechanics) we do hold the truths of God in the main.

 

Hi Npetreley;

Rules are the cause of sin. The minute God told man not to do something, He was giving man a choice. The Law is why we have choices. The purpose of choice is so that man chooses the right way voluntarily. No choice, means no law. If there is no choice there is no responsibility.
MB

 

Hello Allan.

I never said you were.

RO 9:6 It is not as though God's word had failed. For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel.

And I thought Paul was being relevant. I thought he was explaining to the Jews how Israel the chosen could be the unchosen. He is neat here. He doesn't waste time telling the Jews that non-Jews are non-Jews. He has to explain why those God promised never to leave have nowbeen left. The answer is simple. The Israel He is talking about is spiritual Israel and the nation was only there as a representation of the Church and as an incubus for His Children at that time. So we would have to rub shoulders with sinners.

Cool. Sounds painful and dangerous. You speak with forked tongue kimo sabi. I can do it as well you, see?

Let's keep this simple a? God says He will harden Pharaoh's heart so that he will refuse God's command, Ex 4:21. I don't need to say any more than that. What do you think? You answer the point yourself making yourself:

Yes! And I thank God for small mercies. If that had been GordonSlocum that would have been red and in huge font size.

And with advice like that I will make great leaps with crooked feet won't I? Who was cut off, nobody? Who was bound over, no body, no person but a nation filled with individuals who were not cut off or bound over?
God didn't send lying spirits and Shimei son of Gera was just in cursing his king. Cool, I don't mind.

It is clear God does compel men to sin and it is obvious that you don't care for that.

See what I mean? If I was that alone I would be seriously troubled.

You tell me I should listen to what the great Calvinists say and you use that to try to weaken my case but you go against the whole history of the Church and the witness of scripture, your advice to me isn't taken by you I see? Do Calvinist's believe we choose to be sinners and not a species that follows it's own nature?

PS 51:5 Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me.

How do you know that? How do you know what presuppositions I had? I would like an answer.

I can trace my geneology back to Isaac can you? Adopted by God into the Second Adam and through Adam to Abraham, the father of the faith. When Jesus came to find the lost, reprobates are not lost, He came to find me. I'm part of the Irsael of Israel. The chosen nation the Royal Priesthood. Posh ain't I?

For a minute there I thought you meant us, me and you, see eye to eye. It took some figuring. I learnt what they had to say and I could see the contradiction from early in my Christian life. Arminians and Calvinists are very close to each other. Free willers will say all men have the choice and Calvinists say only those choosing Hell have the choice, God is not Sovereign to either party. Sovereign Lord does not mean democracy, one man one vote. "Come, let us reason together." Is not a call for a committe to be set up to debate the issues with Him but a call to believe what He says.

Make sure of all things. Check the term 'bound over' properly and then come back and explain to me how it is not compulsion please. You cannot change the meanings of words by yourself. Keep plugging away and eventually the meaning will drift if enough people do it. Until then make sure of all things. Check the term 'bound over' properly.

john.