Skandelon
<b>Moderator</b>
Has anyone else noticed that Romans 11 is the Kryptonite of Calvinism? They all run away when its brought out. :laugh:
-
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!
Let GOD Be GOD!
- Thread starter OldRegular
- Start date
The Archangel
Well-Known Member
Not in the least. The agenda of the one asking is the "stumbling block," not the text itself.
Yip...yip...yip, you wanna Spike, ya wanna?
The Archangel
Skandelon
<b>Moderator</b>
Cloak your avoidance of the matter any way you want, but not one of you have any problems engaging me with any other text or topic, as evidenced by my last 2000 posts. I guarantee if I started a thread on Acts 13:48 Calvinists would swarm like moth to a flame.
One only needs to read Romans 11 to really understand why a Calvinist would want to avoid it.
OldRegular
Well-Known Member
It is obvious Sk that you are trying to hijack this thread! Just in case you have forgotten the OP is as follows:
GOD tells us in Matthew’s record of the life and ministry of Jesus Christ:
Matthew 1:20-23
20.But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.
21. And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.
22. Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying,
23. Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.
Note particularly Verse 21:
21. And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.
Also note thet Verse 23 tells us that through this virgin born son GOD is with us.
In Verse 21 we are told that this Virgin born son, JESUS, shall save his people from their sins.
Now who are HIS people whom HE will save. They are those given to HIM by GOD the Father:
John 6:39 And this is the Father’s will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.
John 17:24 Father, I will that they also, whom thou hast given me, be with me where I am; that they may behold my glory, which thou hast given me: for thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world.
John 6:37 All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.
So let GOD be GOD! Scripture clearly tells us that Jesus Christ came to save HIS people and HIS people only.
Skandelon
<b>Moderator</b>
How is it "hijacking this thread" to take YOUR quote of Romans 11 and show you how I believe you have misinterpreted it based upon the entire context of Romans 11? You didn't make that claim with all the other threads where people quote new texts and provide critique for interpretations and arguments along the way. I wonder why you would do that with Romans 11 and not any other text or in any other thread? Hmmmm
Revealing.
Revealing.
OldRegular
Well-Known Member
You are wrong Skandelon and it is obvious you don't like this thread and are trying to hijack it. Following is my post referring to Romans 11:1-5:
Nothing I said above is a misinterpretation. I simply stated that the elect among the Jews believed as the Apostle Paul implies throughout and in particular Verses 1, 2, and 5.:
Romans 11:1-5
1. I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin.
2. God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew. Wot ye not what the scripture saith of Elias? how he maketh intercession to God against Israel, saying,
3. Lord, they have killed thy prophets, and digged down thine altars; and I am left alone, and they seek my life.
4. But what saith the answer of God unto him? I have reserved to myself seven thousand men, who have not bowed the knee to the image of Baal.
5. Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace.
You responded as follows:
Nothing you say above negates what the Apostle Paul states in verses 1-5 but it is obvious, particularly from your final statement, that since your OP on Romans 11 has had limited response you would like to hijack this thread to do so. If you are what you claim to be then demonstrate it by being courteous enough to let discussion of the OP proceed. I would also encourage other participants to cooperate.
Last edited by a moderator:
Matthew 1:20-23
20.But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.
21. And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.
22. Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying,
23. Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.
One issue of this thread seems to be centered around vs. 21 in the identification of who "his people" refers.
I do hope all would agree that here the "his" refers to Jesus, the Son.
Some would make the identification based on the Biblical account of what did happen and who was saved.
But that ignores what might happen in the future for sometimes prophetic statements can have a division of many, many years even in the middle of the sentence as exampled by the following:
Isaiah 9:6 (King James Version)
6For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.
A child is born (present tense), and a son is given (present tense); but is the government upon his shoulder?
"the government shall be" (future tense).
Whether one feels that future was only future to the writer, or yet future to us is certainly debatable; but in either case, there is a separation of the time frame in the middle of sentence.
IMO to properly identify the "his people" in vs.21 one must seek to identify the time frame and determine if a time frame in which Jesus could or did "save his people" is over and past, active today, or yet in the future.
The passage in question by the OP, Mt 1:20-23, is the fulfillment of Isa 7:14. Some might question who is the audience of passage from Matt, but do they also question to whom the Isaiah passage is written?
Back to the time frame issue.......
Is the government on His shoulders?
Some say no, that will come in the future Millennial Kingdom and then the prophetic statement of Matt 1:21 will come true and Jesus will save His people by keeping the promises made by God in the OT to the nation of Israel.
Those holding the above premillennial view will also interpret the "his people" to be the nation of Israel.
However, some say yes, the government is on His shoulders today, not physically, but spiritually for Christ is ruling and reigning in the hearts of the Christian even now.
Therefore those holding the above amillennial view will also interpret the "his people" in a much broader sense as covering many more folks than just the nation of Israel.
So now I ask those holding the amillennial view if the Matt passage in question physically happened, was Jesus physically born of a virgin, physically conceived by the Holy Ghost?
Was the Matt passage a physical fulfillment of the Isa 7 passage?
If one says yes to the above question, then one must address why they now feel God has shifted His method of operation and has began to fulfill prophecy not physically, but spiritually.
Is the prophecy of the government being on His shoulders found in Isa 9:6 being fulfilled spiritually now, or will it yet be fulfilled physically in the future when indeed the prophetic statement of vs 21 could be fulfilled?
If one feels the prophecy of Isa 9:6 is truly being fulfilled now in a spiritual manner, then does one really believe in the physical fulfillment of Isa 7, or was the virgin birth also a spiritual event?
20.But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.
21. And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.
22. Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying,
23. Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.
One issue of this thread seems to be centered around vs. 21 in the identification of who "his people" refers.
I do hope all would agree that here the "his" refers to Jesus, the Son.
Some would make the identification based on the Biblical account of what did happen and who was saved.
But that ignores what might happen in the future for sometimes prophetic statements can have a division of many, many years even in the middle of the sentence as exampled by the following:
Isaiah 9:6 (King James Version)
6For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.
A child is born (present tense), and a son is given (present tense); but is the government upon his shoulder?
"the government shall be" (future tense).
Whether one feels that future was only future to the writer, or yet future to us is certainly debatable; but in either case, there is a separation of the time frame in the middle of sentence.
IMO to properly identify the "his people" in vs.21 one must seek to identify the time frame and determine if a time frame in which Jesus could or did "save his people" is over and past, active today, or yet in the future.
The passage in question by the OP, Mt 1:20-23, is the fulfillment of Isa 7:14. Some might question who is the audience of passage from Matt, but do they also question to whom the Isaiah passage is written?
Back to the time frame issue.......
Is the government on His shoulders?
Some say no, that will come in the future Millennial Kingdom and then the prophetic statement of Matt 1:21 will come true and Jesus will save His people by keeping the promises made by God in the OT to the nation of Israel.
Those holding the above premillennial view will also interpret the "his people" to be the nation of Israel.
However, some say yes, the government is on His shoulders today, not physically, but spiritually for Christ is ruling and reigning in the hearts of the Christian even now.
Therefore those holding the above amillennial view will also interpret the "his people" in a much broader sense as covering many more folks than just the nation of Israel.
So now I ask those holding the amillennial view if the Matt passage in question physically happened, was Jesus physically born of a virgin, physically conceived by the Holy Ghost?
Was the Matt passage a physical fulfillment of the Isa 7 passage?
If one says yes to the above question, then one must address why they now feel God has shifted His method of operation and has began to fulfill prophecy not physically, but spiritually.
Is the prophecy of the government being on His shoulders found in Isa 9:6 being fulfilled spiritually now, or will it yet be fulfilled physically in the future when indeed the prophetic statement of vs 21 could be fulfilled?
If one feels the prophecy of Isa 9:6 is truly being fulfilled now in a spiritual manner, then does one really believe in the physical fulfillment of Isa 7, or was the virgin birth also a spiritual event?
.........and are DoGs.....
His motivation is not so much as to learn, but to destroy and seek revenge because Calvinism/Doctrine of Grace cost him his job.
I can't assign him any motive nobler than that, if at all.
Rippon's seek and destroy post was directed at me, post #71. I have never lost any job for my religious views. It was Skandelon who said he lost his job.
You can believe what you want about me, I oppose Calvinism because I believe it serious error.
I believe doctrine a life and death matter. If I think doctrine error I am going to say something about it. I told the story of a very close friend of mine who was a devout Roman Catholic. I spent literally years discussing our differences in doctrine on an almost daily basis. After several years he came to agree that salvation by works is false and trusted Christ alone for salvation.
The whole time we remained the best of friends and still are. I moved from Florida in 1989 and have lived in Ct. ever since. My friend still calls me nearly every weekend to this day. He would tell you that I do not seek to destroy one's faith but only to expose error. We are as close as brothers.
Skandelon
<b>Moderator</b>
I lost a college internship 6 months after becoming a Calvinist and was a Calvinist for 10 years following that experience. My disagreement with Calvinism has nothing to do with that. If there is a since of passion or persistence within my discussions that has more to do with my personality than any angst against Calvinism. I debated in High School and College and I am a competitive personality that doesn't let things go very easy. I debated and argued with the same vigor for Calvinism when I believe it as can be seen by looking back at my posts in early 2003. If I come across as hating you or other Calvinists it is not intended. In fact, two of my very best friends in the world are Calvinistic. I love them dearly and respect them as they do me. It's difficult to convey that same kind of love and respect in this format, but PLEASE don't mistaken my passion for what I believe to be truth as a hatred for anyone.
Skan, I understand, and honestly, at least to me you do not come across that way. And I only pointed out that you lost your job because you had freely admitted that in another post that I saw.
I think it's kind of good that you lost your job over religion really.
OldRegular
Well-Known Member
Two things are clear in a comparison of Scripture related to the Doctrine of Sovereign Grace in Salvation and the doctrine of Freewillism in Salvation.
1. Those Scripture used to support the Doctrine of Sovereign Grace in Salvation do not conflict with Scripture used to support Freewillism.
2. The Scripture used to support the doctrine of Freewillism in Salvation do conflict with the Scripture that are used to support the Doctrine of Sovereign Grace.
1. Those Scripture used to support the Doctrine of Sovereign Grace in Salvation do not conflict with Scripture used to support Freewillism.
2. The Scripture used to support the doctrine of Freewillism in Salvation do conflict with the Scripture that are used to support the Doctrine of Sovereign Grace.
Skandelon
<b>Moderator</b>
In my opinion, general accusations, such as these, without a specific scripture references or a specific example really don't serve a purpose in promoting real discussion or an exchange of ideas.
OldRegular
Well-Known Member
And as you noted in an earlier post you are not shy about expressing your opinion.
It is a fact that Freewillism denies much of John 6, some of John 10, Ephesians 1:3-7, Ephesians 2:1-8, 1 Corinthians 2:14, and Romans 8:29, 30.
There is a new thread entitled: "Are we sometimes too familiar with God?". It is my view that Freewillism sometimes exhibits a weak view of the Holiness and Sovereignty of GOD
Last edited by a moderator:
Skandelon
<b>Moderator</b>
Only if you fail to read John 12 and the rest of scripture, which clearly explains the historical context for the reason why Jesus' audience were unable to come to him (specifically John 12:39-41). If all men were being blinded from birth to the the gospel you might have ground to stand on, but as it was only the Jews were being blinded as such, but "the Gentiles will listen." (Acts 28:28)
Only if you think this passage says certain individuals were predestined to believe, rather than what it actually teaches which is that all believers (us) are predestined to be adopted as children, something we as believers still eagerly await to be completed with the glorification of our bodies.
Only if you presume being dead to something means a life giving message is insufficient to enable faith and new life.
Only if you believe that even the "brethren" in the Corinth weren't really saved because Paul clearly shows that they too were not "spiritual" people who could receive the things Paul was addressing in this context.
Only if you think this passage says certain individuals were predestined to believe, rather than what it actually teaches which is that those who love God (vs 28) are predestined to be conformed to the image of Christ, something we as believers still eagerly await to be completed with the glorification of our bodies.
Only if you presume that God decreeing/ordaining all sinful things before they occur so as to accomplish his purpose is more "Holy and Sovereign" than God accomplishing his ultimate purposes in, through and despite all sinful and unholy things. I prefer the latter as does scripture.
OldRegular
Well-Known Member
Surorise, Surprise!
The Archangel
Well-Known Member
Actually, it does. Those who were "Foreknown," meaning chosen, were predestined to be conformed to the image of Christ.
Don't miss that.
The Archangel
Post #88 was in response and answer to the beginning thread.
Since you started this thread and asked the questions of the thread, would you care to respond to #88 or just keep doing your Gomer thingy?