Struggling reading through romans 8 & 9 and Calvinism.

[MISSION-IMPOSSIBLE]

Eternal deliverance was accomplished by Jesus's death on the cross. (John 6:39). His death was a sacrifice to God, for God's acceptance, and not to mankind, for mankind's acceptance.

All of God's elect are born into this world, by natural birth, dead in their sins, and full of wrath, even as others, until God quickens them to a new spiritual life (Eph 2:1-5).

The elect, the chosen ones, are always those who are in Christ (Eph. 1:4). God does not determine who will be saved and who will be condemned. Actually, we do.

Mark 16:15–16 (NASB95)
15 And He said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation.
16 “He who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved; but he who has disbelieved shall be condemned."

Romans 10:10–11 (NASB95) "For with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation.
11 For the Scripture says, “Whoever believes in Him will not be disappointed.”

 

[Cameron143]

I understand heresy when I see one. The fact that Calvinists believe in limited atonement makes a joke of the cross and chips away the blood of Jesus that is accessible for total cleansing from sin to all who believe. No buts, no ifs.

As for your posts, I will look for them. Thanks.

I wasn't actually referring to my posts but posts from people ascribing things to Calvinism that aren't subscribed to by Calvinists.
My only point was to say that if someone is going to attribute a belief to an individual or group, they should make sure their assertion is true.

 

[Cameron143]

I understand heresy when I see one. The fact that Calvinists believe in limited atonement makes a joke of the cross and chips away the blood of Jesus that is accessible for total cleansing from sin to all who believe. No buts, no ifs.

As for your posts, I will look for them. Thanks.

And actually, Calvinists would agree with you that the blood of Jesus is accessible for total cleansing from sin to all who believe.

 

[John146]

Agreed that the word is not, but the concept is.

Colossians 1:18
“And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.”

Colossians 1:17
“And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.”

Fortunately for us, He is also good and gracious and has given all men the opportunity to come to the cross and choose to be cleansed by His blood.

John 3:16
“For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.”

Yes, but the majority of Calvin's followers believe that God has ordained all things to happen as they are. That is false.

 

[Inquisitor]

That is a complicated topic that can't be addressed by that verse alone. Esau gave up his right to the OT promises by his own choice of actions.

The fact that he could have inherited the promises had he chose differently is the real takeaway. The promises are not garaunteed by flesh, the path walked in life determines the eligibilty to the promises. There is a spiritual component to inheriting the promises.

Whether he was saved or not at a later point is completely at God's mercy. It isn't made clear by this passage alone.

Why do you continue to claim that the letter to the Romans is complicated?

I asked you a simple question.

Was Jacob chosen for eternal life and was Esau damned?

Here is what you said.

Esau gave up his right to the OT promises by his own choice of actions.

Which is not answering the question, we are not discussing Esau's choices in life.

We are discussing God's choice of Jacob and God's rejection of Esau.

Here read what the text states.

Romans 9:11
For though the twins were not yet born and had not done anything good or bad, so that God’s purpose according to His choice would stand.

Who cares what choices Esau made?

I will continue to ask you the same question.

Was Jacob eelcted to eternal life before he was born?

 

[VARob]

Was Jacob eelcted to eternal life before he was born?

No. But he was elected to carry the Christ-line.

 

[oyster67]

People who go through life never believing are not forgiven but rather condemned. How can you say otherwise?

I think Grandpa was just asserting that all are born in a state of unbelief and have the opportunity to come to the light at any time.

 

[Jocund]

This choice by God was made before either child had been born, not based upon whether either had done any good or evil, to show that he elects whom he will, not influenced by their works.

Most on this forum thinks God makes his choice on whom he will deliver eternally, by their believing, accepting, confessing, being baptised, repenting, etc. which is far from the truth of the scriptures.

As much as we have passages that discuss being chosen or having a name in the book of life since the foundation of the world:

"According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:" - Eph 1:4 KJV

"...whose names were not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world..." - from Rev 17:8 KJV

We also have references to the concept that one may have their named blotted out from the book of life in the same way that the handwriting of the ordinances of the law were blotted out.

"Let them be blotted out of the book of the living, and not be written with the righteous." - Psalm 69:28 KJV

And this suggests that a status established from the beginning of time can be changed (in reaction to choice, otherwise why would their name be in the book of life to begin with?). There are different ways to look at it.

We can look at things through the lens of hard determinism or soft determinism. It doesn't really change anything. If you believe in hard determinism, it's not that "choice" doesn't exist in any capacity, it merely becomes an observation of the perception that something could have been different as a way of abstractly conceptualizing cause and effect. The relationship between cause and effect remains the same. Esau lost his OT promise inheritance in a causal relationship to that which we percieve to be his choice. Whether the choice was real or not doesn't matter. And that single passage alone doesn't address whether he was ultimately saved or unsaved. God will show mercy to those He will show mercy.

to show that he elects whom he will, not influenced by their works.

Many are called, few are chosen. I see work and choice as two different things.

If choice has no bearing on salvation, why would Deuteronomy reference choice?

"I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live:" - Deut 30:19 KJV

I'm not claiming that determinism would necessarily be incoherent. I'm just suggesting that there are other valid ways to look at it.

 

[Jocund]

I asked you a simple question.

Was Jacob chosen for eternal life and was Esau damned?

Here is what you said.

Which is not answering the question, we are not discussing Esau's choices in life.

We are discussing God's choice of Jacob and God's rejection of Esau.

Here read what the text states.

Romans 9:11
For though the twins were not yet born and had not done anything good or bad, so that God’s purpose according to His choice would stand.

Who cares what choices Esau made?

I will continue to ask you the same question.

Was Jacob eelcted to eternal life before he was born?

I stated that it is not made clear by that passage alone.

Why do you continue to claim that the letter to the Romans is complicated?

Nuanced, yes. Because it is.

 

[oyster67]

The fact that Calvinists believe in limited atonement makes a joke of the cross and chips away the blood of Jesus that is accessible for total cleansing from sin to all who believe. No buts, no ifs.

Agree.

It appears that many here who defend Calvinism are not aware of its precepts. Just because dad and uncle Jimmy and hubby harp on it is no reason to not do diligent research and find out what it is all about for oneself.

You are correct on how it makes the Atonement out to be irrelevant and pointless.

If any of you don't understand Calvinism, then pleeeeease stop defending it.

 

[oyster67]

Was Jacob chosen for eternal life and was Esau damned?

1 Peter 1:2
“Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied.”

Damnation and hate can be based on foreknowledge as well. Esau made some poor choices. God is omniscient and can see forwards as well as backwards. He gives men a choice and He knows what that choice will be.

 

[Snacks]

I think Grandpa was just asserting that all are born in a state of unbelief and have the opportunity to come to the light at any time.

What of those who never hear the gospel?

 

[oyster67]

What of those who never hear the gospel?

Romans 1:20
“For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:”

 

[oyster67]

Did Noah and Abraham hear the Gospel?

 

[Inquisitor]

No. But he was elected to carry the Christ-line.

You have read the text, I can see that.

See what happens when you bother to read the text.

Paul's letter is not difficult to understand.

 

[oyster67]

Paul's letter is not difficult to understand.

Thanks to God's gift of the Spirit who helps us.

 

[Beckie]

Gen 25:23 And the LORD said unto her, Two nations are in thy womb, and two manner of people shall be separated from thy bowels; and the one people shall be stronger than the other people; and the elder shall serve the younger.

 

[Beckie]

Gen 25:23 And the LORD said unto her, Two nations are in thy womb, and two manner of people shall be separated from thy bowels; and the one people shall be stronger than the other people; and the elder shall serve the younger.

Reads to me as if Esau did not have a choice .

 

[Inquisitor]

I stated that it is not made clear by that passage alone.
Nuanced, yes. Because it is.

Is that because Paul is not discussing election in chapter nine. Is that why the text in Romans 9 is unclear?

Romans 6:6-8
But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel; nor are they all children because they are Abraham’s descendants, but: “through Isaac your descendants shall be named.” That is, it is not the children of the flesh who are children of God, but the children of the promise are regarded as descendants.

Here is where some folk trip.

“through Isaac your descendants shall be named.”

Paul is not discussing the divine election of any group or individual here. Paul is outlining a chosen lineage, a Jewish lineage, the children of the promise.

God has a promise that He will deliver and He has specified the Jewish genetic lineage. That He will use to deliver that promise.

What is that promise?

 

[Inquisitor]

Reads to me as if Esau did not have a choice .

Nor did Jacob. The choice was made before they were born. The promise cannot be stopped.