Serious Seeker

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by KayDee:
In Romans 9, it is very clear that God chooses some and not others. Those of the Arminian camp, say this is referring to the nation Israel - right? How can they say that when he gives individuals as examples and then in verse 24 he says He has called those from the Gentiles also? Is there anything else in Chpater 9 I am not seeing that shows these verses are speaking of individuals and not the nation Israel? Thanks again for your help.

In His Grace
KayDee<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree, KayDee, it is vey clear.

First, let me say that even if Romans 9 taught “corporate election” (which it doesn’t) personal election is richly taught throughout all of the entire Scripture. But Romans 9 is teaching personal election to salvation.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Romans 9:1-33 (ESV)
I am speaking the truth in Christ—I am not lying; my conscience bears me witness in the Holy Spirit— [2] that I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart. [3] For I could wish that I myself were accursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, my kinsmen according to the flesh. [4] They are Israelites, and to them belong the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises. [5] To them belong the patriarchs, and from their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ who is God over all, blessed forever. Amen. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Here Paul has wished for his own reprobation – an anti-election – if only his fellow Jews would be called to believe in Christ. his emphasis on personal reprobation sets up his argument for personal election.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> [6] But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel, [7] and not all are children of Abraham because they are his offspring, but "Through Isaac shall your offspring be named." [8] This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring. [9] For this is what the promise said: "About this time next year I will return and Sarah shall have a son." [10] And not only so, but also when Rebecca had conceived children by one man, our forefather Isaac, [11] though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad—in order that God's purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of his call— [12] she was told, "The older will serve the younger." [13] As it is written, "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated." <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Paul says the word of God has not failed. Why? Because the purpose of the word is not to save a nation but to save all the elect from all nations; a people out of a people. “For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel” – all of the nation is not elect; there are individuals from within Israel who are elect. “the children of the promise are counted as offspring” – those whom God has chosen – personally and individually – to be saved. He compares individuals – Jacob and Esau – and individual works not yet done, either good or bad, to highlight the election of persons, not nations.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> [14] What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God's part? By no means! [15] For he says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion." [16] So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy. [17] For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, "For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth." [18] So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Paul emphasizes that God is merciful to whomever he chooses. How does he highlight this? by using Pharaoh, one man, as an example of a reprobate. Pharaoh was raised up to power solely for the purpose of showing God’s power and glory.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> [19] You will say to me then, "Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?" [20] But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, "Why have you made me like this?" [21] Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honored use and another for dishonorable use? [22] What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, [23] in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory— [24] even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The response of objection to Paul is from one hypothetical man: Why does he still find fault [with me?] Paul’s answer is direct and singular:” who are you, O man, to answer back to God?” A Potter makes one vessel at a time, each for a purpose. He then discusses “vessels” of wrath and “vessels” of mercy; individuals which make up each group. His emphasis of “us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles” clearly refers to individuals elected out of larger groups.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>[25] As indeed he says in Hosea,
"Those who were not my people I will call 'my people,'
and her who was not beloved I will call 'beloved.' "
[26] "And in the very place where it was said to them, 'You are not my people,'
there they will be called 'sons of the living God.' "
[27] And Isaiah cries out concerning Israel: "Though the number of the sons of Israel be as the sand of the sea, only a remnant of them will be saved, [28] for the Lord will carry out his sentence upon the earth fully and without delay." [29] And as Isaiah predicted,
"If the Lord of hosts had not left us offspring,
we would have been like Sodom
and become like Gomorrah." <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Again, only a presuppositional bias against individual election would find anything here that speaks against individuals elected out of “Those who were not my people”, and individuals elected to the remnant of Israel.


<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> [30] What shall we say, then? That Gentiles who did not pursue righteousness have attained it, that is, a righteousness that is by faith; [31] but that Israel who pursued a law that would lead to righteousness did not succeed in reaching that law. [32] Why? Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as if it were based on works. They have stumbled over the stumbling stone, [33] as it is written,
"Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offense;
and whoever believes in him will not be put to shame." <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

All Gentiles have not attained salvation; all Israel is not lost. Those who have faith are saved by grace. “whoever believes in him will not be put to shame”. That is not corporate belief, but election.

After saying all that, the corporate election argument really refutes itself, for who are corporations made up of if not individuals? It does not alleviate their dilemma: if a nation were elect, it would still mean all individuals within that specific nation were elect, because they were individuals within that nation and others aren’t, and so the “problem” of individual election remains.

[ January 07, 2002: Message edited by: Chris Temple ]

 

KayDee:
My computer has the same trouble once in awhile. I get a list of stars instead of the word, although I never, never use a cuss word or anything. Maybe I use something that's not politically correct.

Amen!! Praise the Lord. When I came to the true understanding of the absolute Sovereignity of God it was like the old song says, I was lost, but now I'm found. It is the most wonderful feeling in the world -- to know that your salvation depends on God and not yourself. Praise God. Please read some of the recommended books. They are soooo gooooood!!!!!!!
James2

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Here Paul has wished for his own reprobation – an anti-election – if only his fellow Jews would be called to believe in Christ. his emphasis on personal reprobation sets up his argument for personal election.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

But the fact that some Jews would be saved shows then that this must be speaking of Israel as a whole. He wished he could die for the people as a whole, which do comprise individuals, but still, the focus of the whole passage is that Israel as a whole was hardened, and then punished, and Pharaoh and Esau were just individual examples of God's choices.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>“For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel” – all of the nation is not elect; there are individuals from within Israel who are elect. “the children of the promise are counted as offspring” <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I think the point here was that Israelites were counting their inheritance as making them right with God, when many were not even following Him in faith. The whole thrust of much of Paul's writing is against this. To try to add "personal election" to this is a great stretch.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Paul emphasizes that God is merciful to whomever he chooses. How does he highlight this? by using Pharaoh, one man, as an example of a reprobate. Pharaoh was raised up to power solely for the purpose of showing God’s power and glory. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>After saying all that, the corporate election argument really refutes itself, for who are corporations made up of if not individuals? It does not alleviate their dilemma: if a nation were elect, it would still mean all individuals within that specific nation were elect, because they were individuals within that nation and others aren’t, and so the “problem” of individual election remains. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You're still confusing eternal election with the temporal points being made in the passage. It's not election to hell that is being taught here. As I say on my page:
Calvinists I spoke to pointed to the verse "they are not all Israel, which are of Israel" and "children of the flesh, not children of God" (v.6ff) to try to prove this is talking about the "elect" and "non-elect" within Israel. But the distinction between those who obtained salvation and those who didn't was whether they sought it by faith or works. Verses 6 and 8 are simply supporting this, proving that faith is what makes one the faithful remnant, not physical inheritance. This is why Isaac is mentioned. All of the Jews were Isaac's seed also, but where Abraham represented the physical inheritance, Isaac was the child of promise through whom Christ came. Lest one says "but faith was granted through 'election'", the passage pictures people having sought salvation. They did have choice. The whole debate here was "faith" versus "inheritance", NOT "election" versus "free will"! And actually, if the chapter was talking about eternal destruction, then Calvinists would be contradicting themselves, because the whole basis behind their philosophy is that man is not "neutral", (as opposition to this doctrine is said to assume) but wicked, so God is [passively] allowing some to reap the end result of their wickedness while saving others. On this point, some even try to deny belief in double predestination! But Romans 9, taken this way does put man in a neutral position (as did the federal headship theory). This actually becomes one of the biggest strikes against Calvinism! The entire analogy of "clay vessels" conveys NEUTRALITY! A lump of clay is quite neutral. The items made from this neutral material are then assigned for "good" or "bad" purposes ("honor"/"mercy" or "wrath"/"destruction"), for reasons totally outside themselves (the oft cited v.16: "not of him who wills [the vessel]...but of God who shows mercy" which determines whether they receive "mercy" or "destruction"). That's what the passage says. YOU CAN'T HAVE IT BOTH WAYS!!! One or the other! But if man is not neutral then this passage cannot be describing [individual] man in the sense that he is a fallen sinner. It is describing a neutral aspect of humanity, namely a particular group that was "raised" by God (chosen) at first (and then a couple of individuals are used as examples), but now punished while the another are now "chosen" to fulfil the plan of God. [i.e. "vessels of honor"] Also, is this passage teaching that God "raises" each unsaved person to send him to Hell "in order to make known the riches of his glory" to the saved and "proclaim His name throughout the earth"? NO, we don't even know who will finally end up in Hell here on earth, so that wouldn't "show" anybody anything, so this passage must be a specific earthly example of God's purpose. So one cannot say "they were simply chosen to receive the eternal destruction they deserved for their sins", but rather they were chosen by God out of sinful man as an earthly example for God's glory. The whole focus in this passage is to teach us "the riches of His glory"-- that salvation is not of the keeping of the Law, in which Israel failed. Pharaoh was an individual example-- a sort of prototype of God's act of "raising" and "hardening" Israel in this age.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>First, let me say that even if Romans 9 taught “corporate election” (which it doesn’t) personal election is richly taught throughout all of the entire Scripture. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
So even if "personal election" was taught elesewhere, you cannot keep using this chapter to silence everyone who questions the absured conclusions of the doctrine, especially when Matt. 23:37, and especially Ezekiel 33:11 teach that God gets no pleasure out of the death of the wicked, as this reading of Romans boldly claims; and Hell was made for willfully rebellious angels (Matt.25:41), which rules out a past eternal "decree" of indivudual men being sentenced there because then it would have been "made for" them too.

 

The only "absurd conclusions" are those who woudl deny that Romans 9, and the entire Bible does not teach personal, unconditional election.

As KayDee began this thread for the purpose of "having a thread where serious seekers of the truth of the Doctrine of Election could post their questions" and "Then only those who would like to help someone understand the doctrine would patiently post their responses", please honor her request and leave it as such, and confine your debates to other threads.

Thanks.

[ January 08, 2002: Message edited by: Chris Temple ]

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by KayDee:


This is confusing me. Using myself as an example, before I trusted in the Lord, I struggled with which denomination was teaching what the Bible said. I was being influenced by a holiness church, a church that thought it was the only true church and even the Jehovah Witnesses (that one wasn’t a problem for long). If I wasn’t regenerated for a measurable amount of time prior to my trusting Him, why was I even concerned about the things of the Lord since no one seeks after God prior to regeneration? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

We can all seek after God in some sense before believing. Except the god the unregenerate seeks after is a god of their own liking. They shop arroudn for what works. Yet God also works on drawing individuals through time and circumstance, drawing them slowly, witnessing of his truth through Scripture, preachers and friends. Yet at the point of regeneration, the person will turn and trust immediately. If not, a person could die regenerate, yet without faith!

I too had similar experiences to you. I was saved by Christ all at once, on a December morning, when I was convicted of my sin, and turned to Christ in faith and repentance. But I was then a born-again believer without a clue! I didn't own a Bible or know what was in it! I just knew I had to "go to church". So what did I do? I headed out the next Sunday to the local Catholic church, because I was raised in the RCC and I thought it was what I should do. Fortunately, once there, the Holy Spirit convicted me that this was not church, He wasn't there, and I needed to go elsewhere. (And he led me to my present church where Christian friends we had were members). So we are saved, but only beginning our Christian walk, and can make early and frequent errors of judgment. This is how young Christians can fall into heretical groups, and why discipleship is extrememly important.

I cannot pronounce a time upon you, KayDee, when you were truly regenerate and a believer, but praise be to God, he did regenerate you before you believed!

What does everyone think of John McArthur? I find him so easy to understand and when I check what he says against Scripture, it seems he is staying true to it. Do you all agree?

I think MacArthur is a fine teacher. I enjoy him and frequently use his Study Bible on CD. He is a dispensationalist, and I am not, so I disagree with him there. But no teacher is perfect!

My personal favorite is John Piper. See his website at www.desiringgod.org

For Q&As by John MacArthur, see The Bible Bulletin Board

 

KayDee:

The intent of the phrase is to mean that Christ's death is sufficient to cover the sins of every creature in all of creation had it been so intended. There is no sin which Christ could not have atoned for; the power of the atonement in infinite as Christ is infinite.

Yet it is efficient only for the elect, for whom Christ died. It effectually saved all it was designed to save. This is why Limited Atonement is not the best term. It makes for a nice TULIP acronym, but Particular or Specific is a better word than Limited.

The phrase sifficient ...efficient may not be the best analogy, as this article states:

Sufficient for All

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by KayDee:
Could someone please explain the sufficient/efficient salvation in more detail. Thank you.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I would clarify this way: If God had decided to save everyone in the world, no more would have been required. Christ's atonement was sufficient for all sins for all time for all who have ever lived. (By the same token, had God decided to save only one, no less would have been required for sin is an infinite debt requiring infinite payment.

However, Christ's death is efficient, or effective, having saving power only for the elect. It pays for the sins only of those who are elect. The atonement is therefore effectual, accomplishing salvation, rather than simply making it possible.

 

A brief comment, and then I'll cease: The problem with this thread is that all you calvinists think there is only one view of election--not very conducive to truly "serious seeking."

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael Wrenn:
A brief comment, and then I'll cease: The problem with this thread is that all you calvinists think there is only one view of election--not very conducive to truly "serious seeking."<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This reminds me of the liberal media, when they attacked Rush Limbaugh as allegedly being unfair in that he only discussed issues from a conservate viewpoint on his show and had only conservative guests. The liberals demanded equal time. "I AM EQUAL TIME!" thundered Limbaugh. And he was right.

Like the media which is overrun with liberalism alone, so is evangelicalism with Arminianism. This one small thread on this CvA board on the Baptist Board is reserved for Calvinist interaction. WE ARE EQUAL TIME!



BTW, there IS only one proper view of election

 

KayDee,

Okay, fair enough; I went back and read your original post.

Thanks for your response to me.

 

KayDee,

If you are searching for Biblical answers the best place to look is at the Word of God, the Bible. Arminius and Calvin were only men who had come out of darkness to some semblance of light. When you get entrenched in the theology of Arminius or Calvin you are going to have their presuppositions lodged in your mind and possibly in your heart. Did not God say in John 14:26 and I John 2:27 that He would lead His people into '. . . all truth?'

Respectfully,

"Ray"

 

Kaydee:
Hang it there!!! The Holy Spirit has you on the verge of understanding the most awesome truth of scripture. Once you understand what the Holy Spirit is teaching you, you will not believe how you could have possibily believed any differently!! It truly sets you free. God Bless.
James2

 

KayDee,

If you start out studying the theology of Arminius or Calvin you will end up in confusion. You will end up with their presuppostions in your mind a even perhaps in your heart. Before anything ends up in our hearts, we must check it against the Word of God, the Bible.

Did not God say to all of His disciples, including us, that He would teach us ' . . . all of His truth.' Note: [John 14:26 & I John 2:27]

You should compare Scripture with Scripture and read everything within the context in which it was given. Translations can help. Your pastor may help you understand some of these difficult verses by way of the original Greek meaning perhaps from his library or a seminary near your home. Christian Bookstores also have helpful tools for a lay person to understand Greek word studies.

Always keep in mind that God wrote the epistles and Gospels to simple people like sheep herders, artisans, farmers, and shop keepers. The simple meaning in most cases is really what Jesus wants us to know.

Respectfully,

"Ray"

 

KayDee,

Keep on the right track, studying God's Word and looking at trusted teachers comments on that given Word is a wise approach, and as the Apostle Peter stated in 2 Peter 3:15-16
"-as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, has written to you, as also in all epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of Scripture." Peter, who was with Christ for three years in training, even says that some things that Paul writes are hard to understand. So KayDee be encouraged, these great truths are not easy to understand, but has been previously stated it will truly, truly set you free.

[ January 12, 2002: Message edited by: dfd2 ]