Are you sure you want to use that verse? The context is not elect verses non elect. The context is jew verses Gentile. The word translated as ordained can also be used as disposed. The gospel, in that passage, was rejected by the unbelieving Jews and so Paul turns to those who were disposed to hear it which were the Gentiles. Context is king.
-
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!
Paul Washer: Don’t fear for murderers on Judgment Day, fear for these pastors
- Thread starter evangelist6589
- Start date
- Status
Are you sure you want to use that verse? The context is not elect verses non elect. The context is jew verses Gentile. The word translated as ordained can also be used as disposed. The gospel, in that passage, was rejected by the unbelieving Jews and so Paul turns to those who were disposed to hear it which were the Gentiles. Context is king.
What you are calling "dance around the issue" is gaining a proper understanding of the context. It is necessary for proper exegesis. Isolating verses works for reformed folks, but it never leads to proper understanding of the text as intended by the author.
Those who were ordained believed. Not those who believed were then ordained. You have the sequence backwards Brother.
Those who were ordained believed. Not those who believed were then ordained. You have the sequence backwards Brother.
Yet reformed folks ignore the order in John 1:12 But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God,
The order layed out in this passage:
1. receive
2. believe
3. saved
Anyway what is the context of that passage. Is election even in view? Nope it is Jew verses Gentile not elect verses non elect.
Brother, that passage in John 1:12,13 couldn't be any clearer if they tried to make it clearer, but you are continually rewriting the narrative to fit you ideologies. Just like you rewrote John 6:37-45.
But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.[John 1:12-13]
Now, those who received Him, those who believed in Him, who are they? Those who were born of God. That's as clear as a bell. The birth by the Spirit is an absolute must before anyone will receive Him. They have to be quickened, and in this divine quickening, a new heart and spirit are given to them. Their old heart was as hard as a stone, could not love Him, could not receive the seed, the word of God.
It just like in 1 John 4:7, when it says those that love God were born of Him. The birth by the Spirit of God is an absolute must, and must come before they can love Him, believe in Him and receive Him.
Ok they were born of God. After they received and believed. You were insistent on an order laid out in scripture in the other passage but ignore it here. What it does say:
1. But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God,
2. to those who believe in His name,...He gave the right to become children of God
3. who were born...of God
4. not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man
This book was written to Jews. The primary issue they needed to get past to understand the gospel was that they did not automatically receive salvation just because they were children of Abraham. It is why Jesus addressed this in chapter 3. Jews thought they automatically were children of God just because they were Jews. Jesus over and over again refuted this and here John, after three years with Jesus, did the same thing. Again context is King.
The problem with reformed theology is specific passages have to be isolated from the over all context in order for the presuppositions to work. Context is King.
Yep. Agreed! He has turned John 1:12,13 on its head.
I am not, and never have been, "reformed." But if it makes you feel better to call me such names, please feel free. My shoulders are broad. I can take it.
Not to hijack the thread, but where do particular and reformed Baptists differ? Don't both hold to the TULIP?
And personal attacks like this is why people have quit discussing things with cals/reformed/particular or whatever flavor of the same thing you wish to be.
And yes this is a personal attack apparently admins and owners get away with these around here now.
LOL! Talk about context! You edit what I wrote to make yourself look like a victim!
"Reformed" refers to those Protestant groups who first tried to reform the Roman Catholic Church (thus the term "reformed") and when that failed they were either excommunicated by Rome or voluntarily left Rome to found their own "churches."
Dissenting churches, on the other hand, were never part of Rome, were not interested in reforming Rome, but focused on preaching the gospel and staying alive while hunted by Rome.
And the acronym "TULIP" is of fairly late origin probably dating to around the early 1900s. I have no problem with the acronym "TULIP" (with the exception of the "I" which I would prefer to be an "E" for Effectual Grace but, alas, "TULEP" doesn't spell anything!) but, as with all such discussions, definitions are paramount to understanding one another's position.
LOL! Talk about context! You edit what I wrote to make yourself look like a victim!
Uh no I did not edit what you wrote an absurd accusation. I left the first sentence in original order. What did happen here is you could no longer support your argument so you abandoned it and resorted to a personal attack.
"Reformed" refers to those Protestant groups who first tried to reform the Roman Catholic Church (thus the term "reformed") and when that failed they were either excommunicated by Rome or voluntarily left Rome to found their own "churches."
Dissenting churches, on the other hand, were never part of Rome, were not interested in reforming Rome, but focused on preaching the gospel and staying alive while hunted by Rome.
And the acronym "TULIP" is of fairly late origin probably dating to around the early 1900s. I have no problem with the acronym "TULIP" (with the exception of the "I" which I would prefer to be an "E" for Effectual Grace but, alas, "TULEP" doesn't spell anything!) but, as with all such discussions, definitions are paramount to understanding one another's position.
Personally, I don't have a problem with either title being applied to me. But I can see your stance and why you have taken it.
LOL! Talk about context! You edit what I wrote to make yourself look like a victim!
He didn't edit it. He did not quote all of your post, but he didn't edit it.
Quoting part of my statement, taking that part out of context, is editing in my understanding of the term.
Quoting part of my statement, taking that part out of context, is editing in my understanding of the term.
Good luck with that.
Yeah, just one of my pedantic peculiarities. I try to be as precise as possible.
You seem to be having some difficulty following the discussion. You called me "reformed." In that context I said, "Once again you have demonstrated the inability to comprehend rather simple concepts. I am not, and never have been, "reformed." But if it makes you feel better to call me such names, please feel free. My shoulders are broad. I can take it."
You cannot separate the first sentence from the second sentence, which is a circumstantial clause establishing the context of the first sentence.
Got it now?
- Status