The book Of Romans

Rippon,

Romans is, indeed, a significant book! My pastor, the late Dr. Rogers, broke it down like this:

Sin -- 1-3
Salvation -- 4
Sancitifaction -- 5-8
Sovereignty -- 9-11
Service -- 12-16

I'd say that where most theologists get into trouble is Ch 9-11. They tend to apply to the church, to individual Christians, and to salvation many concepts that were meant to apply to Israel as a people. But notice --- the topic throughout these chapters is "Paul's people," the Jews.

Therefore, for example, when Paul quotes Malachi "Jacob have I loved but Esau have I hated," (Rom 9:13) he is NOT speaking of the individuals nor salvation but of their descendants. Esau blessed Jacob when Jacob returned and apologized, people!

"Sovereignty" is probably NOT a good heading -- more like "How God Is Dealing with Israel."

skypair

 

Rippon,

What you state are Calvinist tenants are actually those of Christendom as a whole. But I will say you are right about Calvinism being more than just 5 points for there are areas many who clain Calvinism will not accept his (John Calvins) full teachings, but maintain the unity on its (system of theology) 5 points. What makes ANYTHING Calvinistic is that it holds to the presupposition of the 5 points. Just because we know Jesus Christ is God does not mean this is Calvinistic because it is an immutable truth. Why, because the the very 5 points of Calvinism have NEVER been proven to be immutably true and as such held AS a view OF truth. Otherwise it would be an accepted (immutable) truth such as the virgin birth, death, burial, resurrection, salvation ect... that is accepted by all those who are His people in truth. But as we see CLEARLY it is still a debatable subject and not found to be immutable by the whole body of Christ our Lord, who teaches ALL His children truth via the Holy Spirit. It is just odd to me that the Holy Spirit is unable to teach the truths of scripture in its truth but to only a select group of Calvinsts while the rest of the body of Christ must learn these truths from the Calvinists rather than the Holy Spirit through their own personal studies.

Why can't the Holy Spirit teach two people (who are studing to find the truth on their own) the same truths such as found in Calvinism. Because it is only a view of truth. It holds truth just as the non-calvinist view holds truth but the mechanics are seen differently.

BTW: Why if Paul understands God soveriegnty and wrote Chapter 9 (which BTW I have no problem with) does he begin it with him wanting to be accused from Christ for his brethren (their salvation). He is in great sorrow and heavyness over this. Why would someone who understands Gods sovereignty so well and Gods choosing as complete and unchangable, be under such sorrow and wishing himself seperated from Christ for his brethrens salvation. I personally know of NO calvinist who weeps or greatly sorrows over those God has not chosen. (but this does not mean there are not any out there) Why such sorrow from Paul over the non-elected, unless he does not have the same view of them that MOST present day calvinists do or the same view of sovereignty from the Calvinist perspective.

Just some thoughts

 

Well, He taught me, so I guess we just need one more and then you will be satisfied?

"Calvinism" used to be the majority Protestant position. It is currently the minority position. Neither of those positions are worth anything when evaluating whether it is true or not.

 

Amen, Rippon. Although I nearly had a seizure when I read "the most pounds for the punch". Sorry, it's the editor/writer in me, I guess. :smilewinkgrin:

 

Election was one of the pivotal issues of the reformation. Semi-pelagianism is one of those things that the "protestants" protested. Now that "protestants" are dominated by semi-pelagians, like the word "Catholic", the word "protestant" obviously doesn't mean what it used to mean.

 

Most particularly when baptists were never protestents. It also had to be the ruling voice since the early reformers (many) still used the Catholic rule of law and persecuted or killed those against it. That aside, baptists are not, nor have ever been protestants :thumbs:

BTW: I agree with you "whatever",

That was my whole point! Neither view is immutable but the truth that each view holds is. The view is only that "a view" but the truth is still the same under either view.

 

I'm not sure what you're implying here. The Catholic view was semi-pelagian during the time of the reformation. So if anyone pretended to buy into the Catholic view in order to avoid persecution, they would be espousing free will, not election.

 

And before the reformation, the Greeks called it "fate vs. free will." And they still couldn't figure out why Eodipus killed his dad and married his mom --- and so, children, they turned the whole "mystery" over to Augustinians, Calviists, and the like and called it "theolgoy!!" :laugh: :laugh:

skypair

 

Allan,

I, for one, appreciated your post. Very poignant, sir!!

skypair

 

ol boy...

Don't tell me your a "trail-of-blood" guy!!

We have some talking to do...if so.


In Christ...James

 

I appreciate that Skypair. Though I am not trying to put down anyone, I am trying to show that a VEIW is not the same as the immutable TRUTH we are trying to understand.

NPETRELEY:
The reformers did not break away from the Catholic Church due to issues of election (nor was it the main thrust of the reformation, but it was an issue indeed)
There was much, much more to the separation than this issue.

However, the ruling body of reformers (later) would not allow ANY dissent against the acknowledged reformed view, and thus we KNOW they persecuted and killed those who did not believe like they did at that time. Over time as God so willed and the extremists died off others of like faith but different view began come into those positions once again. The only reason it was predominant is because the reformers acted much like their contemporaries (the Catholic Church) in eradicating any differing views or thoughts but that which was mandated to believe.

Jarthor:
Baptists have never been Protestants, period! Unless you know something that no Baptist history professor I've ever studied under knows (books written concerning it). Yes there are Catholic books on church history where everything is a spawn of the Catholic church, however it is historical fact there has always been a dissenting body of believers throughout history who have denied the C. Churches teachings and even grew into other bodies (different names of course) that held similar truths but differing views as to the mechanics of them. Now mark me here, I did not say they were all Baptist (though the argument is made) I just stated as Baptist we are not protestants OR reformers since the name implies they were reforming their thoughts that were contrary to Catholic dogma, views and religion to something more along biblical lines.

 

Hello Allan,

humm...As things would have it, I do know a few things about history. No claim to knowing it all. But I have a few ideas of what went on. Please don't cut me short only because you read a book or two or maybe 10 and heard a few other guys ideas. There maybe other views then what you have sat under. Now I understand you may not agree. But..save your "historical facts" for later and we will see how they hold up. Maybe we can take this up on a new thread. I look forward to hear what you have to say.


In Christ...James

 

Let me add....

I know very little about the reformer age. I just never had the time to study it. There are others on here that could help us with this. However, I think I can hold my own on the early church up to 500s...and i know more then just a little from 500-1000. But..we shall see.


In Christ...James

 

Sure, you know I'm always game.

I would be greatly interested in hearing your views on how the Catholic Church has been the only church over the past 1500 plus years, and that from it came all other branches of beleivers.

However there must be a standard of criteria that can be entered as historical fact since we would only be rehashing (as you put it) mens views.

Alas, it is a shame that most history is relative to those in authority to write it as they wish but there is still facts lieing here and there to peice together such a great puzzel. (sorry I have been itching to be overdramatic lately :tongue3: )

Mine will be most easy since I never said baptist have been since the apostles, I said we come from out of the group that was never apart of the Catholic Church (let me clarify since Catholic means Universal - after it became a heretical belief system - we can discuss that age later as well).

 

Hello Allan,

I see we have already changed the playing field.

We went from....Baptists have never been Protestants, period!
to...how the Catholic Church has been the only church.

We went from......NEVER
to...the past 1500 years

The "historical fact" was stated about Baptist were NEVER Protestants. All I need to do , is show one Baptist claiming to be a protestant and the dedate is over. But..I feel I can do much better then this. We shall see.

The historical facts are...all writers are bias in some way. If you study history this is hardest part. One must see though the bias to find the truth. It can be done, but you will never get it from one or two history books. And...you will never find the truth of history by reading only one side.

Agree...I think. But it really is not that simple. Yes winners are in charge of the books of that age, but the writers are the ones that write. You must know the writer to understand the slant. Winners had writers that did not like them, even living in the same kingdom.

Easier then proving a Protestants claiming to be Baptist? Hum. OK then you do have it easy. The coming from a group...you did not say this...but I took that was what you meant. Does this group have a name?



In Christ...James

 

Of course there was much more to it, but it was (as I said) a pivotal issue. It wasn't a trivial issue, or just one of many issues. It is why Martin Luther wrote Bondage of the Will, which he considered to be his greatest work (and I agree). It was pivotal because it struck to the heart of the differences between Catholic and Reformed doctrine, and was at the root of the differences in the practices of the Catholic church and the Reformers. Why? Because, as Luther pointed out, free will-based salvation is a works-based salvation and gives the glory to man. You may not agree with Luther, but the fact that you disagree doesn't change history or make it any less a pivotal point for the reformers.

Again, I'm not sure what your point is, but it sounds like you're saying that false doctrine of election reigned only because of persecution, and in due time, according to God's will, the evil Calvinists died off causing the persecution to stop, and allowed true doctrine (free will) to work its way back into the church.

It's hard to respond to that, since you claim to know God's will in this matter, and to disagree with you would be to disagree with God, since you are speaking for Him.

However, if I were you, I would think twice before I linked "finding the truth" with "who's persecuting whom". History is littered with people persecuting others who disagree with their doctrines, and the doctrines of those in power (those persecuting others) varied greatly, including everything from Roman Catholicism to Islam. I don't think you can draw any conclusions about the truth (or lack of truth) in their doctrines just because they persecuted others. I think the lesson here is that people in power are often corrupted by that power and use it to persecute others. It doesn't matter what they believe.

That applies to today's church, too. I haven't been burned at the stake (as should be obvious, since it would be hard to participate here if I was), but I've been ridiculed, chastised and forbidden to teach by church leaders because I believe in election. That doesn't make election true, nor does it make the semi-pelagianism that they believe true. Here's the main difference. We live in a country where pluralism is not only encouraged, but enforced. If we happened to live in a country where the Christian majority persecuted and killed Christians who disagreed with their doctrine, I'd be dead.

 

Hello Allan,

In the bold....

What time frame are you addressing? from....... ####--#### ?

What is "positions" are you talking about?

In Christ..James

 

Jauthur

Uh, No. We are clarifying it, not changing it.
Well as logic would have it, protestants came from the Catholic Church, and if Baptists came from protestants as you espouse then there never was any group not associated with the C. Church at its first for all must be protestants. Thus All Christians beliefs were Catholic at one time and therefore this would be the gist of your arguement.

I was clarifying the terminolgy of Catholic in name and Catholic in beleif, and I actually stated it was 1500 PLUS years. The term Catholic (Universal) was a general name associated with beleivers. It went from a name/term to a belief system and therefore there was a shizm or divergence in body concerning it. (here is the beginning of non-protestants)

Oh, plz! No, you must show that and how Baptists CAME from the protestant movement. Anything less is meaningless to my point Baptist NEVER came from protestents.

Agreed! So will look forward to your establishing beyond doubt this view of mine is false.

Very true, and there were also writers who had their own agenda or an agenda of others (ie Catholic church)



OF course this group has a name but that is not what this thread is about.