"Not by works" - false!

[EleventhHour]

Remember bro that passage is concerning God chowing Israel. Not individual salvation. The fatalistic view if romans 9 is incorrect

Amen!

 

[Judges1318]

Read it again.

"those" He predestined.

The object of the description "predestined" is people.

It's true whether it sits well with you or not.

Yes, it is people who are predestined. That is not in debate.
What is predestined about those people is what you are misunderstanding.
God did not predestine who would become the elect (except for Christ himself-1 Peter 1:20). He predestined that the elect, whoever they will be, would be conformed to the image of his son in the adoption as sons.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

Your statement is not completely accurate.
Reformed theology would state who God loves; all those with FAITH. You would have to read James for evidence of said FAITH.
By the same reckoning one could show who God died for.



An opinion that you have not presented scripture to sustain.

No
all we have to do is read God loves all. Yet he has a special live for the elect (those who will have faith in him) because he will have a personal relationship with them

This idea God does not love the world is a stain on his reputation and all he tells us about himself

 

[eternally-gratefull]

one small problem you've got here.

For those God foreknew He also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brothers and sisters. And those He predestined, He also called; those He called, He also justified; those He justified, He also glorified. ​

(Romans 8:29–30) ​

​

according to scripture it's people that God predestines.
so in the train analogy sure God determined the train's route and destination. but if we're going to get our facts from the Bible, God predetermined who was going to get onboard.

tickets, please

That only works if the train comes once. The train is always rolling. Jesus paid the ticket just climb aboard (Love that song)

The train will keep rolling until Christ himself returns

 

[eternally-gratefull]

let's remember John 6:37-39..

those who get onboard the train called Christ are those the Father gives to Christ. not one is missing and not one is onboard who was not given to the Son by the Father.

so. who decides who gets on the train? the One who gives them to The Train. their Father. we don't create ourselves; we have a Creator. if i pray for someone to be saved, i am praying Father, give this person to the Son.

Yes John 6
what is the will if God, That all who sees and believes....
free will is not removed

Many of his desciples walked away and did not climb in because they did not believe. NOT because they were not Chosen

 

[posthuman]

Yes John 6
what is the will if God, That all who sees and believes....
free will is not removed

Many of his desciples walked away and did not climb in because they did not believe. NOT because they were not Chosen

Put John 10:26 with that and check out which one is the cart and which one is the horse.

They did not believe because they are not His sheep.

It isn't that they weren't His sheep because they didn't believe.

It may be a very difficult word to accept but these are Christ's own words, bro.

 

[Cardwell]

Ephesians 2
8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.
10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.

After I got saved through faith, keeping God's commandments just came naturally. Praise God for the light of His Holy Spirit which dwells in you

 

[jackrosie]

No
all we have to do is read God loves all. Yet he has a special live for the elect (those who will have faith in him) because he will have a personal relationship with them

This idea God does not love the world is a stain on his reputation and all he tells us about himself

Does he even love those that peddle false doctrine...?

Yes I agree he has a special live for the elect...we certainly do have a special/personal relationship with him.
Nothing on the planet like it.

 

[jackrosie]

Ephesians 2
8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.
10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.

After I got saved through faith, keeping God's commandments just came naturally. Praise God for the light of His Holy Spirit which dwells in you

Amen!!.....Praise Our Father In Heaven!

 

[Runningman]

Ephesians 2
8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.
10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.

After I got saved through faith, keeping God's commandments just came naturally. Praise God for the light of His Holy Spirit which dwells in you

Do us Christians always, without exception, love the Lord with all of their heart, soul, and strength at all times and love their neighbor like themselves? While I do intend to keep that commandment, the slightest bit of distraction is enough to actually not be using all of our strength toward loving.

So it is like you said, it may come naturally that we walk in the Spirit, but we still aren't good at obedience because of the internal war against the mind of flesh. The most we can ever ask for is to atleast have a good conscience and Christ does that for us by paying the price for our sins and nailing the law to the cross.

We can never save ourselves, only by the grace of God, through faith, can we be saved.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

Put John 10:26 with that and check out which one is the cart and which one is the horse.

They did not believe because they are not His sheep.

It isn't that they weren't His sheep because they didn't believe.

It may be a very difficult word to accept but these are Christ's own words, bro.

Then Jesus words that whoever believes is not condemned but whoever dies not believe is condemned already

If you do not believe and have no desire to believe you will never hear the things of God are foolishness to you
but god draws all men to himself. But that dies not mean everyone will believe
many are called few are chosen
why? Because narrow is the hate and few there are who will Enter

They still have to chose in faith plus r reject due to lack of faith

 

[eternally-gratefull]

Does he even love those that peddle false doctrine...?

Yes I agree he has a special live for the elect...we certainly do have a special/personal relationship with him.
Nothing on the planet like it.

He loves them so much he died for them

 

[Fastfredy0]

Remember bro that passage is concerning God chowing Israel. Not individual salvation. The fatalistic view if romans 9 is incorrect

I disagree. I will present my case, you can present yours.

Romans 9-11 is talking NOT about corporate election, but individual election. Here are 17 reasons why:

1. The whole section (9-11) is about the security of individuals. Election of nations would not make any contextual sense. Paul has just told the Roman Christians that nothing could separate them from God’s love (Romans 8:31-39). The objection that gives rise to chapters 9-11 is: “How do we know that these promises from God are secure considering the current (unbelieving) state of Israel. They had promises too and they don’t look too secure.” Referring to corporate election would not fit the context. But if Paul were to respond by saying that it is only the elect individuals within Israel that are secure (true Israel), then this would make sense. We are secure because all elect individuals have always been secure.
2. In the election of Jacob over Esau (Romans 9:10-13), while having national implications, starts with individuals. We cannot miss this fact. Paul often speaks in terms that make sense only if he is referring to individuals, such as Jacob’s and Esau’s conception, birth, and good or bad works (Romans 9:10–11).
3. Jacob was elected and Esau rejected before the twins had done anything good or bad. There is no mention of the nations having done anything good or bad. If one were to say this is nations that Paul is talking about, it would seem that they are reading their theology into the text.
4. Romans 9:15 emphasizes God’s sovereignty about choosing individuals. “I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy.” The pronoun hon (whom) is a masculine singular. If we were talking about nations, a plural pronoun would have been used.
5. Romans 9:16 is dealing with individuals, not nations. “So, it does not depend on the one who desires or makes effort, but on the mercy of God” (my translation). theolontos (desire) and trechontos (effort) are both masculine singulars that is why it is translated “the one” rather than “those.” (BTW: I don’t like ESV’s translation of this (man’s) as it is misleading and, ironically(!) supporting of corporate election). It is hard to see national implications at all here. It is about individual desire and effort. The acquisition of God’s mercy transcends the ability of man.
6. Once again, Romans 9:18, speaking in the context of the hardening of Pharaoh, Paul summaries what he is trying to say using masculine singular pronouns: “Therefore, the one God wishes to have mercy on, he has mercy on. The one he wishes to harden, he hardens” (my translation). It would seem that if Paul was merely speaking about national or corporate election, the summary statement would change from Pharaoh to nations (plural), but the summary here emphasizes the sovereignty of God’s will (theleo) over individuals (singular).
7. The objection in Romans 9:14 makes little sense if Paul were speaking about corporate or national election. The charge of injustice (adikia), which much of the book of Romans is seeking to vindicate God of, is not only out of place, but could easily be answered if Paul was saying that the election of God is only with respect to nations and has no salvific intent.
8. The objection in Romans 9:18 is even more out of place if Paul is not speaking about individual election. “Why does he still blame people since no one can resist his will.” The verb anthesteken, “to oppose or resist,” is third person singular. The problem the objector has is that it seems unfair to individuals, not corporations of people.
9. The rhetoric of a diatribe or apostrophe being used by Paul is very telling. An apostrophe is a literary devise that is used where an imaginary objector is brought in to challenge the thesis on behalf of an audience. It is introduced with “What shall we say…” (Romans 9:14) and “You will say to me…” (Romans 9:19). It is an effective teaching tool. However, if the imaginary objector is misunderstanding Paul, the apostrophe fails to accomplish its rhetorical purpose unless Paul corrects the misunderstanding. Paul does not correct the misunderstanding, only the conclusion. If corporate election were what Paul was speaking of, the rhetoric demands that Paul steer his readers in the right direction by way of the diatribe. Paul sticks to his guns even though the teaching of individual election does most certainly give rise to such objections.
10. Romans 9:24 speaks about God calling the elect “out of” (ek) the Jews and the Gentiles. Therefore, it is hard to see national election since God calls people “out of” all nations, ek Ioudaion (from Jews) ek ethnon (from Gentiles).
11. In Paul’s specific return the election theme in the first part of Romans 11, he illustrates those who were called (elect) out of the Jewish nation by referencing Elijah who believed he was the only one still following the Lord. The response from God to Elijah’s lament is referenced by Paul in Romans 11:4 where God says, “I have kept for myself seven thousand men who have not bowed the knee to Baal.” This tells us two things: 1) these are seven thousand individuals that God has kept, not a new nation. 2) These individuals are kept by God in belief as the characteristic of their “keeping” is their not bowing to Baal (i.e. they remained loyal to God).
12. Using the Elijah illustration in Romans 11:5, Paul argues that “in the same way,” God has preserved a remnant of believing Israel of which he (as an individual) is a part (Romans 11:1). This “keeping” in belief of individuals is according to “God’s gracious choice” (11:5).
13. If men be chosen by God upon the foresight of faith, or not chosen till they have faith, they are not so much God's elect, as God their elect;
14. The election cannot be of masses to privilege, because the elect are explicitly excepted out of the masses to which they belonged.
15. Corporate election fails to account for the biblical teaching that God predestined individuals, just as he calls individuals, justifies individuals, and will glorify individuals (Romans 8:30).
16. Scriptures teach that election unto salvation and glory is personal: he has “chosen us” (Ephesians 1:4) and “chosen you” (2 Thessalonians 2:13).
17. Romans 9:14 Paul answers firmly, “May it never be!”. The very idea that God could be unjust is unthinkable. Before we consider Paul’s answer to this accusation, we should note that the objection makes sense only if Paul is teaching unconditional election. If he were teaching that God elected people conditionally based on his foreknowledge of their future faith or obedience, then no one would accuse God of injustice. Paul would not mention the objection, or, if it were raised, he could dismiss it by explaining that God was only responding to what he foresaw that people would choose.

 

[posthuman]

Yes, it is people who are predestined. That is not in debate.
What is predestined about those people is what you are misunderstanding.
God did not predestine who would become the elect (except for Christ himself-1 Peter 1:20). He predestined that the elect, whoever they will be, would be conformed to the image of his son in the adoption as sons.

It does not say "those whose method of salvation was predestined"

It says "those He predestined"

 

[Fastfredy0]

No
all we have to do is read God loves all. Yet he has a special live for the elect (those who will have faith in him) because he will have a personal relationship with them

You give no scripture to support this contention. Probably referring to John 3:16. Your side of the argument never defines LOVE, never explains how GOD can love and hate people at the same time, never explains how God can love what is evil .... the doctrine that GOD is LOVE blinds people from the totality of scripture.
If God loves everyone with out exception, he could save everyone without exception. He saved only who is loves, he save only those He makes holy.

This idea God does not love the world is a stain on his reputation and all he tells us about himself

The idea that a Holy God in which there is NO DARKNESS ... who is separated from evil ... that this GOD can love that which is evil, whose father is the devil "is a stain on his reputation and all he tells us about himself".

GOD does NOT love DARKNESS, GOD does NOT love evil. God only loves himself and those that are IN CHRIST. Those IN CHRIST are holy. Those outside of Christ are UNHOLY. It is simple: HOLY cannot love UNHOLY

 

[jackrosie]

You give no scripture to support this contention. Probably referring to John 3:16. Your side of the argument never defines LOVE, never explains how GOD can love and hate people at the same time, never explains how God can love what is evil .... the doctrine that GOD is LOVE blinds people from the totality of scripture.
If God loves everyone with out exception, he could save everyone without exception. He saved only who is loves, he save only those He makes holy.


The idea that a Holy God in which there is NO DARKNESS ... who is separated from evil ... that this GOD can love that which is evil, whose father is the devil "is a stain on his reputation and all he tells us about himself".

GOD does NOT love DARKNESS, GOD does NOT love evil. God only loves himself and those that are IN CHRIST. Those IN CHRIST are holy. Those outside of Christ are UNHOLY. It is simple: HOLY cannot love UNHOLY

God loved us so much that he gave his only Son for us.....
God loves everyone but hates the sin in unbelievers.......that is my belief and it ain’t changing.
He made us in his own image.

 

[jackrosie]

He loves them so much he died for them

Amen!.

 

[EleventhHour]

You give no scripture to support this contention. Probably referring to John 3:16. Your side of the argument never defines LOVE, never explains how GOD can love and hate people at the same time, never explains how God can love what is evil .... the doctrine that GOD is LOVE blinds people from the totality of scripture.
If God loves everyone with out exception, he could save everyone without exception. He saved only who is loves, he save only those He makes holy.


The idea that a Holy God in which there is NO DARKNESS ... who is separated from evil ... that this GOD can love that which is evil, whose father is the devil "is a stain on his reputation and all he tells us about himself".

GOD does NOT love DARKNESS, GOD does NOT love evil. God only loves himself and those that are IN CHRIST. Those IN CHRIST are holy. Those outside of Christ are UNHOLY. It is simple: HOLY cannot love UNHOLY

This is quite the sad post.
You want to understand God and His love for sinners look at Jesus.

 

[Rosemaryx]

if your hope is that the unbeliever will do something of himself or herself, not by the action of God Himself, then you should be praying to those unbelievers, not to God.

if you are praying to God, you are expressing an hope that God will act & intervene, causing the unbeliever to receive the Word.

I pray to God that He will draw my unsaved children to Him...
I pray that the seeds sown will not be taken by the birds of the air , but God will soften their hearts , and grow them seeds Amen...
...xox...

 

[eternally-gratefull]

I disagree. I will present my case, you can present yours.

Romans 9-11 is talking NOT about corporate election, but individual election. Here are 17 reasons why:

1. The whole section (9-11) is about the security of individuals. Election of nations would not make any contextual sense. Paul has just told the Roman Christians that nothing could separate them from God’s love (Romans 8:31-39). The objection that gives rise to chapters 9-11 is: “How do we know that these promises from God are secure considering the current (unbelieving) state of Israel. They had promises too and they don’t look too secure.” Referring to corporate election would not fit the context. But if Paul were to respond by saying that it is only the elect individuals within Israel that are secure (true Israel), then this would make sense. We are secure because all elect individuals have always been secure.
2. In the election of Jacob over Esau (Romans 9:10-13), while having national implications, starts with individuals. We cannot miss this fact. Paul often speaks in terms that make sense only if he is referring to individuals, such as Jacob’s and Esau’s conception, birth, and good or bad works (Romans 9:10–11).
3. Jacob was elected and Esau rejected before the twins had done anything good or bad. There is no mention of the nations having done anything good or bad. If one were to say this is nations that Paul is talking about, it would seem that they are reading their theology into the text.
4. Romans 9:15 emphasizes God’s sovereignty about choosing individuals. “I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy.” The pronoun hon (whom) is a masculine singular. If we were talking about nations, a plural pronoun would have been used.
5. Romans 9:16 is dealing with individuals, not nations. “So, it does not depend on the one who desires or makes effort, but on the mercy of God” (my translation). theolontos (desire) and trechontos (effort) are both masculine singulars that is why it is translated “the one” rather than “those.” (BTW: I don’t like ESV’s translation of this (man’s) as it is misleading and, ironically(!) supporting of corporate election). It is hard to see national implications at all here. It is about individual desire and effort. The acquisition of God’s mercy transcends the ability of man.
6. Once again, Romans 9:18, speaking in the context of the hardening of Pharaoh, Paul summaries what he is trying to say using masculine singular pronouns: “Therefore, the one God wishes to have mercy on, he has mercy on. The one he wishes to harden, he hardens” (my translation). It would seem that if Paul was merely speaking about national or corporate election, the summary statement would change from Pharaoh to nations (plural), but the summary here emphasizes the sovereignty of God’s will (theleo) over individuals (singular).
7. The objection in Romans 9:14 makes little sense if Paul were speaking about corporate or national election. The charge of injustice (adikia), which much of the book of Romans is seeking to vindicate God of, is not only out of place, but could easily be answered if Paul was saying that the election of God is only with respect to nations and has no salvific intent.
8. The objection in Romans 9:18 is even more out of place if Paul is not speaking about individual election. “Why does he still blame people since no one can resist his will.” The verb anthesteken, “to oppose or resist,” is third person singular. The problem the objector has is that it seems unfair to individuals, not corporations of people.
9. The rhetoric of a diatribe or apostrophe being used by Paul is very telling. An apostrophe is a literary devise that is used where an imaginary objector is brought in to challenge the thesis on behalf of an audience. It is introduced with “What shall we say…” (Romans 9:14) and “You will say to me…” (Romans 9:19). It is an effective teaching tool. However, if the imaginary objector is misunderstanding Paul, the apostrophe fails to accomplish its rhetorical purpose unless Paul corrects the misunderstanding. Paul does not correct the misunderstanding, only the conclusion. If corporate election were what Paul was speaking of, the rhetoric demands that Paul steer his readers in the right direction by way of the diatribe. Paul sticks to his guns even though the teaching of individual election does most certainly give rise to such objections.
10. Romans 9:24 speaks about God calling the elect “out of” (ek) the Jews and the Gentiles. Therefore, it is hard to see national election since God calls people “out of” all nations, ek Ioudaion (from Jews) ek ethnon (from Gentiles).
11. In Paul’s specific return the election theme in the first part of Romans 11, he illustrates those who were called (elect) out of the Jewish nation by referencing Elijah who believed he was the only one still following the Lord. The response from God to Elijah’s lament is referenced by Paul in Romans 11:4 where God says, “I have kept for myself seven thousand men who have not bowed the knee to Baal.” This tells us two things: 1) these are seven thousand individuals that God has kept, not a new nation. 2) These individuals are kept by God in belief as the characteristic of their “keeping” is their not bowing to Baal (i.e. they remained loyal to God).
12. Using the Elijah illustration in Romans 11:5, Paul argues that “in the same way,” God has preserved a remnant of believing Israel of which he (as an individual) is a part (Romans 11:1). This “keeping” in belief of individuals is according to “God’s gracious choice” (11:5).
13. If men be chosen by God upon the foresight of faith, or not chosen till they have faith, they are not so much God's elect, as God their elect;
14. The election cannot be of masses to privilege, because the elect are explicitly excepted out of the masses to which they belonged.
15. Corporate election fails to account for the biblical teaching that God predestined individuals, just as he calls individuals, justifies individuals, and will glorify individuals (Romans 8:30).
16. Scriptures teach that election unto salvation and glory is personal: he has “chosen us” (Ephesians 1:4) and “chosen you” (2 Thessalonians 2:13).
17. Romans 9:14 Paul answers firmly, “May it never be!”. The very idea that God could be unjust is unthinkable. Before we consider Paul’s answer to this accusation, we should note that the objection makes sense only if Paul is teaching unconditional election. If he were teaching that God elected people conditionally based on his foreknowledge of their future faith or obedience, then no one would accuse God of injustice. Paul would not mention the objection, or, if it were raised, he could dismiss it by explaining that God was only responding to what he foresaw that people would choose.

I do not have time to go through these individually and respond to them so will just give my view

1 it is not about individuals. It is about the nation of isreal (see vs 1-5)
2 the reason is to answer a question on many minds. Has god made a mistake choosing isreal (vs6)
3 he then spends the rest of chapter 9-11 explaining how God did not make a mistake and answering specific questions pertaining this

Example

Jews taught they were chosen because if the righteousness of the fathers

Paul’s response. He chose them not only before they were born but
Not by mans way (2 nations in womb older shall serve the younger)

When I get time I can go and thoroughly explain each argument Paul was making