Let GOD Be GOD!

Has anyone else noticed that Romans 11 is the Kryptonite of Calvinism? They all run away when its brought out. :laugh:

 

BTW, you are the one who quoted from Romans 11, I just asked you to look at the passage within its entire context...

 

Not in the least. The agenda of the one asking is the "stumbling block," not the text itself.

Yip...yip...yip, you wanna Spike, ya wanna?

The Archangel

 

Cloak your avoidance of the matter any way you want, but not one of you have any problems engaging me with any other text or topic, as evidenced by my last 2000 posts. I guarantee if I started a thread on Acts 13:48 Calvinists would swarm like moth to a flame.

One only needs to read Romans 11 to really understand why a Calvinist would want to avoid it.

 

How is it "hijacking this thread" to take YOUR quote of Romans 11 and show you how I believe you have misinterpreted it based upon the entire context of Romans 11? You didn't make that claim with all the other threads where people quote new texts and provide critique for interpretations and arguments along the way. I wonder why you would do that with Romans 11 and not any other text or in any other thread? Hmmmm


Revealing.

 

Matthew 1:20-23
20.But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.
21. And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.
22. Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying,
23. Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.

One issue of this thread seems to be centered around vs. 21 in the identification of who "his people" refers.
I do hope all would agree that here the "his" refers to Jesus, the Son.

Some would make the identification based on the Biblical account of what did happen and who was saved.
But that ignores what might happen in the future for sometimes prophetic statements can have a division of many, many years even in the middle of the sentence as exampled by the following:

Isaiah 9:6 (King James Version)
6For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

A child is born (present tense), and a son is given (present tense); but is the government upon his shoulder?
"the government shall be" (future tense).

Whether one feels that future was only future to the writer, or yet future to us is certainly debatable; but in either case, there is a separation of the time frame in the middle of sentence.

IMO to properly identify the "his people" in vs.21 one must seek to identify the time frame and determine if a time frame in which Jesus could or did "save his people" is over and past, active today, or yet in the future.

The passage in question by the OP, Mt 1:20-23, is the fulfillment of Isa 7:14. Some might question who is the audience of passage from Matt, but do they also question to whom the Isaiah passage is written?

Back to the time frame issue.......
Is the government on His shoulders?

Some say no, that will come in the future Millennial Kingdom and then the prophetic statement of Matt 1:21 will come true and Jesus will save His people by keeping the promises made by God in the OT to the nation of Israel.
Those holding the above premillennial view will also interpret the "his people" to be the nation of Israel.

However, some say yes, the government is on His shoulders today, not physically, but spiritually for Christ is ruling and reigning in the hearts of the Christian even now.
Therefore those holding the above amillennial view will also interpret the "his people" in a much broader sense as covering many more folks than just the nation of Israel.

So now I ask those holding the amillennial view if the Matt passage in question physically happened, was Jesus physically born of a virgin, physically conceived by the Holy Ghost?

Was the Matt passage a physical fulfillment of the Isa 7 passage?

If one says yes to the above question, then one must address why they now feel God has shifted His method of operation and has began to fulfill prophecy not physically, but spiritually.

Is the prophecy of the government being on His shoulders found in Isa 9:6 being fulfilled spiritually now, or will it yet be fulfilled physically in the future when indeed the prophetic statement of vs 21 could be fulfilled?

If one feels the prophecy of Isa 9:6 is truly being fulfilled now in a spiritual manner, then does one really believe in the physical fulfillment of Isa 7, or was the virgin birth also a spiritual event?

 

.........and are DoGs.....

 

His motivation is not so much as to learn, but to destroy and seek revenge because Calvinism/Doctrine of Grace cost him his job.
I can't assign him any motive nobler than that, if at all.

 

Rippon's seek and destroy post was directed at me, post #71. I have never lost any job for my religious views. It was Skandelon who said he lost his job.

You can believe what you want about me, I oppose Calvinism because I believe it serious error.

I believe doctrine a life and death matter. If I think doctrine error I am going to say something about it. I told the story of a very close friend of mine who was a devout Roman Catholic. I spent literally years discussing our differences in doctrine on an almost daily basis. After several years he came to agree that salvation by works is false and trusted Christ alone for salvation.

The whole time we remained the best of friends and still are. I moved from Florida in 1989 and have lived in Ct. ever since. My friend still calls me nearly every weekend to this day. He would tell you that I do not seek to destroy one's faith but only to expose error. We are as close as brothers.

 

I lost a college internship 6 months after becoming a Calvinist and was a Calvinist for 10 years following that experience. My disagreement with Calvinism has nothing to do with that. If there is a since of passion or persistence within my discussions that has more to do with my personality than any angst against Calvinism. I debated in High School and College and I am a competitive personality that doesn't let things go very easy. I debated and argued with the same vigor for Calvinism when I believe it as can be seen by looking back at my posts in early 2003. If I come across as hating you or other Calvinists it is not intended. In fact, two of my very best friends in the world are Calvinistic. I love them dearly and respect them as they do me. It's difficult to convey that same kind of love and respect in this format, but PLEASE don't mistaken my passion for what I believe to be truth as a hatred for anyone.

 

Skan, I understand, and honestly, at least to me you do not come across that way. And I only pointed out that you lost your job because you had freely admitted that in another post that I saw.

I think it's kind of good that you lost your job over religion really.

 

In my opinion, general accusations, such as these, without a specific scripture references or a specific example really don't serve a purpose in promoting real discussion or an exchange of ideas.

 

Only if you fail to read John 12 and the rest of scripture, which clearly explains the historical context for the reason why Jesus' audience were unable to come to him (specifically John 12:39-41). If all men were being blinded from birth to the the gospel you might have ground to stand on, but as it was only the Jews were being blinded as such, but "the Gentiles will listen." (Acts 28:28)

Only if you think this passage says certain individuals were predestined to believe, rather than what it actually teaches which is that all believers (us) are predestined to be adopted as children, something we as believers still eagerly await to be completed with the glorification of our bodies.

Only if you presume being dead to something means a life giving message is insufficient to enable faith and new life.

Only if you believe that even the "brethren" in the Corinth weren't really saved because Paul clearly shows that they too were not "spiritual" people who could receive the things Paul was addressing in this context.

Only if you think this passage says certain individuals were predestined to believe, rather than what it actually teaches which is that those who love God (vs 28) are predestined to be conformed to the image of Christ, something we as believers still eagerly await to be completed with the glorification of our bodies.

Only if you presume that God decreeing/ordaining all sinful things before they occur so as to accomplish his purpose is more "Holy and Sovereign" than God accomplishing his ultimate purposes in, through and despite all sinful and unholy things. I prefer the latter as does scripture.

 

Actually, it does. Those who were "Foreknown," meaning chosen, were predestined to be conformed to the image of Christ.

Don't miss that.

The Archangel

 

Post #88 was in response and answer to the beginning thread.
Since you started this thread and asked the questions of the thread, would you care to respond to #88 or just keep doing your Gomer thingy?