Why the Blindness?

[psalms109:31]

Romans 9:11

I love Roman's 9:11 when you know who God elected before we even did any right or wrong or before even the foundation of the world. Believers in His Son. It is not a work base system as men claim it is, but it is a total trust in God and His word and not the work we did, but the work God did on the cross.

The work the scripture is talking about is not a work of belief for only men claim belief is a work for our salvation, but the work of the Law.

 

[skypair]

We find with Paul speaking on election, God exercises His sovereign will to accomplish His perfect plan. However, please keep in mind that the election discussed in Rom. 9-11 is national and not individual. To apply all the truths of these chapters to the salvation or security of the individual believer is to miss their message completely.

However since traditional Calvinism (which is also Presbytarianism) holds that God replaced Israel with the Church (replacement theology) and that He will deal with Israel No more but cast it aside. Is it is no wonder those who followed after that same doctrine held the same viewpoint with regard to those chapter and verses. You HAVE to change the context in order to come away with a different rendering.

EXCELLENT, Allan. It bears repeating (as I have previously to rippon). There is a connection between Calvin's exchatology and his theology and you nailed it!

skypair

 

[Allan]

Well, I guess I am hyper calvinist because Allan says so.

Allan, this is your opinion. One does not have to be hyper calvinist to hold that Romans 9 is speaking to not only the Jewish nation. When the point of the discussion comes to Pharoah, was he a Jew?

Again, this is your opinion. There are plenty more biblical scholars who do not hold your view. Where do you get off telling someone that they are wrong? Where did the IMHO go?

Take a breath Reformed... I think you misread my post.
I never called anyone a Hyper-Calvinist that beleived God chose Jacod over Esau. Please notice in my Post I said you (in the general sense) would have to hold to hyper-Calvinism if you believed God chose Jacob over Esau BEFORE either had sinned. As in before even Adam in mind of God had sinned since all sin permeates from that point. Or in other words God chose Jacob for Heaven and Esau for Hell before either was sinful in the eyes of God. It that not the premise of Hyper... See look agian at what I said:

God choosing between them was in accordance to His plan of redemption NOT for their individual salvation. We know this because God chosen Jacob (Israel) over Esua BEFORE they had done anything wrong (SINNED). You would have to hold to hyper-Calvinism to say this is about salvation.

Do you see where I was going?

THAT IS Hyper. God chosing before anyone had sinned (or there was sin) of who will be saved and who will be damned. Do you or do you not agree?

 

[Allan]

This thread has got me laughing so hard. There are conversations going ALL OVER THE PLACE in here. It is like watching cable tv, something differnent on almost every post. :laugh:

 

[Allan]

I'm asking you to take a close look at the phrase. What is this talking about? When did this happen?

1st...One idea would be to say that we are justification before we are born. Is this the right view? Has Christ always been slain? Was Christ a unblumished Lamb, before He went to the cross?

2nd..What creation is this? Is this the creation of Genesis 1? Or is this the creation ...as in the new creation? Some say that "the foundation of the world" found in the NT, always talks about Christ making of the new man and the new world. But if this is the case, Eph 1 is changed as well. But both would read right.

3rd..What is the phrase "from the foundation of the world" linked to? In the KJV it is linked to "slain". The ASV and the NASB link the phrase to "written". If the phrase is linked to "written" it changes the meaning all together.

I have good reason to believe the 3rd view is right. What do you think?

Rev 13:8 And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.

Well, it truth... I see the burden resting on "written, Lamb, and before". LOL
From what I see "written" is a word that is intended to describe a past event, but the Lamb which is for atonement must be something done after the fact of sin (future) and the slain from the foundation of the world - sets both events in front of the eyes of God as a done deal the moment God set forth creation into being. This is because of the word "from" (the beginning)... meaning it was set and decided at the moment He decided to begin creation. Christ stood as the slain lamb because of what He WOULD do.

God calls things that are not yet as though they are not because of they could possibly be but because of what He knows they will be according to His power.

Do I get an A or am I off base with what you are looking to deal with?

Either way both the 'written' and the 'stood' are both things that occured (from this sentence) Before (or more accurately - FROM when...) God formed the world. It sounds consistant with Calvinism and Non-Calvinism. So what is the problem with the verse? Is it the whole "before" meaning outside of time ?? Actaully it is not so much about being outside of time as it is about being in "all time" at once! Eternity in a mesure of time that denotes continuousness with no end but is actually more about durality which is still a measured time. Albeit it is measured 'in ALL' time, and therfore synonmous with no time. I think it is time for me to go get some thyme for supper. :tongue3:

 

[El_Guero]

Allan,

That did not make sense . . . at least to me.

 

[El_Guero]

Allan

How do you come to the conclusion that God forknew all who would be His?

Thanks

Wayne

James, No one disputes God foreknew all who would be His or are His. All of this was before He began Creation.

I am lost as to what you are seeking to clarify. I read through the thread but still don't get it. Are you debating the time thing again with Webdog?

 

[reformedbeliever]

Take a breath Reformed... I think you misread my post.
I never called anyone a Hyper-Calvinist that beleived God chose Jacod over Esau. Please notice in my Post I said you (in the general sense) would have to hold to hyper-Calvinism if you believed God chose Jacob over Esau BEFORE either had sinned. As in before even Adam in mind of God had sinned since all sin permeates from that point. Or in other words God chose Jacob for Heaven and Esau for Hell before either was sinful in the eyes of God. It that not the premise of Hyper... See look agian at what I said:

Do you see where I was going?

THAT IS Hyper. God chosing before anyone had sinned (or there was sin) of who will be saved and who will be damned. Do you or do you not agree?

No, I do not agree. If you want to call it hyper, go ahead, it will not bother me. Maybe I am hyper. I believe that God chose one over the other, before they had done anything good or bad (sin) so that His purpose of election would stand. The election being spoken of here IMHO is to salvation.

 

[reformedbeliever]

Allan, i'm not calling you an open theist, but open theism believes that God is just sitting back waiting for man to act, before He could know what man would do. Do you believe that? Do you believe that God had to look into the future in order to see what man would do before He could elect them?

 

[El_Guero]

Reformed,

As a fairly normal Baptist, I believe that God 'elected' the elect before anyone sinned.

That does not equate to hyper-calvinism.

Hyper-calvinism determines that God damned the damned and saved the saved without any event happening in the Creation - before Adam was created you were determined (determinism) to go to Heaven or Hell without any possibility of redemption or damnation based upon what happens in the creation.

But, I do not believe in determinism.

No, I do not agree. If you want to call it hyper, go ahead, it will not bother me. Maybe I am hyper. I believe that God chose one over the other, before they had done anything good or bad (sin) so that His purpose of election would stand. The election being spoken of here IMHO is to salvation.

 

[reformedbeliever]

Reformed,

As a fairly normal Baptist, I believe that God 'elected' the elect before anyone sinned.

That does not equate to hyper-calvinism.

Hyper-calvinism determines that God damned the damned and saved the saved without any event happening in the Creation - before Adam was created you were determined (determinism) to go to Heaven or Hell without any possibility of redemption or damnation based upon what happens in the creation.

But, I do not believe in determinism.

Oh I am definately determinist, if you didn't already know. The major difference is that I believe that the damned are so because they reject Christ. God does not force them to reject Him, they do so according to their nature.

 

[El_Guero]

You are mixing open theism with a fairly standard Baptist theology:

"Those whom He foreknew, these He predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son."

Open Theism is not a fairly standard Baptist theology. Open Theism teaches IMHO that God is not omniscient.

Allan, i'm not calling you an open theist, but open theism believes that God is just sitting back waiting for man to act, before He could know what man would do. Do you believe that? Do you believe that God had to look into the future in order to see what man would do before He could elect them?

 

[reformedbeliever]

You are mixing open theism with a fairly standard Baptist theology:

"Those whom He foreknew, these He predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son."

Open Theism is not a fairly standard Baptist theology. Open Theism teaches IMHO that God is not omniscient.

The foreknew that you are speaking of is prescience.... or foresight. The foreknowledge I speak of is an intimate knowing of those whom He loves.

 

[El_Guero]

I would never call a believer a determinist.

Surely, you do not know what that means.

Oh I am definately determinist, if you didn't already know. The major difference is that I believe that the damned are so because they reject Christ. God does not force them to reject Him, they do so according to their nature.

 

[El_Guero]

I speak of what God spoke of . . . if you differ with Scripture, you may be a determinist.

The foreknew that you are speaking of is prescience.... or foresight. The foreknowledge I speak of is an intimate knowing of those whom He loves.

 

[El_Guero]

Well, regardless of what you claim to believe - I do not discuss Jesus Christ with Determinists or Open Theists except to witness to them.

I pray that you are a believer that is using the wrong terminology.

God bless

Wayne

 

[Allan]

No, I do not agree. If you want to call it hyper, go ahead, it will not bother me. Maybe I am hyper. I believe that God chose one over the other, before they had done anything good or bad (sin) so that His purpose of election would stand. The election being spoken of here IMHO is to salvation.

Ok, let me back up then and get technical as you are most likely hold to SUPRALAPSARIANISM or high Calvinism.

My question is better placed this way:

Is you view:
...that God, contemplating man as yet unfallen, chose some to receive eternal life and rejected all others. So basically you would say that the reprobate (non-elect)—vessels of wrath fitted for destruction (Rom. 9:22)—were first ordained to that role, and then the means by which they fell into sin was ordained (or after the fact). In other words, you would suggests that God's decree of election logically preceded His decree to permit Adam's fall—so that their damnation is first of all an act of divine sovereignty, and only secondarily an act of divine justice.

OR

Do you hold the view of those who suggest that God is as active in keeping the reprobate out of heaven as He is in getting the elect in. However this view (that God is as active in reprobating the non-elect as He is in redeeming the elect) is actaully called "equal ultimacy" according to R.C. Sproul, in his book "Chosen by God".

Or

Am I just wrong altogether.

 

[Allan]

Allan, i'm not calling you an open theist, but open theism believes that God is just sitting back waiting for man to act, before He could know what man would do. Do you believe that? Do you believe that God had to look into the future in order to see what man would do before He could elect them?

No, I beleive God Knew who would believe without ever looking forward.

 

[reformedbeliever]

Ok, let me back up then and get technical as you are most likely hold to SUPRALAPSARIANISM or high Calvinism.

My question is better placed this way:

Is you view:
...that God, contemplating man as yet unfallen, chose some to receive eternal life and rejected all others. So basically you would say that the reprobate (non-elect)—vessels of wrath fitted for destruction (Rom. 9:22)—were first ordained to that role, and then the means by which they fell into sin was ordained (or after the fact). In other words, you would suggests that God's decree of election logically preceded His decree to permit Adam's fall—so that their damnation is first of all an act of divine sovereignty, and only secondarily an act of divine justice.

OR

Do you hold the view of those who suggest that God is as active in keeping the reprobate out of heaven as He is in getting the elect in. However this view (that God is as active in reprobating the non-elect as He is in redeeming the elect) is actaully called "equal ultimacy" according to R.C. Sproul, in his book "Chosen by God".

Or

Am I just wrong altogether.

I am supra, but not in the way you have it defined. I agree with you that there is really no before with God, that He is present in all time. I do believe that God is the first cause however.... that is where my determinism is from. If ElGuro has a problem with it..... oh well.... just don't question my salvation.

Ok, Allan, you believe God is present in all time and outside time.... as I do. Do you believe God had to experience what man would do before He could elect them?

 

[reformedbeliever]

I speak of what God spoke of . . . if you differ with Scripture, you may be a determinist.

I may be a determinist and not differ with scripture. It all depends on how you or someone else defines determinism.