Struggling reading through romans 8 & 9 and Calvinism.
- Thread starter smmartin0507
- 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.
Jhn 10:26
But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you.
Both God's election and man's choice are Biblical. That's just the way it is.....
smmartin0507, Welcome to Christian chat.
Anything that requires an action on the part of mankind to get eternal salvation, is a work of mankind.
Almost everyone on this forum believes that eternal salvation is gained by their works. They will deny that what is required of them is not a work, but it is.
Salvation, as interpreted by the Greek, means "a deliverance" There are many deliverances that the adopted child of grace receives as they sojourn here on earth, by their good works, while waiting for the final phase of their adoption, which the child of God will receive at the last day when Jesus returns to collect his elect from the four winds of the earth (Mark 13:27).
Speak for yourself. Or somebody else. Not me. I don't believe that for one split-second.
In fact IMO the majority here don't believe that.
Your trying to tell me that Paul is not talking about why the nation of Israel failed.
Romans 9:1-5
I am telling the truth in Christ, I am not lying; my conscience testifies with me in the Holy Spirit, that I have great sorrow and unceasing grief in my heart. For I could wish that I myself were accursed, separated from Christ for the sake of my countrymen, my kinsmen according to the flesh, who are Israelites, to whom belongs the adoption as sons and daughters, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the Law, the temple service, and the promises; whose are the fathers, and from whom is the Christ according to the flesh, who is over all, God blessed forever. Amen.
I struggle to see how you can deny what Paul clearly stated above.
Because when read in context this passage isn't talking about a nation of Israel.
Firstly, regarding salvation Paul never talks about a nation of Israel, I have yet to see anyone provide me any verse anywhere, NT or OT, that states "the nation of Israel is saved". It just doesn't exist in the Bible.
In terms of salvation he only talks about the people Israel. He very specifically makes the distinction that not all of Israel are Israel. He very clearly establishes the fact that not all of Israel will be saved, but all Israel will be saved. And he clearly alludes to himself as a member of all Israel and therefore evidence that the promises have/will be fulfilled.
It's an apposition. Individuals that meet the conditions of being a) his countrymen, b) his fleshly kinsmen, c) Israelites, d) to whom belongs the adoption of sons and daughters, glory, covenants, Law, temple service, e) the promises.
Not all children of flesh meet the condition of belonging to the promises. He clearly isn't talking about all of his countrymen, nor all fleshly kinsmen, nor all Israelites, but all of those qualities plus being heirs to the promises. Paul takes a lot of time to dispel the misconception that not everyone that claims to be heir to the promises is actually heir to the promises. The promises were only ever to those with an internal nature to turn to God and not all that were counted among Israelites.
You can be assured as long as you believe the cross you are saved. I believe we are predestined to be saved forever as long as we believe the cross. In Galatians they stopped believing and Paul doubted they were saved. The cross is all you need with no works. The Galatians returned to works. That would be a good book to read. No one can take you from the cross. And salvation is eternal life.
I was simply stating a fact., but if you want scriptures, see below,
1 John 2:2 (LSB) "And He Himself is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world."
2 Peter 3:9 (LSB) "The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some consider slowness, but is patient toward you, not willing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance."
John 7:17 (LSB) “If anyone is willing to do His will, he will know about the teaching, whether it is of God or I speak from Myself."
Joshua 24:15 (LSB) “If it is evil in your sight to serve Yahweh, choose for yourselves today whom you will serve: whether the gods which your fathers served which were beyond the River or the gods of the Amorites in whose land you are living; but as for me and my house, we will serve Yahweh.”
Mark 8:34 (LSB) "And He summoned the crowd with His disciples, and said to them, “If anyone wishes to come after Me, he must deny himself, and take up his cross and follow Me."
Proverbs 16:9 (LSB) "The heart of man plans his way, but Yahweh directs his steps."
Revelation 3:20 (NASB95) "Behold, I stand at the door and knock; if anyone hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and will dine with him, and he with Me."
Choose what you like and refute it.
Not so. You are assuming it is God's responsibility to open the eyes of the spiritually blind, but it is the opposite:
2 Corinthians 3:14–16 (NASB95) "But their minds were hardened; for until this very day at the reading of the old covenant the same veil remains unlifted, because it is removed in Christ.
15 But to this day whenever Moses is read, a veil lies over their heart;
16 but whenever a person turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away."
You obviously haven't been on this forum long enough to make a blanket statement like that... or you are deliberately lying about it to start some kind of fight, or, you are simply trolling.... stupidly, I might add.
All of this went over my head
can you explain it as if a five year old were reading it ??
When one turns to the Lord in this manner, is it not the Lord Himself that removes the veil and heals that deficiency? I don't think what you have stated would necessarily contradict what I said.
Paul had his blindness removed in a very direct way without mentally turning to the Lord first (or at least none is mentioned). God seemed to very directly turn Paul to Himself, but it was in Paul's spiritual nature to accept God when blindness was removed.
The whole debate about determinism vs free will reminds me of the Euthyphro dilemma. Does God love something because it is pious or is something pious because God loves it? Which comes first? A commonly accepted solution to the dilemma is that both are one in the same and that neither has primacy over other.
If we apply that solution to this question of free will vs determinism, we see it fits in a similar way: did we choose God because it is part of our God-given nature? Or is that God-given nature the result of our choice? The solution would really be that they are one and the same.
The complication to this is that those called to Christ exist in a duality of sinful nature and God-seeking nature. We have a choice over "which wolf to feed" and Paul touches on this topic when he talks about his own covetousness.
Not everyone has an inherent God-seeking nature (the tares). So even with a blindness lifted, these people will not seek God.
Thoughts on this?
All of this went over my head
Thank you for your patience, I will try.
There are three verses in the Bible that often lead to confusion because at first glance they can look contradictory.
1) "All Israel shall be saved" from Romans 11:26
2) "Only a remnant of the children of Israel shall be saved" from Romans 9:27
3) "not all of Israel are Israel" from Rom 9:6
"Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:" - Rom 9:6 KJV
The quickest way to explain the difference is that "all Israel" and "all of Israel" refer to two different things with some overlap.
There were promises made to people within a set of bloodlines, but the promises themselves were never to everyone within those bloodlines. Many of the promises were phrased in such a way that the promise was only to those that would eventually turn to the Lord and walk in His ways (not everyone within those bloodlines). The Israel promises were to "all Israel" not "all of Israel".
If you look in the OT, you will see huge portions of promises and prophesies that have conditional phrasing. And none of these promises were addressed to a "nation of Israel" only to "Israel" or "all Israel", a people. The difference between "nation" and "people" is hard to explain but basically a people can exist without a nation, and a nation can be composed of multiple peoples. They aren't the same thing.
When Inquisitor was bringing up Rom 9:1-5 I believe he was trying to infer that "countrymen" and "promise" would be an indication of a promise to a nation (country), but it isn't.
[When one turns to the Lord in this manner, is it not the Lord Himself that removes the veil and heals that deficiency? I don't think what you have stated would necessarily contradict what I said.]
The Lord removes the veil when WE turn to the Lord. The response must always be ours.
Paul had his blindness removed in a very direct way without mentally turning to the Lord first (or at least none is mentioned). God seemed to very directly turn Paul to Himself, but it was in Paul's spiritual nature to accept God when blindness was removed.
Paul's blindness was removed when He accepted His acceptance in Christ, that is, he had to say yes to Jesus first.
[The whole debate about determinism vs free will reminds me of the Euthyphro dilemma. Does God love something because it is pious or is something pious because God loves it? Which comes first? A commonly accepted solution to the dilemma is that both are one in the same and that neither has primacy over other.]
You are now becoming nebulous by trying to confuse the issue. Please stay focused on the scriptures.
[If we apply that solution to this question of free will vs determinism, we see it fits in a similar way: did we choose God because it is part of our God-given nature? Or is that God-given nature the result of our choice? The solution would really be that they are one and the same.]
You have entered now into a faithless discussion where the Lord has been set aside to try to prove a theory.
[The complication to this is that those called to Christ exist in a duality of sinful nature and God-seeking nature. We have a choice over "which wolf to feed" and Paul touches on this topic when he talks about his own covetousness.]
Sinful nature is not biblical. Try again. There is nothing in the scriptures that speak of a sinful nature.
[Not everyone has an inherent God-seeking nature (the tares). So even with a blindness lifted, these people will not seek God.
Thoughts on this?]
No one seeks after God for all are corrupt, but that does not mean men can be redeemed. The fact is that no one is or will be interested in the Lord UNLESS the Lord draws them to Himself, however, the Lord works with everyone the same way, but only those who begin to respond are able to see their need for salvation. The Lord draws them until they see their need for redemption. BUT for those who harden their hearts, God continues to work to soften them, but if they persist as Pharaoh did, God will harden their hearts right up to their moment of death. Self-will can be deadly.
Now for more scriptures:
2 Corinthians 3:16 (NASB95) "but whenever a person turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away."
But whenever a person turns to the Lord, the veil of blindness is taken away. How does a person turn to the Lord? By hearing the word of God, the gospel. The answer lies in OUR RESPONSE TO THE GOSPEL.
God does not coerce, nor does He take sides nor is He PARTIAL to anyone!
Acts 10:34 (NASB95) "Opening his mouth, Peter said: “I most certainly understand now that God is not one to show partiality."
Romans 10:8–10 (NASB95) "But what does it say? “The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart”—that is, the word of faith which we are preaching,
9 that IF YOU confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and BELIEVE IN YOUR HEART that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved;
10 for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation."
Romans 10:12–13 (NASB95) "For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, abounding in riches for all who call on Him;
13 for “Whoever will call on the name of the Lord will be saved.”
The Lord removes the veil when WE turn to the Lord. The response must always be ours.
Paul had his blindness removed in a very direct way without mentally turning to the Lord first (or at least none is mentioned). God seemed to very directly turn Paul to Himself, but it was in Paul's spiritual nature to accept God when blindness was removed.
Paul's blindness was removed when He accepted His acceptance in Christ, that is, he had to say yes to Jesus first.
[The whole debate about determinism vs free will reminds me of the Euthyphro dilemma. Does God love something because it is pious or is something pious because God loves it? Which comes first? A commonly accepted solution to the dilemma is that both are one in the same and that neither has primacy over other.]
You are now becoming nebulous by trying to confuse the issue. Please stay focused on the scriptures.
[If we apply that solution to this question of free will vs determinism, we see it fits in a similar way: did we choose God because it is part of our God-given nature? Or is that God-given nature the result of our choice? The solution would really be that they are one and the same.]
You have entered now into a faithless discussion where the Lord has been set aside to try to prove a theory.
[The complication to this is that those called to Christ exist in a duality of sinful nature and God-seeking nature. We have a choice over "which wolf to feed" and Paul touches on this topic when he talks about his own covetousness.]
Sinful nature is not biblical. Try again. There is nothing in the scriptures that speak of a sinful nature.
[Not everyone has an inherent God-seeking nature (the tares). So even with a blindness lifted, these people will not seek God.
Thoughts on this?]
No one seeks after God for all are corrupt, but that does not mean men can be redeemed. The fact is that no one is or will be interested in the Lord UNLESS the Lord draws them to Himself, however, the Lord works with everyone the same way, but only those who begin to respond are able to see their need for salvation. The Lord draws them until they see their need for redemption. BUT for those who harden their hearts, God continues to work to soften them, but if they persist as Pharaoh did, God will harden their hearts right up to their moment of death. Self-will can be deadly.
Now for more scriptures:
2 Corinthians 3:16 (NASB95) "but whenever a person turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away."
But whenever a person turns to the Lord, the veil of blindness is taken away. How does a person turn to the Lord? By hearing the word of God, the gospel. The answer lies in OUR RESPONSE TO THE GOSPEL.
God does not coerce, nor does He take sides nor is He PARTIAL to anyone!
Acts 10:34 (NASB95) "Opening his mouth, Peter said: “I most certainly understand now that God is not one to show partiality."
Romans 10:8–10 (NASB95) "But what does it say? “The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart”—that is, the word of faith which we are preaching,
9 that IF YOU confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and BELIEVE IN YOUR HEART that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved;
10 for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation."
Romans 10:12–13 (NASB95) "For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, abounding in riches for all who call on Him;
13 for “Whoever will call on the name of the Lord will be saved.”
Your argument is very well thought out and presented. Not everyone is going to get it.
He had an intervention first.
If God knows the hearts and minds of men, would He then not also clearly know the way to persuade each person perfectly?
God shows mercy to whom He shows mercy.
He takes sides against the devil and legion. God is not indifferent.
No. God removed Paraoh's freewill by hardening his heart.
"And he hardened Pharaoh's heart, that he hearkened not unto them; as the Lord had said." - Exodus 7:13 KJV
No. I think you are confused by the nuances of the Euthyphro dilemma. And from there you don't understand how to apply it to the determinism vs. free will dilemma.
Your comment makes no sense.
No. Read Romans 7.
"For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin." - Rom 7:14 KJV
"Repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus for the remission of sins" might be considered by some to be works. That might be where the disagreement starts, because... If we are to obey what that says, then we need to DO something (because of actually believing what it says).
People who don't want to DO (or believe) what it says have to find some excuse as to why they refuse to repent from their own ways (or doctrines). So they call that obedience "works".
That's basically my understanding of the situation regarding the interaction on the initial salvational aspect.
But once our sins are washed away (remitted) and we've received the Holy Ghost, then it seems each person still has to work out their own salvation with God as to what part works have in relationship to their own spiritual safety. And I dont think that is as simplistic as some make it sound.
I think we all know, or sense intuitively, that God is the author or our salvation, not us. But on the other hand we also sense intuitively that we cannot just do whatever we want.
There has to be some change in our actions...our WORKS.
Even the "believe-only" crowd actually acknowledges this... even if they dont admit it.
We just struggle to figure out where that boundary is.
Love in Jesus,
Kelby
When did I say that the nation of Israel was saved?
I said that the nation of Israel was chosen, I never said Israel was saved.
Yes it is talking about Israel.
"were accursed, separated from Christ for the sake of my countrymen, my kinsmen according to the flesh" (Romans 9)
See the big letters, my countrymen, Israel, geographical Israel.
Paul is answering the obvious question; how did Israel fail?
How did the chosen country we call Israel crucify their own creator?
Let me ask you a simple question.
Here is a verse from Romans 9 below.
Romans 9:13
Just as it is written: “Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated."
Do you interpret that verse as saying that Jacob was saved and Esau was damned?
The Christian life is a bit more than repenting and believing.
You have been commanded to bear fruit and to love others.
You are conflating two different things. There is no verse that states "The nation of Israel is chosen". The elect, chosen, etc lines are referencing a people, not a nation. And it is not1 referencing a people solely on the basis of flesh.
No. That isn't what that passage says at all. There was no country named Israel back in that day. Biblically Israel only ever referred to a people. "Land of Israel" is a reference to a land of a people called Israel, not that the land itself was called Israel. This idea of land itself being called 'Israel' is a modern thing.
No. Paul is not talking about a nation called Israel. Read the whole verse. You can't cherry-pick "countrymen" and ignore the fact that each of the descriptions add together to address a specific group. It's an apposition.