Romans 9 and election - another take

The reason God would not act outside His divine attributes is not because He is limited, but because He would never desire to do evil.

He will not sin because He does not desire to, and He will never desire to because He never changes (God is not the author of sin, but sin did not come into being outside of God's Lordship - for God is Lord of all things - if God did not want sin, it would not have come into being).

I would say that those who reject His plan, reject because He has decreed it to be so. So, no one rejects unless that is what He ordained to happen. Therefore He never saves anyone who rejects His plan for Salvation - because He is in control. The one who rejects, rejects because he is hardend, the one who recieves, recives because God chose to have mercy on him.

Your question is of the thought that man's choices are above God's - which is what I am saying is not the case.

If God's choices are above man's than the situation in your question would never take place.

Because He lives,
Nathan

 

Absolutely! God is free. He is free to take only actions that are within His Divine attributes.

Can the Lord sin? Can He save someone who rejects His plan of salvation? [John 3:18] God cannot be so free as I think you mean to violate His holy Being and decrees. </font>[/QUOTE]So, why is man different in your system? This proposition proves the compatibalist position on free will. God not being able to sin is because it is contrary to His nature.

So it is with man, he can not choose to be saved on his own without being given and drawn by the Holy Spirit. Why? Because doing so is contrary to his fallen nature.

 

John 1:12 says no such thing. It simply says that those that receive Christ have the right to become God's children. All Acts 17:30 says is that God is declaring that all men everywhere repent. Why do some repent and not others, especially since John 6 says that all who believe, come, and those that come are drawn, and these are the same ones given to the Son by the Father and who will be raised on the last day. Jesus Himself says that ALL of those that are so given, drawn, and come, WILL believe.

Receiving Christ is a matter of mercy and not justice, because only those that believe receive this right. According to John 6 those are the ones that come, and only those that are drawn come, and only those that are given come. Sorry, Ray, but only the elect have this right. That is the teaching of Scripture. If everybody had the right, then John 1:12 would lead you to universalism contrary to John 6.

As soon as you say that all people have a right to bow before Christ, you have said they DESERVE to be saved. Why? Why do ALL PEOPLE deserve to be saved?

 

Gene M. Bridges,

You have convinced yourself that you are right. You said,

Your thoughts, ideas and words fly in the face of Jesus who said after His resurrection, that His eleven apostles should go into all the world for the purpose of reaching every human person. Mark 16:15 our Lord said, 'Go into all the world and preach the Gospel to every creature.'

His love, mercy, and Divine justice will always be reaching out to all lost souls [John 3:17 & I John 2:2] in spite of a few people who discount His words. I could offer up thirty verses showing Jesus universal love for souls, and you would still hold to your tradition and human philosophy of religion.

Biblicists like me will always hold to the manuscripts given to us until He comes.

 

In Romans 9 Paul is talking about more than just the election of nations. Paul is discussing who the children of God are ("...The children of the flesh, these are not the CHILDREN OF GOD"). That phrase "children of God" is used by Paul throughout the New Testament salvifically, not nationally. Are all Gentiles "children of God?" I think not! Romans 9 MUST be teaching election of individuals since Paul answered the common arguments that the Arminians put against it. "Who art thou that repliest against God?"

 

Primitive Baptist,

You seem to like Romans 9. Has your denomination figured out yet why Esau is listed among the O.T. great saints in Hebrews 11:20? It must be a thorn in your shoes.

In your spare time also study another father of the faith, Jephthae in Hebrews 11:32.

The best of all things spiritual to you and yours.

Ray

 

Genembridges;
You make a false charge against me with a bunch of nonsense. Yet you offer no proof of what you are saying at all just a bunch of second hand gossip.
I have certainly noticed that you have run out of 2 dollar words now you're down to two bits
Mike

 

Mike, you wrote: "The word draw translated from the Greek word "hel-koo'-o," isn't even in the codex in which the NASV was translated from. In fact it was added by Wesscott and Hort for purposes of grammar. You then documented it to say, "The New Testament in the original Greek. The text revised by. Brooke Foss Westcott, D.D. Fenton John Anthony Hort, D.D. New York. Harper & Brothers, Franklin Square. 1885.

The funny thing is, Mike, the person I checked with the person who wrote the morphology for the W-H New Testament, Dr. Maurice A. Robinson, who happens to be my former New Testament professor from seminary. He has also written: The New Testament in the Original Greek: According to the Byzantine-Majority Textform (aka Robinson-Pierpont Majority Text NT). He has also written, Indexes to All Editions of Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew Lexicon and Thayer's Greek Lexicon.

He responded, "The word hELKUSH _is_ in 6:44, and in _all_ extant MSS that contain this verse." Is he lying? Are you telling us that he is lying? This is a man that teaches NT and Greek for a living, who is regarded as one of the foremost scholars in NT textual criticism and morphology. Are you saying he is incorrect? If so, then I want the page number and the direct quote, word for word, from the text you are using that says this so that I can send it to him for comment.

You then claimed, "What I meant was it doesn't appear in John 6:44" and he responded "There are _zero_ variants in regard to the word hELKUSH in that verse. Check _any_ critical apparatus (Nestle, UBS, von Soden, Tischendorf, Legg, Souter, Tregelles, etc.)" It appears, Mike, you have been very clearly shown to be wrong. Just admit it. EVERY critical apparatus has that word in John 6:44. Westcott and Hort did NOT add it. It is simply in every manuscript ALREADY. Again, same source.

You then wrote, " When the word 'Motivated' or 'Enticed' would have been a more accurate." I even checked Louws and BDAG, and THEY did not agree with you. Who's making up information here, Mike? What do I need to do, get a certified letter?

What lexicon are you using that defines "helkuo" as "motivate" or "entice" and not "drag," or "draw," because neither he nor I can seem to find one?

[ December 09, 2004, 10:56 PM: Message edited by: GeneMBridges ]

 

No, Ray, the text in John says, in literal Greek "But as many as received Him He gave to them right children of God to become." Very clearly, ONLY THOSE THAT RECEIVE JESUS HAVE THE RIGHT TO BECOME GOD'S CHILDREN. "Them" is identified as the many" in the preceding clause. Who are the many? Those that receive Christ. The text does NOT say, as you said that Jesus guarantees this right to each and every human being. If so, Ray, that would be universalism, because that would mean that those that receive Christ are all saved, because those that are saved are God's children. Preaching the gospel to every creature has a sum total of zero to do with all persons having a right. Rights are, by definition, things that persons deserve. As soon as you say that all persons deserve this particular right, you move salvation from the category of mercy to justice, contrary to Scripture.

Listing verses like Dave Hunt does not show you can interact with the text and show this. You entire argument is circular. If, however, you can exegete the text, then that is a different story.

If that was true, you'd believe in irresistible grace as taught in John 6 and you would exegete John 1:12 properly.

 

The subject of Heb. 11:20 is Isaac, not Esau. Isaac, blessed both Esau and Jacob. The text does not say Esau was regenerate, only that he received a blessing from Isaac. The blessing that he got was a blessing of servitude to Isaac, and a withholding of the fertility of the earth, not one of personal salvation or any kind of material blessing. Receiving a blessing from somebody does not make one a hero of the faith. Nothing is written there of Esau relative to anything he believed about God, e.g. as a matter of faith. The text does not even say that Esau received a blessing by faith. In Heb. 12, the writer of Hebrews calls Esau godless and immoral and unable to repent.

 

King David commits murder and repeated immorality and receives forgiveness from the Lord. Esau, you say, was unspiritual and he gets shuffled off to Hell where the fires are never quenched, even after trying to repent and come under the good graces of our Lord. Now here is a twisted theology.

Esau's tears were not of repentance for past sins committed, but were feelings of forever losing the blessing of being the lineage through which Christ would step into our world as Savior.

In spite of Jacob's deceit it is through his family line that Jesus became the Son of Promise.
Remember Esau returned to mend the relationship with his brother Jacob and not the opposite. Esau had a spirit after God's own Personality.

Esau and Jacob were both flawed spiritually speaking, but both received the blessing of Isaac as to their future lives together in Heaven.

Esau lost because not one of his children became one of the twelve tribes of Israel. He was sent by God to the barren land of Edom. This is what Esau's tears were all about. Though he went to Isaac and tried to turn about his loss, God providentially overruled in his life and is of less import than Jacob who produced the Son of God and the Son of man, namely Jesus Christ our Lord.

Just a couple of thoughts before I

 

Except that David DID actually repent, according to Scripture Ray. David is listed in Hebrews 11 as a hero of the faith, and David DID in fact repent of his sins. Trying to repent does not equal repentance, particularly when the text says that the person trying to repent could not find it. Godly sorrow leads to repentance. Esau's sorrow was not godly. Therefore, he could not repent. Interesting...God must intervene and change the heart before a person can repent, just like John 6:44 says. Regeneration precedes faith for this very reason.

The text, of course, nowhere says this. This is just an extrapolation from it. Persons that repent are not called godless or immoral after the fact. Esau is.

Where does Scripture say this? Scripture says that Esau mended his relationship with Jacob. It does not say that he repented of his sins, and it NEVER, EVER says Esau was a man after God's own personality. Unregenerate people mend bad relationships all the time. It does not mean they have repented of their sin. There are other reasons for mending relationships other than repentance for sin toward God; ungodly people do this all the time.

Where does Scripture say this? The Bible I have says the blessing for Esau was one of servitude to Jacob, a withholding of the fertility of the earth, and that one day Esau would cast of the yoke of Jacob. Esau fathered the Edomites. We know from archaelogy the Edomites became the Hyksos of Egypt that enslaved the Israelites in Exodus. Yep, one day they cast off the Hebrews, at great cost. Nowhere does the blessing ever say anything about their future lives in heaven.

Irrelevant. Nowhere does Scripture ever picture Esau as being a godly man. All it ever really says about him is that he mended his relationship with Isaac. It never says that he repented of his sin and that this was the reason he did this. It calls him immoral and godless and unable to repent.

 

Ray,

Context of Heb 11 is dealing with endureing the chastising hand of God..

naturally speaking Esau could have received a natural blessing but didn't

If we continue and endure we will inherit a spriital blessing becasue we are spiritual isrealites or decendents of Jacob (type of elect).

just a thought

Larry

 

Brother Larry,

You said,

I thought that Hebrews 12 dealt with the chastening hand of God in the lives of His people.

Hypothetically yes, but it was God’s providence to elevate Jacob and place Esau in an inferior state of life and grace. Roman 9:13 is more than clear as to the Lord’s preference of Jacob over Esau, but not in the matter of eternal salvation.

Yes, I for the most part agree with you that we are ‘spiritual Israel’ as indicated in Galatians 6:16. Somewhere I read that the derivation of the word Israel means ‘prince with God.’ This is our standing with Jesus. We are His princes and princesses while here on earth and will be once we are translated into Heaven.

As to 'continuing to endure' we all desire this as true believers, but this can never, in my opinion, be a criterion for acceptance before God in Heaven. If it is then we believe in salvation by faith plus 'works' or our contribution to our own eternal security. Ephesians 2:9 still means what it says; 'not of works lest any man (or woman) should boast.'

Blessings to you from God.