Understanding God’s election

[Inquisitor]

There is no application of Romans 8:29 to any gentile? How about Romans 8:28? How about 8:32?
Just because a particular group isn't the original audience this doesn't mean a wider application of a verse is not possible.

Here we go Cameron.

Paul is not discussing the Gentiles, Gentile history. or even Gentile law.

Paul is talking about the Mosaic law, the covenants, why Israel failed.

If you want to ignore the context then do what everyone else does.

Stretch and twist the context until you generate an alternate rendering.

 

[Cranberry]

Exodus 33:18–19 (ESV)

18 Moses said, “Please show me your glory.” 19 And he said, “I will make all my goodness pass before you and will proclaim before you my name ‘The Lord.’ And I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will show mercy on whom I will show mercy. "

If I may suggest as a new arrival to this community. I've read many of these pages of replies.

You all might want to consider how you speak to one another when Jesus told you to love one another as you love God and yourselves.

God's words are immutable,eternal. I think we might consider how we speak to one another sharing our opinions about their meaning tells us what they've taught us.

 

[Inquisitor]

Since Paul did not qualify Rom 8-28-35. In fact, your "Chat GPT" overlooked the immediate context of the passage. Who are the "us" (used multiple times in v.31? And for that matter, the "we"? In other words, to whom was Paul writing in his epistle?

Rom 1:7
7 To all in Rome who are loved by God and called to be saints:
NIV

Paul didn't qualify this salutation either! Therefore, there is no logical reason to believe that Paul was addressing only messianic Jews or only Gentile believers in Rome. He was addressing ALL the saints -- Jews and Gentiles alike! And another way we can know this with certainty is that Paul does shift back and forth between specifically addressing Jewish or Gentile believers in his letter.

Context matters. You might want to give your "Chat GPT" a heads up about this principle of hermeneutics.

You said, "Who are the "us" (used multiple times in v.31? And for that matter, the "we"? In other words,
to whom was Paul writing in his epistle?"

Here are two simple quotations that start to provide the context.

Romans 2:17
But if you call yourself a Jew and rely upon the Law and boast in God...

Romans 2:24
For “the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you".

Paul seems to be directly addressing the Jews all through Romans 2.

I keep telling you the context is Israel in Romans 2-11.

 

[Inquisitor]

Exodus 33:18–19 (ESV)

18 Moses said, “Please show me your glory.” 19 And he said, “I will make all my goodness pass before you and will proclaim before you my name ‘The Lord.’ And I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will show mercy on whom I will show mercy. "

If I may suggest as a new arrival to this community. I've read many of these pages of replies.

You all might want to consider how you speak to one another when Jesus told you to love one another as you love God and yourselves.

God's words are immutable,eternal. I think we might consider how we speak to one another sharing our opinions about their meaning tells us what they've taught us.

Your not talking to me for I have the ministry of the Inquisition.

Though, I do agree with your warning.

 

[rogerg]

Exodus 33:18–19 (ESV)

18 Moses said, “Please show me your glory.” 19 And he said, “I will make all my goodness pass before you and will proclaim before you my name ‘The Lord.’ And I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will show mercy on whom I will show mercy. "

If I may suggest as a new arrival to this community. I've read many of these pages of replies.

You all might want to consider how you speak to one another when Jesus told you to love one another as you love God and yourselves.

God's words are immutable,eternal. I think we might consider how we speak to one another sharing our opinions about their meaning tells us what they've taught us.

Yeah, easy for you to say. I'll give you a couple of months (if that) and you'll be posting like the rest of us - spittle coming out of the sides of your mouth and your eyeballs popping in rage. Welcome aboard, Cranberry.

 

[Inquisitor]

Was that reply actually intended for me - Rogerg? I'm lost because I don't recall, ever making those statements, at least not explicitly so. Did you derive them all from me saying "none"? Might you somehow have confused me with Cameron or Rufus or Magenta, ETC?
If intended for me, please clarify exactly what I said that led you to that reply.

You definitely said "some".

Here is when you said "some" in your reply.

I asked, 'Did Christ die for all or some?'

You replied, "Some", in post #2667.

I will ask you again.

Did Christ die for all or some?

 

[HeIsHere]

Even worse, after 30 years of being a Christian and suffering persecution.

The thought occurs that perhaps I was never predestined for salvation.

Even though I confessed Jesus and believed in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Alas, the biblical criteria is met but ultimately did God choose me?

I wonder how many Calvinists have hit that speed bump.

Have I been eternally chosen or was I acting like a Christian my whole life?

Under Calvinism there is no test for the Christian faith because no one knows.

True, one's behaviour is one's test according to MacArthur and some of the others.

 

[rogerg]

You definitely said "some".

Here is when you said "some" in your reply.

I asked, 'Did Christ die for all or some?'

You replied, "Some", in post #2667.

I will ask you again.

Did Christ die for all or some?

I know that I said some - no argument there - because that is what I believe, but it's the rest of your reply I'm unsure about - how "some" equates to the lengthy post you gave is where I'm lost, as I don't recall saying all or even some of what you posted.

 

[Inquisitor]

Were that true, the verse would be contradicted from within itself.

Romans 6:23
For the wages of sin is death, but the gracious gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Salvation is a gift delivered by grace to whom?

Those that believe in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ (Romans 10:9-10).

Romans 10:9-10
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; for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness,
and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation.

Where is the contradiction?

 

[HeIsHere]

There is no requirement to attend a reformed church for salvation. I personally attend a nondenominational church. There are also no requirements that one is reformed to attend a church with reformed beliefs.
That you find it gobblygook simply means you don't understand reformed theology.

I actually do, but I did stop reading a lot of their ideas and replaced it with correct doctrine over time thankfully one can forget a lot.

That it is now part of a non-denominational church informs me how pervasive it is like I have been saying all along.

 

[Cranberry]

Yeah, easy for you to say. I'll give you a couple of months (if that) and you'll be posting like the rest of us - spittle coming out of the sides of your mouth and your eyeballs popping in rage. Welcome aboard, Cranberry.

Thank you for the welcome.

 

[Inquisitor]

I know that I said some - no argument there - because that is what I believe, but it's the rest of your reply I'm unsure about - how "some" equates to the lengthy post you gave is where I'm lost, as I don't recall saying all or even some of what you posted.

I may have assumed that you followed a theologian that ignored the context.

Some say a limited atonement which equals "some".

 

[rogerg]

Thank you for the welcome.

BTW, in case it wasn't obvious, I was joking (albeit badly), in my prior reply to you

 

[rogerg]

I may have assumed that you followed a theologian that ignored the context.

Some say a limited atonement which equals "some".

Yes, "some" would represent a limited atonement, and yes, that is what I believe. So, where does that leave us?

 

[Cameron143]

Here we go Cameron.

Paul is not discussing the Gentiles, Gentile history. or even Gentile law.

Paul is talking about the Mosaic law, the covenants, why Israel failed.

If you want to ignore the context then do what everyone else does.

Stretch and twist the context until you generate an alternate rendering.

I'm not twisting anything. I'm merely pointing out that while the original audience is important to context and meaning, all scripture remains profitable to all Christians in a variety of ways.

 

[rogerg]

Romans 6:23
For the wages of sin is death, but the gracious gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Salvation is a gift delivered by grace to whom?

Those that believe in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ (Romans 10:9-10).

Romans 10:9-10
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; for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness,
and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation.

Where is the contradiction?

Yeah, it's the "with the heart" part that's the fly in the ointment to belief - it cannot come from natural man to give to himself

God must first change the heart; it is not in man's power to do so. How does a completely corrupted heart change itself? Which part of it isn't corrupted so that it can be used? Hence, from God "a new heart also will I give you".
He gives a new heart but only with salvation to those chosen, not before.

[Jer 17:9 KJV] 9 The heart [is] deceitful above all [things], and desperately wicked: who can know it?

[Eze 36:26 KJV] 26 A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh.

 

[Cameron143]

I actually do, but I did stop reading a lot of their ideas and replaced it with correct doctrine over time thankfully one can forget a lot.

That it is now part of a non-denominational church informs me how pervasive it is like I have been saying all along.

Your posts show that you don't truly understand. You say things that are patently and demonstrably false with assurity and conviction. You say that you don't understand how someone could believe this or that. How can you say you understand it?

 

[Genez]

Exodus 33:18–19 (ESV)

18 Moses said, “Please show me your glory.” 19 And he said, “I will make all my goodness pass before you and will proclaim before you my name ‘The Lord.’ And I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will show mercy on whom I will show mercy. "

If I may suggest as a new arrival to this community. I've read many of these pages of replies.

You all might want to consider how you speak to one another when Jesus told you to love one another as you love God and yourselves.

God's words are immutable,eternal. I think we might consider how we speak to one another sharing our opinions about their meaning tells us what they've taught us.

We also must take into consideration that Jesus told his disciples to love one another as He had loved them.
How did Jesus love them?

When someone is wrong in attitude that causes them to have an affinity and a preference for a wrong application?
Jesus loved Peter deeply when he confronted Peter in a manner that required what Jesus did to bring Peter down to earth
as needed to be..

​

From that time on Jesus began to explain to his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem ​

and suffer many things at the hands of the elders, the chief priests and the teachers of ​

the law, and that he must be killed and on the third day be raised to life.​

​

Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him. ​

“Never, Lord!” he said. “This shall never happen to you!”​

​

Jesus turned and said to Peter, “Get behind me, Satan! ​

You are a stumbling block to me; you do not have in​

mind the concerns of God, but merely human concerns.”​

​

Matthew 16:21-23​

As Jesus demonstrated to Peter....
We are to love one another. Yes.
Not pamper.
And, to treat each other accordingly.

Baby Christians are to be treated one way..
And, for those mature enough to serve in God's army? Another.

When in the army you are sometimes told to practice hand to hand combat with your fellow soldiers.
It sharpens you up for the real combat....

Love one another. Not pamper.
Babies get special treatment.
Then babies will be placed in a position to grow up.

Maybe the forum should have a system to alert us to who is new to the faith.
Without direct interaction its almost impossible to tell.

grace and peace ...

 

[Inquisitor]

I'm not twisting anything. I'm merely pointing out that while the original audience is important to context and meaning, all scripture remains profitable to all Christians in a variety of ways.

The real danger in being ignorant of the context, Jew, Israel, law, covenants, etc.

A Gentile Christian could stumble into the law and think they are somehow Jewish.

I have seen churches do this and the list is long.

Romans is a nightmare to understand and not knowing the context, generates endless theology.

You will end up with a church thinking it's the true Israel.

 

[rogerg]

Where is the contradiction?

Sorry, missed the last part. Where would the contradiction be? Here:

To be saved by grace through faith, with salvation being solely God's gift, means that it (the gift, in its entirety) must, by definition, include everything necessary for salvation with nothing left out - it being fully complete in and of itself. Should any part of it not have been provided for by God, as you are apparently suggesting, then the verse would contradict itself because it would not be "not of yourselves", and not "the gift of God" and making it partly by man, and the whole verse then falls apart. It's either ALL of God or it's not - there's no middle ground.


[Eph 2:8 KJV] 8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: [it is] the gift of God: