And not only so, but also when Rebekah had conceived children by one man, our forefather Isaac, though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad�in order that God�s purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls� she was told, "The older will serve the younger." As it is written, "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated."
What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God�s part? By no means! For he says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion." So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy. For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, "For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth." So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills.
You will say to me then, "Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?" But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, "Why have you made me like this?" Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory� even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles? As indeed he says in Hosea,
"Those who were not my people I will call 'my people,'
and her who was not beloved I will call 'beloved.'"
"Those who were not my people I will call 'my people,'
and her who was not beloved I will call 'beloved.'"
--------------------
I understand this verse just fine. How do you understand it?.....After all if the elect are individually chosen before the beginning of the world, how then can God say they were not His Beloved ?
God could say that because at that time, in THEIR lives, they were not the beloved of God.
The Bible is written from an earthly perspective, or how things look to a man.
I think you can also say it from the perspective of how they lived their lives. Before God regenerated them, they ignored God, and sinned against Him without even caring about it.
James, would it be so that, if you were talking to anyone that believes in John 3:16 and called on Him(the saved), probably every single person on this board, by your definition would they be the elect?
If so then would it not be a mute point to argue or debate the elect theory here?
And would not the point of election be a poor use of scripture to spread the Gospel to the unsaved elect anywhere?
And would not it be danger to talk election with the non elect, being they may kick the crud out of you?
I love brother, thanks for playing the Judas, quite frankly I love your determination and gotta say you got me grabbing for my Bible, in fact it wouldn�t be near as fun around here without ya for me.
I just post most of one chapter of Romans, and the ONLY replies I get are Twosparrows, demanding I contradict the ENTIRE portion of Scripture, just to follow the Arminian belief that God only chooses a person based on God seeing them in the future exercise faith!!
And then we get flyby, telling me not to mention Romans 9 because it is not helpful!!!
So.......So far the two comments I have gotten on Romans 9,
is
1. contradict it.
2. Don't talk about it.
Now, Twosparrows comment was typical Arminian. Just contradict anything you don't like, with some sentimental interpretations of verses that have the word "all" and "world" in them. I guess if you do that, and just avoid ever reading Romans 9, parts of Acts, and John 6,etc, you can keep pretending your decision saved you.
But Flyby's was unusual. You do realize that you are saying that PARTS of God's word are not helpful, or necessary?
Flyby said:
James, would it be so that, if you were talking to anyone that believes in John 3:16 and called on Him(the saved), probably every single person on this board, by your definition would they be the elect?
James replies:
if they have repented and are trusting in Christ alone, then yes, I would accept them as brothers and sisters in Christ.
flyby continues:
If so then would it not be a mute point to argue or debate the elect theory here?
James replies:
No. Arminianism is a stunted view of the Bible, which elevates man much higher than he is, and pretends that some of the glory of God belongs to man. I think it leads to universalism, and legalism, and a less thankful, and less humble Christian life.
flyby continues:
And would not the point of election be a poor use of scripture to spread the Gospel to the unsaved elect anywhere?
James replies:
I have never really thought about that. I went door to door, one night a week, sharing the gospel with people, and my church used James D. Kennedy's "evangelism Explosion" and we never once mentioned the five points, because that is doctrine, not the Gospel. Kind of like, If I want to tell a non-Christian about Jesus, I don't tell them my interpretation of the End Times.
flyby continues:
And would not it be danger to talk election with the non elect, being they may kick the crud out of you?
James replies:
If they are not Christians, they will not really care about that.
I realize that the scriptures I have shown are shocking to some on this discussion group, but America was founded so much on Calvinist principles, that many historians, and educated types already know what Presbytarians believe.
flyby continues:
I love brother, thanks for playing the Judas, quite frankly I love your determination and gotta say you got me grabbing for my Bible, in fact it wouldn�t be near as fun around here without ya for me.
James replies:
Thankyou? ALL I ask is that you examine the verses.
Now I have a question for you, and anyone reading this......
Lets suppose that What Jesus said in John 6 is true, that NO ONE can come to Him UNLESS the father draws them.
And, that just like Romans 9 says, that God is the one who saves, and He decides on whom He will have mercy, etc.
Lets say that election IS true, and God has chosen YOU
to TELL EVERY CHRISTIAN THAT THIS IS THE CASE.
COULD YOU COME UP WITH A MORE BULLETPROOF EXAMPLE THAN WHAT PAUL DID IN ROMANS 9?
I mean Paul uses two twins IN their mothers womb, and said it had NOTHING to do with anything they would do in life, but it was ONLY GODS CHOICE, to show mercy to one, and justice to the other.
CAN YOU COME UP WITH A BETTER, MORE BULLETPROOF EXAMPLE???
James, finally you are willing to discuss one thing at a time?... Sorry you caught me by surprise. Let me go back and read you long post again....you posted a chapter of Romans...why do you have to post such long posts? That is typical of people who hide error in between truths. I will go back and read carefully what you are saying, but when you get a real answer don't just disappear on me like usual.
Or the Pharoah and the pitter? Both are analogies as Paul is explaining how the Gentiles are blessed because God set it up for the Jews to hardened their hearts. Just as the Jews were once blessed because God set it up for the Pharoah's heart to be hardened.
So �Arminianism is a stunted view of the Bible, which elevates man much higher than he is, and pretends that some of the glory of God belongs to man. I think it leads to universalism, and legalism, and a less thankful, and less humble Christian life.�
Well I can assure you that anyone or at the least anyone that reads the KJV are warned of all that, what you called Arminianism, but you say I am because I don�t weary myself enough and intensely examen what you have labored to learn through all your study of the Bible and literature you�ve read?
I like the songs out of the old hymnals, like the one that goes (what can wash a way my sins, nothing but the blood of Jesus, what can make me whole again, nothing but the blood of Jesus) This song rips tears from my eyes, and it kills me that, that guy MacArthur down plays Christ Blood. I could never trust that man for any truth out of his mouth at all.
Its terribly rude to put your words into my mouth �But Flyby's was unusual. You do realize that you are saying that PARTS of God's word are not helpful, or necessary?� A mute point may not be without knowledge.
