Calvinism and Context?
- Thread starter throughfaith
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
- Status
You're citing Judas as supporting your position, so clearly you're trying to say something with the example. It's quite possible to uphold that everything Judas did was his own choice and foretelling simply demonstrates God's omniscience. So what's your point? Why the useless philosophizing and the unwillingness to answer a simple question about what your point in using the example of Judas is?
-
1
- Show all
Consider what I've posted in the past:
[quoting my past posts on this]
I'm looking for a different quote by George V Wigram... but (in the meantime) in its place, I'll just post this brief portion also by him (note the phrase "God's governmental ways on earth," which is what I believe Roman's 11's "olive tree" represents):
[quoting Wigram]
"Gen. 27:29 [Isaac blessing Jacob]. Let peoples (gamnzim, pl.), serve thee and [manners or sorts of ] nations (l'ummim, pl.) bow down to thee: be lord [a mighty man] over thy brethren.
"Observe, this would not run the source of the division of people back to Shem, Ham and Japhet, so as to make the word to be equivalent to what we call the races of people, in connection with the Noahic earth, who constitute the whole human family. The subdivision here alluded to took place in the family of Isaac, type of the heir of promise, not earlier; and the heads of this subdivision are brought before us in Rom. 9 All God's ways and subdivisions are to be noted."
[also]
"f Israel is the goh'y of experience, promise, blessing on the earth; the center of all God's governmental ways on earth; but in saying that, I look at them from outside and as one whole. When they are owned as gammi, my people, their detailed state and associations within is the aspect in which they are considered."
--George V Wigram
http://bibletruthpublishers.com/heb...t-testimony-psalms-article/g-v-wigram/la61041
____________
[quoting that other article by Wigram]
"[re: Romans 11] In Jesus Christ, if the question be about Christian position, eternal life, or the Church considered in her essential relationship to Christ, there was neither Jew nor Gentile; the thoughts found in this chapter [Romans 11] can THERE have no place. If the question be about the cutting off of an individual for sinful conduct, little matters it whether he be Jew or Gentile; that has nothing to do with it, and on the other hand, there would be no question about grafting in again of the Jews more than of any others, and neither Jews nor others could be grafted in, if God had cut them off in such a manner. And if it were a question about a warning from the Apostle to Christians at Rome, and so to others elsewhere, as being brethren, it would be almost nonsense to say, " And thou, O Gentile, take heed!" Why, thou, O Gentile? Had not Christians, Jews by birth, as much need to take heed? Or could the Spirit of God, in such a warning, have made the distinction, and thus denied the principle of, the Church of God in which there is neither Jew nor Gentile? If the question is about a divine administration upon earth, then God can well make the distinction and develop his ways towards the one and the other; and it is plain that from the commencement of the ninth chapter the Apostle is occupied with and pointedly contrasts the Jews and the Gentiles, presenting us with the administration of the divine ways upon the earth. First declaring his attachment to Israel, he points out an election in the election for the earth, and further, that if God according to his sovereignty had chosen Israel (and such was Israel's boast), He had not renounced His sovereignty; and consequently, He could call the Gentiles if he would. [And this, He indeed "willed" to do!] Then he recalls to mind that the prophets had shown that a little remnant only, of Israel, at such an epoch, would be saved, and that a stone of stumbling would be laid in Zion."
-- Thoughts on Romans 11 and the Responsibility of the Church, Present Testimony: Volume 4 George V. Wigram
http://bibletruthpublishers.com/tho...the-church/present-testimony-volume-4/la85282
[end quoting; bold and underline mine, parenthesis original]
Here's how I see the phrase (in Rom9:17) "[I have] raised you up"... this means, "[raised up(/out)] to a position of prominence" [i.e. as a pharaoh / into a leadership position--and for the "purpose" stated] (in a not-too-different-way from that of which we see in the Acts 7:18 verse where it says, "another king AROSE which knew not Joseph"--yes, a different Greek word, but not entirely out of the realm of similar meaning, here).
Just my two cents. = )
[quoting my past posts on this]
I'm looking for a different quote by George V Wigram... but (in the meantime) in its place, I'll just post this brief portion also by him (note the phrase "God's governmental ways on earth," which is what I believe Roman's 11's "olive tree" represents):
[quoting Wigram]
"Gen. 27:29 [Isaac blessing Jacob]. Let peoples (gamnzim, pl.), serve thee and [manners or sorts of ] nations (l'ummim, pl.) bow down to thee: be lord [a mighty man] over thy brethren.
"Observe, this would not run the source of the division of people back to Shem, Ham and Japhet, so as to make the word to be equivalent to what we call the races of people, in connection with the Noahic earth, who constitute the whole human family. The subdivision here alluded to took place in the family of Isaac, type of the heir of promise, not earlier; and the heads of this subdivision are brought before us in Rom. 9 All God's ways and subdivisions are to be noted."
[also]
"f Israel is the goh'y of experience, promise, blessing on the earth; the center of all God's governmental ways on earth; but in saying that, I look at them from outside and as one whole. When they are owned as gammi, my people, their detailed state and associations within is the aspect in which they are considered."
--George V Wigram
http://bibletruthpublishers.com/heb...t-testimony-psalms-article/g-v-wigram/la61041
____________
[quoting that other article by Wigram]
"[re: Romans 11] In Jesus Christ, if the question be about Christian position, eternal life, or the Church considered in her essential relationship to Christ, there was neither Jew nor Gentile; the thoughts found in this chapter [Romans 11] can THERE have no place. If the question be about the cutting off of an individual for sinful conduct, little matters it whether he be Jew or Gentile; that has nothing to do with it, and on the other hand, there would be no question about grafting in again of the Jews more than of any others, and neither Jews nor others could be grafted in, if God had cut them off in such a manner. And if it were a question about a warning from the Apostle to Christians at Rome, and so to others elsewhere, as being brethren, it would be almost nonsense to say, " And thou, O Gentile, take heed!" Why, thou, O Gentile? Had not Christians, Jews by birth, as much need to take heed? Or could the Spirit of God, in such a warning, have made the distinction, and thus denied the principle of, the Church of God in which there is neither Jew nor Gentile? If the question is about a divine administration upon earth, then God can well make the distinction and develop his ways towards the one and the other; and it is plain that from the commencement of the ninth chapter the Apostle is occupied with and pointedly contrasts the Jews and the Gentiles, presenting us with the administration of the divine ways upon the earth. First declaring his attachment to Israel, he points out an election in the election for the earth, and further, that if God according to his sovereignty had chosen Israel (and such was Israel's boast), He had not renounced His sovereignty; and consequently, He could call the Gentiles if he would. [And this, He indeed "willed" to do!] Then he recalls to mind that the prophets had shown that a little remnant only, of Israel, at such an epoch, would be saved, and that a stone of stumbling would be laid in Zion."
-- Thoughts on Romans 11 and the Responsibility of the Church, Present Testimony: Volume 4 George V. Wigram
http://bibletruthpublishers.com/tho...the-church/present-testimony-volume-4/la85282
[end quoting; bold and underline mine, parenthesis original]
Here's how I see the phrase (in Rom9:17) "[I have] raised you up"... this means, "[raised up(/out)] to a position of prominence" [i.e. as a pharaoh / into a leadership position--and for the "purpose" stated] (in a not-too-different-way from that of which we see in the Acts 7:18 verse where it says, "another king AROSE which knew not Joseph"--yes, a different Greek word, but not entirely out of the realm of similar meaning, here).
Just my two cents. = )
Here's how I'm seeing this ^ verse:
Hebrews 12:2 -
"fixing our attention on Jesus, the pioneer [/Originator] and perfecter [/Consummater] of *the faith, who, in view of the joy set before him, endured the cross, disregarding its shame, and has sat down at the right hand of the throne of God."
["*THE faith" being "that body of truth" which we see in Scripture following His death / burial / resurrection / ascension / exaltation... and "having been once for all [/one time] delivered to the saints" (the "delivered" word being the same as found in 1Cor15:3-4, etc)... IOW, not "personal faith" (a person "believing/trusting" in Christ)]
E
This post earned you a ribbon...ha
Can you be honest then?
You only want to deal with the elect, and side step the implications of your dogma.
The non-elect are never regenerated so they can believe correct?
So why are they created and how does God hold them accountable for their unbelief when they were never regenerated so they can believe?
Is this not the logical outcome of your dogma.. few Calvinists want to be honest about this why is that?
He shall never be clearly persuaded, as we ought to be, that our salvation flows from eternal election, which illumines God’s grace by this contrast: that he does not indiscriminately adopt all into the hope of salvation but gives to some what he denies to others.”
John Calvin
Can you be honest then?
You only want to deal with the elect, and side step the implications of your dogma.
The non-elect are never regenerated so they can believe correct?
So why are they created and how does God hold them accountable for their unbelief when they were never regenerated so they can believe?
Is this not the logical outcome of your dogma.. few Calvinists want to be honest about this why is that?
He shall never be clearly persuaded, as we ought to be, that our salvation flows from eternal election, which illumines God’s grace by this contrast: that he does not indiscriminately adopt all into the hope of salvation but gives to some what he denies to others.”
John Calvin
- Status