Understanding God’s election

[kyredneck]

Are you actually trying to say that because I said "both Jews" in referring to Jacob and Esau and Pharaoh who is not a Jew is mentioned later that that has some significance?

Yes. The context says, 'not only Jews', but you insist it is 'Jews only'.

How did the Gentile Pharoah get throwed in there amongst Abraham and Isaac and Jacob if this is supposed to be about 'jews only'?

 

[DaveXR650]

Yes. The context says, 'not only Jews', but you insist it is 'Jews only'.

How did the Gentile Pharoah get throwed in there amongst Abraham and Isaac and Jacob if this is supposed to be about 'jews only'?

So if Paul is addressing his brethren after the flesh about a certain doctrine if during that he mentions anyone who is not a Jew then he cannot be said to be addressing his brethren after the flesh. Why didn't I see that? You amaze me.

 

[Alan Dale Gross]

So if Paul is addressing his brethren after the flesh about a certain doctrine if during that he mentions anyone who is not a Jew then he cannot be said to be addressing his brethren after the flesh. Why didn't I see that? You amaze me.

Because, Paul expressed his deep concern for his brethren according to the flesh, not that he was specifically addressing the Jews exclusively. Thats just an assumed misunderstanding.

 

[kyredneck]

So if Paul is addressing his brethren after the flesh about a certain doctrine if during that he mentions anyone who is not a Jew then he cannot be said to be addressing his brethren after the flesh. Why didn't I see that? You amaze me.

Good question, why didn't you see that?

You amaze me.

17 For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, For this very purpose did I raise thee up, that I might show in thee my power, and that my name might be published abroad in all the earth.
18 So then he hath mercy on whom he will, and whom he will be hardeneth. Ro 9

Your desperation to disannul the applicability of election and predestination to Jews and Gentiles alike amazes me.

22 What if God, willing to show his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering vessels of wrath fitted unto destruction:
23 and that he might make known the riches of his glory upon vessels of mercy, which he afore prepared unto glory,
24 [even] us, whom he also called, not from the Jews only, but also from the Gentiles? Ro 9

 

[DaveXR650]

But is that what he is really saying there? Some Calvinists seem to camp on this idea as a primary message and seem to feel some calling to show the severity of God and they make it seem like their primary mission is to downplay the idea that in fact God would rather have people be saved - all people, not just Jews.

This is the end of my post #50.

Because, Paul expressed his deep concern for his brethren according to the flesh, not that he was specifically addressing the Jews exclusively. Thats just an assumed misunderstanding.

The passage has a message to gentiles because God has sovereignly chosen to include them in the blessings. That's why I said as above "all people, not just Jews". But as the first part of chapter 9 clearly states, and as all commentators, including Calvinists like Hodge point out, the chapter is addressing Jews. And the thoughts are further developed in chapters 10 and 11. The fact that this is addressed to Jews primarily is proven by the illustrations that deal with the lineage of Abraham and offspring who either have him and Sarah as parents or for further explanation, twins with both parents being the same indicating a completely equal bloodline, and still God chooses one and rejects the other. My argument is that this reasoning would have no meaning to gentiles, Paul had just said he was going to address his brothers after the flesh, and they had a problem doctrine in which they were assuming that they had a presumptive "right" to be part of God's blessings. It's the last thing which has had I think, some good research done which shows this to be the case.

Can we as gentiles use Romans 9? Of course. All scripture has benefit to all of us. But who it's written to has a direct bearing and I think overlooking this has caused Romans 9 to become a bedrock go to passage proving Calvinism when it is no such thing. The primary message to us in Romans chapter 9 if you are a gentile is that we are being brought into this salvation too. The other message is that Jews had better not come presuming their lineage will give them an "in". Now, Calvinists point out, and I agree, that we can all take away from chapter 9 that no one dare question God's sovereignty or come in a presumptuous manner relying on anything else but coming by faith.

Calvinists tend to make "an assumed misunderstanding" in this passage and it is this. If you read their commentaries and sermons, to get it to apply to individuals coming to Christ and one may be rejected and another saved they have to awkwardly work in the idea that we all are sinners, and equally deserve wrath. In the actual passage what is emphasized is that this sovereign choice was made in the case of Jacob and Esau "before they had done any good or evil". While it is true that both boys did plenty that they and we have recorded to show them as sinners the fact is that was not brought up in the context. Why? Because that wasn't the issue being discussed here. Calvinistic theologians bring it up and wisely too, because not to do this leaves you with a claim that God is arbitrarily saving and damning people without regard to their sinfulness. This is a horrible misrepresentation of what is going on in this chapter.

 

[DaveXR650]

To follow up. If you look at a good Calvinist like Edwards, who does a whole sermon on Romans 9 here's the way he sets it up. He does say that God has the right to send us all to hell, or pick some to go to hell and some to save. And he says that we have no right to any claim of injustice or ill treatment in this. But he doesn't leave it there.

If you as a Calvinist leave it there, and teach that to people as God's will and plan you have made a grave error because God has indeed used his sovereignty to do what? He has decided that anyone who comes by faith, without presuming that this obligates God to anything, will be received. The reason you can count on that though is because that is what God has sovereignly decreed and as Edwards said, he has even condescended to give us covenantal promises to that effect for our comfort and assistance.

 

[Brightfame52]

@DaveXR650

because God has indeed used his sovereignty to do what? He has decided that anyone who comes by faith, without presuming that this obligates God to anything, will be received.

False statement

 

[DaveXR650]

@Brightfame52. The gospel is a false statement?
"This is the language of the Gospel, all of that the Lord Christ did or suffered, which is recorded therein; this is the testimony of the Three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, and of the three that bear witness in earth, the spirit, the water, and the blood: all give their joint testimony, that the Lord Christ is ready to receive all sinners that come to him. They who receive not this testimony make God a liar,- both Father, Son, and Spirit." The Works of John Owen, Meditations and Discourses concerning the Glory of Christ

 

[Brightfame52]

@Brightfame52. The gospel is a false statement?
"This is the language of the Gospel, all of that the Lord Christ did or suffered, which is recorded therein; this is the testimony of the Three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, and of the three that bear witness in earth, the spirit, the water, and the blood: all give their joint testimony, that the Lord Christ is ready to receive all sinners that come to him. They who receive not this testimony make God a liar,- both Father, Son, and Spirit." The Works of John Owen, Meditations and Discourses concerning the Glory of Christ

Yeah thats false, because all the sinners that come to Him have been saved by Him, that's why they come to Him, and they come to Him because they were exclusively given to Him by the Father Jn 6:37

All that the Father giveth[election] me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.

You on the other hand probably mean everyone has a opportunity to come by ther own freewill, and if they choose to come, Jesus will then save them, but thats heresy and condtional man centered salvation.

 

[DaveXR650]

Yeah thats false, because all the sinners that come to Him have been saved by Him, that's why they come to Him, and they come to Him because they were exclusively given to Him by the Father Jn 6:37

I do disagree with the idea that you come to Christ after being saved already.
You illustrate the problem in this quote:

All that the Father giveth[election] me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.

You bolded the one statement when both are equally in force. Spurgeon actually explained this but the older Calvinists who wrote the great confessions put both aspects in the confessions on purpose. The fact is, as a human, the only way you know you have been given by the Father is by the fact that you do certain things - mainly that you indeed come to Jesus. So I get angry when people try to put doubt into those who really do come to Christ when the simple fact is that is exactly what you do or else you are not a Christian.

You on the other hand probably mean everyone has a opportunity to come by ther own freewill, and if they choose to come, Jesus will then save them, but thats heresy and condtional man centered salvation.

I don't think everyone has the same opportunity but yes I do believe that anyone who chooses to come, Jesus will save. The problem with men is our free will. I also believe that no one will come without the influence and the supernatural enlightening of the Holy Spirit. That is where God is exercising sovereignty. At the point of coming to Christ, God has promised salvation to one who does so. That is his sovereign choice and declaration.

My belief that if left to ourselves we won't come to Christ and the more gracious influences are withdrawn the more we descend into evil is standard Calvinist doctrine. They themselves are all over the place on the logical or chronological order of faith and regeneration and whether regeneration is the same as enlightenment or salvation.

I have to be honest with you. I have looked deeper into this than most and when I see the logical gyrations necessary to make Calvinism work I wonder if maybe the traditional freewill Baptist interpretation doesn't make more sense. You learn about God and sin and our condition. You hear the gospel and understand on your own the bare facts of it. The Holy Spirit then draws you, gives you a sense of the value of it and danger of your condition. You then choose to come to Christ or prefer your current life.

I will concede that for a hyper-Calvinist like yourself, the logic is far easier to comprehend. It's the same for a complete free will advocate. Logically both make perfect sense. The fact that many scriptures refute both extremes is a problem for me though.

 

[Brightfame52]

@Dave

I do disagree with the idea that you come to Christ after being saved already.

But its True, one is saved once they are drawn to come to Christ Jn 6:44, and coming to him is believing on Him, and the drawing impels, sets in motion the coming, which is the power of God working inside by new generated life, coming denotes activity of life. At that point one is regenerated, quickened.

 

[kyredneck]

I do disagree with the idea that you come to Christ after being saved [quickened] already.

@Brightfame52 gomms up 'sozo', as is common these days.

 

[DaveXR650]

But its True, one is saved once they are drawn to come to Christ Jn 6:44, and coming to him is believing on Him, and the drawing impels, sets in motion the coming, which is the power of God working inside by new generated life, coming denotes activity of life. At that point one is regenerated, quickened.

I understand what you are saying and believe me, I take it seriously. Probably by favorite fairly modern writer, Martyn Lloyd-Jones believed the same way.

I just think that there are scriptures that show salvation being granted subsequent to belief and there are scriptures that show the necessity of Christ being "received" for salvation. I think that is why Owen seemed to shy away from making hard pronouncements on the order, although, he seemed to go both ways, depending on where you read him.

I believe in election of individuals. I also believe that anyone who comes to Christ will be saved. Both of those things are in the great confessions and in scripture. I also admit that this leaves a logical problem that to me is a "mystery" but to others it's a flat out contradiction and thus unacceptable. I believe at some point you come to the end of what theology can do. Theology by it's nature is an intrusion into the mind of God and must be done carefully.

People who are totally into free will can develop an image of the situation where God is helplessly waiting to see what we sovereignly decide. And there are plenty of examples in scripture of God extending much longsuffering and mercy and repeated opportunities to repent. But it's also clear that extension of mercy is not to be presumed upon, and is under God's own sovereign will. All I insist on is that at the point where someone does come to Christ, it is God's sovereign will to not cast them out. And, as Edwards said in his sermon on Romans 9, God has even bound himself as it were, and covenanted with us (for our comfort and benefit) that he will indeed receive all who come. So to repeat, for a true free willer, this is not enough. They don't like my view because they will not accept that a person has been sovereignly affected by the work of the Holy Spirit or else they will not be coming. They will not accept even that degree of sovereignty.

But in addition, you have great Calvinists like Owen insisting that the greatest insult a man can do to God is to refuse to believe. If that is true then I don't see how a Calvinist can keep insisting that the Holy Spirit cannot be resisted in salvation or that man's will is not involved at all in salvation.

 

[Brightfame52]

I understand what you are saying and believe me, I take it seriously. Probably by favorite fairly modern writer, Martyn Lloyd-Jones believed the same way.

I just think that there are scriptures that show salvation being granted subsequent to belief and there are scriptures that show the necessity of Christ being "received" for salvation. I think that is why Owen seemed to shy away from making hard pronouncements on the order, although, he seemed to go both ways, depending on where you read him.

I believe in election of individuals. I also believe that anyone who comes to Christ will be saved. Both of those things are in the great confessions and in scripture. I also admit that this leaves a logical problem that to me is a "mystery" but to others it's a flat out contradiction and thus unacceptable. I believe at some point you come to the end of what theology can do. Theology by it's nature is an intrusion into the mind of God and must be done carefully.

People who are totally into free will can develop an image of the situation where God is helplessly waiting to see what we sovereignly decide. And there are plenty of examples in scripture of God extending much longsuffering and mercy and repeated opportunities to repent. But it's also clear that extension of mercy is not to be presumed upon, and is under God's own sovereign will. All I insist on is that at the point where someone does come to Christ, it is God's sovereign will to not cast them out. And, as Edwards said in his sermon on Romans 9, God has even bound himself as it were, and covenanted with us (for our comfort and benefit) that he will indeed receive all who come. So to repeat, for a true free willer, this is not enough. They don't like my view because they will not accept that a person has been sovereignly affected by the work of the Holy Spirit or else they will not be coming. They will not accept even that degree of sovereignty.

But in addition, you have great Calvinists like Owen insisting that the greatest insult a man can do to God is to refuse to believe. If that is true then I don't see how a Calvinist can keep insisting that the Holy Spirit cannot be resisted in salvation or that man's will is not involved at all in salvation.

Okay but you still teach conditionalism which is works, you make coming the condition the sinner must meet, I teach coming is the result of election and regeneration,otherwise men cannot come Jn 6:44,65

 

[kyredneck]

ust think that there are scriptures that show salvation being granted subsequent to belief and there are scriptures that show the necessity of Christ being "received" for salvation.

You mean passages like:

16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that disbelieveth shall be condemned. Mk 16

3 I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all in like manner perish.
5 I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish. Lk 13

21 And it shall be, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved.
38 And Peter [said] unto them, Repent ye, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ unto the remission of your sins; and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
40 And with many other words he testified, and exhorted them, saying, Save yourselves from this crooked generation. Acts 2

Again.

 

[DaveXR650]

Okay but you still teach conditionalism which is works, you make coming the condition the sinner must meet, I teach coming is the result of election and regeneration,otherwise men cannot come Jn 6:44,65

I believe faith is in contrast to works and even those who believe that faith is totally of yourself, something that you as an individual has derived in your own mind - it still is not a work and the argument that it is goes against scriptures that contrast faith and works.

When you say faith is the result of regeneration or even quickening or enlightenment you immediately get into the weeds because as humans whenever we believe something it's because it becomes apparent to us that it is already true. You say, "Yes, I see, that indeed is true", and then in the case of the gospel you, upon discovering it's true and it applies to you, you do as the Puritans would say "come to Christ" or "close with Christ". If that looks to you like a work then OK, but that is the very thing scripture contrasts with biblical "works". I think you get into a confusing area for people where you begin to say you are not allowed to have any kind of response as a human or else it is a work. Then you are still left, logically, with the fact that if you want to be aware of being a Christian you are left with declaring yourself "elect", since it is off limits to say "I believed" or "I repented".

In other words, I do not find it an offence or an error for someone to say they heard the gospel and decided to believe and thus in their mind their faith is not the gift but salvation itself, the redemption, and the atonement was the gift made available to them on the condition of faith. I personally tend to think that they are failing to realize the sovereign work of the Holy Spirt on their souls prior to their believing but - as long as they are not attributing any merit or excellence of their own as contributing to their salvation I don't think they have said anything wrong and may be correct even theologically speaking.

 

[Brightfame52]

I believe faith is in contrast to works and even those who believe that faith is totally of yourself, something that you as an individual has derived in your own mind - it still is not a work and the argument that it is goes against scriptures that contrast faith and works.

When you say faith is the result of regeneration or even quickening or enlightenment you immediately get into the weeds because as humans whenever we believe something it's because it becomes apparent to us that it is already true. You say, "Yes, I see, that indeed is true", and then in the case of the gospel you, upon discovering it's true and it applies to you, you do as the Puritans would say "come to Christ" or "close with Christ". If that looks to you like a work then OK, but that is the very thing scripture contrasts with biblical "works". I think you get into a confusing area for people where you begin to say you are not allowed to have any kind of response as a human or else it is a work. Then you are still left, logically, with the fact that if you want to be aware of being a Christian you are left with declaring yourself "elect", since it is off limits to say "I believed" or "I repented".

In other words, I do not find it an offence or an error for someone to say they heard the gospel and decided to believe and thus in their mind their faith is not the gift but salvation itself, the redemption, and the atonement was the gift made available to them on the condition of faith. I personally tend to think that they are failing to realize the sovereign work of the Holy Spirt on their souls prior to their believing but - as long as they are not attributing any merit or excellence of their own as contributing to their salvation I don't think they have said anything wrong and may be correct even theologically speaking.

As I stated, you teach conditional works salvation, based on something man must do prior to salvation.

 

[DaveXR650]

As I stated, you teach conditional works salvation, based on something man must do prior to salvation.

We are to do what God tells us to do and we are completely dependent upon his grace but yes, even serious Calvinists taught that we are rational creatures and therefore an interaction must occur between God and the creature. It will be an interaction involving the rational mind, called faith, it is the way one is connected to the benefits of Christ's work.

I guess it doesn't matter if in your understanding of soteriology, you believe that a person is even regenerated directly by God if then they immediately believe and come to Christ with saving faith. But faith is indeed the condition as to whether you are a Christian or not and it is no less of a problem for you to so separate salvation from faith that you are forced logically to have the possibility of someone saved who does not yet believe, than it is to say that God is waiting to see who believes before he can thus sovereignly save someone. Both scenarios go beyond what the truth of the matter is.

Everyone should agree that faith is a condition for salvation if by that what is meant is no faith, no salvation. There is going to be though much disagreement on how you come to have faith. Is it a gift put into you? Is it worked in you by God's actions in your life by the word, providential blessings, kindness, and so on? Is it just that the word is available and you must read it and decide on your own whether to believe it or not?

And then the question comes up, is there a point, depending on how you understand the above, where faith then could be looked at as a meritorious action on your part that God waits to observe? Or is it that to say you actively believe the gospel or repent of your sins an offense to God, even though you are clearly admonished in scripture to do so.

 

[Brightfame52]

We are to do what God tells us to do and we are completely dependent upon his grace but yes, even serious Calvinists taught that we are rational creatures and therefore an interaction must occur between God and the creature. It will be an interaction involving the rational mind, called faith, it is the way one is connected to the benefits of Christ's work.

I guess it doesn't matter if in your understanding of soteriology, you believe that a person is even regenerated directly by God if then they immediately believe and come to Christ with saving faith. But faith is indeed the condition as to whether you are a Christian or not and it is no less of a problem for you to so separate salvation from faith that you are forced logically to have the possibility of someone saved who does not yet believe, than it is to say that God is waiting to see who believes before he can thus sovereignly save someone. Both scenarios go beyond what the truth of the matter is.

Everyone should agree that faith is a condition for salvation if by that what is meant is no faith, no salvation. There is going to be though much disagreement on how you come to have faith. Is it a gift put into you? Is it worked in you by God's actions in your life by the word, providential blessings, kindness, and so on? Is it just that the word is available and you must read it and decide on your own whether to believe it or not?

And then the question comes up, is there a point, depending on how you understand the above, where faith then could be looked at as a meritorious action on your part that God waits to observe? Or is it that to say you actively believe the gospel or repent of your sins an offense to God, even though you are clearly admonished in scripture to do so.

As I stated, you teach conditional works salvation, based on something man must do prior to salvation.

 

[37818]

Romans 4:5, But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.