The Elect and Not Are Twins

[Aaron]

1 Corinthians 15:42-49 (KJV) So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption:
It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power:
It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.
And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.
Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual.
The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven.
As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy: and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly.
And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly.

Guys, look at this passage. This is what God was alluding to when He dropped all the hints of blessing the second, and not the first .

Isaac, not Ishmael
Jacob, not Esau
Grace, not Law
Spiritual, not physical
Tree of life, not tree of knowledge

Christ, not Adam.

Completely irrelevant to the point made in Romans 9.

 

[Aaron]

The old Foreshadowed the New. Thinking that the Jacob and Esau story is about individual election is man-centric. Recognizing that it's about Choosing Christ as His elect to bring salvation is Christocentric.

No, it's God centered. His sovereign choice. That is so clearly the point of the passage.

 

[HankD]

Hank, we can do our best to stay independent and not accept a label, but if we hang around long enough, what we truly believe becomes exposed. As I have read your posts in various threads your belief on soteriology is slanted decidedly towards the Arminian view. I know you eschew the label, but as I wrote in my previous response, your pilot analogy is a perfect example of Synergism. I am not castigating you for that. I am simply calling it for what it is. As for me, I am not bothered by the Calvinist label.

I was hard core Calvinist before my education at Calvary University (KCMO) I came out totally undecided to this day. Yes I abhor labels especially those of a man's name (apart from Jesus Christ). We are told not to wear labels of men's theology. ("I am of Cephas, I am of Apollos", etc.)

One of the major cause of my disowning of C - my 3 semesters of koine Greek. A manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament; Dana and Mantey.

Why I abhor labels. Though folks may claim they don't castigate others who wear a label such-and-such, the elitism of some wearers of labels (especially of Calvinists) repulsed me when I encountered it at my school.

To be forthright that is why I defend the Arminian viewpoint - you cannot know my innermost beliefs.

 

[kyredneck]

the elitism of some wearers of labels (especially of Calvinists) repulsed me

Zactly. Many are downright snooty, right here on this board.

 

[Reformed]

To be forthright that is why I defend the Arminian viewpoint - you cannot know my innermost beliefs.

You are right. No one can know the innermost beliefs of another person. However, when you present yourself as a defender of Synergism, especially on a message board, it is not required to know for certain what you believe. The burden of proof in this place is based on the preponderance of the evidence. If you align yourself with Synergism (which you do), then that is how you are going to be looked at by those who align themselves with Monergism. If you insist on straddling the fence, then you effectively take yourself out of the debate because you are claiming to be neutral when you really are not.

As far as your past experience with Calvinism, that is really not surprising. Many individuals buy-in to a certain point-of-view until they have studied it for themselves. I came out of a Synergistic background. I did not seriously wrestle with Monergism for the first 20 years of my Christian life. I did not base my change on the way I was treated by fellow Synergists or my opinion of Calvinists. I considered those things to be incidental. My change was based on being convinced by scripture alone. If a Synergist tells me they are convinced of their theological position by scripture alone, I may disagree with their conclusion but I have to respect how they got there.

 

[HankD]

You are right. No one can know the innermost beliefs of another person. However, when you present yourself as a defender of Synergism, especially on a message board, it is not required to know for certain what you believe. The burden of proof in this place is based on the preponderance of the evidence. If you align yourself with Synergism (which you do), then that is how you are going to be looked at by those who align themselves with Monergism. If you insist on straddling the fence, then you effectively take yourself out of the debate because you are claiming to be neutral when you really are not.

No it does not take me out of the debate unless of course you are speaking from personal opinion.

In one of my hermeneutics classes focused upon debate we were to select a topic we disagreed with and defend it. I enjoyed it and I find it a very useful tool as did Paul. Keep guessing because I am not going to be quiet.

As far as your past experience with Calvinism, that is really not surprising. Many individuals buy-in to a certain point-of-view until they have studied it for themselves. I came out of a Synergistic background. I did not seriously wrestle with Monergism for the first 20 years of my Christian life. I did not base my change on the way I was treated by fellow Synergists or my opinion of Calvinists. I considered those things to be incidental. My change was based on being convinced by scripture alone. If a Synergist tells me they are convinced of their theological position by scripture alone, I may disagree with their conclusion but I have to respect how they got there.

I did ping pong back and forth for a while but settled in on "undecided" some have told me that I cannot be undecided. Wrong.

 

[37818]

A new thread bashing God's sovereignty in salvation was started.

Calvin & Arminius were both wrong

No matter how it's sliced, saying that one has natural power to say yes or no to grace is to say that those who say yes do so because they are inherently better than those who say no.

But God was wise to make Jacob and Esau twins. While yet in the womb. Each equally innocent. Neither having done any good or evil. Both conceived of the same act, under the same star, of the same heritage, both with the same nurturing and enviroment. In every way equal and level, and neither being given a choice, God accepted one, and rejected the other.

If Grace were resistible, no one would be saved.

Batter my heart, three-person'd God, for you
As yet but knock, breathe, shine, and seek to mend;
That I may rise and stand, o'erthrow me, and bend
Your force to break, blow, burn, and make me new.
I, like an usurp'd town to another due,
Labor to admit you, but oh, to no end;
Reason, your viceroy in me, me should defend,
But is captiv'd, and proves weak or untrue.
Yet dearly I love you, and would be lov'd fain,
But am betroth'd unto your enemy;
Divorce me, untie or break that knot again,
Take me to you, imprison me, for I,
Except you enthrall me, never shall be free,
Nor ever chaste, except you ravish me.
—John Donne​

So what is stated in Acts of the Apostles 7:51 cannot be possible (Titus 2:11).

 

[Reformed]

No it does not take me out of the debate unless of course you are speaking from personal opinion.

Of course, I am speaking from my personal opinion! We are doing that whether we admit it not.

In one of my hermeneutics classes focused upon debate we were to select a topic we disagreed with and defend it. I enjoyed it and I find it a very useful tool as did Paul. Keep guessing because I am not going to be quiet.

I am not guessing. You already told me you reject total depravity, unless that was a fence-sitting comment. If you reject total depravity you are not a Monergist. If man is not completely fallen in his trespasses and sins, he has a latent faith that can choose to believe the Gospel without first being regenerated. He is not spiritually dead as Ephesians 2:1 teaches. I believe that position is in keeping with Synergism and is an error. I am not asking you to keep quiet. Keep opining. I am sure many other board members will accommodate you. None of this bothers me. I have to see anything new that surprises me.

 

[utilyan]

Of course, I am speaking from my personal opinion! We are doing that whether we admit it not.



I am not guessing. You already told me you reject total depravity, unless that was a fence-sitting comment. If you reject total depravity you are not a Monergist. If man is not completely fallen in his trespasses and sins, he has a latent faith that can choose to believe the Gospel without first being regenerated. He is not spiritually dead as Ephesians 2:1 teaches. I believe that position is in keeping with Synergism and is an error. I am not asking you to keep quiet. Keep opining. I am sure many other board members will accommodate you. None of this bothers me. I have to see anything new that surprises me.

Calvinist are synergist. They claim a person must cooperate to hear and preach the gospel.

They also will debate me which clearly indicates they don't think God can handle it and needs their help.

 

[percho]

You're still gomming it up:

6 But it is not as though the word of God hath come to nought. For they are not all Israel, that are of Israel:
7 neither, because they are Abraham`s seed, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.
8 That is, it is not the children of the flesh that are children of God; but the children of the promise are reckoned for a seed. Ro 9

It's the children of the promise that is the real Israel, and again, Christ is not mentioned in the immediate context. YOU are inserting it.

the children of the promise

Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator. Gal 3:19 ---- Seed Singular as in verse 16, Christ.

16 Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.

There is your Elect.

Joint heirs with Christ
Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;

And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

Questions for all.

If Jesus of Nazareth had not been raised form the dead, to die no more, would anyone who lived before him or after him ever be quickened by the Spirit? Would there be Hope?

In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began; Titus 1:2

Who was that promise of hope made for and when was it made?

Adam, who was going to sin? In the day thou eatest thereof dying thou dost die. Or for the manifested Son of God, born of a virgin woman?

 

[HankD]

Of course, I am speaking from my personal opinion! We are doing that whether we admit it not.



I am not guessing. You already told me you reject total depravity, unless that was a fence-sitting comment. If you reject total depravity you are not a Monergist. If man is not completely fallen in his trespasses and sins, he has a latent faith that can choose to believe the Gospel without first being regenerated. He is not spiritually dead as Ephesians 2:1 teaches. I believe that position is in keeping with Synergism and is an error. I am not asking you to keep quiet. Keep opining. I am sure many other board members will accommodate you. None of this bothers me. I have to see anything new that surprises me.

Good, as I have been spouting off for going on 18 years here at the BB.

Here is the scriptural core off our depravity as human beings:

Jeremiah 17:9 The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?

The human heart is not only deceitful but deceitful above all things and not only wicked but desperately wicked.

Not only that the rhetorical question "who can know it" is answered by no one but God and it takes a special revelation from Him to understand the severity.

10 I the LORD search the heart, I try the reins, even to give every man according to his ways, and according to the fruit of his doings.

Romans 5 12 All the verbs are aorist, therefore we received this state of sin and death when Adam sinned, We were virtually all there when Adam sinned - he/we sinned and therefore was passed on to each of us and we come into this world as sinners.

We are incapable of doing the kind of "good" that means anything towards our salvation, the only "good" we can do as sinners comes from the Law which restrains us from doing the natural inclination of our wicked hearts to strangers, neighbors and family.

But I can't say we are "totally" depraved as somehow we have retained the image of God post-fall and are disallowed from evil speaking of each other for that reason:

James 3
8 But the tongue can no man tame; it is an unruly evil, full of deadly poison.
9 Therewith bless we God, even the Father; and therewith curse we men, which are made after the similitude of God.
10 Out of the same mouth proceedeth blessing and cursing. My brethren, these things ought not so to be.

Titus 3:2 To speak evil of no man, to be no brawlers, but gentle, shewing all meekness unto all men.

2 Timothy 2
23 But foolish and unlearned questions avoid, knowing that they do gender strifes.
24 And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient,
25 In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth;
26 And that they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil, who are taken captive by him at his will.

 

[HankD]

That's essentially "Prevenient Grace" in a bottle...
Spiritual hydraulic assist.

One of our problems Dave is that we like to stamp others with a label as it facilitates writing them off and often times in shutting up the bowels of our compassion to help in the event they are actually off base.

Been there done that.

 

[Rockson]

I did ping pong back and forth for a while but settled in on "undecided" some have told me that I cannot be undecided. Wrong.

Sure one doesn't have to decide either way. As one first becomes a believer there's a great many Bible subjects and themes which are a great deal more important this type of issue. Who Christ is, what happened at the cross and why it occurred.....why the resurrection ....the authority in the Name of Jesus, what the precious blood of Jesus accomplished.....all the many things which tell us who and what we are In Christ and teachings of living a holy life of walking in the light. The themes are worthy of years of study and mediation and what Calvinist or Non Calvinist believe shouldn't even be considered for a few years. I will say this though....I find it interesting that if one says they're a Calvinist they generally believe they should be living their lives in practice like a Non-Calvinists. We've heard it more than once that they preach the gospel like a Non-Calvinist.

 

[JonShaff]

No, it's God centered. His sovereign choice. That is so clearly the point of the passage.

It was His sovereign Choice to Appoint Christ the Heir according to the Promise, not physical descendants of Abraham. That is the point of the passage.

 

[Dave G]

Thinking that the Jacob and Esau story is about individual election is man-centric. Recognizing that it's about Choosing Christ as His elect to bring salvation is Christocentric.

I suppose that depends on how one looks at it.

To me, taking Romans 9:11-13 and looking at it, it strikes me that God literally loved Jacob, and literally hated Esau.
I see this developed starting in Genesis 28:10-22, where the Lord showed Himself to Jacob in a dream, while He never manifested Himself in a personal way to Esau.
Not once during the whole story of Jacob and Esau, was it ever said that God showed favor on Esau...but He did to Jacob.

I also track over to Malachi 1:1-3 and see the very same personal things said by the prophet to Israel, and I see individuals, as well as tribes, being mentioned in the same "breath" as God loving first, the individual, and then the nation.

Regarding Israel:
God loved the nation for the sake of the fathers ( Romans 11:28 ), Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.
He hated Edom for the sake of Esau the same way, IMO.

Back to election...thinking that the story of Jacob and Esau is about individual election and its being "man-centric", is completely opposite from my understanding of the differing doctrines of salvation:


1) A man-centered salvation takes God's choice of the sinner, and makes His choice dependent on something a man did or does...thereby, the "weakest link" in the process is God relying on the man to contribute something. This is "man-centric", or centered on man's efforts, from God's point of view.

2) A Christ-centered salvation recognizes that God's choice of the individual sinner to salvation is totally dependent on God alone, and there is no "weak link" or anything left up to chance in any of it. This is God- or Christ-centered in that it relies completely on His grace and mercy, with nothing left up to the sinner to do except to receive the gift, which is passive, not active. It is centered completely on God's efforts.

So, there is our point of disagreement...what you call "man-centric", I call "Christ-centric" and vice-versa.

 

[Dave G]

See how many are regenerated and saved If no man cooperates to hear or preach the gospel.

Exactly as many as God decides should be saved ( Acts of the Apostles 2:47 ).
God works through His children to spread the true Gospel ( Philippians 2:13 )

He also tells us that His word will not return void ( empty, without result ) until it accomplishes that which He pleases ( Isaiah 55:11 ).

 

[Dave G]

Calvinist are synergist. They claim a person must cooperate to hear and preach the gospel.

They also will debate me which clearly indicates they don't think God can handle it and needs their help.

"Calvinists" ( your word ), are "Monergists"...they assert that God does everything necessary to accomplish the saving of a people for Himself, while "Synergists" work in synergy ( cooperation ) with God to achieve eternal life.
God does the work of making a person "hear" the Gospel, and He takes His word, however it is preached, and uses it for His own ends:

" So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper [in the thing] whereto I sent it." ( Isaiah 55:11 ).

Debate is from the flesh....seeking to win at any cost, and hoping the "audience" will side with one or the other.
Correction and reproof are biblical.

I'm not seeking a debate...my only focus is to show you Scripture, and hope you see it.

 

[JonShaff]

I suppose that depends on how one looks at it.
To me, taking Romans 9:11-13 and looking at it, it strikes me that God literally loved Jacob, and literally hated Esau.
I see this developed starting in Genesis 28:10-22, where the Lord showed Himself to Jacob in a dream, while He never manifested Himself in a personal way to Esau.
Not once during the whole story of Jacob and Esau, was it ever said that God showed favor on Esau...but He did to Jacob.

I also track over to Malachi 1:1-3 and see the very same personal things said by the prophet to Israel, and I see individuals, as well as tribes, being mentioned in the same "breath" as God loving first, the individual, and then the nation.

Regarding Israel:
God loved the nation for the sake of the fathers ( Romans 11:28 ), Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.
He hated Edom for the sake of Esau the same way, IMO.

Back to election...thinking that the story of Jacob and Esau is about individual election is "man-centric", is completely opposite from my understanding of differing dictrines of salvation:

1) A man-centered salvation takes God's choice of the sinner to salvation, and makes His choice dependent on something a man did or does...thereby, the "weakest link" in the process is God relying on the man to contribute something. This is "man-centric", or centered on man's efforts from God's point of view.
2) A Christ-centered salvation recognizes that God's choice of the individual sinner to salvation is totally dependent on God alone, and there is no "weak link" or anything left up to chance in any of it. This is God- or Christ-centered in that it relies completely on His grace and mercy, with nothing left up to the sinner to do except to receive the gift, which is passive, not active.

So, there is our point of disagreement...what you call "man-centric", I call "Christ-centric" and vice-versa.

Read the first several Verses of Chapter 9. The context isn't even close to being about individual's salvations, but the method of Salvation. It is not through being a physical descendant of Abraham. It is about Christ, the promised Seed.

Read verses 1-8 and stay within that context.

Then Paul goes on...

33 As it is written, Behold, I lay in Sion a stumblingstone and rock of offence: and whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.

 

[Dave G]

Read the first several Verses of Chapter 9. The context isn't even close to being about individual's salvations, but the method of Salvation. It is not through being a physical descendant of Abraham. It is about Christ, the promised Seed.

Read verses 1-8 and stay within that context.

OK, let's take a look at that:

" I say the truth in Christ, I lie not, my conscience also bearing me witness in the Holy Ghost,
2 that I have great heaviness and continual sorrow in my heart.
3 For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh:
4 who are Israelites; to whom [pertaineth] the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service [of God], and the promises;
5 whose [are] the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ [came], who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen." ( Romans 9:1-5 )

In verse 1, Paul is stating that he is saying the truth in Christ and not lying...his conscience also bearing him witness in the Holy Ghost.
In verse 2, he confesses to having great heaviness and continual sorrow in his heart...
In verse 3, He admits that he could wish himself accursed from Christ for his brethren according to the flesh...
Verse 4 has him continuing, and stating that those brethren according to the flesh are Israelites, to whom the adoption and the glory and the covenants and the giving of the Law and the service of God and the promises were made...
Verse 5 states that Israel was of the fathers, and of whom, concerning the flesh, Christ was manifested ( to the Jew first and then to the Gentile, see Romans 1:16 )...He is over all and God blessed forever, Amen.

That's just the introduction...he's about to tell you more in verse 6 and going on.
The subject in verses 1-5 is Paul's heaviness of heart about his fellow Israelites, and stating that he could wish himself accursed from God ( to give up up his salvation ) for them.
Now Paul develops why he has such heaviness of heart...

" Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they [are] not all Israel, which are of Israel:
7 neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, [are they] all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.
8 That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these [are] not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.
9 For this [is] the word of promise, At this time will I come, and Sara shall have a son.
10 And not only [this]; but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, [even] by our father Isaac;
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; )
12 it was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger.
13 As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated." ( Romans 9:6-13 )

Verse 6 has Paul stating that it is not as though the word of God has had no effect, and he then tells us that they are not all "Israel" which are of Israel ( to me, this means that they are not all spiritual Israel which are of Jacob ( Israel ).
In verse 7, I see this statement continuing, and Paul saying that neither, because they are the seed of Abraham are they all children...children of what? We'll get to that. But "in Isaac" shall thy seed ( what "seed"? ) be called ( spiritually "called", see Romans 8:28-30, 1 Corinthians 1:9, 2 Thessalonians 2:14, 2 Timothy 1:9, 2 Peter 1:10, 1 Peter 2:21 ).
Verse 8 defines all that was just stated:

They which are the children of the flesh ( side note: please see Romans 8:5-8 ), the physical descendants of Jacob ( Israel ), are not the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted for the "seed" ( what seed"? Please see further down in the chapter, Romans 9:29 ).


Since you wanted me to stop there, I'll stop.

So, I'm not sure what you see, but I clearly see that the Holy Spirit, via Paul, is developing who the children of God are.

 

[Dave G]

It was His sovereign Choice to Appoint Christ the Heir according to the Promise, not physical descendants of Abraham. That is the point of the passage.

With respect, that is not the point of Romans 9, as I see it.
That is the point of Galatians 3:16-20.