Featured Theology and The Future of the SBC

Romans 8:28-30
28. And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose.
29. For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.
30. Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.

Read the Scripture, particularly verse 29:
29. For whom he did foreknow,

The Apostle is talking about individuals that God foreknew {and "foreloved" as kyredneck said}, not that he knows what will happen in time. That is a given unless you reject the Omniscience of God and embrace Open Theism.

Note that the ASV, the NASB, and the NKJV use the clause:
29. For whom He foreknew,

Again indicating that God foreknew the individual.

 

In verse 29, is the pronoun whom plural or singular? Plural, so the grammar indicates a group is in view, i.e. the target group of His redemption plan.

whom= target group of His redemption plan
He= God the Father
foreknew=planned to redeem before the foundation of the world

 

Not really. You simply have to understand them in the context of all of Scripture.

 

Calvinism claims its nullification is driven by context. However, the "context" is simply claimed and never presented. For example, Calvinists say the main contextual point of James 2:5 is that we should not be partial to rick folks. Therefore, since God choosing those poor to the world, is not the main point, we can dismiss that truth because it is "out of context." Pure twaddle.

 

The above post makes absolutely no sense so I suppose it is definitely pure "twaddle" what ever that means!~

 

Sorry, the "teacher" in me comes out:

twad·dle
ˈtwädl/Submit
informal
noun
1.
trivial or foolish speech or writing; nonsense.
"he dismissed the novel as self-indulgent twaddle"
verbarchaic
1.
talk or write in a trivial or foolish way.
"what is that old fellow twaddling about?"

Disclaimer: This does not mean I necessarily agree with your assessment, have not kept up, but like always..... what importance does our "agreement" around here ever mean, as it so seldom is the case.

 

Ohhhhhhh...lol

 

Calvinism claims its nullification is driven by context. However, the "context" is simply claimed and never presented. For example, Calvinists say the main contextual point of James 2:5 is that we should not be partial to rick folks. Therefore, since God choosing those poor to the world, is not the main point, we can dismiss that truth because it is "out of context." Pure twaddle.

For example, God says, through His inspired word, that He chose the poor to the world. God says He chose the rich in faith. These truths cannot be nullified because the main point of the passage is we should not be partial to the rich in the eyes of the world, but to those whose faith is in God, no matter their worldly wealth.

To remove the building blocks of the main point of the passage is to destroy the argument completely. Thus the actual context requires that we proclaim God chooses people who are (1) poor in the eyes of the world, and (2) rich in faith, and (3) those who love God. Conditional election demonstrated threefold.

 

Please explain what you mean by the first sentence!

I did not realize that Calvinism claimed it had been nullified!:BangHead:

I could be wrong since I am not a Calvinist.

 

Many thanks for the aid. I could have looked the word up but!

Now if you can just explain to me what Van means when he writes:

It would be much appreciated. Van makes a brave attempt in a later post but apparently our minds are not on the same wave length.

Borrowing from that great address by Abraham Lincoln:

 

You are asking the twaddlemaster to clarify his statement....lol...now you are in for it.

 

The inability to understand the sentence in context is really funny.

 

Horse Feathers!!!:laugh:

 

You were correct. Repeating the same twaddle is not enlightening to this "simple" man!

 

Van you said "Calvinism claims its nullification is driven by context." Yet you still haven't provided a context where any coherent meaning is present. You say strange things. What Calvinist makes any such claim? And nullification of what? Elaborate,expand,amplify,and explain please.

In addition, I have never been partial toward rick folks. I wouldn't even recognize a rick person if one was right in front of me.

 

Sorry, but I rarely understand anyone around here, except for Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum, and particularly when they speak sarcasm. That I pick up on usually very easy.

 

At about 18 and a half minutes Eric Hankins admits something that I am thankful for. He admits that Calvinism is the hub around which the SBC orbits. He says it is NOT Arminianism and it really IS Calvinism. He said that sometimes the SBC movement and all of the time some SBC people orbit further and some closer- but the hib is still Calvinism.

He admits that is is the Calvinistic tradition that gives us our strong stance on Scripture, etc...

 

Don't feel bad QF, if they were engaging in independent study, they would not be Calvinist. Know this, claimed personal incredulity does not diminish truth.

 

The hub of SBC is not Calvinism, but Christ. The Truth.

The Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world.

The propitiation for the whole world.

The Son given for the love of the world.

 

:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

Because only the Gospel is the Gospel, not calvinism or arminianis or any other ism.