ARCHIVE: Romans 8 and the Open View
- Thread starter Jaltus
- Start date
Arminian,
I disagree with respect to your analogy. Using Israel's corporate election (which nobody disputes) is not a close enough connection to the New covenant election. The question becomes, how close of a relationship is there between election in the OC and under the NC? Your assumption is that it is synonymous, which I find extremely hard to swallow. Perhaps you could deal more with that issue before continuing.
I disagree with respect to your analogy. Using Israel's corporate election (which nobody disputes) is not a close enough connection to the New covenant election. The question becomes, how close of a relationship is there between election in the OC and under the NC? Your assumption is that it is synonymous, which I find extremely hard to swallow. Perhaps you could deal more with that issue before continuing.
geoff
New member
1013:
When you say 'we won the war' - do you mean 'you' won the war, or did the american army win the war, or did the allied win the war? Did the people who died in the American army win the war?
Its a stupid analogy. And it doesnt work. You cant have an army unless you draft people into it. You cant have a 'we' or a 'them' unless you have individuals to make up the 'we' or the 'them'. You cant have a corporately elected group unless the individuals are elected to make the group.
You can say 'we americans' - but 'we americans' are a bunch of individuals who have american citizenship and are identified as such. You can not escape it. it does not compute. it is illogical. all the vulcans are laughing at you right now!
When you say 'we won the war' - do you mean 'you' won the war, or did the american army win the war, or did the allied win the war? Did the people who died in the American army win the war?
Its a stupid analogy. And it doesnt work. You cant have an army unless you draft people into it. You cant have a 'we' or a 'them' unless you have individuals to make up the 'we' or the 'them'. You cant have a corporately elected group unless the individuals are elected to make the group.
You can say 'we americans' - but 'we americans' are a bunch of individuals who have american citizenship and are identified as such. You can not escape it. it does not compute. it is illogical. all the vulcans are laughing at you right now!
Arminian
New member
Hi Jaltus,
OK, let me ask you a few questions so that I can understand how you are thinking.
Do you understand that the promise to the patriarchs is the same promise of which both Moses and Paul speak? If not, why? If so, do you understand "people" in the OT to be corporate and then somehow it became individualistic in the NT?
Now since Paul and his opposition are debating the identity of God's chosen people, and Paul is also a Jew, do you or do you not apply that to Paul's argument concerning Abraham in Romans and Galatians in the typical Jewish corporate sense? If you understand the debate to be at the level of individualism, how do you explain that the children of the promise are those who believe, rather than elect that have yet to believe?
What do you think the promise to the patriarchs was? What do you make of the following: "The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his Seed. The Scripture does not say 'and to seeds,' meaning many people, but 'and to your seed,' meaning one person, who is Christ (Gal 3:16)... but God in his grace gave it to Abraham through a promise (3:18)....that what was promised, being given through faith in Jesus Christ, might be given to those who believe "(3:23). The promise was to "one person," so do you believe it was STILL somehow to many people, meaning elect unbelievers that have yet to believe and many who have yet to be born?
Do the promise, inheritance and election have any connections in your understanding? Don't you think they all relate to God's comments to Abraham? If not, why not?
We'll continue after you respond. Throw me a few hardballs!!
Thanks,
OK, let me ask you a few questions so that I can understand how you are thinking.
Do you understand that the promise to the patriarchs is the same promise of which both Moses and Paul speak? If not, why? If so, do you understand "people" in the OT to be corporate and then somehow it became individualistic in the NT?
Now since Paul and his opposition are debating the identity of God's chosen people, and Paul is also a Jew, do you or do you not apply that to Paul's argument concerning Abraham in Romans and Galatians in the typical Jewish corporate sense? If you understand the debate to be at the level of individualism, how do you explain that the children of the promise are those who believe, rather than elect that have yet to believe?
What do you think the promise to the patriarchs was? What do you make of the following: "The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his Seed. The Scripture does not say 'and to seeds,' meaning many people, but 'and to your seed,' meaning one person, who is Christ (Gal 3:16)... but God in his grace gave it to Abraham through a promise (3:18)....that what was promised, being given through faith in Jesus Christ, might be given to those who believe "(3:23). The promise was to "one person," so do you believe it was STILL somehow to many people, meaning elect unbelievers that have yet to believe and many who have yet to be born?
Do the promise, inheritance and election have any connections in your understanding? Don't you think they all relate to God's comments to Abraham? If not, why not?
We'll continue after you respond. Throw me a few hardballs!!
Thanks,
Last edited:
Arminian
New member
Hi geoff,
We'll you're the third person that has tried to defuse what he said by attacking the messenger. But what is it you think he said?
I merely look at his comment a notice that it is correct (1+1=2). But somehow no one has noticed that he wasn't making my argument. He simply said something concering the traditional use of the phrase. In fact, he gave the credit for the observation to a well-known evangelical Calvinist. So, not only was Dunn not making the argument everyone is trying to attack via his reputation, but he isn't the one who made the observation in the first place.
And, not only do Dunn and Cranfield make the observation, but also numerous others who comment on the historical use of the phrase. In fact, I can't find a single scholar who disagrees!!
We'll you're the third person that has tried to defuse what he said by attacking the messenger. But what is it you think he said?
I merely look at his comment a notice that it is correct (1+1=2). But somehow no one has noticed that he wasn't making my argument. He simply said something concering the traditional use of the phrase. In fact, he gave the credit for the observation to a well-known evangelical Calvinist. So, not only was Dunn not making the argument everyone is trying to attack via his reputation, but he isn't the one who made the observation in the first place.
And, not only do Dunn and Cranfield make the observation, but also numerous others who comment on the historical use of the phrase. In fact, I can't find a single scholar who disagrees!!
Last edited:
Jaltus and Arminian,
I think that Jesus' conversation with Nicodemus when he came to talk to Jesus during the night throws some light on just how close the OC and NC are.
Jesus rebuked Nicodemus for not understanding that a man must be born again to see the kingdom of heaven. Jesus actually said, How can you be a Master in Isreal and not know this? If the new birth, and thus the NC, should have been known to Nicodemus this makes both Covenants very similar, if not identical for Nicodemus was a man highly educated in the Jewish knowledge and theology. Why would Jesus have rebuked Nicodemus for not knowing something that wasn't taught in the OT? Wouldn't that be completely out of character for Him? Rather hypocritical?
While the term "new birth" is not seen in the OT, the idea is clearly shown in David's prayer for a clean heart and right spirit, and that God not take His Holy Spirit away from him (David). The multiple promises in the OT concerning a new heart and being able to walk in the commandments of God, and do them most surely point to the covenants being pretty much identical. Paul's statements about faith also point in this same direction. In fact, when the entire NT is studied from this perspective the Bible becomes a complete whole, not a book artificially divided between Malachi and Matthew.
Also, is not what Jesus says to the sheep and goats in Matthew 25 not based upon the same principles found in Isaiah 58? There God points out what He really wanted from those of Isaiah's time, instead of their legalistic dependence upon the perversion of the ceremonies that God gave them in the sin offerings and Sactuary Services, while they did the same works as the Pharisees of Jesus' time. Look at Isaiah 58 closely and then look at how the Pharisees behaved. You will find great similarities, if not a repetition of the same exact sins. Funny how God condemned the legalism in the OT and the NT while pointing out that what He really wanted was a heart religion in both places. Why would He have done this if the two Covenants didn't have the same basis?
The Sanctuary services pointed forward to Jesus. Thus the offering of a sacrifice for sin showed faith in the Redeemer to come. Faith in Christ and His sacrifice has always been the condition for salvation.
I think that Jesus' conversation with Nicodemus when he came to talk to Jesus during the night throws some light on just how close the OC and NC are.
Jesus rebuked Nicodemus for not understanding that a man must be born again to see the kingdom of heaven. Jesus actually said, How can you be a Master in Isreal and not know this? If the new birth, and thus the NC, should have been known to Nicodemus this makes both Covenants very similar, if not identical for Nicodemus was a man highly educated in the Jewish knowledge and theology. Why would Jesus have rebuked Nicodemus for not knowing something that wasn't taught in the OT? Wouldn't that be completely out of character for Him? Rather hypocritical?
While the term "new birth" is not seen in the OT, the idea is clearly shown in David's prayer for a clean heart and right spirit, and that God not take His Holy Spirit away from him (David). The multiple promises in the OT concerning a new heart and being able to walk in the commandments of God, and do them most surely point to the covenants being pretty much identical. Paul's statements about faith also point in this same direction. In fact, when the entire NT is studied from this perspective the Bible becomes a complete whole, not a book artificially divided between Malachi and Matthew.
Also, is not what Jesus says to the sheep and goats in Matthew 25 not based upon the same principles found in Isaiah 58? There God points out what He really wanted from those of Isaiah's time, instead of their legalistic dependence upon the perversion of the ceremonies that God gave them in the sin offerings and Sactuary Services, while they did the same works as the Pharisees of Jesus' time. Look at Isaiah 58 closely and then look at how the Pharisees behaved. You will find great similarities, if not a repetition of the same exact sins. Funny how God condemned the legalism in the OT and the NT while pointing out that what He really wanted was a heart religion in both places. Why would He have done this if the two Covenants didn't have the same basis?
The Sanctuary services pointed forward to Jesus. Thus the offering of a sacrifice for sin showed faith in the Redeemer to come. Faith in Christ and His sacrifice has always been the condition for salvation.
1013
Post Modern Fundamentalist
america won. of course we can get more specific and say those alive at the time won it. but that doesn't negate the truth of the corporate "we" in the sense that you and I use it.
and somehow you told me No, The British did... you just helped.
corporate thinking, which in this particular case, involves all members claiming the merits of the group though the whole group was not particularly involved, is natural to us just as it was to Paul and when I say us here, I do mean a group that does in fact specifically include you as you have beautifully demonstrated.
Arminian
New member
geoff,
I think he was talking about what had just been said, which doesn't mention the temple. The OT (1 John and Hebrews, too) spoke of a time when a teacher would no longer be needed because the Spirit would come and the kingdom would be established. With the arrival of Christ, the time HAD come. Nicodemus should have known was Christ was talking about.
I think he was talking about what had just been said, which doesn't mention the temple. The OT (1 John and Hebrews, too) spoke of a time when a teacher would no longer be needed because the Spirit would come and the kingdom would be established. With the arrival of Christ, the time HAD come. Nicodemus should have known was Christ was talking about.
Arminian
New member
At first I thought I'd just give this to 1030, who is interested in NP. But then I realized that it is pertinent to the present topic that Jaltus and I are discussing. Cranford, FYI, is what I would call a NP Calvinist, but those types of NP's always deny being Calvinists. Anyhow, there's nothing Calvinistic about this article, but if there were, I'd correct it. Cranford rarely comes up with genuinely original ideas, but he is quite articulate.
I do what to "share the wealth." Enjoy.
http://sundoulos.com/answers/body_abraham_in_romans_4.html
I do what to "share the wealth." Enjoy.
http://sundoulos.com/answers/body_abraham_in_romans_4.html