Gods elects

[Depleted]

This has nothing to do with whether or not I regard you as an equal. This is about a difference on opinion on a particular doctrine. Then would you like to start with Romans 8?

Are you a salesman in your day job? Because all you do is see what someone says that you can pull out to sell your position. I'm neither buying a product or service!

And you think you can get me to believe Romans 9 does not prove Unconditional Election? Gee! No kidding. Calvinist here. We're really not into believing pulling out one piece of scripture to prove something. Part of what we believe is the scripture has to go along with the rest of the book, or we're misreading that scripture! (Not bad for a group who can't grasp scripture, huh?)

It is as if you're trying to convince me to buy an apple because you can prove red.
1. I don't care if you can prove red.
2. I don't want your apple.

And stop saying "studying" when we all know your form of study is pulling out your old teachings on something. That's called "teaching." Not "studying."

0%! Just went from 10% to 0%! I have no trust for people who don't even listen to what I'm saying because they're too busy formulating their next prove-a-point.

 

[Nehemiah6]

Yes, pretty much what you already see is what you're going to get from him. An allusion to a verse here and there, and censuring of the truth.

"Censuring of the truth?" Really? So why don't you tell us that you believe the truth of John 3:17 wholeheartedly? Or would you prefer to contradict the Lord?

 

[Magenta]

This is rich coming from a very opinionated poster.

"Opinionated" hardly covers it.

 

[Depleted]

Well, I'm convinced that calvinists are incorrect simply because they had opportunity to post their scripture as evidence & instead argued with a whole lot of nothing. That's what most cults/occults do.

If someone doesn't like this, they could always PROVE us wrong.

There's your door of opportunity. Open it, or walk away.

Yeah, but OldHermit isn't a Calvinist, so the only thing that proves is people are like that sometimes.

And, frankly, we have, but you were too busy not paying attention. Thus, again, proving some people are like that.

 

[oldhermit]

read post 72..list as many questions as you can also...we can start a new thread on this if you like...

I am not going to start by posting a catalogue of questions. What I was is for someone, anyone with enough guts to take chapter nine and explain from that entire text why they believe this teaches unconditional election.

 

[Nehemiah6]

I asked to debate from the scripture from Gods word not from somebody's doctrine, I don't know calvine I never read anything from him, I have no intention on arguing, if you don't want to just say so. God bless

Well why don't you "debate" John 3:17 (if indeed there is anything debatable in the words of Christ)? And if you don't know Calvin then why do you promote Calvinism (unconditional election)?

 

[oldhermit]

I will study Romans 9 with you, I would also like to study the 8 chapter. God bless

Fair enough. Start with chapter 8 and explain to me how these two chapters teach unconditional election.

 

[Depleted]

Just so we are clear on this, I was not attacking a group of people. I was challenging a doctrine which I believe to be in error.

Bupkis!

Your words:

He's just another Calvinist who has no real grasp of scripture.

 

[oldhermit]

Bupkis!

Your words:

I do believe he has no real grasp of scripture. The video demonstrated that. Just because he is a Calvinists does not mean that I think all Calvinist are biblically illiterate.

 

[notuptome]

Of course God elects. Does God elect to salvation or because of salvation? All who are saved are elect.

Eph 1:5 Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,

Is elect a predetermination of God?

For the cause of Christ
Roger

 

[preacher4truth]

Murray's treatment and misrepresentation of scripture is an embarrassment. He has no idea what he is talking about.

He's just another Calvinist who has no real grasp of scripture.

I am not going to start by posting a catalogue of questions. What I was is for someone, anyone with enough guts to take chapter nine and explain from that entire text why they believe this teaches unconditional election.

I'm going to be totally honest with you here. Your "challenge" to discuss Scripture comes across as pompous arrogance because that's what it is.

I've read some of the things you've said in other threads, briefly, but hadn't witnessed this then. But right now, you're completely smug, prideful, conceited. You're proving over and again that you're of the Romans 9:20 mind set.

 

[Depleted]

I'm "Calvinist" and never became one by reading a bunch of "dead guys" so I never got it from reading Calvin or any other Reformed books. Wait, never mind, you're right, I did. I read it in Scripture. One of them actually rose from the dead, and he's alive!



Unsubstantiated broad brushing. Also, anything you offer is now only your opinion on Scripture. Not exegesis, not proper interpretation, just plain opinion. Just leveling the playing field.



Ah, there you go. It's apples and oranges, and doesn't make your case unless your case was to call others just merely religious, namely Calvinists. I bet that's it right there, I mean why else make the comparison? Right?



Yes, we rely on Scripture for certain, and in Paul's magnum opus, Romans 9 is one of the heavy hitters.

But, let's not be disingenuous my friend.

This doctrine is taught throughout Scripture and can be proven elsewhere because God being immutable has always saved this way.

But I digress, I've not witnessed even one anti-Calvinist properly interpret Romans 9. It is always done in an anti-election free will mindset. All it proves is the person has a serious issue with God's decree to elect and save whom he wills. That said, please note this attitude described in Romans 9:20. God has it handled, all of it. Soli Deo Gloria!

Honestly? The only thing I've ever seen on Romans by people who don't like Calvinism is either:
1. They get stuck at the end of Romans 8.
2. They go way, wayyyy out of their way to prove Romans 9 can't possibly mean what it says.

On a rare occasion, I have chuckled over watching the change in people when they go from beginning to think the end of Romans 8 really is what it says, and then struggling through 9 to come to that holy-cow moment when the light goes off and they suddenly do realize the Lord IS sovereign. Completely, utterly sovereign!

I remember that moment for myself, so it still makes me chuckle when I see someone else catch on.

 

[oldhermit]

I'm going to be totally honest with you here. Your "challenge" to discuss Scripture comes across as pompous arrogance because that's what it is.

I've read some of the things you've said in other threads, briefly, but hadn't witnessed this then. But right now, you're completely smug, prideful, conceited. You're proving over and again that you're of the Romans 9:20 mind set.

So I take it from this that your are unwilling to defend your position on chapter nine. Well, perhaps someone else will.

 

[1ofthem]

Well, this is really discouraging that people are shying away from Romans 9....Maybe everyone is looking it up online right now to see what their favorite theologians had to say about it...so I'll come back later to see if there is any discussion going on about it...because I would really like to see an open minded discussion over it...

Anyhow, may God bless you all

 

[1ofthem]

I'm going to be totally honest with you here. Your "challenge" to discuss Scripture comes across as pompous arrogance because that's what it is.

I've read some of the things you've said in other threads, briefly, but hadn't witnessed this then. But right now, you're completely smug, prideful, conceited. You're proving over and again that you're of the Romans 9:20 mind set.

How is wanting to study scripture pompous and arrogant????

 

[preacher4truth]

Honestly? The only thing I've ever seen on Romans by people who don't like Calvinism is either:
1. They get stuck at the end of Romans 8.
2. They go way, wayyyy out of their way to prove Romans 9 can't possibly mean what it says.

On a rare occasion, I have chuckled over watching the change in people when they go from beginning to think the end of Romans 8 really is what it says, and then struggling through 9 to come to that holy-cow moment when the light goes off and they suddenly do realize the Lord IS sovereign. Completely, utterly sovereign!

I remember that moment for myself, so it still makes me chuckle when I see someone else catch on.

If you have not you should listen to the "debate" on Romans 9 between Leighton Flowers and Dr. James White. It is a pattern of what you will see here in any Romans 9 debate: Calvinists nailing the context, anti-Cals not so much.

It's long, but you'll get the gist in the first 15 minutes.

[video=youtube;Y7HVQnA9bUw]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y7HVQnA9bUw[/video]

 

[Depleted]

I can guarantee that he will talk about almost every verse in the Bible EXCEPT that which is written in Ro 9 to show us what he thinks Ro 9 is about.

I can guarantee that won't happen. That is the verse, and the go-to response is to eisegete it to fit into the belief. So THAT verse is what this is all about.

#notmyfirstrodeo

(PS. Thanks, Sov. That hash-tagging stuff is fun. lol)

 

[preacher4truth]

So I take it from this that your are unwilling to defend your position on chapter nine. Well, perhaps someone else will.

What you should do, firstly, is apologize to all you've attempted to shame without reason especially since you denied it when the evidence to the contrary has been shown you. That's where I'd start, owning yourself. The above is simply more pompous behavior on your part.

 

[Depleted]

Then perhaps you would be so kind as to show us how chapter 9 defends the doctrine of unconditional election. I am sure we would all be interested to see how you handle this text.

Devot has given you your platform. Go for it! Or is your plan to keep hijacking this thread?

http://christianchat.com/bible-discussion-forum/162519-what-romans-9-about.html

 

[oldhermit]

What you should do, firstly, is apologize to all you've attempted to shame without reason especially since you denied it when the evidence to the contrary has been shown you. That's where I'd start, owning yourself. The above is simply more pompous behavior on your part.

I do apologize if anyone was offended at anything I have said. I do not regret the fact that I said it, I meant what I said. I am just sorry some found offense in it.