Irressistible Grace #2

[InTheLight]

Amen.
But there's more to it, isn't there?

I think you have it backwards.

This tells me that God does not hear sinners, but He does indeed hear His children, those He has made righteous.
Per Romans 3:10-18, there is none righteous, and none that seek God.

So,
Any prayer that's made to God would need to be made in the context of Him being first, willing to hear it,
and second, those making the prayer would need to be righteous before God.

How can the Lord incline His ear to those that hate Him and refuse to call upon Him?
He cannot, and they do not.

I understand that God will not grant prayer requests to unsaved people. But God does hear the prayers of sinners who repent and believe.

So, God did not hear the tax collector in Luke 18? He cried out to God, ‘God, have mercy on me, a sinner.’ And Jesus said, "“I tell you that this man, rather than the other, went home justified before God." Luke 18:13-14.

What about the thief on the cross?
42 Then he said, “Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom.[d]”
43 Jesus answered him, “Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in paradise.” Luke 23:42-43

I suppose you will respond with some Calvinist response that God had already elected these people from eternity past, so answering their prayer for mercy was merely a formality.

 

[Revmitchell]

The black and white fallacy is one that omits valid options out of those presented for selection. When you claim I have committed this fallacy, kindly provide the substance of your evidence for the same.

This is the second time you have asked for what I have already given. In fact you responded to it. I suggest you go back and reread the post.

I stated a promise or a gift can be made conditional or unconditional for receipt. Either conditional Or unconditional. Is there any other option I've omitted whereby I'm committing the either-or fallacy or is this what amounts to binary logic?

I reject this. A gift can never be conditional.

As @Dave G has already pointed out, this is where you state what amounts to a contradiction in your belief and you somehow expect it to be accepted without objection on a debate forum?

Please do not attempt to read my mind. You cannot and do not know what I expect.

regardless = unconditional.
who do XYZ = conditional.

Your statement amounts to the promise being both conditional and unconditional at the same time - God, the creator of Logic, is not the author of confusion. I could very well be committing logical fallacies - all it takes is for one to point out the exact error. Repeatedly stating that there has been one without backing it up with arguments of evidence would just be a proof by assertion fallacy, wouldn't it?

Uh no, nothing about this is true. I do not believe that nor have I said that. Its a result of your being stuck on believing being a cause if not regenerated first. If you cannot get past that I cannot help you but you dont get to saddle me with your errant logic.

 

[JD731]

JD731 said: ↑

Since gentiles will be those who are entering in, when they fail to be born any longer, then the family is complete.


ivdavid said
I look at "when the fullness of Gentiles come in" as the completion of an intended plan whereas you see it as the beginning of their failure - wouldn't your interpretation have been better captured with a "when the Gentiles no longer come in, then Israel will be saved"?

This age (from the cross to the rapture of the church = the dispensation of the grace of God as the operative principle of divine dealing with gentiles Eph 3) ends in a great apostasy (falling away), we are told. So, the gentiles fullness is not that many are saved but that the evangelization of the gentiles will be complete because of their unbelief, which will cause a transition in the workings of God whereby and at which time he will keep his covenant promises to Israel, who are the unsaved in these chapters in Romans I have been speaking about. All these scriptures agrees with this. I keep pointing them out. You keep ignoring the context.

2 Thess 2:Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him (the same phraseology that is in Ep 1:10),
2 That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand.
3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;
(It is day of Christ as it pertains to the church and day of the lord as it pertains to the world = Same time frame and the time of God's judgment for both, only in different places and for different reasons)

The transition is from the dispensation of the grace of God, Ep 3:10, to the dispensation of the fullness of times, Eph 1:10.

I am answering your question above within the context the scriptures lays out, and not within the context of your presuppositions. The scriptures are given in words in which God thinks. He thinks the word "fullness" means at the end or completion of something. If it can be shown in scriptures somewhere, anywhere, that it means something different, then I am anxious to believe it.

I am convinced that the great "Christian" movements, such as Calvinism and Pentecostalism, which have appeared in the end times is what God has in mind when he speaks of apostasy, or falling away from the truth.

The problem any non Calvinist has with communication with Calvinists is the language barrier. The words in the scriptures do not have the common and accepted meaning of society at large for the Calvinist. I can give you many examples from scripture but I will give you 3 simple ones.

Rom 5:6 For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly.
Ungodly means the elect in Calvinism.

Heb 9:26 For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.

In Calvinism, he once put away some sin by his sacrifice.

1 Jn 2:2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.

In Calvinism God was not propitiated by the sacrifice of Christ for the whole world.
The word whole is a problem for the Calvinist.

In Rom 11, "Israel" means the physical seed of Abraham (V 1-2) but to the Calvinist it means the limited elect.

My conclusion is that there is no chance of believing the same things about Jesus Christ, God, Man, heaven, hell, angels, judgment, day of the Lord, faith, gift of God, world, life, salvation, believing, and on and on because we do not have the same meanings for words. The inclusion of several words that are absent from the scriptures is another giant problem.

My idea about these things, and especially because I have such a different understanding and belief about them than you do is that you should not believe me to be saved. If you do, then it tells me that you believe I am elect in spite of my unbelief and ignorance.

 

[ivdavid]

In Rom 11, "Israel" means the physical seed of Abraham (V 1-2) but to the Calvinist it means the limited elect.

I'll begin here. Is that what calvinists believe? I've never come across anyone read those 2 verses that way - at least I don't. This explains why it seemed to me that you were stating the obvious for so long in your posts.

My idea about these things, and especially because I have such a different understanding and belief about them than you do is that you should not believe me to be saved. If you do, then it tells me that you believe I am elect in spite of my unbelief and ignorance.

On the contrary, this encapsulates what you believe and that's precisely what I've centered my argument against.

I've expressed my beliefs on this before and you've chosen to ignore it. Very well, I shall restate them. I study the doctrine of election only to learn about God's ways unto His glory, not into guessing in reality who's elect or who's not. The only certain indicators given to man is his continuing in repentance and faith in Christ - and these if anyone profess in the moment, is sufficient for me. If that person were in my small group, I'd know them more and hold them accountable to more consistency in their living, exhorting them against any discrepancy between their professed and their evidenced faith - but here, your profession is all i need.

Rom 14 has an entire group of Christians who were held up by God even in their ignorance of the Kingdom of God concerning meat, drink and days - because it was done in faith. Ignorance of certain doctrines does not imply Unbelief. And therefore it does not compel me to judge you one way or the other. But you do, and I am very much against that.

And my way of proving to you that you're plain wrong in considering anyone else who believes differently as heading to hell is to show you how you yourself hold certain incorrect beliefs right now and how it would be hypocritical for you to judge others and not yourself in this case. And that's where I'd left Acts 15 etc. - again, not at all with the intent to condemn errors in understanding (which we all have and that being the point of mutual edification), but to solely point out your error in inconsistent application of who's right before God and who's not.

 

[ivdavid]

So, the gentiles fullness is not that many are saved but that the evangelization of the gentiles will be complete because of their unbelief...

This is just the difference in our own interpretations. The text in Rom 11 itself simply states the fullness of Gentiles coming in - it renders no "because...".
Further, you render the meaning of the word 'fullness' to be the 'end or completion of evangelizing to the Gentiles' when no reference to evangelizing has been made. I take it to be the 'filling up of the Gentiles'. Again, debating the final apostasy has further bunny trails when I say the falling away are only of those who weren't elect, so I'd rather stick to just this passage for now.

The scriptures are given in words in which God thinks. He thinks the word "fullness" means at the end or completion of something. If it can be shown in scriptures somewhere, anywhere, that it means something different, then I am anxious to believe it.

I can read it as the "end or completion of something" too - but primarily focusing on it being a "filling up" rather than an "ending of". If you visualize an empty jar that's being filled with water, when it's filled to the brim, we'd use the word "fullness of water". Of course, the act of filling or the addition of water has 'ended or been completed', but only because the intended capacity was already filled and there was no further intent to act more.

Mar 8:20 And when the seven among four thousand, how many baskets full of fragments took ye up? And they said, Seven
Rom 15:29 And I am sure that, when I come unto you, I shall come in the fulness of the blessing of the gospel of Christ.
Col 2:9 For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.

Do you read the above phrases as the Godhead or blessings or fragments having "ended" or rather having been "filled up" to the brim / to "intended completion"?

 

[ivdavid]

I reject this. A gift can never be conditional.

Mat 6:14 For if ye forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you:
Mat 6:15 But if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.

Q1. Is forgiveness of trespasses a gift? Yes/No.
Q2. Is Matt 6:14-15 conditional? Yes/No.

 

[Revmitchell]

Mat 6:14 For if ye forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you:
Mat 6:15 But if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.

Q1. Is forgiveness of trespasses a gift? Yes/No.
Q2. Is Matt 6:14-15 conditional? Yes/No.

So in your view we must forgive others to be saved?

 

[37818]

Mat 6:14 For if ye forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you:
Mat 6:15 But if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.

Q1. Is forgiveness of trespasses a gift? Yes/No.
Q2. Is Matt 6:14-15 conditional? Yes/No.

Matthew 6:14-15, ". . . For if ye forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you: But if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses. . . ." is given under the Law, and is not according to the New Covenant as promised to Israel, Jeremiah 31:31-34, Hebrews 10:16-17.

 

[JD731]

This is just the difference in our own interpretations. The text in Rom 11 itself simply states the fullness of Gentiles coming in - it renders no "because...".
Further, you render the meaning of the word 'fullness' to be the 'end or completion of evangelizing to the Gentiles' when no reference to evangelizing has been made. I take it to be the 'filling up of the Gentiles'. Again, debating the final apostasy has further bunny trails when I say the falling away are only of those who weren't elect, so I'd rather stick to just this passage for now.


I can read it as the "end or completion of something" too - but primarily focusing on it being a "filling up" rather than an "ending of". If you visualize an empty jar that's being filled with water, when it's filled to the brim, we'd use the word "fullness of water". Of course, the act of filling or the addition of water has 'ended or been completed', but only because the intended capacity was already filled and there was no further intent to act more.

Mar 8:20 And when the seven among four thousand, how many baskets full of fragments took ye up? And they said, Seven
Rom 15:29 And I am sure that, when I come unto you, I shall come in the fulness of the blessing of the gospel of Christ.
Col 2:9 For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.

Do you read the above phrases as the Godhead or blessings or fragments having "ended" or rather having been "filled up" to the brim / to "intended completion"?

The fullness of the gentiles in Rom 11 is a prophecy. Not everything in the chapter is a prophecy and very little of it is about gentiles. Gentiles enter into the picture as a result of the “present” reality that Israel had refused to believe in Jesus Christ and thus fulfill his purpose that he had stated earlier in the chapter.

Romans 11:5
Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace.

After giving us the great desire of God that Israel would believe and be saved in total in chapter 10, he tells us here in chapter 11 that only a remnant, a very few Israelites believed. Paul gave these few believers a name. He called them, “ the remnant according to the election of grace.” The promise of God to Israel was that as she had been birthed by God in the flesh ( through) Jacob, that she would be born again in the Spirit through Jesus Christ. Believe it or not, Romans 8 is primarily addressed to Israel explaining how he would do this through the Spirit of Christ.
Romans 9 gives us the division of Israel on the grounds of whether they had been individually born of the Spirit. It is determined that just because They had a relationship with God through Abraham, that did not make them children of God. They of course were all, every one physically the children of Abraham by birth, one family, a unit, a single entity of many members, and in this capacity as a single entity, the son of God.

Exodus 4:22-23
22 And thou shalt say unto Pharaoh, Thus saith the LORD, Israel is my son, even my firstborn:
23 And I say unto thee, Let my son go, that he may serve me: and if thou refuse to let him go, behold, I will slay thy son, even thy firstborn.

In these above verses this Son is born of the flesh. This is Israel in his first birth. To be of any account to God he must be born again and so God begins to teach him about himself so he can believe and trust in him.God illustrates this in the birth types he uses in this chapter 9. What are they.

1) Ishmael and Isaac
2) Esau and Jacob
3) Israel and Judah

Who was born first in these types? Who did God “Elect?” He elects the “second” man born. The first Adam and the last Adam is a type of this truth. Look at this.

1 Corinthians 15:45-49
45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.
46 Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual.
47 The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven.
48 As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy: and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly.
49 And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly.

The image of Christ, v49. Was that not the stated purpose for Israel in Rom 8? Yes, it was the stated goal.

Romans 8:27-30
27 And he that searcheth the hearts knoweth what is the mind of the Spirit, because he maketh intercession for the saints according to the will of God.
28 And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose.
29 For whom he did foreknow. (It was Israel whom he knew before this present time whether Calvinists likes it or not), he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.
30 Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.

Adam was first in his family and we bear his image and Christ is first in his family and his family bears his image.

Well, I am out of time now for this post with a lot more that needs to be said, but one must keep in mind that Paul wrote this 28 years after the ascension of Jesus Christ to heaven and the history that had unfolded from that time had to be explained in light of God.s relationship of 1500 years with his “son” and his covenant promises to them. In spite of the fact that gentiles took their place in this age because of his unbelief, he will save his Son in the world to come, he says in chapter 11.

I will add some more to this answer of your comments later.

 

[ivdavid]

So in your view we must forgive others to be saved?

How ever did you formulate that inference from what I've presented so far? The valid inferences are that we must forgive others to be forgiven of God. Therefore, a further inference is that gifts could be given with a condition for receiving them.

I'm just going to start at the beginning even at the expense of stating the obvious just so we can stop talking past each other and find some common ground.

A conditional is simply an IF..THEN statement. There is nothing intrinsically good or evil about it - It's all about how it's applied. And I can immediately think of at least 4 applications -

1. IF you do God's commandments, THEN you shall receive life in so doing them.
This is a conditional that's applied in a works-wage equation. Here, you earn what you receive and it's not given as a gift.

2. IF you give me the power to lay hands and make people receive the Holy Spirit, THEN I will give you money.
This is a conditional that's applied to a quid-pro-quo and it evidences corrupt intents - again, not a gift.

3. IF a man laps water with his tongue, THEN he shall fight the war.
This is a conditional that's applied to a sovereign selection/filtering criteria that is arbitrary in that it has no bearing on that man fighting the war itself. This could be considered a gift of calling.

4. IF you do not trample pearls, THEN I will give you pearls.
This is a conditional that's applied to a qualifying criteria. The giving of the pearls is a gift but it's given to only those who qualify for its receipt in that they recognize its attributed value.

I think you're referring to #3 where you treat Faith as the sovereign selection/filtering criteria whereas I am arguing that Faith must be of necessity #4 given that the filtering is not just in a moment in time as well as the command to evangelize to make more qualify to receive salvation. And you seem to be opposing me as if I was referring to #1 when actually I am merely referring to the sovereign selection of #3 that is before any man's good or evil acts or even birth as the basis for the new birth. To me, salvation is not synonymous with the new birth - one implies the other, but they are not the same. I am focusing on just the new birth and what its conditional is alone - and there must be a conditional/selection criteria/qualifying criteria given that not all receive it.

Where do you see yourself disagreeing with this?

 

[ivdavid]

Gentiles enter into the picture as a result of the “present” reality that Israel had refused to believe in Jesus Christ and thus fulfill his purpose that he had stated earlier in the chapter.

The trigger might have been because Israel had rejected Christ, but the Gentiles were added because of the purpose of God that was already prophesied to Abraham way back in Gen 12. God's sovereign promise over the Gentiles(not necessarily to the Gentiles) included the hardening of Israel - because it is God who hardened them.

I've raised this point repeatedly and you've continued reiterating your own position without addressing this.
Gen 12:3 And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed.
Gal 3:8 And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed.
Gal 3:9 So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham.

How did Scriptures foresee Gal 3 events in Gen 12 without God having purposed it way back then? How did Gentiles "enter into the picture as a result of the present reality" when they were only fulfilling what was already spoken way before the present reality? Kindly address this and the Acts 15 passage - only because these form part of your foundational beliefs and they are quite inconsistent.

 

[ivdavid]

3) Israel and Judah
Who was born first in these types? Who did God “Elect?” He elects the “second” man born.

Israel and Judah? Engage in the arguments raised before continuing with your own position. Where was all of Judah elected - it was only the remnant within Judah that was elected. Are you now going to claim only the second born children from within Judah were elected? Again and again I've posed this question and you haven't addressed this yet - How do you claim the entirety of Judah to be the remnant when the remnant is said to be what's left from the judgement of Judah?

Rom 9:30 What shall we say then? That the Gentiles, which followed not after righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness which is of faith.
Rom 9:31 But Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness.

In the above, who are the Gentiles and who is Israel? Are Gentiles the Northern Kingdom of Israel or all the people not born physically in Abraham's line? Is Israel the Southern Kingdom of Judah or all who are children of the flesh under Abraham?

Rom 9:27 Esaias also crieth concerning Israel, Though the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea, a remnant shall be saved:
Rom 9:28 For he will finish the work, and cut it short in righteousness: because a short work will the Lord make upon the earth.
Rom 9:29 And as Esaias said before, Except the Lord of Sabaoth had left us a seed, we had been as Sodoma, and been made like unto Gomorrha.

Does this Israel in v.27 refer to the same Israel in v.31 ? If not, where's the difference denoted?
Do these 3 verses v.27-29 apply to the same Israel? If not, where's the difference denoted?

29 For whom he did foreknow. (It was Israel whom he knew before this present time whether Calvinists likes it or not)

Rom 8:27 And he that searcheth the hearts knoweth what is the mind of the Spirit, because he maketh intercession for the saints according to the will of God.
Rom 8:28 And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose.
Paul is qualifying whom he's referring to in this passage - who are the saints called according to His purpose - only Israel OR all who believe in Christ, jew and gentile?

 

[JD731]

The trigger might have been because Israel had rejected Christ, but the Gentiles were added because of the purpose of God that was already prophesied to Abraham way back in Gen 12.

God knows who he is addressing and if we simply believe his words we would know it too. I have explained ad-nasuem that Paul is addressing those who know the law from Rom 7:1 through Rom 11:12. Here is his words in Rom 7:1 for you to consider;

Rom 7:1 Know ye not, brethren, (for I speak to them that know the law), how that the law hath dominion over a man as long as he liveth?

The context reveals he is speaking about the law of Moses that gentiles have never been under. Therefore, we can safely conclude that he is speaking to Jewish Christians. When he gets through speaking to them he then speaks to Gentile Christians. Here;

Rom 11:13 For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office:

While he is speaking to gentiles in this dialog he reveals a mystery that you or no other Calvinist alive today knows anything about though it be clearly stated.Most of you claim to be a new Israel, or some sort of foolishness, even though the whole argument has been that Israel are the unbelievers in these chapters. You will not believe the words.

God's sovereign promise over the Gentiles(not necessarily to the Gentiles) included the hardening of Israel - because it is God who hardened them.

If you can read these words following and believe the unbelief of Israel is the fault of a father to his son, then you are in worse shape spiritually than even I thought. God is dealing with Israel as a son in these chapters in Romans. He has provided a means for him to be born again and he has not been born again because he held on to the law and walked after the flesh, except for a few of them.. You are wanting me and those who hear you to believe this is what God wanted.

Rom 10:1 Brethren, my heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved.
2 For I bear them record that they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge.
3 For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God.
4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.
___________________

16 But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report?
17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. (something every Calvinist alive today denies)
18 But I say, Have they not heard? Yes verily, their sound went into all the earth, and their words unto the ends of the world.
19 But I say, Did not Israel know? First Moses saith, I will provoke you to jealousy by them that are no people (how silly to think that God would try to provoke people whom he himself has hardened. God is not on crack), and by a foolish nation I will anger you.
20 But Esaias is very bold, and saith, I was found of them that sought me not (a prophecy about gentiles and particularly about the Northern 10 tribes that are scattered abroad); I was made manifest unto them that asked not after me.

Now, watch this:

21 But to Israel (as one man) he saith, All day long I have stretched forth my hands unto a disobedient and gainsaying people.

The image this conjours up in the mind is a father stretching out his arms to his son and asking him to come to him. This is a far different image than you give it as pushing him away. Calvinism teaches the very opposite that the scriptures teach on almost every subject.

Ex 4:22 And thou shalt say unto Pharaoh, Thus saith the Lord, Israel is my son, even my firstborn:

The next logical question since Israel would not believe is has God cast away his people. The answer is "no." He will deal with the small number who believe and add the believing gentiles and accomplish his purpose with the two together. This too is a mystery, meaning it is not the subject of OT prophecy, that gentiles wuld be included but that it is a contingency since Israel refused her privilege and calling. Here that mystery is clearly presented.

Ep 3:1 For this cause I Paul, the prisoner of Jesus Christ for you Gentiles,

One should look at the cause in chapter 2. It is building a temple for the Holy Ghost to indwell.

2 If ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me to you-ward:
3 How that by revelation he made known unto me the mystery; (as I wrote afore in few words,
4 Whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ)
5 Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit;

Here is the mystery revealed:

6 That the Gentiles should be fellowheirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel:

It is not that God had intended the Jews to be a single born again entity because that is a matter of OT prophecy, but that the gentles would be included because of Israel's unbelief.

I've raised this point repeatedly and you've continued reiterating your own position without addressing this.
Gen 12:3 And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed.
Gal 3:8 And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed.
Gal 3:9 So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham.

The principle of God's dealing with men from the beginning has been faith. Read Heb 11 here and you can clearly see it. However, men were justified by faith for 4000 years and during different ages and none of them were born again and none of them were baptised by the Spirit into the body of Christ as saved Jews and gentiles are since the cross.

Heb 11:6 But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.

This is true of any man any where at any time.

_________________

The fact that God's intention was to bless the families and the nations through the family of Abraham presumes that there will be families and nations that are not of Abraham. This has nothing to do with the church of Jesus Christ. The church of Jesus Christ is a family. It is a "house" and the foundation of this family is of Abraham but it has a gentile character. The blessing of the gentiles in the church is a mystery and was not revealed in the OT. When the church is complete and translated to heaven there will still remain on the earth a real Israel and real families and nations and God will bless all of them through Abraham's seed, Jesus Christ. All through eternity in the new earth there will be an Israel and families and nations.

The nations were formed by families. One can see this all through the scriptures.

Re 21:1 And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea.

23 And the city (New Jerusalem) had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it: for the glory of God did lighten it, and the Lamb is the light thereof.
24 And the nations of them which are saved shall walk in the light of it: and the kings of the earth do bring their glory and honour into it.


I know, I know, you don't believe the words mean what they say. It is figurative, right?

How did Scriptures foresee Gal 3 events in Gen 12 without God having purposed it way back then? How did Gentiles "enter into the picture as a result of the present reality" when they were only fulfilling what was already spoken way before the present reality? Kindly address this and the Acts 15 passage - only because these form part of your foundational beliefs and they are quite inconsistent.

Can I explain it better than Paul did in Rom 7-11 and in Ephesians? Gentile families and nations will still be blessed through Abraham after the church of Jesus Christ, which is his body and bride, is completed.

The fact that God gave his Spirit to the world through Jesus Christ is a fulfillment of the Abrahamic covenant that says all familes of the earth shall be blessed.. The circumstances did not change that fact, nor did the response of Israel change that fact. What did change is how God ministered his Spirit. God has amended his perfect will for men because of their response all through history and is still able to accomplish what he wills in spite of opposition from men and angels. The Abrahamic covenant has 12 promises to Abraham. Only one is that all the families in the earth will be blessed through his seed. The other 11 promises, such as those which deals with the land and eternity is just as literal as the one you pointed out. This is why you have read in Romans 11 that all Israel will be saved after the fullnes of the gentiles be come in and the church of Jesus Christ is complete. God must keep all his promises, and he will. He says he will. I believe him.

It is much easier to believe the words you read than to kick against them. It is also safer. I sure would not want to have free access to the word of God for all my life and then show up at the judgment and tell God I read where Israel's unbelief was his fault.

 

[JD731]

Israel and Judah? Engage in the arguments raised before continuing with your own position. Where was all of Judah elected - it was only the remnant within Judah that was elected. Are you now going to claim only the second born children from within Judah were elected? Again and again I've posed this question and you haven't addressed this yet - How do you claim the entirety of Judah to be the remnant when the remnant is said to be what's left from the judgement of Judah?

Thanks ivdavid for the questions but you need to provide the quotes where I have said what you claim I have said and then I will be happy to clarify.

Let me establish something here that will help in future comments. I will deal with the following verses in this post and answer your objections in later posts.

Rom 9:22 What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:
23 And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,
24 Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?
25 As he saith also in Osee, (Hosea) I will call them my people, which were not my people; and her beloved, which was not beloved.
26 And it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people; there shall they be called the children of the living God.

From BC 722 until this present time in AD 58, when Paul wrote Romans, the northern nation of Israel was dispersed and out of her land. Israel was no longer under the laws of God but was under the laws of the nations where she resided.

James wrote a letter and addressed it to the 12 tribes scattered abroad and Peter wrote a letter to whom he called "strangers" in the area of Turkey. He called these people a "nation" and separated them from gentile peoples. This is just a fact of scriptures. You can make of it what you will but you will have to acknowledge that I am telling you the truth. Here is proof.


1 Pet 2:9 But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light;

They are not a self governing people at this time and they are not all in the same gentile nation, yet he calls them a "holy" nation.

1 Pet 2:12 Having your conversation honest among the Gentiles: that, whereas they speak against you as evildoers, they may by your good works, which they shall behold, glorify God in the day of visitation.

What does that mean that they are a chosen generation? Is it just rhetoric or did it actually mean something to those to whom it was addressed?

Going back to Romans now we will note what Paul said in chapter 9. I have read Hosea. When he is mentioning "gentiles" he is mentioning the people who he has called "not my people" who were his people. Who were they? They were 10 northern tribes, a nation of people, Israel, also called "Ephraim." Paul is talking in Rom 9 about Israel and refers to them as gentiles because they were cut off from their covenants due to being cast out of their land. Did that annul their covenants? No! Israel out of their land are as gentiles.

God had chosen Judah as his people and had designated Israel, the nation "not my people."

6 And she conceived again, and bare a daughter. And God said unto him, Call her name Loruhamah: for I will no more have mercy upon the house of Israel; but I will utterly take them away.

7 But I will have mercy upon the house of Judah, and will save them by the Lord their God, and will not save them by bow, nor by sword, nor by battle, by horses, nor by horsemen.

Rom 9:18 Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.

Rom 9:23 And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,
24 Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?
25 As he saith also in Osee, I will call them my people, which were not my people; and her beloved, which was not beloved.
26 And it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people; there shall they be called the children of the living God.
27 Esaias also crieth concerning Israel, Though the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea, a remnant shall be saved:

Compare verse 26 with Hosea 1:10

Ho 1:10 Yet the number of the children of Israel shall be as the sand of the sea, which cannot be measured nor numbered; and it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people, there it shall be said unto them, Ye are the sons of the living God.

To be a child of God requires a new birth. To have a new birth requires Jesus Christ dying for sins and rising from the dead. It requires knowledge of that and an invitation from God to believe in him and be saved. Israel (the strangers) got that from the preachers Jesus Christ sent to them after the events of the cross.

So, yes, Judah and Israel is in the text of Rom 9 and the point of the second man is made and God's election is made through them.

Hos 1:7 But I will have mercy upon the house of Judah, and will save them by the Lord their God, and will not save them by bow, nor by sword, nor by battle, by horses, nor by horsemen.

Hos 1:6 :.....for I will no more have mercy upon the house of Israel; but I will utterly take them away.

God is dealing with "types" he has previously prepared to illustrate his truths. Don't miss them in favor of a corrupt religious system. These are meant to confirm sound doctrine and give us the mind of Christ. He is showing in this chapter that God's electing prerogative is to always choose the second man. The man who has a second birth.

 

[ivdavid]

Now, watch this:

21 But to Israel (as one man) he saith, All day long I have stretched forth my hands unto a disobedient and gainsaying people.

The image this conjours up in the mind is a father stretching out his arms to his son and asking him to come to him. This is a far different image than you give it as pushing him away. Calvinism teaches the very opposite that the scriptures teach on almost every subject.

We see this image already conjured in Matt 23:37 - God did stretch out His arms as a father asking all of Israel to come to Him. They refused to obey Him through generations. What is God's response to their refusal - does He still continue standing with outstretched arms as a father? Is He calling His own children serpents and vipers or is He rightly distancing them as children of those who are murderers and liars (Matt 23:32-33, John 8:39-47)?

So I watched you present Rom 10:21 and you wish to conclude that God is not pushing them away at all. Let's read on through the prophecy and you tell me what you watch there -

Isa 65:6 Behold, it is written before me: I will not keep silence, but will recompense, even recompense into their bosom,
Isa 65:7 Your iniquities, and the iniquities of your fathers together, saith the LORD, which have burned incense upon the mountains, and blasphemed me upon the hills: therefore will I measure their former work into their bosom.
(not keep silence but recompense the iniquities, measuring their and their fathers' work back to them? Is that the Father drawing them near?)

Isa 65:8 Thus saith the LORD, As the new wine is found in the cluster, and one saith, Destroy it not; for a blessing is in it: so will I do for my servants' sakes, that I may not destroy them all.
Isa 65:9 And I will bring forth a seed out of Jacob, and out of Judah an inheritor of my mountains: and mine elect shall inherit it, and my servants shall dwell there.
Isa 65:10 And Sharon shall be a fold of flocks, and the valley of Achor a place for the herds to lie down in, for my people that have sought me.
(His servants, His people shall not be destroyed with the remaining all. Wait, the rest are destroyed?)

Isa 65:11 But ye are they that forsake the LORD, that forget my holy mountain, that prepare a table for that troop, and that furnish the drink offering unto that number.
Isa 65:12 Therefore will I number you to the sword, and ye shall all bow down to the slaughter: because when I called, ye did not answer; when I spake, ye did not hear; but did evil before mine eyes, and did choose that wherein I delighted not.
(When God called and spoke, they didn't answer and hear - does God continue calling and speaking indefinitely or does He number them to the sword and slaughter? Still images conjured of a Father drawing all of Israel near now?)

Isa 65:13 Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD, Behold, my servants shall eat, but ye shall be hungry: behold, my servants shall drink, but ye shall be thirsty: behold, my servants shall rejoice, but ye shall be ashamed:
Isa 65:14 Behold, my servants shall sing for joy of heart, but ye shall cry for sorrow of heart, and shall howl for vexation of spirit.
Isa 65:15 And ye shall leave your name for a curse unto my chosen: for the Lord GOD shall slay thee, and call his servants by another name:
Isa 65:16 That he who blesseth himself in the earth shall bless himself in the God of truth; and he that sweareth in the earth shall swear by the God of truth; because the former troubles are forgotten, and because they are hid from mine eyes.
(The contrast between God's servants and the rest whom God shall slay - as per you, still an image of a Father drawing them near, only to be slain? And what is this "another name" by which He calls His servants?)

What then of all these things - can I say it better than Paul...
Rom 9:6 Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:
Rom 9:8 That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.

Rom 11:7 What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded
(The rest were blinded? By Whom? Who gave them the spirit of slumber that they should not see?)

 

[ivdavid]

While he is speaking to gentiles in this dialog he reveals a mystery that you or no other Calvinist alive today knows anything about though it be clearly stated.Most of you claim to be a new Israel, or some sort of foolishness, even though the whole argument has been that Israel are the unbelievers in these chapters. You will not believe the words.

I did clearly state in a previous post that I have not known any other nor myself to read Israel in say Rom 11:25-26 as anything but physical Israel - so why keep insisting on attacking a strawman? I firmly hold that while God has blinded Israel barring the remnant by the election of grace, He will do so only until the fullness of Gentiles come in after which all physical Israel will be saved too - through faith in Christ.

19 But I say, Did not Israel know? First Moses saith, I will provoke you to jealousy by them that are no people (how silly to think that God would try to provoke people whom he himself has hardened. God is not on crack), and by a foolish nation I will anger you.

How silly to think that? His hardening is seen in that very provoking. That's God showing them their place by selling them, shutting them up. Have you not read?

Deu 32:22 For a fire is kindled in mine anger, and shall burn unto the lowest hell, and shall consume the earth with her increase, and set on fire the foundations of the mountains.
Deu 32:23 I will heap mischiefs upon them; I will spend mine arrows upon them.
Deu 32:24 They shall be burnt with hunger, and devoured with burning heat, and with bitter destruction: I will also send the teeth of beasts upon them, with the poison of serpents of the dust.
Deu 32:25 The sword without, and terror within, shall destroy both the young man and the virgin, the suckling also with the man of gray hairs.
Deu 32:26 I said, I would scatter them into corners, I would make the remembrance of them to cease from among men:
Deu 32:27 Were it not that I feared the wrath of the enemy, lest their adversaries should behave themselves strangely, and lest they should say, Our hand is high, and the LORD hath not done all this.
Deu 32:28 For they are a nation void of counsel, neither is there any understanding in them.
Deu 32:29 O that they were wise, that they understood this, that they would consider their latter end!
Deu 32:30 How should one chase a thousand, and two put ten thousand to flight, except their Rock had sold them, and the LORD had shut them up?

 

[ivdavid]

Israel's unbelief was his fault.

This is an erroneous representation. I would never say Israel's unbelief is God's 'fault'. God keeps calling and speaking and Israel keeps rejecting Him - over generations. Only when they have filled their measure of sin, God then begins His judgement on them.

Gen 15:16 But in the fourth generation they shall come hither again: for the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet full.
Mat 23:32 Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers.
1Th 2:16 Forbidding us to speak to the Gentiles that they might be saved, to fill up their sins alway: for the wrath is come upon them to the uttermost.

God is merciful, willing to reconcile if they sought Him for mercy anytime. He calls and exhorts them to seek Him while He is near. And He is longsuffering out of love. Until their sins are filled up. At which point, the offer for mercy is no longer available but only judgement. And the way God shuts that door is by hardening them against seeking mercy then.

Jos 11:20 For it was the LORD's doing to harden their hearts that they should come against Israel in battle, in order that they should be devoted to destruction and should receive no mercy but be destroyed, just as the LORD commanded Moses.

This hardening at the end did not cause their filling up their sins for over 400 years - it's the other way around. Similarly, it's not God's hardening that caused Israel to reject His calling and speaking for generations - it's the other way around. Their evil and unbelief filled up their measure of sin during that generation of Jesus' times which was orchestrated by God to precisely send Christ as the stumblingblock right then, so that they being hardened without mercy might bring salvation to all the gentiles - and once that is completed, their blindness will be lifted, God will save Israel by causing them to seek Him for mercy in Christ alone. The remnant elect are not dealt likewise, they having the sure mercies of David that are never conditional.

 

[JD731]

I did clearly state in a previous post that I have not known any other nor myself to read Israel in say Rom 11:25-26 as anything but physical Israel - so why keep insisting on attacking a strawman? I firmly hold that while God has blinded Israel barring the remnant by the election of grace, He will do so only until the fullness of Gentiles come in after which all physical Israel will be saved too - through faith in Christ.


How silly to think that? His hardening is seen in that very provoking. That's God showing them their place by selling them, shutting them up. Have you not read?

I have spoken to Calvinists for years and I know what their arguments concerning Israel are generally. There are a few dispensational Calvinists but they are usually of the Baptist persuasion and prefers the name Reformed. Every one else teaches a replacement doctrine. Are you saying I am wrong about that?

Why does God provoke someone to believe whom he has predetermined in eternity past not to save? It makes no sense to me. If saving faith is a "gift" of God, why doesn't he just give them the gift?

Rom 11:13 For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office:
14 If by any means I may provoke to emulation them which are my flesh, and might save some of them.

I cannot wrap my mind around this teaching of Calvinism. Please explain it to me in simple words. Paul seems to say above that there is a possibility of persuasion to his countrymen.

 

[ivdavid]

Why does God provoke someone to believe whom he has predetermined in eternity past not to save?

I firmly reject the doctrine of predestined reprobation/condemnation. God has not predetermined in eternity past not to save anyone. I have asserted this in my earlier posts to you stating this is the one of the doctrines I differ from the calvinists. I do equally see ample Scriptural evidence and logical consistency in how God works out predestined election unto salvation. I see His love and justice in His longsuffering exhortation to all the non-elect until they fill up their measure of sin and are fitted for destruction. And I see God's sovereignty in choosing unconditionally whom to extend the sure mercies of David to and whom to extend conditional mercies to.

 

[JD731]

I firmly reject the doctrine of predestined reprobation/condemnation. God has not predetermined in eternity past not to save anyone. I have asserted this in my earlier posts to you stating this is the one of the doctrines I differ from the calvinists. I do equally see ample Scriptural evidence and logical consistency in how God works out predestined election unto salvation. I see His love and justice in His longsuffering exhortation to all the non-elect until they fill up their measure of sin and are fitted for destruction. And I see God's sovereignty in choosing unconditionally whom to extend the sure mercies of David to and whom to extend conditional mercies to.

How does God not predestine some men to condemnation if he has predestined some to be saved? Are you saying the condemned had a choice to be saved until they "filled up" their measure of sin? How does that work? Are you disagreeing with most Calvinists who insist that God made his choice before the foundation of the world and are you saying rather that it is his choice since the cross of Christ to determine who will be saved based on their response to his longsuffering exhortation?

Did Jesus Christ not take the sin of the whole world on himself and yet God saved him? Was Jesus Christ fitted for destruction? Was he a man? Did he have a physical birth at Bethlehem? Did he have a rebirth at the tomb? The answer is yes to all those questions.

In Jn 3:16 he is the first begotten son of God
In Rom 8:29 and Col 1:18 he is the firstborn from the dead

He has two births. Physical and spiritual.

Psa 2:7 says this:

7 I will declare the decree: the Lord hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.

Acts 13:33 says this;

God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.

Jesus himself said these words about a man;

Jn 3:5 5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

Calvinism, no matter what stripe, has all their eggs in the election basket. They need to have them in the born again basket. That is what is important to God. God elects all who are born again and that is the only ones who God elects.How is one born again. It is by receiving the Spirit of God. The same Spirit who quickened the body of Jesus Christ at the tomb. How does one receive the Spirit? By faith in the gospel of Christ.

14 That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.