ARGH!!! Calvinism makes me furious!!!

Delmar

Patron Saint of SMACK
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
ChristisKing said:
Not with the same love He loves the elect.

ROM 9:11 (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;)
ROM 9:12 It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger.
ROM 9:13 As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.
Why?
 
Last edited:

ChristisKing

New member
That he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy

That he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy

deardelmar said:

"...that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory," Rom. 9:23
 

Delmar

Patron Saint of SMACK
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Are you saying Esau was bound for hell before he was ever conceived?
 

ChristisKing

New member
Hath not the potter power over the clay

Hath not the potter power over the clay

deardelmar said:
Are you saying Esau was bound for hell before he was ever conceived?
The Scriptures never say that, the Scriptures only teach that Esau like all the non-elect are not elected to salvation before they are born. They go to hell because of their sins. I don't want to go any further than what Scripture teaches.

ROM 9:21 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?
 

Delmar

Patron Saint of SMACK
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
ChristisKing said:
I don't want to go any further than what Scripture teaches.
OK
2Pe 3:9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.
 

ChristisKing

New member
But is longsuffering to us-ward

But is longsuffering to us-ward

deardelmar said:
OK
2Pe 3:9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

2 Peter 3:9 was written by Peter to the "elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father." He is telling the "elect" that the Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any (of us; the elect) should perish, but that all (us; the elect) should come to repentance.
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
ChristisKing,

Jacob and Esau are used to refer to two nations, not the two unborn babies. God is not a respecter of persons and does not hate the unborn. If you had read more than the first post of the thread you would know this already.

Gensis 25:22 But the children struggled together within her; and she said, "If all is well, why am I like this?|" So she went to inquire of the LORD.

23 And the LORD said to her:
"Two nations are in your womb,
Two peoples shall be separated from your body;
One people shall be stronger than the other,
And the older shall serve the younger."​

24 So when her days were fulfilled for her to give birth, indeed there were twins in her womb. 25 And the first came out red. He was like a hairy garment all over; so they called his name Esau. 26 Afterward his brother came out, and his hand took hold of Esau's heel; so his name was called Jacob.​

Resting in Him,
Clete
 

ChristisKing

New member
Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth

Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth

Clete said:
ChristisKing,

Jacob and Esau are used to refer to two nations, not the two unborn babies. God is not a respecter of persons and does not hate the unborn. Resting in Him,
Clete

They represented two individuals as well. They also represent "the elect" and "the non-elect" of today. It is used in the NT to teach the doctrine of election of indivduals.

ROM 9:11 (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;)
ROM 9:18 Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.

Peter taught that God is not a respecter of nations or races, and of course God is not. We find His elect in every nation and race on earth.
 

Delmar

Patron Saint of SMACK
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
ChristisKing said:
2 Peter 3:9 was written by Peter to the "elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father." He is telling the "elect" that the Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any (of us; the elect) should perish, but that all (us; the elect) should come to repentance.
He was speaking to the elect, the scatered remnant of Jewish believers. when Peter said God is not willing that any should perish was he not also talking about those who would become gentile believers? Some of whom, by the way, were children of Esau.
 

ChristisKing

New member
Us

Us

deardelmar said:
He was speaking to the elect, the scatered remnant of Jewish believers. when Peter said God is not willing that any should perish was he not also talking about those who would become gentile believers? Some of whom, by the way, were children of Esau.

The way I try to understand someones comments when written in a letter is to first see who the letter is written to. Peter is writing his second letter to "the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father..." 1PE 1:1,2

Therefore whenever Peter uses the word "us" in this letter he must be referring to himself and "the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father..." Therefore when he uses the word "us" in the verse we are discussing it would be appropriate to drop in the words "Peter and the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father..."

To assume Peter is referring to everyone that has ever lived or will live on Earth by using the word "us" seems to do much damage to Peter's intent, don't you think?
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
ChristisKing said:
They represented two individuals as well. They also represent "the elect" and "the non-elect" of today. It is used in the NT to teach the doctrine of election of indivduals.

ROM 9:11 (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;)
ROM 9:18 Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.

Peter taught that God is not a respecter of nations or races, and of course God is not. We find His elect in every nation and race on earth.
What are you going to do, simply ignore the verse in Genesis that explicitly says that there were two nations in her womb?

Paul was talking about nations in Rom. 9 from beginning to end, there is no contextual or even gramatical reason to think that he changed the subject in the middle of the chapter only to change it back again before the chapter closes. This is further evidenced by the fact that Paul quoted from Jer. 18. There can be no doubt about it. Rom. 9 is talking about Israel being cut off, not about Calvinistic predestination.

Resting in Him,
Clete
 

ChristisKing

New member
The predestined elect are in both the Jewish and Gentile nations

The predestined elect are in both the Jewish and Gentile nations

Clete said:
What are you going to do, simply ignore the verse in Genesis that explicitly says that there were two nations in her womb?

Paul was talking about nations in Rom. 9 from beginning to end, there is no contextual or even gramatical reason to think that he changed the subject in the middle of the chapter only to change it back again before the chapter closes. This is further evidenced by the fact that Paul quoted from Jer. 18. There can be no doubt about it. Rom. 9 is talking about Israel being cut off, not about Calvinistic predestination.

Resting in Him,
Clete

No, what I'm going to do is believe all of what the Scripture is teaching. I'm going to believe they represented individuals, the elect and non-elect of today in the NT and the nations of old in the OT. What I'm not going to do is strip their individual identities away or their representation of the elect and non-elect of today in the NT that Roman 9 is clearly teaching. Because if I were to do this I would be taking out the heart of Romans 9.

Paul is not talking about all of Israel being cut-off but rather just the opposite.

In just the next couple of verses, he refers to the elect being in the Jewish nation (albeit only a remnant according to election) as well as the Gentile nations because God is not a respecter of people.

ROM 9:24 Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?

ROM 9:27 Esaias also crieth concerning Israel, Though the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea, a remnant shall be saved:
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
ChristisKing said:
No, what I'm going to do is believe all of what the Scripture is teaching. I'm going to believe they represented individuals, the elect and non-elect of today in the NT and the nations of old in the OT. What I'm not going to do is strip their individual identities away or their representation of the elect and non-elect of today in the NT that Roman 9 is clearly teaching. Because if I were to do this I would be taking out the heart of Romans 9.
Rom. 9 is not talking about predestination at all. This is not the subject of the chapter; you are required to ignore the context of the chapter in order to get anything at all about predestination out of it. That simply isn't what he is talking about. Paul makes 2 references to the Old Testament so that it would be perfectly clear what he was talking about and you are, in spite of your claim to the contrary, ignoring both of them.

Paul is not talking about all of Israel being cut-off but rather just the opposite.
He is talking about the nation as a whole being cut off, that is precisely what the chapter is about.

In just the next couple of verses, he refers to the elect being in the Jewish nation (albeit only a remnant according to election) as well as the Gentile nations because God is not a respecter of people.

ROM 9:24 Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?

ROM 9:27 Esaias also crieth concerning Israel, Though the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea, a remnant shall be saved:
There is a remnant that was not cut off, yes; namely the twelve apostles and their converts. But the nation as a whole was cut off and Rom. 9 is laying the ground work needed for Paul to prove that very point. God was no longer attempting to evangelize the world through a nation (which was His initial intent for Israel). Instead, because of Israel's unbelief (Jer. 18), He cut them off and turned instead to the whole world irrespective of nation via the Body of Christ and the Gospel of Grace, which was given to Paul by revelation. This is the book of Romans in a nutshell. Rom. 9 is entirely on this subject and has exactly zero to do with predestination.

Resting in Him,
Clete
 

ChristisKing

New member
Clete said:
Rom. 9 is not talking about predestination at all...and has exactly zero to do with predestination.

Resting in Him,
Clete

I'm sorry, I can't follow you at all.

Romans 9 and the last part of Romans 8 disusses our election and predestination more than any other single place in the entire bible. I know you mean well, but with a comment like that your arguments lose all credibility. It is so far fetched that I think we will just have to disagree.

God bless.
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
ChristisKing said:
I'm sorry, I can't follow you at all.

Romans 9 and the last part of Romans 8 disusses our election and predestination more than any other single place in the entire bible. I know you mean well, but with a comment like that your arguments lose all credibility. It is so far fetched that I think we will just have to disagree.

God bless.

It's not far fetched at all. I appreciate your attitude though and will, as soon as I have the time (hopefully tonight), go into more detail. I'm thinking of just going through the whole section of Scripture one step at a time.
I do understand where you're coming from though, I was a hard core Calvinist for a very long time and didn't see it either. But once you do see it, you can't miss it. It's simply a pardigm thing. I engourage you to stick with it long enough to get a good understanding of what I'm trying to get you to see before rejecting it. This will be, if you ever accept this teaching, the largest paradigm shift you are ever likely to deal with in your lifetime and as such it is generally much easier to reject than it is to expend the effort needed to understand it. Let me just tell you though that it is very much worth the effort, the proceeds of which is a theology which is completely logical and in totally agreement with all of Scripture, which presents a God who is truly a real person and who is truly loving, kind and just and who is deeply and personally interested in having a genuine personal and deeply emotional realtionship with you (I mean you specifically). And while this might all sound like something you already believe, I submit that most of this is logically incompatible with Calvinist doctrine, which I would be more than happy to prove by both Scripture and plain reason.

Be patient with me and I'll work on this Rom. 9 thing and we'll go from there. Perhaps I'll start a separate thread for it.

Resting in Him,
Clete
 

swanca99

New member
Hey Clete, that little discussion you and I had a few weeks ago is still out there in the General Theology forum. The thread is entitled "Is Calvinism Right?," or something like that.

Might save you a little typing...
 

godrulz

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
Clete is correct. Romans 9-11 is about the election of national Israel. It is not about the unconditional election of some and the non-election of others. Election is corporate, not individual. All those who believe become part of the corporate elect. Those who reject God's love and gift of salvation are lost. They, not God, are responsible for their damnation. God died for all men, not just the elect. 'Non-elect' is a specious concept. Paul, in Romans, is showing the Jewish Christians why the Gospel is not just for them, but for Gentiles as well. He affirms their special role in the Law and coming of the Messiah. He does not affirm that salvation is limited to the Jews or the so-called elect. This contradicts other explicit revelation of His character and ways. Reading 'elect' back into 2 Peter, Tim., Jn. 3:16 is sheer eisegesis and is not defensible exegeticallly.
 

lee_merrill

New member
Hi everyone,

godrulz said:
Clete is correct. Romans 9-11 is about the election of national Israel. It is not about the unconditional election of some and the non-election of others. Election is corporate, not individual.

Then Pharaoh is a corporation? And what does corporate election mean, if individuals are not chosen? Does it mean that conditions for entry into the group are specified? But Paul doesn't talk about entry into groups, he talks about God choosing (or rejecting! Is there corporate reprobation?) one real group versus another real group.

Or individuals.

Paul, in Romans, is showing the Jewish Christians why the Gospel is not just for them, but for Gentiles as well.

Why is Pharoah an example of one who was rejected, then? He was not Jewish.

He affirms their special role in the Law and coming of the Messiah. He does not affirm that salvation is limited to the Jews or the so-called elect. This contradicts other explicit revelation of His character and ways. Reading 'elect' back into 2 Peter, Tim., Jn. 3:16 is sheer eisegesis and is not defensible exegeticallly.

Well, I would say it is, though...

2 Thessalonians 2:13 But we ought always to thank God for you, brothers loved by the Lord, because from the beginning God chose you to be saved through the sanctifying work of the Spirit and through belief in the truth.

Chose you from the beginning, not your group, and not your conditions of membership, and not your foreseen faith, but ... you!

If corporate election is true, then we have God saying "I choose to save those who will be saved." That, I think is not so defensible...

Blessings,
Lee
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
lee_merrill said:
Hi everyone,

....And what does corporate election mean, if individuals are not chosen? Does it mean that conditions for entry into the group are specified? But Paul doesn't talk about entry into groups, he talks about God choosing (or rejecting! Is there corporate reprobation?) one real group versus another real group.

Or individuals.
Isn't it obvious what it means? You couldn't just fall off a log and be a member of Israel, you had to either be born of Jewish parents or go through whatever process was required to become a proselyte. Once you were a member of the nation though you were (whether you were a believer or not) in covenant relationship with God (which did not mean you were saved, by the way). For example, God could call you as a prophet or even a priest and the only requirement was that you be a Jew (well to be a priest you had to be a Levite but the same principle applies). You didn't have to love God or even obey Him. There were lots of really evil prophets in the Old Testament and even more evil priests. But despite their evil, they held an office which God stood behind. Jesus commanded that His followers to obey the priests because the sit in the seat of Moses but do not follow their example. The only way this makes sense is because God's relationship with Israel was corporate.

Then Pharaoh is a corporation?....
Why is Pharaoh an example of one who was rejected, then? He was not Jewish.
Pharaoh was the king of and therefore the representative of Egypt. God's rejection of Pharaoh was a rejection of the nation of Egypt not simply the man himself. After all, it was not only Pharaoh himself who received the plagues but the whole nation.

Well, I would say it is, though...

2 Thessalonians 2:13 But we ought always to thank God for you, brothers loved by the Lord, because from the beginning God chose you to be saved through the sanctifying work of the Spirit and through belief in the truth.

Chose you from the beginning, not your group, and not your conditions of membership, and not your foreseen faith, but ... you!

If corporate election is true, then we have God saying "I choose to save those who will be saved." That, I think is not so defensible...

Blessings,
Lee
God chose to save all those who enter the Body of Christ. This is clear if you read more than one verse of Scripture at a time. What you are suggesting would make God arbitrary with men's souls and therefore unjust. God can be arbitrary with nations because the individuals within those nations can repent and thereby seal their own fate apart from that of the nation of which they are a member. In other words, if individuals are predestined for salvation or damnation, God is unjust but there is no such problem when dealing with nations because God does not send nations to Hell, He sends individuals to Hell.

Resting in Him,
Clete
 
Last edited:

lee_merrill

New member
Hi Clete,

Lee: And what does corporate election mean, if individuals are not chosen? Does it mean that conditions for entry into the group are specified? But Paul doesn't talk about entry into groups…

Clete: Isn't it obvious what it means? You couldn't just fall off a log and be a member of Israel, you had to either be born of Jewish parents or go through whatever process was required to become a proselyte.

But where is the fact that descendants of Israel and proselytes are Israelites in Paul's discussion? Isn't this the opposite of his point ("not all descendants of Israel are Israel"), what people do, who they are, and how they choose doesn't matter, God's choice matters, and only his choice, and that is the essence of Romans 9.

Clete: Pharaoh was the king of and therefore the representative of Egypt.

But some Egyptians left Egypt with the Israelites! So this overturns this point, if Pharaoh represents all Egypt. And which group does Isaac represent? Isn't Paul's point that God chose the individual Isaac, and not a group, in Rom. 9:8-9?

2 Thessalonians 2:13 But we ought always to thank God for you, brothers loved by the Lord, because from the beginning God chose you to be saved through the sanctifying work of the Spirit and through belief in the truth.

Lee: Chose you from the beginning, not your group, and not your conditions of membership, and not your foreseen faith, but ... you!

Clete: God chose to save all those who enter the Body of Christ.

Yes, then don't we have "God chose to save those who would be saved"? But that's not a choice at all! And that's not what Paul says...

Romans 9:16 It does not, therefore, depend on man's desire or effort, but on God's mercy.

Clete: What you are suggesting would make God arbitrary with men's souls and therefore unjust.

Not if God chooses everyone! Which I hope indeed he may.

Romans 11:28 As far as the gospel is concerned, they are enemies on your account; but as far as election is concerned, they are loved...

God can be arbitrary with nations because the individuals within those nations can repent and thereby seal their own fate apart from that of the nation of which they are a member.

Then all the Edomites can become Israelites! And then God chose to reject no one. Or all the Israelites can become Edomites, and then God chose no one. Again, this is not God choosing, not at all.

Blessings,
Lee
 
Top