Summarizing the Mistakes of Calvinism

Winman it is a little disingenuous not to include all my remarks. Also you did not tell me the difference between "Security of the Saints" and "Preservation".

That being said consider the following Scripture:

Matthew 24:13 But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved.

Now consider the word "endure":

[υπομενω] hupomeno hoop-om-en'-o

from 5259 and 3306; TDNT - 4:581,581; v

KJV - endure 11, take patiently 2, tarry behind 1, abide 1, patient 1, suffer 1; 17

1) to remain
1a) to tarry behind
2) to remain i.e. abide, not recede or flee
2a) to preserve: under misfortunes and trials to hold fast to one's faith in Christ
2b) to endure, bear bravely and calmly: ill treatments

 

Have you considered that Paul was regenerated in the time lapse between the stoning of Stephen and the trip to Damascus! Perhaps while on the road!

 

I don't know where you studied math, but if a equals x, then a minus x equals zero, and two times a minus x equals zero, not two or one.

 

No Aaron, there was no "insistence" on dividing by zero, but in actuality one cannot assume that it is not a possibility, that is why the mathematics here is not correct. And besides, God is most certainly able to divide by zero, would you not agree?

 

The New Perspective and Romans 9: Introduction

The following continues my series on The New Perspective on Paul. I've previously discussed the New Perspective as it relates to the development of Reformed theology and applied it to Ephesians 1 and 2. Here we come to Romans 9. It's an intricate argument, so I'm breaking it up into a few blog posts.

Romans 9 is often cited as one of the clearest examples in Scripture of the Reformed doctrine of individual election. It discusses God’s sovereign choice of Isaac in preference to Ishmael and Jacob rather than Esau, without regard to any merit of the chosen or demerit of those who were not chosen. It counters what would later be the Arminian objection that unconditional election appears unjust to our human sense of justice, and uses Pharaoh as an example of someone whom God “raised up” for the express purpose of becoming a demonstration of God’s power. God bears with great patience these “objects of wrath,” in order to glorify himself before the “objects of his mercy,” that is, the elect (see Augustine, “To Prosper and Hilary” 14; Calvin, Institutes 3.22.4-6).

I would contend that this interpretation ignores the larger context of Romans 9-11, whose main theme is struggling with the implications of the Gospel for the nation of Israel. It also ignores the Old Testament contexts of Paul’s quotations, which when viewed in proper perspective shed a distinctly different light on Paul’s argument. Paul is struggling with the fact that God had made certain promises in the scriptures concerning the Israel, many of which he sees as fulfilled in and through Christ. Yet Israel as a whole has not come to Christ. What does this mean for Israel, for the veracity of the Scriptures, and for Paul’s gospel? These questions dominate Paul’s mind in Romans 9-11, and his statements about election in Romans 9 must be evaluated in terms of them.

Romans 9:1 makes a clear break with what has gone on before, and yet the chapters that follow are intimately related to those that precede. Paul has demonstrated in Romans 1-8 the fallenness of all humanity (both Jew and Gentile), justification not by the “works of the law” (ergon nomou, 3:20) but rather by “faith in Jesus Christ” (pisteos Iesou Christou, 3:22), Abraham as an example of justification by faith, and the practical implications of justification by faith. Paul’s theoretical argument is rather nicely wrapped up at the end of chapter 8, except for establishing the relationship between his doctrine of justification by faith in Christ and the historic relationship God has had with ethnic Israel. Even though Paul represents justification by faith not as a novelty but as something that began with Abraham, that does not answer the question of why God had related to His people Israel primarily on the basis of their descent from Abraham and on their keeping of the Law. Scripture makes clear that the Israelites viewed themselves as relating to God on the basis of those two things (descent from Abraham: Gen. 26:24; Dt. 4:37; Matt. 3:9; Lk. 1:72-74; keeping the Law: Ex. 20:6; Lev. 26:3ff; 1 Kings 9:4-5; Neh. 1:9; Dn. 9:4; Mt. 19:17; Ac. 15:5). The Jewish people, who had not been coming in great numbers to Christ, may well argue that if Paul’s doctrine of justification by faith were true, then God would have essentially broken His promises to Israel. If Israel sees inclusion in the covenant as based on descent from Abraham and keeping the Law, then how can God turn around and say, “No, inclusion in the covenant is not based on descent from Abraham or keeping the Law, but rather on faith in Christ”? It would seem to them that God’s word had failed (v. 6), which is what Paul is at pains to dispute in Romans 9-11.

In a nutshell, Paul’s argument begins by assaulting the two assumptions that had been made concerning God’s relationship to His people. Paul’s line of argumentation in Romans 9-11 is intended to answer the specific charge that if Paul’s gospel were true, God’s word would have failed regarding Israel. Much of the traditional interpretation of this passage seems to keep this emphasis in mind only for a few verses, but in fact this charge is the primary position against which Paul is writing throughout the three chapters. It is the essential position of the “hypothetical questioner” whom Paul invokes in 9:19-20, and is implied in a number of other verses (e.g., 9:6, 16, 32). In chapter 3, Paul has already demolished the possible contention that Jews can rely on keeping the Law; however, Jews may still rely on their descent from Abraham as indicating their inclusion in the covenant community. After all, the Old Testament promises regarding the restoration of Israel are not contingent upon perfect obedience to the Law; in some ways, it appears that adherence to the Law is actually one of the promises to be fulfilled (e.g., Jer. 31:33). So if Paul says that justification is by faith in Christ, and if this standard ends up excluding the majority of Jews, who have not come to faith in Christ, then he seems to void God’s promises to Israel.

Paul’s response is simply to demonstrate that God never chose descendants of Abraham, merely as descendants of Abraham, for inclusion in the covenant community. This is clear because not all the descendants of Abraham were included, but only the descendants of Isaac, and then of Jacob. In other words, the “attrition” (if we may be permitted to call it that) that occurs with the generations of Isaac and Jacob does not stop there, but progresses throughout the descendants of Israel. It is in this sense that “not all who are descended from Israel are Israel” (9:6)

 

I don't mean to open a can of worms, but this verse is speaking of the Tribulation. It's not speaking about the church, but about those who endure to the end of the trib.

Not applicable to the Church.

 

I would have summarizing "Perceived" mistakes

 

I do not believe Paul was regenerated. To be regenerated means to be spiritually alive, and you cannot be spiritually alive while you are still dead in sins.

Acts 22:12 And one Ananias, a devout man according to the law, having a good report of all the Jews which dwelt there,
13 Came unto me, and stood, and said unto me, Brother Saul, receive thy sight. And the same hour I looked up upon him.
14 And he said, The God of our fathers hath chosen thee, that thou shouldest know his will, and see that Just One, and shouldest hear the voice of his mouth.
15 For thou shalt be his witness unto all men of what thou hast seen and heard.
16 And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.

There are two accounts of Paul and Ananias, and it is difficult to put together the exact sequence of events, but in verse 16 here Ananias told Paul he needed to call on the name of Jesus to have his sins washed away. Again, you cannot be regenerated or spiritually alive until your sins are forgiven. Until your sins are washed away, you are spiritually dead in trespasses and sins. But this is when I believe Paul was regenerated.

If this is the correct interpretation, then Paul knew that Jesus was Lord three days before he actually called on Jesus and had his sins forgiven. And it was this day that Ananias laid his hands on Paul and he received the Holy Ghost. It is receiving the Holy Ghost that regenerates you or makes you spiritually alive.

Jhn 6:63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

1 Per 3:18 For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:

The word "quickened" means to make alive or produce life. So, I do not believe anyone is made spiritually alive until they receive the Holy Spirit, and the scriptures always show a person first believes, and then receives the Spirit.

Gal 3:2 This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?

Paul's question demands the answer that these Galatians received the Spirit as a result or effect of believeing the word of God.

Acts 19:2 He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost.

Again, Paul's question implies that a person receives the Holy Spirit as a result or effect of believeing.

Eph 1:13 In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise,

This verse directly says these Ephesians first heard the gospel, believed the gospel, and then afterward received the Spirit.

Jhn 7:38 He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water.
39 (But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)

Here Jesus speaks of the Holy Ghost as "living water". It is the Spirit that regenerates and gives life. These people had believed on Jesus, but none of them had received the Spirit yet. The disciples believed on Jesus, but did not receive the Spirit until John 20:22.

Jhn 20:22 And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost:

If we know the disciples and many other people believed on Jesus before he was crucified (and we do), and if we know it is the Spirit that quickens or makes alive (and we do), and we know that folks who believed on Jesus did not receive the Spirit until after Jesus rose and was glorified (and we do), then we know for a fact than man can believe without being regenerated.

This is why Jesus told Peter he would be "converted" after Jesus was crucified and sent the Spirit.

Luk 22:32 But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren.

Peter was not yet converted, yet he had faith. And unless we are converted, we cannot enter the kingdom of heaven.

Mat 18:3 And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.

Peter was a believer, but he was not yet converted, and Jesus said unless we be converted, and become as little children we cannot enter the kingdom of heaven. Yet another verse that I believe refutes Original Sin.

The scriptures ALWAYS show faith preceding regeneration or being made spiritually alive (quickened). ALWAYS.

 

OR's left the scene Skan.

 

He has more pressing matters to attend to than addressing your relentless nonstop objections to God's Sovereign Grace.

 

Many are called few are chosen. There is a distinction between the called and chosen who are called out from the called.

 

So? You being a smart aleck in your reply is supposed to help me understand a false doctrine?

Give me a break, and take your lectures elsewhere.

John

 

Never the less truth is what we are after isn't it?
MB