Featured Romans 9

Are you talking to me?

Man, I was agreeing with you, not argueing with you.

you got me confused now

John

 

John. No I was not speaking to you. Sorry I'm on my phone. Hard to type...

 

You might try addressing the person you are really responding to. Again, you simply provide a speculative theological position with no exegetical support. Again, I have provided specific contextual evidence that shoots holes in your theory and again you have no response except for this kind!

Is this a debate? How about providing something substantial and contextually based with some exegetical evidence????? I know that might be something new and strange to you but give it a try!

Romans 9 - denial that physical born Jews are the children of God by promise.

Romans 10 - Personal salvation through faith in the gospel

Romans 11 - God is not finished with Israel as a nation.

Your speculative theory is contrary to the stated aim of Paul in Romans 9:7-8 and that is to show that PLURAL "children of the flesh" are not the PLURAL "children of God" by promise ILLUSTRATED by Isaac over Ishmael, Jacob over Esau RATHER than your speculative theory that he is attempting to establish a SINGULAR type of Christ in Isaac and FEDERAL heads in Jacob and Esau and NATIONS rather than INDIVIDUAL salvation.

Again, the fact that personal salvation is in view (Rom. 9:1-2) instead of NATIONAL distinctions is proven by every single conclusion drawn in Romans 9:1-24 where INDIVIDUALS represented by personal pronouns ("he" vv. 16,18) are used and non-national plural enties are contrasted ("children of the flesh" versus "children of God")

Again, Romans 9:24 uses the PLURAL "Jews" instead of the national term "Israel" and in addition includes the term "gentiles" as inclusive in the potter and vessels illustration.

All these contextual factors simply blows a huge hole in your speculative theory that rests totally upon SPIRITUALIZATION of the text and contrary to the exegetical facts found in the text - some of which I listed above.

I know that exegesis may be something strange and new to you but you should really look into it if you are going to present any credible exposition of Romans 9-11.

 

I am relieved that FinishedWork wasnt addressing me, even though it appeared he was.

I am glad because his interpretation of Romans 9 is spot on.

The predestined is a corporate entity which is the Church, and the elect are the members of the church.

God knows who the elect are, but he didnt predestinate their election. He did predestinate the establishment of the Church with Christ as the head.

Sometimes, we take a biblical truth and add to it so much that it becomes a false doctrine, and not biblical at all. Calvinism is a prime example.

John

 

:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

 

Gentleman you have the very same problem he does. You select a suppositional theory but cannot harmonize it with the contextual problems I presented. Your silence is as deafening as his. Have you ever heard of a little thing called "exegesis"? Apparently not, because so far none has been presented on your side to support this theory.

 

It is easy to theorize and chime in with someone who theorizes but it quite another thing to support such a theory by exegetical based facts.

I have presented some exegetical difficulties for this theory which none of you have even attempted to confront and respond to.

Again, Isaac is not being used to illustrate or typify Jesus Christ in Romans 9 but along with Jacob and Esau is being used to illustrate and typify the explicitly stated contrast between "children of the flesh" versus "children of God" within the confines of national Israel.

Again, the use of the plural "Jews" instead of "Israel" in verse 24 does not support your theory.

Again, the inclusion of the term "gentiles" in the potters illustration in verse 24 does not support your theory.

Again, the fact of personal individual salvation as the primary application in Romans 10 does not support your theory. (Rom. 10:8-17).

Again, the fact that "Israel" in Romans 11:25 is the same Israel in Romans 11:26 as described as "enemies of the Gospel" presently in verse 28 totally destroys your theory.

Gentleman, where is your contextual based evidence for your theory????????? It appears you cannot produce any and so much for your theory!

 

I believe I gave you an 'exegesis' response to Reformed Theology including Romans 9 in this thread/post:

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1826496&postcount=40

Keep in mind that it is much easier to prove what the Bible does say than what it doesnt. After all, if it isnt there then how can I explain it?

Reformed Theology is just not there, but yet you ask me to disprove it?

John

BTW, if you are a follower of Paul, then you should quote Paul correctly. Attributing Calvin's doctrine to Paul is stretching the truth to say the least.

 

The post you allude to only further proves my point! Did you really read the post you referenced in the thread???? You do not answer a single solitary point of the evidence I gave you in that post either. You simply make a very short statement that includes nothing but unsupported conclusions!

What you are saying about my exposition is so apparent of your own position that it is hardly possible that you can even say what you say with a straight face? Come on, read what you write - its pathetic!

Gentleman, provide exegetical support for your theorizing or simply hang it up and admit you can't demonstrate what your claiming the text says!

 

:BangHead::BangHead::BangHead::BangHead:

 

Readers,

Please do go to the above thread and read this for yourself. It is amazing that anyone would even give such a post as a serious rebuttal. Just look at the evidence I placed before him and the substance of his response!

 

And if our exegesis doesn't line up with the likes of Calvin, Luther, Beza, MacArthur, Piper, Sproul, Spurgeon, Pink, et al, we're dunces.


No thanks for the invite. Someone else may bite, but I won't.

 

All your posts demonstrate is that you have lots of hatred for the truth but no substance to support your alternative response to the truth. This is a debate forum, provide something worthy to consider for debate or let someone else do it.

 

Yes, I read your post. You were attributing Reformed Theology to Paul instead of Calvin or Augustine. And I refuted every single point you made.

Paul simply did not promote Reformed Theology, it's just not there.

You can pick and choose verses and "prove" any false doctrine you care to, but that doesnt make it true.

Pathetic? Whatever you think about me does not change the truth of the Bible, no how matter how much you twist that truth.

John

 

Would you please show where I ever presented anything, anything other than the bibical text and the Biblical terms used by Paul in Romans 9-11???? Please show the readers where Calvin, Luther, Beza, MacArthur, Piper, Sproul, Spurgeon, Pink, et al, where ever quoted once or even mentioned once?

If you cannot, then you are making a false accusation.

For the record, I have NEVER read any of these men regarding Romans 9-11. I am more concerned with exegesis of the passage than I am with your opinions, their opinions or my own opinions.

Besides the Reformed position denies the restoration of Israel and makes the term "Israel" a synonym with "church" which I reject.

 

:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:

 

If a person really could provide contextual based evidence for their position they would not have to resort to the above type of mentality - they would just present it. Obviously, you have no substance so you resort to the only thing you have - ridicule. That tells more about you than me. I have provided substance, contextual facts and again you have provide NOTHING but ridicule.

 

Excuse me? You are the one that ridiculed me in your post that i was responding to. Hence my response.

Convicted1 is right, debate with you is futile.

You are blind to the truth and attack anyone that questions you.

Bye now
John

 

The ridicule is that anyone can stand behind a theory and yet cannot contextually support that theory and then expect the readers to just jump on board! That is absurd and moronic and should be ridiculed by anyone who is a true Bible student.

If you cannot support your theory by bible context. If you cannot respond to exegetical based objections with nothing more than your mere opinions and ridicule then why are you even on this forum????

 

When a person has NOTHING but personal opinions to respond to specific contextual based arguments against their opinion then they should be ridiculed if they think their theory should even be taken seriously. When they resort to ridicule as their only available option then why bother even coming on the forum at all???