Are you talking to me?
Man, I was agreeing with you, not argueing with you.
you got me confused now
John
Romans 9
Discussion in 'Other Christian Denominations' started by Chowmah, Mar 3, 2012.
Page 4 of 8
-
-
John. No I was not speaking to you. Sorry I'm on my phone. Hard to type...
-
The Biblicist Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
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 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 -
-
The Biblicist Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
The Biblicist Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
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! -
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 Biblicist Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
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! -
-
The Biblicist Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
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. -
The Biblicist Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
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 -
The Biblicist Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
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. -
-
The Biblicist Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
Convicted1 is right, debate with you is futile.
You are blind to the truth and attack anyone that questions you.
Bye now
John -
The Biblicist Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
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???? -
The Biblicist Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
Page 4 of 8