Why the Blindness?

[skypair]

When vessels of wrath fit for destruction are mentioned in Romans 9 ( the rock of reprobation ) -- those folks destined for eternal woe are not merely experiencing "blind spots " . All regenerate ones have blind spots , but not to be compared with those whose minds have been given over so that they will not believe ( caused by the Lord Himself ) .

What if God said they were, rippon -- would you believe Him? God said Israel is "partly blind." I'd say its only a matter of degrees that we are talking about and not any real distinction with a difference, don't you? If your one "blind spot" is Christ, all those things you speak of will also attain, right?

skypair

 

[Rippon]

SP , it is not a matter of degrees . Someone destined for Hell is under an eternal death sentence -- he is spiritully blind in the worst sense possible . There is no comparison with the partial-blindness which believers labor under .

Regarding Israel -- a majority were spiritually blind -- but the remnant was given spiritual eyesight by the Lord .

 

[Rippon]

This Is With Regard To Romans 9:11-13

This has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with salvaiton but the choosing of whom the Nation the Messiah would come through. As is constantly noted God did not Choose Israel (the Nation) for salvation but to be His people through whom He would bring forth His Word both written and in manifested flesh.

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. This about the plan of redemption and through whom it will come. Jacod have I loved (chose) Esau have I hated (not chose) to bring forth the promised seed.

This yet another reminder for Allan to recall his own words . He has the tendency to forget .

 

[Rippon]

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?

And these words from RB confirms that I am not all alone in my scriptural understanding of this major doctrine .

 

[Allan]

This yet another reminder for Allan to recall his own words . He has the tendency to forget .

How about taking it into context. But still - there is no reason to recall anything.

We were discussing the chapter being specifically about Salvation, I was showing where it was not.

No the Chapter has NOTHING to do with salvation in context we were speaking to.

I you really hate-filled, you would distort things on purpose to make yourself seem ...I don't know... important?

 

[Allan]

And these words from RB confirms that I am not all alone in my scriptural understanding of this major doctrine .

He was being sarcastic about the hyper-veiw, and if you would have taken the time to read it, you would know that .

But then again you would actually have to read it in context now wouldn't you.

 

[Rippon]

He was being sarcastic about the hyper-veiw, and if you would have taken the time to read it, you would know that .

But then again you would actually have to read it in context now wouldn't you.

Yes , RB was indeed being sarcastic about what you consider to be hyper-Calvinistic . He was saying in so many words that your view is silly .

 

[Allan]

Yes , RB was indeed being sarcastic about what you consider to be hyper-Calvinistic . He was saying in so many words that your view is silly .

You once again FAIL to read the rest of the posts in which we both were agreeing.

Originally Posted by reformedbeliever
I agree. So why did you ask me if what He knew would happen before the fall or after?

Because the Hyper states that God determines who will be saved BEFORE God determines man will sin.

In other words God creates sin so that those He chose can now fulfill their purpose in His plan and vise-versa. Ergo God is the first cause of sin or the progenitor of sin.

And previous to that I gave the web link that gives the definition (I think it was Spurgeon.org)

We fleshed out what was being talked about and your misuse of 'a' quote which seems quite symtomatic of a problem you seem have - wither bitterness and or hate

It still comes back to repentence on your part for this and the other.

 

[Rippon]

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?

Talk about taking things out of context Allan ! The conversation that I related concerned this follow-up from you .

 

[Rippon]

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.

To which RB gave the above reply .

 

[Allan]

Talk about taking things out of context Allan ! The conversation that I related concerned this follow-up from you .

Yes, and apparently your ignorance isn't just in church history.

Your follow-up has nothing to do with your initial accusation of me stating a Hyper is one who believes God chose Jacob over Esau, when in fact what I was stating is that the hyper believe God chose Jacob over Esau BEFORE God determined sin to be apart of His plan.

Which just so happens to be what you 'left out' to further your distortion of the truth.

 

[Allan]

To which RB gave the above reply .

And after that... Oh, you didn't read that far? I see, so you concoct your own version.

Anyone with half a brain can go back to the late 80 early 90 posting and read them for themselves and see how off base you are.

Again Rippon,
For you slander, bitterness, and hate I forgive you and I pray the Lord will grant you repentence.

 

[reformedbeliever]

Hey guys. Since this is an old post with my name in it...... how about listening to me for a bit?
I love both of you guys. Now, how about just forgiving one another, and lets stop with the bickering. I've invited some guests to come check out the BB, and I am actually embarrased. I'm saying this with love for you both. Do it not for me, but for our Lord and Savior whom all of us love. Thanks guys.

 

[Allan]

Hey guys. Since this is an old post with my name in it...... how about listening to me for a bit?
I love both of you guys. Now, how about just forgiving one another, and lets stop with the bickering. I've invited some guests to come check out the BB, and I am actually embarrased. I'm saying this with love for you both. Do it not for me, but for our Lord and Savior whom all of us love. Thanks guys.

Sorry RB, my character was called into question. I will do so.

And my statement towards you Rip remains - I forgive you.

 

[Rippon]

Setting the Record Straight

How about taking it into context. But still - there is no reason to recall anything.

We were discussing the chapter being specifically about Salvation, I was showing where it was not.

No the Chapter has NOTHING to do with salvation in context we were speaking to.

I you really hate-filled, you would distort things on purpose to make yourself seem ...I don't know... important?

Allan , I had taken the folks here along the path of you interaction with Reformed Believer . I had posted past posts in the sequential order of their occurrence . In my post#163 I showed the contents of your post#72 . In my post #164 I showed the content of RB's post #77 . In my post # 169 I showed the content of RB's post # 88 .

You , on the other hand , in your post numbered #168 interjected RB's post #103 . You are the one who took things out of context . You are the one who distorted things , not me . Shame on you .

Chapter 9 of Romans 9 does declare salvation truths . Look again at 9:11-12a : ( for though they had not been born yet or done anything good or bad , so that God's purpose according to election might stand , not from works but from the One who calls )

Compare the above with 2 Timothy 1:9 : who has saved us and called us with a holy calling , not according to our works , but according to His own purpose and grace , which was given to us in Christ Jesus before time began .

Those are parallel passages . And both deal with salvation .And of course Romans 9:22 and 23 deal with the condemnation of the wicked and the hope of glory for His objects of mercy .

( All Scripture from the HCSB .)

 

[Rippon]

Yes, and apparently your ignorance isn't just in church history.

Your follow-up has nothing to do with your initial accusation of me stating a Hyper is one who believes God chose Jacob over Esau, when in fact what I was stating is that the hyper believe God chose Jacob over Esau BEFORE God determined sin to be apart of His plan.

Which just so happens to be what you 'left out' to further your distortion of the truth.

My "initial accusation" was that "you insist that hyperCalvinism teaches that God chose Jacob over Esau before either one sinned ." Also that you believe Romans 9 has nothing to do with salvation . And of course your belief flies directly against what Romans 9:11 teaches . You distorted my charge against you . ( Not mentioning other things you have falsely claimed .)

 

[Rippon]

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?

This was post #89 from RB .

 

[Rippon]

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.

This was your post #97 .

 

[Rippon]

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

This was your respone to RB in your post # 98 .

 

[Rippon]

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?

This was RB's post #99 .