Romans 10 REFUTES:TULIP, works salvation, and baptism for salvation

Since you don't understand the meaning of the term, "circular reasoning", it would really be better if you didn't use it.

God changed Jacob's name to be no more called Jacob, but to be called Israel, (Gen 33:28). Jacob, who is called Israel, is representative of God's elect (Rom 9:11). Romans 10:1 has reference to Jacob, as being Israel, and not the nation of Israel. Saved according to Greek interpretation means "delivered". Paul is not praying that they would be delivered eternally because they are secure in their eternal deliverance. Paul is praying that they would be delivered from their lack of knowledge of the gospel. They did not understand that in the new birth Christ imputed his righteousness unto them and were going about trying to establish their righteousness by their good works. They were still babes in Christ and are living on the milk of the gospel and not on the meat of the gospel. That is the reason that Jesus instructed his Apostles to go and preach to the lost sheep (God's elect) of the house of Israel (Jacob).

Also~ For in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. Galatians 3:26

There you go folks...you can be born again, eternally saved, in Christ and have no clue of what the gospel is all about.

This is a perverted view of the Scriptures.

If you are going to reply to my comments, you should concentrate as you read them because I did say that they were already born again, "in the new birth Christ imputed his righteousness unto them". Most of those on this forum, including yourself, are going about trying to establish your own righteousness by your repenting and believing as those works are actually products of already having been born of the Spirit in the new birth.

Just as you are, John146, born again, but having no clue of what the gospel is all about. I guess I should not have said that, even though it is true, but not very nice to say.

that's a quote from Isaiah ... 65:1

so let's take a closer look at what Isaiah was getting at

Isaiah is speaking to apostate Israel and Paul is applying it to Gentiles


Behold me, behold me, unto a nation that was not called by my name.

since Israel WAS called by God, who is the prophet speaking of?

the Gentiles is the conclusion and Romans 9:30 underscores the same conclusion:

What then will we say? That the Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained it, a righteousness that is by faith;

so the prophet is speaking of people that would be hearing the gospel, who were not Jewish and were not looking for God but God includes everyone in His promises and is faithful to include all who have faith in Him whether old or new testament....God does not divide Himself into sections

I feel certain that many of those who read "not under law" are not understanding or following what scripture tells us about it when they say it means we are not to look to law to tell us how to avoid sin. Paul explains what it means, it means that God does not look to our righteousness to save us, God looks to our faith through His grace for our salvation. We are still to accept Christ within us, and Christ within means we set our goals on living without sin. The law explains to us what sin is.

Paul says this about it: Romans 6:2 God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?

I like the word 'holy' here

God says to be holy as He is holy and people take this to mean without sin ... I'm not saying you said this

holy means to be set apart, so if we set ourselves apart from following the world and the world systems, we are being 'holy'

"what shall we say then?" is understood in terms of what prompts the "then" - the preceding argument whose conclusion provokes an obvious question, whose answer is vv. 30-33

this previous argument:


followed by quotes from Hosea & Isaiah describing also the inclusion of His people from all people.

this proposal is the basis upon which an obvious question is raised and is answered in Romans 9:30.
this proposal is the preceding discourse for which Romans 10:20 is given:

• what if God, the Potter, created vessels for honor and vessels for dishonor?
• does God not have the right to do this?
• what if God purposefully and patiently endures vessels He created & prepared for destruction for the sake of those He also created and prepared for mercy & glory?
• will you dare to answer back to Him?

so this leads us into these things: that the Lord calls a people out of all nations who did not know Him. that He reveals Himself to people out of every race who didn't even look for Him. that He loves an unloved people that were not a people at all. and these people that He calls - people who did not look for Him and people that didn't know Him and did not call to Him - are what Romans 9 calls lumps of clay in the hand of a sovereign Creator-Potter whom He purposed from their creation for mercy and glory.
they receive it through faith, not as though by law.

this is why i asked whether Romans 10 is supposed to be refuting the pre-purposing of individuals by God or proving it?
because in Romans 10 we have a lament over Israel, which has just been explained in Romans 9 as being reduced to a remnant among a people all of whom Romans 9:19-24 + 10:20-21 describes as having been created with a purpose by God, having been sought out and gathered by God Himself when they never knew Him or looked for Him or asked for Him, attaining a righteousness by faith in stark juxtaposition to that which is by law. it seems apparent to me that these are not things which speak about human self-determinism, but about sovereign pre-determinism.

.. unless you can explain to me how "Isaiah boldly says" this about the people of the new covenant and the "disobedient and contrary" people of the old whom He cut off of His tree so that we could be grafted in - we who weren't looking for Him or asking for Him and who didn't know Him when He found us, revealed Himself to us, and made us a "we" in the first place - if you could explain to me how this is proof that He doesn't predestine anyone, and that He is found by a people who first look for Him, ask for Him, and know of Him?

of these 'contrary and disobedient people' Romans 11 goes on to say, "He is able to graft them in again" - a people about whom He said, be blind, and be deaf - these people, He can also cause to see, and cause to hear. even if they are only dead, dry bones He can cause sinew and flesh to form on them and bring them to life! does that support a Pelagianism/Arminianism type of theology? how?

funny thing about holiness:

consider the case of the people holy to God called out of every nation - even the remnant of Israel - as presented in Romans 9-11:
a people not looking for God
a people not asking for God
a people not a people
a people unloved
a people not knowing God
when God calls them, are they clean or unclean? i'm going to say, unclean - and then washed by the water of His Word.
so they are unclean, and they are 'set aside' by God, being called out by Him to become a people, beloved and made righteous through faith in the knowledge of Him who they did not know, but to whom He reveals Himself. a people become holy, who were unclean.

what does Haggai have to say about this question:
do these unclean people make themselves holy? that is, do they set themselves apart?
is God the one who sets them apart? that is, makes them holy?

is holiness a thing to be attained or a thing to be submitted to?
the infinitive: "to be made holy" or "to become set apart" -- is that an active or a passive thing?
when God says "be holy" is this the voice of the Judge pronouncing an ordinance, or of a Creator bringing something about?

@7seasrekeyed you've said you think i sometimes answer things by asking irrelevant questions and bring up off-topic scripture in responses, so i'm trying to take some care to connect some of the dots for you. i hope it makes some sense to you why a Romans 10 thread necessarily needs to have Haggai in it and why certain questions should naturally be brought up and answered

yikes...a book no less

ok well, tackling in a series response

I would respond that the 'what if' is not validated numerous times in order to contribute to the Calvin doctrine of limited atonement

as I already noted, Isaiah is looking ahead, as guided by the Spirit of God, to the incoming of the Gentiles or inclusion in God's plan of/for salvation

(I'm familiar with the points you made...regarding the prophetic scriptures in the OT)

with regards to Romans 9, the great 'trump' card of Calvinists:

it seems that those who are of the Calvinist persuasion, read INTO the text what they already believe

Paul is addressing Israel and not individuals, stating the children of promise are those who have faith...fulfilling the obligations for belief and not obligation (meaning fore ordained and therefore impossible to resist)...Romans 4:12, 16; Galatians 3:7-14

Paul taught that being physically descended from Abraham did not mean you were automatically included in God's favor...God continually told the Israelites to choose as can be seen in the discourse at the foot of Mt Sinai

that God does not force even when He 'chooses' is obvious from even the lightest observations of readings of the OT prophets and the warnings God spoke through them. if Israel as a nation was CHOSEN, and it was, then how is it all are not saved?

ummm....the nation of Israel was born out of Abraham's OBEDIENCE to God. faith was accounted as Abraham's righteousness, much like now, our righteousness is in Jesus and our faith IN Him is accounted for that righteousness as the scripture states: those who BELIEVE

God chose one nation through which He brought His plan of salvation into being, but that nation was in almost constant rebellion against Him. obviously this was NOT His will or he would not have told them to turn back to Him over and over so this is where that some are created for damnation theory falls apart

you are quoting from Ezekiel but I believe that has a spiritual application...even though the physical is possible

More word salad! Our righteousness are as filthy rags. Most of here know that scripture and what means very well. Do you?

funny thing about holiness:

On the twenty-fourth day of the ninth month, in the second year of Darius, the word of the Lord came by Haggai the prophet, saying, “Thus says the Lord of hosts: ‘Now, ask the priests concerning the law, saying, “If one carries holy meat in the fold of his garment, and with the edge he touches bread or stew, wine or oil, or any food, will it become holy?” ’ ”
Then the priests answered and said, “No.”
And Haggai said, “If one who is unclean because of a dead body touches any of these, will it be unclean?”
So the priests answered and said, “It shall be unclean.”
Then Haggai answered and said, “ ‘So is this people, and so is this nation before Me,’ says the Lord, ‘and so is every work of their hands; and what they offer there is unclean.' "
(Haggai 2:10-14)

this is what would have been called CEREMONIAL holiness. this is not the same as the work of the Holy Spirit in the life of believers

consider the case of the people holy to God called out of every nation - even the remnant of Israel - as presented in Romans 9-11:
a people not looking for God
a people not asking for God
a people not a people
a people unloved
a people not knowing God
when God calls them, are they clean or unclean? i'm going to say, unclean - and then washed by the water of His Word.
so they are unclean, and they are 'set aside' by God, being called out by Him to become a people, beloved and made righteous through faith in the knowledge of Him who they did not know, but to whom He reveals Himself. a people become holy, who were unclean.


what does Haggai have to say about this question:
do these unclean people make themselves holy? that is, do they set themselves apart?
is God the one who sets them apart? that is, makes them holy?

the question in reference to my remarks does not equate IMO. it is our choice how we behave in this world and whether or not we separate ourselves. if I do not follow you down your explanation does not mean I do not understand. I think you see this quite diffrently then do I

is holiness a thing to be attained or a thing to be submitted to?
the infinitive: "to be made holy" or "to become set apart" -- is that an active or a passive thing?
when God says "be holy" is this the voice of the Judge pronouncing an ordinance, or of a Creator bringing something about?

neither.

we know God is sinless so why does He say be holy as I am holy? does he force holiness ? since we read in this NT as well, are we to keep all the law?

@7seasrekeyed you've said you think i sometimes answer things by asking irrelevant questions and bring up off-topic scripture in responses, so i'm trying to take some care to connect some of the dots for you. i hope it makes some sense to you why a Romans 10 thread necessarily needs to have Haggai in it and why certain questions should naturally be brought up and answered

well honestly, I think it is more necessary for you to connect to what you believe, than for me to connect to improve my understanding

OOops! It should have read; Most of US here...

And you base your comments on what scriptures?