That Nagging Problem

[BobRyan]

Quote:
BR: The Calvinist gets to the same point as I do -- but they do it 2000 years ago

HP: If it sounds like necessity, walks like necessity and looks like necessity, it most likely is necessity. How can you avoid your position from being viewed as such? How would you go about convincing one that your view is something other than necessitated fatalism?

1. I know of no view that does not conclude that at the 2nd coming ALL cases are decided -- you are either in or out. (Some MK guys fail to get to that point until after the Millennium admittedly). But that is not fatalism. In all views it eventually "resolves".

2. By saying that Christ knows the future perfectly - we are not stuck with fatalism -- because God creates free will conditions EVEN though He has absolute knowledge. Most agree that He has that knowledge and that HE has free will at the same time. So the point holds.

3. By holding to full price - for all mankind -- all sin for all mankind paid at the cross in the "Atoning Sacrifice" we do not have fatalism since it is paid for ALL - but only applied to EACH one on an individual basis based on the work of our High Priest -- Jesus Christ as shown in Lev 16.

4. The work done their correlates not only to Heb 8 and 9 but also to Romans 2 and Daniel 7 -- which you will readily agree is the opposite of fatalism I am sure.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

First of all, consistent Calvinism is not fatalism. Fatalism is some ancient pagan belief that things just "happen" because that's the universal order that comes to pass.

A perfect description of the "abitrary selection" process in Calvinism where - God selects out the FEW of Matt 7 to care about and to atone for -- and the MANY of Matt 7 to care nothing at all about.

As Jonathan Edwards and Spurgeon point out there is no difference at all - not in the tiniest detail between those arbitrarily selected as being IN vs those who are not so selected.

"Determined" is simply a mechanism of double-speak to say "pre-determined to be arbitrary". It is absolutely essential in the CAvlinist model that you NOT have some difference IN THE PERSON that determines selection -- for it is fully arbitrary and "unconditional". So nothing allowed such as "the CONDITION upon which one is arbitrarily selected is hair color, nationality, family membership, certain sins not committed, some choice made, some word spoken" etc etc etc. NOTHING can be "the determining factor" in the person.

It is Fate -- in it's purest form - far beyond what even the pagans could have imagined.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Eliyahu]

There is problem that will not go away. If ones sins were forgiven and paid for on the cross and all is finished as the literal payment would present it, what matters if one believes or not? If the literal payment theory is true, and all is finished, all is finished.

You have a big, big problem with your faith here.
The sin of rejecting the Truth that all the sins were forgiven by the precious Blood of Jesus is totally different from all the sins which were forgiven at the Cross. The Holy Spirit continuously witness the grace and the love of God thru Jesus Christ, unto the conscience of the people.
The sins of the high priests and of Robber, and of Roman Soldiers were forgiven at the Cross. However, if they rejected such forgiveness, then they have committed the much more horrendous crime against God, which means the treading down of the Holy Spirit who testifies and witnesses the forgiveness of sins by the Blood of Jesus. This sin can never be forgiven !

Can one’s refusal to accept or refusal to believe undo what is ‘finished’ by God? Can one by his own will’s rejection of a gift, undo what that is represented by the literal payment theory as set in stone never to be changed or altered?

NOPE! any sin cannot negate the effect and the grace of God by any means. Jesus paid all the price for the sins of the world. Only the people who reject it block out the grace from God for themselves because the sin of Rejecting the witness by Holy Spirit is unforgiveable, much more horrendous, leading to the eternal punichment in the Hell.
You must realize the Sin of rejecting the Redemption by Jesus is totally different from all the other sins of this world.
The forgiveness of all the sins of this world doesn't mean that no one goes to the Hell because there will be many people going to the Hell as they refuse to accept what Jesus has given them, treading down the Holy Spirit.

Read Mt 12:31- .

This is why the sins of the adulterous woman, tax collectors, Robber at the Cross were forgiven and they believed in Jesus and therefore we can believe that they went to the Heaven, while the High priests, priests, elders, pharisees who may have lived better lives morally and committed much lighter sins only rejected Jesus and what He did and therefore we can conclude they went to the Hell.

The Christianity is the faith of the Forgiveness and Love, but the forgiveness doesn't include the forgiveness of the Rejection of the Forgiveness itself. If the people despise and tread down the forgiveness and grace of God who even allowed His Only Begotten Son to die the cruel death at the Cross, what should be the result ? Does God still have to forgive all the rebellious people who reject any Grace and Love of God?

If you think YES, you are claiming that there should be NO HELL because God is Love and forgives all the sins even including the rejection of the forgiveness. Sins are grievous and the Forgiveness by the Blood of Jesus is so precious that cannot be ignored or rejected.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

BR: 3. By holding to full price - for all mankind -- all sin for all mankind paid at the cross in the "Atoning Sacrifice" we do not have fatalism since it is paid for ALL –

HP: You represent here a wasteful economy. Christ is made to pay for that which He knew before hand would no be effectual. That is only one of many notions that a literal payment skews.

The truth is that Christ made a substitutionary payment on behalf of the law and its demands. He did not make a literal payment for any particular sins(s). He satisfied the demands of the law by suffering sufficiently that God accepted that suffering as a substitutionary atonement for sin. The atonement of Christ allowed God to governmentally treat the sinner as if though he had not sinned, IF the sinner would fulfill the conditions God mandated for him to fulfill, ‘without which’ no forgiveness or atonement for any individuals sins would be accomplished.

 

[Andre]

"Determined" is simply a mechanism of double-speak to say "pre-determined to be arbitrary". It is absolutely essential in the CAvlinist model that you NOT have some difference IN THE PERSON that determines selection -- for it is fully arbitrary and "unconditional". So nothing allowed such as "the CONDITION upon which one is arbitrarily selected is hair color, nationality, family membership, certain sins not committed, some choice made, some word spoken" etc etc etc. NOTHING can be "the determining factor" in the person.

It is Fate -- in it's purest form - far beyond what even the pagans could have imagined.

I am entirely in agreement with this. To the extent that a Calvinist (or anyone) claims that election is entirely independent of the specificities of the person elected, including his specific relationship to the rest of the world, then indeed the choice must be arbitrary.

However, to be fair to the Calvinists, is this what you truly believe? A Calvinist can indeed claim that the election is not arbitrary if she agrees with the following statement: "Although election is not based on anything meritorious about the person elected, election is indeed based on something about that person's relationship to the rest of the world".

If one wants to insist that election is achieved without any consideration whatsoever of properties intrinsic to that person or relational to the world, then one is forced into having to sign up to totally arbitrary election.

 

[Dustin]

A perfect description of the "abitrary selection" process in Calvinism where - God selects out the FEW of Matt 7 to care about and to atone for -- and the MANY of Matt 7 to care nothing at all about.

As Jonathan Edwards and Spurgeon point out there is no difference at all - not in the tiniest detail between those arbitrarily selected as being IN vs those who are not so selected.

"Determined" is simply a mechanism of double-speak to say "pre-determined to be arbitrary". It is absolutely essential in the CAvlinist model that you NOT have some difference IN THE PERSON that determines selection -- for it is fully arbitrary and "unconditional". So nothing allowed such as "the CONDITION upon which one is arbitrarily selected is hair color, nationality, family membership, certain sins not committed, some choice made, some word spoken" etc etc etc. NOTHING can be "the determining factor" in the person.

It is Fate -- in it's purest form - far beyond what even the pagans could have imagined.

in Christ,

Bob

THE determing factor is the will of God. Romans 9:11 gives us the reason why it is that way.

11(For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth

Completely unconditional. It says before they did anything, good OR evil, God loved Jacob and hated Esau.

Then we have this: 14What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid.

15For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. 16So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.


It seems that most would deny this truth set forth in Scripture because it is "not fair". The Bible never says God is fair, it says God is just. If God wanted to be "fair" as haters of the truth say he should be, then we'd all go to hell, because we have all sinned. The Scripture declares God is righteous in whatever he does, that includes the reprobation and punishment of the wicked and showing love and compassion towards the elect.

Which brings me to this conclusion.

Psalm 32:1-2


1Blessed is he whose transgression is forgiven, whose sin is covered. 2Blessed is the man unto whom the LORD imputeth not iniquity, and in whose spirit there is no guile.

The transgressions of the elect are forgiven on account of what Jesus did, and our sin is covered by the righteosness of Christ imputed to us.

The elect are blessed because God did not impute iniquity to us, but the righteousness of Christ, and for that we are declared righteous.

That is an awesome truth, and so much stronger than simply saying it was "fate".

Soli Deo Gloria,
Dustin

 

[Dustin]

If one wants to insist that election is achieved without any consideration whatsoever of properties intrinsic to that person or relational to the world, then one is forced into having to sign up to totally arbitrary election.

My answer: So what?

God is righteous in whatever he does. That's what the bible teaches.

The Bible says election is not conditioned on what we do, but is conditioned on God's will.

What's the problem with that?

 

[Andre]

THE determing factor is the will of God. Romans 9:11 gives us the reason why it is that way.

11(For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth

Completely unconditional. It says before they did anything, good OR evil, God loved Jacob and hated Esau.

Then we have this: 14What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid.

15For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. 16So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.

I do not believe that the above text has anything to do with the matter of election of individuals to either salvation or damnation. I say this knowing full well that this material (and the later stuff in verses 20-23) are generally taken to be archetypical verses used to support the doctrine of predestination.

I think that Paul is not interested in issues of election of individuals in this text, but is rather creating an argument to the effect that God has elected national Israel to serve a very specific purpose in His will.

Romans 9 (and 10) is all about the covenant. What many readers of Romans 9 and 10 fail to notice is that Paul retells the entire covenant story of Israel. He starts with Abraham, then Isaac, then Jacob, then Moses and the golden calf, then exile, and ultimately covenant renewal (spilling over into chapter 10).

In this context, it would seem very odd indeed that Paul would suddenly change his focus and start making theological statements about how God elects individuals. He is talking about the election of Israel - it is national Israel that is a "clay pot" formed by God, not individual persons.

The fact that Paul refers to Isaac, Jacob, and even Pharoah does not mean that he is addressing the topic of predestination of individuals in this chapter. He is using these as examples, but as examples in specific service to a claim that he is making about Israel as a nation and how she has been "elected" to play a specific role in the purposes of God.

I am happy to defend these claims more fully in other posts. I think there is a lot of evidence to support the assertion that the "election" being discussed in Romans 9 is the election of national Israel.

I will give one item of evidence in support of this:

Regarding the specific use of the "potter-clay" metaphor elsewhere in Scripture. We have the following from Isaiah 29:

The Lord says:
"These people come near to me with their mouth
and honor me with their lips,
but their hearts are far from me.
Their worship of me
is made up only of rules taught by men.

14 Therefore once more I will astound these people
with wonder upon wonder;
the wisdom of the wise will perish,
the intelligence of the intelligent will vanish."

15 Woe to those who go to great depths
to hide their plans from the LORD,
who do their work in darkness and think,
"Who sees us? Who will know?"

16 You turn things upside down,
as if the potter were thought to be like the clay!
Shall what is formed say to him who formed it,
"He did not make me"?
Can the pot say of the potter,
"He knows nothing"?

Who are "these people"?

I think that the answer, and the relevance to the matter at hand, is clear.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

In Ephesians 1 verses 19 on there is one thing without which the work of God in Christ and through Christ is waste and wasted - destroyed!: "to us-ward". It is the work of God through the Holy Spirit - God reaching towards us and reaching us in Christ through Christ and in and through God's finished works and in and through God, finishing, all His works, in Him. God does not forsake the work of His Hands; He does not do half a job. And His work is half done left if not in His works and through His works in Christ and through Christ He exercised not the exceeding greatness of His Power, "To-Us-Ward". I have described for you, Calvinism, the 'system I for one, believe in. There is no such thing as God's work unfinished - not since Jesus Christ! Soli Deo Gloria! (That's why I believe the Sabbath of the LORD your God.)

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

I do not believe that the above text has anything to do with the matter of election of individuals to either salvation or damnation. I say this knowing full well that this material (and the later stuff in verses 20-23) are generally taken to be archetypical verses used to support the doctrine of predestination.

I think that Paul is not interested in issues of election of individuals in this text, but is rather creating an argument to the effect that God has elected national Israel to serve a very specific purpose in His will.

Romans 9 (and 10) is all about the covenant. What many readers of Romans 9 and 10 fail to notice is that Paul retells the entire covenant story of Israel. He starts with Abraham, then Isaac, then Jacob, then Moses and the golden calf, then exile, and ultimately covenant renewal (spilling over into chapter 10).

In this context, it would seem very odd indeed that Paul would suddenly change his focus and start making theological statements about how God elects individuals. He is talking about the election of Israel - it is national Israel that is a "clay pot" formed by God, not individual persons.

The fact that Paul refers to Isaac, Jacob, and even Pharoah does not mean that he is addressing the topic of predestination of individuals in this chapter. He is using these as examples, but as examples in specific service to a claim that he is making about Israel as a nation and how she has been "elected" to play a specific role in the purposes of God.

I am happy to defend these claims more fully in other posts. I think there is a lot of evidence to support the assertion that the "election" being discussed in Romans 9 is the election of national Israel.

I will give one item of evidence in support of this:

Regarding the specific use of the "potter-clay" metaphor elsewhere in Scripture. We have the following from Isaiah 29:

The Lord says:
"These people come near to me with their mouth
and honor me with their lips,
but their hearts are far from me.
Their worship of me
is made up only of rules taught by men.

14 Therefore once more I will astound these people
with wonder upon wonder;
the wisdom of the wise will perish,
the intelligence of the intelligent will vanish."

15 Woe to those who go to great depths
to hide their plans from the LORD,
who do their work in darkness and think,
"Who sees us? Who will know?"

16 You turn things upside down,
as if the potter were thought to be like the clay!
Shall what is formed say to him who formed it,
"He did not make me"?
Can the pot say of the potter,
"He knows nothing"?

Who are "these people"?

I think that the answer, and the relevance to the matter at hand, is clear.

GE
Andre, try again! and make it simpler for the corruptibles like me, and more trusting God and God's will, at God's will.

 

[Andre]

GE
Andre, try again! and make it simpler for the corruptibles like me, and more trusting God and God's will, at God's will.

Hello Gerhard:

I believe that in Romans 9, Paul is indeed talking about election - in the sense of God "fore-ordaining" that something happen - but the subject here is the election of a nation (Israel) not individual people. This is, of course, a possible meaning of the text that cannot be discounted. Can God "elect" nations to serve His purposes? Of course He can.

In this post I will simply claim what I believe God is electing Israel to do. I may elaborate in later posts.

God is electing Israel to be a "vessel of destruction", just like Pharoah (who is mentioned immediately before the famous potter's text). Israel is to "act out the Christ pattern" - that is to be cast away for the sins of the world. That is what Israel has been elected to do and it is the "justice" of that election that Paul is defending in Romans 9. Of course, God, in his infinite mercy, eventually focuses the sin of the world in the flesh of Jesus - acting as Israel's truly representative Messiah - and thereby fulfills His covenant to use Israel to solve the Adamic problem in a strange and unexpected way.

But national Israel does play a role here - she is elected to draw the sin of the world onto herself (through the strange action of the Law which for Paul clearly has this "dark" side). Then God spares Israel at the very end by sending Jesus to take that awful stroke at Calvary.

 

[Dustin]

Hello Gerhard:

I believe that in Romans 9, Paul is indeed talking about election - in the sense of God "fore-ordaining" that something happen - but the subject here is the election of a nation (Israel) not individual people. This is, of course, a possible meaning of the text that cannot be discounted. Can God "elect" nations to serve His purposes? Of course He can.

In this post I will simply claim what I believe God is electing Israel to do. I may elaborate in later posts.

God is electing Israel to be a "vessel of destruction", just like Pharoah (who is mentioned immediately before the famous potter's text). Israel is to "act out the Christ pattern" - that is to be cast away for the sins of the world. That is what Israel has been elected to do and it is the "justice" of that election that Paul is defending in Romans 9. Of course, God, in his infinite mercy, eventually focuses the sin of the world in the flesh of Jesus - acting as Israel's truly representative Messiah - and thereby fulfills His covenant to use Israel to solve the Adamic problem in a strange and unexpected way.

But national Israel does play a role here - she is elected to draw the sin of the world onto herself (through the strange action of the Law which for Paul clearly has this "dark" side). Then God spares Israel at the very end by sending Jesus to take that awful stroke at Calvary.

I disagree. I've actually never heard a theory like this. Paul is explaining that just because a person is a Jew, doesn't mean they are true spiritual Jews. Their father in the flesh is Abraham, but they are not the true (spiritual) seed of Abraham. I don't have time to go into the many details, so this answer must suffice for now.


Soli Deo Gloria,
Dustin

 

[Andre]

I disagree. I've actually never heard a theory like this.

To give appropriate credit (even if readers think the theory is incorrect), these ideas are largely not my own in origin but are my understanding of a position put forward by British theologian NT Wright.

 

[Andre]

Paul is explaining that just because a person is a Jew, doesn't mean they are true spiritual Jews. Their father in the flesh is Abraham, but they are not the true (spiritual) seed of Abraham. I don't have time to go into the many details, so this answer must suffice for now.


Soli Deo Gloria,
Dustin

What has Paul just been talking about before he starts the potter's account? He is talking about the hardening of Pharoah. Already, this should be a clue - when Paul then immediately talks about clay vessels, he is still talking about a hardening. I find it very difficult to believe that the use of the specific analogy of clay, following a reference to the hardening of Pharoah, is a coincidence.

Paul is comparing Israel to Pharoah. Just as God hardened Pharoah to achieve a great historical act of redemption - the deliverance of the Jews out of exile from Egypt, so God has hardened Israel in service of another great act of redemption - the deliverance of all mankind out of exile from the garden.

Why has God hardened Israel - Romans 7:13 tells us:

Did that which is good, then, become death to me? By no means! But in order that sin might be recognized as sin, it produced death in me through what was good, so that through the commandment sin might become utterly sinful.

The "in order that" and the "so that" are strongly suggestive of a divine purpose. God has used the Law to draw sin together onto national Israel, and from there it will be placed on the shoulders of her representative - Jesus.

 

[skypair]

Conversly, I affirm divine determinism.

As did the Greek fatalists. The only difference I can see is in which God or gods divinely determine what will happen.

You are in no better position regarding your destiny than they were -- it is out of your hands. To say it is all in God's or gods' hands is incidental to the argument that, for you, there is nothing you can do about your "election" or your "calling."

skypair

 

[skypair]

Mr. HP,

Yes, I agree that even the pagan notion of fatalism takes no regard for free will or human agency. The pagans just substituted fate for God, as their darkened minds could not truly comprehend the truth. But I'm speaking of true Biblical determinism.

It doesn't matter which gods you substitute into the premise, the outcome is still the same -- no human agency, only God/gods get their will done.

Without election or predestination or an understanding of divine determinism, grace is no longer truly grace in it's Biblical sense.

Even in Greek mythology, the gods were allowed to be "gracious" to some -- usually their "fair-haired" boys.

If your position is true, then we have a god that is not in control of his creation.

He "controls," not the decisions, but the outcomes. He even has "laws" that tell us that so that when we sin, our "outcome" will be wrath but when we repent and obey, our outcome will be blessing. Now WE choose while He remains in control.

See, with the gods of fate, cause and effect were disassociated. Have you read "Eudipus Rex?" The gods had predetemined (predestinated as you would have it) that he would kill his king-father and marry his queen-mother -- which was made known to his father by the oracle (prophet) at Delphi. His father, not being man enough to slay his son, takes him to a farmer to do it -- and he doesn't. Later the son is responding to a pledge of reward if one could answer the "mystery of the sphinx" when a royal carriage carrying his father runs him off the road. Being not a bit humble, Eudipus stops the carriage and kills the occupant. He goes on to answer the sphinx and marry his mother.

Then he has a "David moment." It is revealed to him that what he has done was prophecied of him and FOREORDAINED for him by the gods. He thought he was responsible for his great success but realized that, no matter what he had done, it was (I paraphrase) "all of god!" just like Calvinists proclaim!

This god must rely on his creation for his will to be done. Sir, that is not the God of Scripture, because if it is, then Scripture is wrong, and the apostle Paul just wasted his time writing all those letters.

Now don't have a tantrum. You didn't understand rightly how God controlled everything, did you? He lets us make independent decisions but not only does He control the outcomes, He has already told us what many of them will be.

skypair

 

[skypair]

Paul is explaining that just because a person is a Jew, doesn't mean they are true spiritual Jews. Their father in the flesh is Abraham, but they are not the true (spiritual) seed of Abraham. I don't have time to go into the many details, so this answer must suffice for now.

Read the openings to Rom 9 - 10 - 11, Dustin. Paul is speaking to the Jews about the Jews. He was wishing they would be saved ENMASSE -- which he claims they will be -- Rom 11:26. Individual salvation or condemnation is not in view in these passages.

skypair

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Skypair: It doesn't matter which gods you substitute into the premise, the outcome is still the same -- no human agency, only God/gods get their will done.

HP: Excellent point.:thumbs: Responsibility for ones intents and actions is also destroyed along with justice concerning any rewards or punishments.

Skypair; He "controls," not the decisions, but the outcomes. He even has "laws" that tell us that so that when we sin, our "outcome" will be wrath but when we repent and obey, our outcome will be blessing. Now WE choose while He remains in control.

HP: Another good point.:thumbs: Do this and ye shall live, do this and ye shall certainly die are the Scripturally stated outcomes.

 

[Dustin]

It doesn't matter which gods you substitute into the premise, the outcome is still the same -- no human agency, only God/gods get their will done.

Even in Greek mythology, the gods were allowed to be "gracious" to some -- usually their "fair-haired" boys.

He "controls," not the decisions, but the outcomes. He even has "laws" that tell us that so that when we sin, our "outcome" will be wrath but when we repent and obey, our outcome will be blessing. Now WE choose while He remains in control.

See, with the gods of fate, cause and effect were disassociated. Have you read "Eudipus Rex?" The gods had predetemined (predestinated as you would have it) that he would kill his king-father and marry his queen-mother -- which was made known to his father by the oracle (prophet) at Delphi. His father, not being man enough to slay his son, takes him to a farmer to do it -- and he doesn't. Later the son is responding to a pledge of reward if one could answer the "mystery of the sphinx" when a royal carriage carrying his father runs him off the road. Being not a bit humble, Eudipus stops the carriage and kills the occupant. He goes on to answer the sphinx and marry his mother.

Then he has a "David moment." It is revealed to him that what he has done was prophecied of him and FOREORDAINED for him by the gods. He thought he was responsible for his great success but realized that, no matter what he had done, it was (I paraphrase) "all of god!" just like Calvinists proclaim!

Now don't have a tantrum. You didn't understand rightly how God controlled everything, did you? He lets us make independent decisions but not only does He control the outcomes, He has already told us what many of them will be.

skypair

Well, I'm glad I came back to check this thread.

I've never read any Greek literature except for in a high school mythology class in which I never paid any attention.

In just about all worldly religions, there are certain sects that affirm some sort of determinism, as there are some who champion free will. Historically, as I see it defined, fate is not attributed to any higher diety, it "just happens", it's an inpersonal force. Some vague law of the universe, which is different in deistic thought. But, from a Christian perspective (i.e. true perspective) we know that God, as defined in the Bible, created and controls everything.

I ask you this, if God determines the outcomes, then has he not also determined the means to that end? Christ's earthly ministry comes to mind. Jesus was very frank with his diciples, telling them many times that his only reason for him doing certain things was to do the Father's will. What about Judas, he betrayed Christ into the hands of the Jews, so that the Scriptures would be fufilled. It was written, then it was carried out, all in God's control. Jesus even said he could have prayed for legions of angels to come and save him, but God's will was that he be lifted up on the cross, for the redemption of all that believe in him. God said it was going to happen, he provided the means and the end to make it happen, he was soveriegnly in control in all phases.

I don't buy your last statement at all, if God controls the end, then He must also control the means, whatever they may be, or else a man's will forces God to do things which He is unwilling to do. He would by definition not be God anymore. Example: Judas, from the bottom of his heart, repents for betraying Christ, and believes in Christ with all his heart and soul, therefore, since he "followed the rules" God must forgive him. God answers to noone. There is NO higher authority. God is above law, He does as He pleases. Read the Psalms, read Job, it's all in there.

I'm through for now.


Soli Deo Gloria,
Dustin

P.S. When I say "means", decisions are in mind.

 

[Dustin]

Read the openings to Rom 9 - 10 - 11, Dustin. Paul is speaking to the Jews about the Jews. He was wishing they would be saved ENMASSE -- which he claims they will be -- Rom 11:26. Individual salvation or condemnation is not in view in these passages.

skypair

Paul writes of two kinds of Jews. Those who are outwardly Jewish (national Israel) and those who are inwardly Jews (Abraham's seed, the elect).

So which Jews do you think Paul was speaking of when he said they would be saved enmasse?



A question off topic: are you a dispensationalist?

Soli Deo Gloria,
Dustin