A question about Romans 9

[Gadgeteer]

Hi, Timothy!

…I’ve encountered people questioning issues such as Jacob and Esau… how can God hate Esau from before conception… why did He chose Jacob over his brother… it’s not fair…

Here is the value of really discerning what Paul intended.

[sup]15[/sup]for though the twins were not yet born and had not done anything good or bad, so that God’s purpose according to His choice would stand, not because of works but because of Him who calls,
[sup]12[/sup]it was said to her, “THE OLDER WILL SERVE THE YOUNGER.”
[sup]13[/sup]Just as it is written, “JACOB I LOVED, BUT ESAU I HATED.”
[sup]14[/sup]What shall we say then? There is no injustice with God, is there? May it never be!
[sup]15[/sup]For He says to Moses, “I WILL HAVE MERCY ON WHOM I HAVE MERCY, AND I WILL HAVE COMPASSION ON WHOM I HAVE COMPASSION.”
[sup]16[/sup]So then it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy."
[sup]17[/sup]For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, “FOR THIS VERY PURPOSE I RAISED YOU UP, TO DEMONSTRATE MY POWER IN YOU, AND THAT MY NAME MIGHT BE PROCLAIMED THROUGHOUT THE WHOLE EARTH.”
[sup]18[/sup]So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires.
[sup]19[/sup]You will say to me then, “Why does He still find fault? For who resists His will?”
[sup]20[/sup]On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, “Why did you make me like this,” will it?
[sup]21[/sup]Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for common use?
[sup]22[/sup]]What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction?

Romans 9:11-23 is one of the Primaries, one of four “foundational passages” to the world of Reformed Theology. They read this passage, and perceive things like:

1. Jacob was CREATED to be righteous and loved; Esau was CREATED to be wicked and hated.
2. God sovereignly chooses to have mercy on a few, and HARDENS the rest to sin
3. We cannot thwart God’s sovereign will away from whom He has predestined to live or die
4. God takes blank innocent clay and sculpts part into righteousness, and sculpts the rest into SINFUL vessels of wrath which HE prepares for Hell

That’s not what Paul intended; none of it. First, recognize that Paul knew about Genesis 25:23; he wasn’t asserting Jacob and Esau as specific persons, but as two peoples. That fits the idea of “two COVENANTS, the older covenant (Law!) shall succeed to the younger (grace!)”.

Second, Paul also knew about Malachi; ch1 speaks of “loving Jacob and hating Esau”. Through the letter it’s clear that Esau and others “profaned God’s altar”, “turned aside from the way” (and led others astray), “showed partiality”, and done other things to incur God’s wrath. This fits Isaiah65:12 “I will destine you for the sword BECAUSE I called and you DID not answer, I spoke but you did not hear, and you chose that in which I did not delight”. The people represented by Esau, chose wickedness and incurred God’s wrath.

Third, God-hardening – is a literary device. It’s called, “Semitic View”, or “Anthropomorphism”. See Ex10:1 “God hardened Pharaoh’s heart”; but two verses earlier (9:34) Pharaoh hardened his OWN heart. 1Sam6:6 Pharaoh hardened his own heart. This literary device ascribes to God (or others), what men actually do themselves. See 2Cor4:3-4, “(satan) has blinded men lest (understand) Jesus”. See also Rom12:3, “as God has allotted to each a measure of faith” – all these are simply saying “men harden their hearts against God”, and “men close their own eyes” (Matt13:15), and “as much faith as each man HAS”.

“God has mercy on whom He chooses”, must fit with God having mercy on ALL MEN (Rom11:32).

Fourth, though it does use “boulemai” (more decree will), if God willed for people to perish, why would there be verses like Jude23 “save others, snatching them from the fire”?

Fifth, there are THREE vessels in view – two that have put themselves on God’s Potter’s-wheel (NASV correctly translates ti-me and atimia as “honor and common”, both saved); the third vessel God never touched, they prepared themselves as wrath for destruction. This fits Rom2:4-5, God’s graciousness leads men to repentance, but stubborn sinfulness stores wrath for themselves.

Yes 2Tim2:20 also uses “ti-me” and “atimia”; there Paul inconsistently uses “atimia” to reflect unsaved. No way he meant “unsaved” in Rom9. Only the “wrath-prepared-for-destruction” (verb tense supports “prepared themselves”) are unsaved.

Sixth – the whole passage in Rom9 is about “Also Gentiles” – if God wants to also save the Gentiles, who are YOU oh Jewish person to object?!

 

[Gadgeteer]

…first apply what we know about God:

Omniscient and Omnipresent… which means God Knows everything and has Seen everything about Jacob and Esau… God saw how Esau sold his “birthright” for a plate of food; He saw how little importance Esau gave to being part of God’s Promise; god saw how Esau dishonored his parents wishes and married (took women) from outside of the Hebrews; God saw that Esau’s appetites were his only concern… Jacob on the other hand quested for the “birthright” and he sought and followed the advised of his parents and when cheated he did not resort to vengeance but worked diligently to obtain what he wanted… eventually Jacob met with God… and received the Blessing (Jacob’s Ladder: Genesis 28).

So God did not chose Jacob over Esau and then promoted Jacob and held back Esau… Jacob sought God; Esau distanced himself from God; God Loved what Jacob did and hated Esau’s rejection.

With respect to Jacob and Esau as individuals, that’s completely correct. It’s supported in Malachi as we just discussed.

It is the same for everyone of us… God does not hate us and trap us in a bad life or bad experiences… God Loves us and want us to succeed:

God is on our side… we must begin from that understanding… then things will begin to make more sense…

It has to be that way. But until we understand full exegesis (including ideas like “Semitic View”), we cannot convince RT’s that this “foundation stone” must be removed from the Sovereign Predestined Salvation doctrine!

 

[Gadgeteer]

Hi! :tiphat:

Being created in the image of God isn’t something that we can choose to be. God is the Father of all by virtue He created man in His own image. In this broader framework, God is the Father of all humanity, and it was God who willed to be the Father of all when He created man in his own image. The decision was His, not Adam’s. Of course, there are people who reject God and don’t accept Him to be a father to them. And by doing so, they deprive themselves of their right to an inheritance. Recall Esau, who forfeited his right because of a tiny morsel of food, and the prodigal son who squandered his inheritance by leaving home and indulging in riotous and wasteful living. Jesus addressed this parable to the lost house of Israel, but it seems he had all of fallen humanity in mind as well. Through the Gospel, our Lord is calling all wayward souls to return home and be reconciled with their heavenly Father. Having been created in the divine image, they are called to partake in it. Those who reject God are still his children. But by disowning Him, like children who do in fact disown their biological parents, they are unworthy to be called His children.

How can anyone read Lk15 and not see “fallible salvation”? :scratchhead:

The imperative statement “You must be born anew” (Jn 3:7) applies to all humanity and lays down the obligation for all people to enter a renewed family relationship with God. By the conditions attached to this rebirth one receives pardon and enters the spiritual family of God. ‘So then [they] are no longer strangers and sojourners, but [they] are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God’ (Eph 2:19). Those who aren’t children of God in a regenerative sense aren’t children of His in the most deciding way. But they remain potential heirs to their promised inheritance as God’s children.

Analogically, God’s chosen people represent all humanity in their relationship with God. God called the Israelites his own possession and established a covenantal relationship with them. Despite their apostasy and idolatry, they were still God’s chosen ones. But the rightful heirs of the promised inheritance were the faithful remnant. Meanwhile, the Gentiles were just as much sons and daughters of God by having been created in His image. But at that time, they were His chosen people in prospect. Jesus referred to them when he said, “I have other sheep that do not belong to this fold. I must bring them also, and they will listen to my voice. So there will be one flock, one shepherd” (Jn 10:16). This one flock would include both Jews and Gentiles who would be children of God in a redemptive sense.

Although all people are children of God in a creative sense,

“All God’s children” by creation, Acts 17:28-29; but only those who receive Jesus become children of God. (Jn1:12)

this isn’t enough to establish a full and meaningful relationship. The very fact that so many people don’t relate with God in a filial way simply indicates that there’s a broken relationship that needs to be mended. It was for this reason that God became incarnate and Jesus spoke of God as a Father to all, who desires His errant children to return home so that He could embrace them. All prodigal sons and daughters have the liberty to return home (the household of God) if they will. Jesus didn’t try to force anyone to accept God as their heavenly Father, but reminded them how God was a father to them in His providential rule. As a father to all His children, God was mindful of their temporal needs and knew what and when to provide. So there was no reason for any of them to be anxious over earthly things. What was more important was how they related to God spiritually. Being a child of God in a spiritual sense should take priority in their lives. God eternally rewards those who abide by His sovereign will and punishes those who disobey Him.

What did you mean by, “Those who reject God are still his children”?

 

[James248]

How can anyone read Lk15 and not see “fallible salvation”? :scratchhead:

“All God’s children” by creation, Acts 17:28-29; but only those who receive Jesus become children of God. (Jn1:12)

What did you mean by, “Those who reject God are still his children”?

Let me speak on GoodFella’s behalf.

GoodFella understands everything you are trying to say. However, he is only trying to clear up misconceptions. He is trying to be Peter to your Paul, not that Paul himself was speaking heresy.

When GoodFella says those who reject God are still His children he is saying that although we may turn from God He still has a place in His heart for us. Basically what Paul is saying in Romans 8:38-39.

 

[Gadgeteer]

Let me speak on GoodFella’s behalf.

GoodFella understands everything you are trying to say. However, he is only trying to clear up misconceptions. He is trying to be Peter to your Paul, not that Paul himself was speaking heresy.

When GoodFella says those who reject God are still His children he is saying that although we may turn from God He still has a place in His heart for us. Basically what Paul is saying in Romans 8:38-39.

Thank; you, James.

Above I cited Colossians, where (as their poets said) “we are all God’s children”; but only those who receive Him and WALK in Him, are children of God. Yes God “has a place in His heart” for apostates; Rom11:23 is clear, so is the story (stories!) in Lk15. But the Prodigal had to come to his senses and RETURN, didn’t he?

I was sure that was what GoodFella meant; I just wanted it clear for passers-by.

 

[NoelFitz]

This thread is excellent and I appreciate very much the contributions of Gadgeteer and jcrichton.

I hope Gadgeteer feels welcome here as his contributions help us to appreciate a Protestant view, even if his views differ from Luther and many ‘traditional’ Protestants who held that through grace we are accepted as righteous, but the grace does not make us righteous. Grace is imputed, God ignores our evil and accepts us. But as I wrote before many Protestants now hold, as we do, that grace transforms us. Another change is that now many Protestants believe grace has a community, social role, and is not solely for the individual. This also coincides with Catholic belief.

But within Catholicism, many views are accepted, once the fundamentals are held. So let debate flourish.

 

[jcrichton]

I looked up “sola Scriptura” – I have been promoting that–even if what we call “Scripture” is not final–everything in their writings is true and believable. So that their writings could be our “common ground of agreement”. On the internet, I see that protests are over one person’s interpretation of Scripture. So I understand what you’re saying. What I hope we can achieve in discussing here, is to agree on places where the meaning is clear, and it is not credible for someone to just shrug and walk away saying “You have your interpretation and I have mine”. As an example, I’ve been talking about 1Cor2:14 and how all Calvinistic writers cite that as “proof that God must change hearts BEFORE (and in order that) someone can believe”. In other words, spiritual things must be given to (certain few) persons first, only then is it even possible to believe and be saved.

I cited v. 12 – one must receive the Holy Spirit before getting the “things”. It’s plainly stated. Question – can an unsaved, unrepentant walking-in-sin-person ever receive the Holy Spirit? Scripture opposes that idea.

So that’s the question – can two people (one C, non-C or Cath), disagree on this verse – each claiming “Sola Scriptura”? Or is the wording exact so that only one meaning is possible? Obviously I lean towards “wording is clear and exact”. If someone else claims I am “Sola-Scriptura-WRONG-INTERPRETATION”, why would my interpretation be wrong? And there’s only one way I could see it could be wrong – the Holy Spirit would have to be received before belief and repentance. Does Scripture allow that idea, anywhere?

A Cal has no defense to being confronted with the context of 1Cor2:9-14; no way that the “things” of verse 14 are different than the “things” of verse 12. No way that the Holy Spirit is received before belief and repentance. So, “Sola Scriptura” is wrong when it is applied for its own sake (without credible exegesis with context), but there are times when certain concepts are rock solid and do overturn ideas (like we just overturned Calvinistic understanding of 1Cor2:14). Paul says in Tit1:9 “holding fast the faithful word which is in accordance with the teaching, so that he will be able both to exhort in sound doctrine and to refute those who contradict.” For that verse to be true, there have to be some points of doctrine that can be established to be “sound”. It’s one thing to say “sola Scriptura” without solid proof; it’s very different to embody “exhort-w/-sound-doctrine-&-refute” when something is solidly proven in Scripture.

Hi!

…some of what you proposed is sound…

…yet, there has to be a totality of, for lack of other term, “usage.”

What Calvinist’s and others seem to always do is seek points and counter points (as if playing a chess game) and apply these to both strengthen their position and challenge (block) different views (understanding)…they ignore or void all other Scriptures… it is the reason why such claims do not fully work.

True, as you’ve stated the Holy Spirit cannot Serve the unbelievers (St. John 14)… well, not in the manner in which it is detailed as part of God’s Fellowship (Worshippers).

Yet, the conundrum… “no one can Come to the Father but through Me, (St. John 14:6)” and “no one can Come to Me unless the Father draws (send) him (St. John 6:44).”

…both of these steps require the Function of the Holy Spirit!

…so the problem lies with interpretation since it is clear from Scriptures that man (unrighteous) must find and accept God… yet, no amount of preaching and teaching can cause a heart to turn to God… so there has to be a Function of the Holy Spirit that nudges man to seek understanding (Cain and Abel the very first example) and thus meet the Father that will then Convict the man to proceed to Christ… it also goes to the basic principle of Motion: a body at rest remains… but does that mean that God has converted man’s heart? No. It is God’s wake up Call (appealing to man’s spirit); if the Father converts the heart, what need is there for Christ’s Incarnation?.. it would be done deal from the get go–so what is the mystery? We must go back to Creation: “in our Image and Likeness!” God gave man Gifts when He Breath Life into him… His Spirit, reason, and free will.

If the Father converts man’s heart… the soup is done! Free will ceased!

So the Father can only awaken in man the Knowledge of God… the need to seek beyond his own understanding… the thirst to join with God’s Spirit.

This happens through Divine Revelation… which is unfolded in phases (stages) and degrees (increments).

We find this in Scriptural terms… “in the Beginning,” “at the appointed time,” “in the Fullness of time,” “now,” “in the Last Days,” “then Judgment.”

…as for the “sola” theologies… Scriptures themselves attest to “not sola!”

If we dissect Titus 1:9 we find that St. Paul is talking not about Scriptures alone but also about the Apostolic “Teaching.” Yes, Scriptures are the Word of God (not just the Old Testament to which most of references were made but also the New Testament, which St. Peter attested to being Scriptures) but they do not operate in a vacuum… the best example comes from Scriptures… Philip is Taken by the Holy Spirit to the Ethiopian who is traveling through Israel and is a fervent disciple of Christ (though unknown to him), and though he is an intelligent man and a student of the Word, God’s Revelation is clouded by his lack of Authoritative Teaching… he may grasp some of the concepts… but he cannot place them in the proper and correct Understanding… when he is Instructed his first reaction is: “what impedes me from being Baptized?” Reason and Revealed Knowledge have Come to Fruition!

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

…Okay, I can accept ideas like “the totality of Revelation”. And I know everyone understands that I will test ideas with what I find in Scripture; not really in a “Sola Scriptura” sense, but rather to see if their writings actually conflict with a given idea or not.

Hi!

…you must understand that I am being careful not to singe your ecumenical spirit (I’m not making up terms, but, rather, referencing them in a softer take)…

I concur with you that we must take things to Scriptures… because Scriptures will serve as Witness of the Truth.

Suppose someone told you, “ALL roads lead to God! There are many paths to salvation!”

I bet you would would cite John14:6 (“no one comes to the Father but by Me”), and Acts4:12 (“there is no other name under Heaven by which men must be saved”).

That’s what I mean by, “some things are stated clearly”.

I concur–though I would use Acts as a more clear and direct passage about Salvation found only in Christ.

…it remains that not most passages of Scriptures are as clear cut as Acts 4:12… and that’s where the problem of interpretation begins.

I suppose we all do that. But how do we keep ourselves open to reading words which prove a tenet wrong?

I was trying to hold a Calvinistic Baptist preacher to 1Cor2:12; he refused to engage it, then refused to continue talking.
This is where St. James 1:22 comes into full play: we must be doers of the Word not just listeners… which means that we must put away the old man with his self-assuredness, his ego, and his pride… we must humble ourselves to God so that He may Lift us up!

What do you think of Rom11:18-23?

This particular passage reminds me of some theologies (or understandings) that seem to mock the loss of Salvation–presenting the Book of Life in some cartoonish term… ‘is Jesus writing the names in pencil? …how many times are the names written and erased over again?’

They fully reject the loss of Salvation ignoring the warnings that Believers Receive from God: ‘who ever is not with Me, is against Me!’

Even Israel’s disobedience can be forgiven if they do not persist in their disbelief–but all who turn from God have no claim on Salvation.

No one has been able to explain why Jesus was NOT holding Judas up as “proof-of-leaving”.

…this is one of those passages that is not fully clear… but that can be used to support several understandings.

I look to the context of the passage… what is happening in the immediacy? There’s that confidence and boasting about how 'tight" they are with Jesus (‘I got you’re back, man!’)… and Jesus turns to them ‘really?, you’re that sure of yourselves?..’

Yes. And no one will be able to prove why he was “never really saved”. John17:12 says Jesus lost Judas; ya’ hafta be FOUND, before ya’ kin be lost…

…I may be totally alone on this… but I think that Judas is one of those singularities in Scriptures… Jesus had to be betrayed by one of His Own for all Scriptures to be fulfilled. A Believer could not betray Jesus (1 Corinthians 12:3)… a Believer could not be the son of perdition (St. John 17:12) by whose actions Scriptures are able to be fulfilled!

…so there is ample room for argument against Judas’ conversion… though I see no clear cut case for his damnation since I must see the totality of Jesus’ betrayal, capture, mock trail, sentencing, and crucifixion in light of God’s Mercy and Justice:

34 And Jesus said: Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.

(St. Luke 23:34)
Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

Hi! :tiphat:

Being created in the image of God isn’t something that we can choose to be. God is the Father of all by virtue He created man in His own image. In this broader framework, God is the Father of all humanity, and it was God who willed to be the Father of all when He created man in his own image. The decision was His, not Adam’s. Of course, there are people who reject God and don’t accept Him to be a father to them. And by doing so, they deprive themselves of their right to an inheritance. Recall Esau, who forfeited his right because of a tiny morsel of food, and the prodigal son who squandered his inheritance by leaving home and indulging in riotous and wasteful living. Jesus addressed this parable to the lost house of Israel, but it seems he had all of fallen humanity in mind as well. Through the Gospel, our Lord is calling all wayward souls to return home and be reconciled with their heavenly Father. Having been created in the divine image, they are called to partake in it. Those who reject God are still his children. But by disowning Him, like children who do in fact disown their biological parents, they are unworthy to be called His children.

• **“The son said to him, ‘Father, I have sinned against heaven and against you. I am no longer worthy to be called your son.’*“But the father said to his servants, ‘Quick! Bring the best robe and put it on him. Put a ring on his finger and sandals on his feet.*Bring the fattened calf and kill it. Let’s have a feast and celebrate.*For this son of mine was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found.’ So they began to celebrate.
  Luke 15, 21-24

“I tell you that in the same way there will be more rejoicing in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons who do not need to repent.”
Luke 15, 7***

The imperative statement “You must be born anew” (Jn 3:7) applies to all humanity and lays down the obligation for all people to enter a renewed family relationship with God. By the conditions attached to this rebirth one receives pardon and enters the spiritual family of God. ‘So then [they] are no longer strangers and sojourners, but [they] are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God’ (Eph 2:19). Those who aren’t children of God in a regenerative sense aren’t children of His in the most deciding way. But they remain potential heirs to their promised inheritance as God’s children.

Anagogically, God’s chosen people represent all humanity in their relationship with God. God called the Israelites his own possession and established a covenantal relationship with them. Despite their apostasy and idolatry, they were still God’s chosen ones. But the rightful heirs of the promised inheritance were the faithful remnant. Meanwhile, the Gentiles were just as much sons and daughters of God by having been created in His image. But at that time, they were His chosen people in prospect. Jesus referred to them when he said, “I have other sheep that do not belong to this fold. I must bring them also, and they will listen to my voice. So there will be one flock, one shepherd” (Jn 10:16). This one flock would include both Jews and Gentiles who would be children of God in a redemptive sense.

Although all people are children of God in a creative sense, this isn’t enough to establish a full and meaningful relationship. The very fact that so many people don’t relate with God in a filial way simply indicates that there’s a broken relationship that needs to be mended. It was for this reason that God became incarnate and Jesus spoke of God as a Father to all, who desires His errant children to return home so that He could embrace them. All prodigal sons and daughters have the liberty to return home (the household of God) if they will. Jesus didn’t try to force anyone to accept God as their heavenly Father, but reminded them how God was a father to them in His providential rule. As a father to all His children, God was mindful of their temporal needs and knew what and when to provide. So there was no reason for any of them to be anxious over earthly things. What was more important was how they related to God spiritually. Being a child of God in a spiritual sense should take priority in their lives. God eternally rewards those who abide by His sovereign will and punishes those who disobey Him.

Behold, all souls are mine; as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is mine: the soul that sins, it shall die.
Ezekiel 18, 4

PAX
:heaven:

Hi!

:tiphat:

Thank you for your comprehensive response! :clapping:

I keep hearing the mumblings of those who reject God at the claim that they too are God’s children… so I thank you for your expansion on why they are children of God and yet still enjoy the freedom of rejecting His Gift…

As Merciful and Loving as God is, He will not coerce anyone into Fellowship!

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

I guess I worded that wrong. Not, “I have been promoting Sola Scripture” – rather, what I was trying to say — “I have been promoting THE IDEA THAT, even if what we call ‘Scripture’ is not final, everything they wrote is true and believable.”

I’m sorry for being confusing.

Hi!

…yeah, no problem… I understood that you were not supportive of the sola theology!

Be at peace, my friend!

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

Here is the value of really discerning what Paul intended.

15 for though the twins were not yet born and had not done anything good or bad, so that God’s purpose according to His choice would stand, not because of works but because of Him who calls,
12 it was said to her, “THE OLDER WILL SERVE THE YOUNGER.”
13 Just as it is written, “JACOB I LOVED, BUT ESAU I HATED.”
14 What shall we say then? There is no injustice with God, is there? May it never be!
15 For He says to Moses, “I WILL HAVE MERCY ON WHOM I HAVE MERCY, AND I WILL HAVE COMPASSION ON WHOM I HAVE COMPASSION.”
16 So then it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy."
17 For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, “FOR THIS VERY PURPOSE I RAISED YOU UP, TO DEMONSTRATE MY POWER IN YOU, AND THAT MY NAME MIGHT BE PROCLAIMED THROUGHOUT THE WHOLE EARTH.”
18 So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires.
19 You will say to me then, “Why does He still find fault? For who resists His will?”
20 On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, “Why did you make me like this,” will it?
21 Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for common use?
22 What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction?

Romans 9:11-23 is one of the Primaries, one of four “foundational passages” to the world of Reformed Theology. They read this passage, and perceive things like:

1. Jacob was CREATED to be righteous and loved; Esau was CREATED to be wicked and hated.
2. God sovereignly chooses to have mercy on a few, and HARDENS the rest to sin
3. We cannot thwart God’s sovereign will away from whom He has predestined to live or die
4. God takes blank innocent clay and sculpts part into righteousness, and sculpts the rest into SINFUL vessels of wrath which HE prepares for Hell

That’s not what Paul intended; none of it. First, recognize that Paul knew about Genesis 25:23; he wasn’t asserting Jacob and Esau as specific persons, but as two peoples. That fits the idea of “two COVENANTS, the older covenant (Law!) shall succeed to the younger (grace!)”.

Second, Paul also knew about Malachi; ch1 speaks of “loving Jacob and hating Esau”. Through the letter it’s clear that Esau and others “profaned God’s altar”, “turned aside from the way” (and led others astray), “showed partiality”, and done other things to incur God’s wrath. This fits Isaiah65:12 “I will destine you for the sword BECAUSE I called and you DID not answer, I spoke but you did not hear, and you chose that in which I did not delight”. The people represented by Esau, chose wickedness and incurred God’s wrath.

Third, God-hardening – is a literary device. It’s called, “Semitic View”, or “Anthropomorphism”. See Ex10:1 “God hardened Pharaoh’s heart”; but two verses earlier (9:34) Pharaoh hardened his OWN heart. 1Sam6:6 Pharaoh hardened his own heart. This literary device ascribes to God (or others), what men actually do themselves. See 2Cor4:3-4, “(satan) has blinded men lest (understand) Jesus”. See also Rom12:3, “as God has allotted to each a measure of faith” – all these are simply saying “men harden their hearts against God”, and “men close their own eyes” (Matt13:15), and “as much faith as each man HAS”.

“God has mercy on whom He chooses”, must fit with God having mercy on ALL MEN (Rom11:32).

Fourth, though it does use “boulemai” (more decree will), if God willed for people to perish, why would there be verses like Jude23 “save others, snatching them from the fire”?

Fifth, there are THREE vessels in view – two that have put themselves on God’s Potter’s-wheel (NASV correctly translates ti-me and atimia as “honor and common”, both saved); the third vessel God never touched, they prepared themselves as wrath for destruction. This fits Rom2:4-5, God’s graciousness leads men to repentance, but stubborn sinfulness stores wrath for themselves.

Yes 2Tim2:20 also uses “ti-me” and “atimia”; there Paul inconsistently uses “atimia” to reflect unsaved. No way he meant “unsaved” in Rom9. Only the “wrath-prepared-for-destruction” (verb tense supports “prepared themselves”) are unsaved.

Sixth – the whole passage in Rom9 is about “Also Gentiles” – if God wants to also save the Gentiles, who are YOU oh Jewish person to object?!

Hi!

…again… it’s about the totality of Revelation… here’s what is fully wrong with this maneuvering of Scriptures:
a) as you’ve pointed out there is a comparison being made: Israel and the Gentiles
b) it is about God’s Mercy and God’s Will
c) it is about God’s Salvation Reaching all (Romans 11:28-32)

…and when people, obstinately, refuse to open their minds and heart they will hit, head-on, against God’s Word and fail miserably:

12 Seek not death in the error of your life, neither procure ye destruction by the works of your hands. 13 For God made not death, neither hath he pleasure in the destruction of the living

. (Wisdom 1:12-13)

…31 Cast away from you all your transgressions, by which you have transgressed, and make to yourselves a new heart, and a new spirit: and why will you die, O house of Israel? 32 For I desire not the death of him that dieth, saith the Lord God, return ye and live. (Ezekiel 18:29-32)
Selective reasoning is a result of selective application of the Word of God!

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[Good_Fella]

How can anyone read Lk15 and not see “fallible salvation”? :scratchhead:

Fallible salvation?

The prodigal son represents humanity in its fallen state and the need for humanity to be reconciled with God the Father. The son was a child of his father before and after he left home. He didn’t become his father’s son after he returned home, but was restored in his grace. By returning home, he became the son his father desired he should be. We read in 1 Timothy 2:4 that God “desires everyone (all his children) to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth.” Like the prodigal son, everyone must come to their senses if they hope to be saved. Salvation is infallible but on this condition, that we come to our senses and acknowledge our fallen state and need to be reconciled with God. Our salvation is assured once we repent and implore God for forgiveness. If we persevere in grace to the end of our lives, there is no mistake that we shall receive our eternal reward.

“All God’s children” by creation, Acts 17:28-29; but only those who receive Jesus become children of God. (Jn1:12)

Those who receive Jesus are children of God in the spiritual, regenerative, and redemptive senses - by supernatural ‘adoption’. We are all born children of God by virtue of having been created in the divine image, but with the stain of original sin on our souls. This is not by any personal act of our own, but is an inheritance from our original parents, Adam and Eve. Through baptism, our souls are cleansed of all sin and we receive sanctifying grace, a free gift of God. Being baptized, we become children by adoption in that we are no longer God’s children by simply having a rational soul and free will. We can actually partake of the divine nature by being reborn in the Spirit, now that the stain of original sin has been removed from our souls: the deprivation of the original sanctity and justice. As children by adoption, we are a new creation, the sons and daughters who God desires us to be, liberated from the world’s corruption and raised above all sinful desires. As God’s adopted children, we are called to put on this new divine nature that desires the things of God (2 Cor 5:17). We love what God loves (Gal 5:22) and hate what God hates (1 Jn 2:15-17). We are made partakers of the divine nature by undergoing a radical spiritual transformation. But because of our human nature (the Adam inside us), we struggle to overcome sin by resisting temptation. It is our fallen nature that keeps us from fellowship with God and keeps us in bondage to sin, which leads to spiritual death (Rom 6:16; 7:14; 2 Pet 2:19). We cannot free ourselves entirely from sin because of our fallen human nature, no more than a leopard can change its spots.

However, as children by adoption, we can increase in sanctification by being renewed daily, as we struggle to overcome our sinful habits and grow in holiness. As partakers of the divine nature, we are no longer enslaved to the passions and sins of the flesh (Rom 6:6, 14), but only because of the power of God’s grace that helps us conquer every temptation we face (1 Cor 10:13). What distinguishes children of God - in the creative sense - from a child of God by adoption - the spiritual, regenerative, and redemptive senses - is that the latter desires not to continue to sin and is open to God’s actual graces, now that the divine seed is planted in them (1 Jn 3:9). They love what God loves and hate what God hates, albeit the occasional lapse (Rom 7:15). The children of this world have no wish to rise above their selfish and sinful desires of the flesh and conform their lives to the image of the Son (Rom 8:29; 2 Cor 6:18). They prefer to love what God hates, and in their obstinate pride, they harden their hearts to God’s grace. Not unlike the prodigal son before his conversion of heart, they remain alienated from God as His estranged children (Col 1:21-22).

We also read in Matthew 5, 19: “Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.” Jesus isn’t referring only to baptized Christians, but to all whose lives conform to his image. This includes those who are pure in heart and thirst for righteousness, (etc.).

What did you mean by, “Those who reject God are still his children”?

They are still his children, but only in the creative sense.

***Have we not all one Father? Has not one God created us? Why then are we faithless to one another, profaning the covenant of our fathers?

• Malachi 2, 10***

God was a father to all His chosen people, including those who violated the ever-present covenant He established with them. God established a covenant of creation with Adam. Like all covenants, it was conditional, and as such required Adam’s obedience to God. Still, he was a son of God despite his transgression, but only in the creative sense. ‘And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose. And the Lord said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years. … And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually’ (Gen 6:1-5). The life of God was no longer in Adam; nor did he have any claim to an everlasting inheritance to bequeath to his descendants. He forfeited all the preternatural gifts we could have received.

:heaven:

 

[Good_Fella]

Hi, Good Fella!
Yes! It is! See if you and I agree on something (betting we do) – how much of our salvation did Jesus pay for on the Cross? (All of it, right?) All religions (Mormons JW’s, Budhism, Judaism, Islam, every one!) are based on men doing good deeds to earn God’s favor (or eternity, or nirvana, or whatever). Salvation is a GIFT — righteousness is a GIFT. Any gift must be received; while it may be wise to receive a good gift, the conscious action in receiving that gift changes nothing OF the gift. Yes it is “doing something” (to receive the gift), but our “doing something” does not become part OF the gift.

Do we agree?

Hi! :tiphat:

Agreed. The gift of salvation was merited for us by Christ alone. Although we may be justly entitled to a reward, since God is fair, Jesus produced it, and he alone is equal to the reward. Now that he has, we must “work out” - not work for - our salvation in “fear and trembling”. The gift of salvation isn’t like a wage that an employer is obligated to honour by law. In the strict sense of justice, God owes us nothing, for without His grace we couldn’t possibly do anything to please Him. We cannot earn our salvation. So, the gift of salvation is more like the Christmas bonus that the employer offers at his own pleasure as a token of his appreciation for all the good work the employee has done in his grace: “Well done, my good and faithful servant” (Matt 25:23).

I think it’s deeper than that; God “clothes us in His righteousness”, Isaiah61:10. Yes we have to “do what pleases Him”, but first we are filled WITH Jesus and the Spirit, and then (because He changes our hearts) we pursue Him and do good deeds.

Agreed. Grace must precede all our good works, if they are to have salvific value, but our co-operation with God’s grace is also required. ‘Clothe yourselves with the Lord Jesus Christ, and do not think about how to gratify the desires of the flesh’(Rom 13:14). ‘Therefore, as God’s chosen people, holy and dearly loved, clothe yourselves with compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness and patience’ (Col 3:12).

What are your thoughts on Paul’s words in 1Cor6:11? We were washed, justified (declared righteous), and sanctified (made righteous)? It doesn’t really matter if you and I differ on righteousness being a state now, or a lifelong goal — I bet you and I agree it’s part of the whole “you-must-abide-in-Jesus” reality.

Agreed, if by that you concur justification is progressive. In Catholic theology, a person who stands just before God isn’t merely declared to be righteous, but has been made righteous by the power of divine grace that is infused into his soul. One’s justification involves a genuine renewal of being and a supernatural transformation. God desires and helps us effect an inner change of heart (Ezek 36:27). God doesn’t just declare that we are righteous. Righteousness is not just imputed to us. We can actually do works of righteousness by God’s grace which sanctifies us (Isa 64:5). What God has decreed with necessity is that internal change, and He gives us the grace to be transformed in His likeness. Justification is declarative and forensic to some extent. God has decreed to actually make us righteous in his sight by the means of His efficacious grace and the spiritual gifts of the Holy Spirit. But this is made available to us through the unmerited and initial grace of forgiveness and justification. Our renewal in spirit begins with the redemption Christ achieved for the entire human race strictly by his merits through his passion and atoning death on the Cross.

Catholics don’t believe that an individual can reckon himself as righteous by appealing to his natural moral works outside the system of divine grace. Still, God’s declaration of righteousness is seen as something more than a simple decree. By going a step further, Catholics see it as an effect in that whatever God declares to be, it is what it is produced to really be. A person can be declared just because he has been made intrinsically just by the sanctifying grace of God. He is a new creation in Christ who actually “conforms” to the divine image by renouncing his old natural self (2 Cor. 5:17). The righteousness credited to him is not a fictional or synthetic one, since it is produced by God with man’s willing cooperation. By God’s merciful standard, he has relatively reached a level of divine perfection in his finite humanity that is pleasing and just in God’s sight.

The Council of Trent defined sanctification as “the only formal cause (causa formalis) of justification”. Form is the principle determination which accounts for something being what it is. Justification could not essentially be what it is or is supposed to be according to God’s design without its principle determination, viz., sanctity. Meanwhile, our justification acquires its essential form on the principle of efficient causality, that which puts something into effect. In this case, the efficient cause of our justification is grace bestowed by God in the forms of both Divine favour and Divine persuasion with final results. Justification is a process whose purpose is to free us from all guilt in our relationship with God and whose end is our predestination to glory. Without its principle determinant, sanctity, the process of justification could not accomplish its purpose (final causality) and achieve its end. Unless ‘our’ righteousness (not personally Christ’s) surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees, we will not enter the kingdom of heaven (Matt 5:20).

:heaven:

 

[NoelFitz]

Gadgeteer:

You wrote

*All religions (Mormons JW’s, Budhism, Judaism, Islam, every one!) are based on men doing good deeds to earn God’s favor (or eternity, or nirvana, or whatever). Salvation is a GIFT — righteousness is a GIFT. *

If you claim we earn God’s favour I disagree. If you claim righteousness is a gift I agree.

• A worker’s wage is credited not as a gift, but as something due.But when one does not work, yet believes in the one who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness.
  (Rom. 4:4-5 NAB)*

Do I sound like a Protestant?

However I consider that Good Fella (#93) has explained very well Catholic teaching.

Thanks.

 

[Gadgeteer]

Hi!

…some of what you proposed is sound…

…yet, there has to be a totality of, for lack of other term, “usage.”

What Calvinists and others seem to always do is seek points and counter points (as if playing a chess game) and apply these to both strengthen their position and challenge (block) different views (understanding)…they ignore or void all other Scriptures… it is the reason why such claims do not fully work.

Exactly that – so my approach to them is to take their “prooftexts”, and read the context (near and far). In every case of the Secondaries, refutation of “sovereign predestined election” is solidly overturned.

True, as you’ve stated the Holy Spirit cannot Serve the unbelievers (St. John 14)… well, not in the manner in which it is detailed as part of God’s Fellowship (Worshippers).

Yet, the conundrum… “no one can Come to the Father but through Me, (St. John 14:6)” and “no one can Come to Me unless the Father draws (send) him (St. John 6:44).”

Here is their error – they read this as exclusive drawing (some are called, most are not). There is nothing here which denies “all are called”. Jn6:44 uses “helkuo” (draw/drag-forcibly); and that word also appears in Jn12:32 Jesus (being lifted up) draws ALL MEN to Himself. I’ve tried to get them to embrace Matt22:2-14; “many are called but few are chosen” (eklektos, elected). In context, everyone in view got called, no one was excluded. But of those who were “unchosen” – each made his own decision. One chose farming, another chose business; a third came but refused the King’s gracious clean clothes. The rest who were left out, refused for their own unstated reasons. The King decided nothing of who actually attended.

…both of these steps require the Function of the Holy Spirit!

Yes; and — Scripture is clear that the Spirit acts the same towards all men. There is no “exclusivity”, which refutes Calvinism completely. Goodness – one would think Rom10:6-10 with its connection to Deut30 would end the discussion forever! The “word-of-faith” (which Paul states is the SAME word-of-faith, under Jesus’ Gospel!), is in men’s hearts and mouths already. Both those who can “confess repent and be saved”, and those who can “turn away disbelieve and perish”.

Calvinism claims God has to capriciously and selectively PUT “the-word-of-faith” in certain men’s hearts and mouths SO THAT they can believe confess and be saved; but Deut30:12 “it’s not in Heaven that one must go get it and give it to us to make us hear it, so that we may observe it.”

That’s as foundational a refutation of Monergism as I’ve ever read!

 

[Gadgeteer]

…so the problem lies with interpretation since it is clear from Scriptures that man (unrighteous) must find and accept God… yet, no amount of preaching and teaching can cause a heart to turn to God… so there has to be a Function of the Holy Spirit that nudges man to seek understanding (Cain and Abel the very first example) and thus meet the Father that will then Convict the man to proceed to Christ… it also goes to the basic principle of Motion: a body at rest remains… but does that mean that God has converted man’s heart? No. It is God’s wake up Call (appealing to man’s spirit); if the Father converts the heart, what need is there for Christ’s Incarnation?..

Exactly. Remember my argument about Rom9:12-13? If “monergistic regeneration” (before and apart from turning and believing) is required, then Jesus could NOT have come for the unregenerated! But neither could He have come for the regenerated, who – BY regeneration are righteous and do not need the Physician! For whom did He come?

it would be done deal from the get go–so what is the mystery? We must go back to Creation: “in our Image and Likeness!” God gave man Gifts when He Breath Life into him… His Spirit, reason, and free will.

If the Father converts man’s heart… the soup is done! Free will ceased!

Yes. And the Cross becomes “mere pageantry”, some theater only displaying what God long before decreed!

Who is sitting in the theater watching the movie???

So the Father can only awaken in man the Knowledge of God… the need to seek beyond his own understanding… the thirst to join with God’s Spirit.

As we discussed (and you and I agree Scripture teaches), and as Robertson said, “grace is God’s part, faith is ours”. That fits 1Pet1:9, doesn’t it?

This happens through Divine Revelation… which is unfolded in phases (stages) and degrees (increments).

We find this in Scriptural terms… “in the Beginning,” “at the appointed time,” “in the Fullness of time,” “now,” “in the Last Days,” “then Judgment.”

…as for the “sola” theologies… Scriptures themselves attest to “not sola!”

If we dissect Titus 1:9 we find that St. Paul is talking not about Scriptures alone but also about the Apostolic “Teaching.” Yes, Scriptures are the Word of God (not just the Old Testament to which most of references were made but also the New Testament, which St. Peter attested to being Scriptures) but they do not operate in a vacuum… the best example comes from Scriptures… Philip is Taken by the Holy Spirit to the Ethiopian who is traveling through Israel and is a fervent disciple of Christ (though unknown to him), and though he is an intelligent man and a student of the Word, God’s Revelation is clouded by his lack of Authoritative Teaching… he may grasp some of the concepts… but he cannot place them in the proper and correct Understanding… when he is Instructed his first reaction is: “what impedes me from being Baptized?” Reason and Revealed Knowledge have Come to Fruition!

I will agree to that. And I think you will agree with my understanding that “external instructions” will not conflict what the Apostles wrote. That statement is a solid conviction for beliefs like Mormonism — “the burning of the bosom” must be weighed against referencable doctrine, and Scripture is the handiest reference. As an example I said that “all roads lead to God, other paths to salvation are just as valid as Jesus”, cannot be true because of verses like Jn14:6 and Acts4:12.

 

[jcrichton]

Exactly that – so my approach to them is to take their “prooftexts”, and read the context (near and far). In every case of the Secondaries, refutation of “sovereign predestined election” is solidly overturned.

Here is their error – they read this as exclusive drawing (some are called, most are not). There is nothing here which denies “all are called”. Jn6:44 uses “helkuo” (draw/drag-forcibly); and that word also appears in Jn12:32 Jesus (being lifted up) draws ALL MEN to Himself. I’ve tried to get them to embrace Matt22:2-14; “many are called but few are chosen” (eklektos, elected). In context, everyone in view got called, no one was excluded. But of those who were “unchosen” – each made his own decision. One chose farming, another chose business; a third came but refused the King’s gracious clean clothes. The rest who were left out, refused for their own unstated reasons. The King decided nothing of who actually attended.

Yes; and — Scripture is clear that the Spirit acts the same towards all men. There is no “exclusivity”, which refutes Calvinism completely. Goodness – one would think Rom10:6-10 with its connection to Deut30 would end the discussion forever! The “word-of-faith” (which Paul states is the SAME word-of-faith, under Jesus’ Gospel!), is in men’s hearts and mouths already. Both those who can “confess repent and be saved”, and those who can “turn away disbelieve and perish”.

Calvinism claims God has to capriciously and selectively PUT “the-word-of-faith” in certain men’s hearts and mouths SO THAT they can believe confess and be saved; but Deut30:12 “it’s not in Heaven that one must go get it and give it to us to make us hear it, so that we may observe it.”

That’s as foundational a refutation of Monergism as I’ve ever read!

Hi!

It seems to me that Calvinism has set its standards on the teachings of their predecessor/s; they have determined that Scriptures must be understood in that very specific manner… I liken them to today’s drivers… they are hooked on the GPS machines… they turn on the ignition and sit in the vehicle until the machine tells them how to get there… it does not matter if the trip is to the local pharmacy or out of state… they will not make a move unless the machine calls out: do “xyz.”

I fully concur with you that there’s no Scriptural Revelation about God saving/electing one person over another… and I fully concur with you that it is man himself that ultimately determines to embrace God’s Gift of Salvation or to reject it, embracing, instead, darnation.

…the most exacting Scriptural passage that I can offer is found in St. John 3:

16 For God so loved the world, as to give his only begotten Son; that whosoever believeth in him, may not perish, but may have life everlasting. 17 For God sent not his Son into the world, to judge the world, but that the world may be saved by him

. 18 He that believeth in him is not judged. But he that doth not believe, is already judged: because he believeth not in the name of the only begotten Son of God. 19 And this is the judgment: because the light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than the light: for their works were evil. 20 For every one that doth evil hateth the light, and cometh not to the light, that his works may not be reproved. 21 But he that doth truth, cometh to the light, that his works may be made manifest, because they are done in God. (St. John 3:16-21)
The only election (predestination) that God has ever made is that “all” be Saved!

The choice is ours!

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

Exactly. Remember my argument about Rom9:12-13? If “monergistic regeneration” (before and apart from turning and believing) is required, then Jesus could NOT have come for the unregenerated! But neither could He have come for the regenerated, who – BY regeneration are righteous and do not need the Physician! For whom did He come?

Yes. And the Cross becomes “mere pageantry”, some theater only displaying what God long before decreed!

Who is sitting in the theater watching the movie???

Hi!

…that would be the “catch 22” thing–if they were to pay attention… it is reminiscent of St. Paul’s query… if Christ did not Resurrect from the dead… then our Faith is void–everything we do is for not.

…it makes God some kind of Alzheimer’s patient… generating a Salvific Plan to not save anyone! :doh2::doh2::doh2:

As we discussed (and you and I agree Scripture teaches), and as Robertson said, “grace is God’s part, faith is ours”. That fits 1Pet1:9, doesn’t it?

I will agree to that. And I think you will agree with my understanding that “external instructions” will not conflict what the Apostles wrote.

That statement is a solid conviction for beliefs like Mormonism — “the burning of the bosom” must be weighed against referencable doctrine, and Scripture is the handiest reference. As an example I said that “all roads lead to God, other paths to salvation are just as valid as Jesus”, cannot be true because of verses like Jn14:6 and Acts4:12.


I find it quite funny that Calvinism (and related theologies) seeks displace their obligation to take part in their own Salvation… they also seem to want to determine who gets saved and who gets damned (JWs also hold similar views)… in the end, are such ideologies not forms of usurping God’s Authority or, in the least, controlling God?

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[Gadgeteer]

Hi!

…you must understand that I am being careful not to singe your ecumenical spirit (I’m not making up terms, but, rather, referencing them in a softer take)…

I concur with you that we must take things to Scriptures… because Scriptures will serve as Witness of the Truth.

I concur–though I would use Acts as a more clear and direct passage about Salvation found only in Christ.

…it remains that not most passages of Scriptures are as clear cut as Acts 4:12… and that’s where the problem of interpretation begins.

Some verses may be not as clear; but when I stepped foot onto the “ship of discovery” searching out every verse Calvinists used, every single one of them came with clear context. They claim Jer17:9 exposes men’s hearts as “too corrupt for God to EVER respond to them” (thus, they reason, God must change their hearts first) — but the very next verse has God responding to men’s hearts and minds! Oops.

2Cor4:3-4 is claimed to prove the devil has men too blinded to believe; but 2:3:16 states men turn to God BEFORE the veil blinding their hearts is removed. Oops!

Proverbs 16:9 is thought to teach that God directs men’s steps, either to sin or to salvation, BEFORE anyone can think of turning to God. But verse 3 has men “committing their works to God FIRST”! Oops again! (And if we cannot turn to God first, then Isaiah45:22 is silly, Malachi3:7 is silly, and Matt11:28-30 is very silly!)

Scripture is not silly!

This is where St. James 1:22 comes into full play: we must be doers of the Word not just listeners… which means that we must put away the old man with his self-assuredness, his ego, and his pride… we must humble ourselves to God so that He may Lift us up!

And THAT aligns with Eph4:15-24 (Col3:5-10), 1Pet5:6, James4:6-10, and more!

This particular passage reminds me of some theologies (or understandings) that seem to mock the loss of Salvation–presenting the Book of Life in some cartoonish term… ‘is Jesus writing the names in pencil? …how many times are the names written and erased over again?’

Think about the word you just used — “erased”?

“'He who overcomes …I will not erase his name from the book of life” Rev3:5
The LORD said to Moses, “Whoever has sinned against Me, I will blot him out of My book.” Ex32:33

Take those in context – Rev3:21-22, 3:12 and especially Rev3:11: “HOLD FAST to what you have so that no one will steal your crown!”

I often marvel at the gymnastics required to disregard verses like these. Not meaning to offend Calvinists, how are they not really clear?

They fully reject the loss of Salvation ignoring the warnings that Believers Receive from God: ‘who ever is not with Me, is against Me!’

Even Israel’s disobedience can be forgiven if they do not persist in their disbelief–but all who turn from God have no claim on Salvation.

We can be cut off. I’ve heard gymnastics like claiming “this is speaking of nations and not individuals”. Branches? That is Israel – and what other nation comprising “natural branches”? No, Jews (plural) were cut off, and YOU an individual Gentile (each person there the object of His words) were grafted in…

I dunno how “branches”, can be considered “nations”. Besides — what would a NATION have to do to get cut off? Wouldn’t the individual citizens have to disbelieve? How can it be made, “OSAS”?

 

[Gadgeteer]

…this is one of those passages that is not fully clear… but that can be used to support several understandings.

Really? Are you sure?

Let’s pretend you’re a Calvinist, for the next couple of minutes. Are you willing?

Jesus used the Greek “me” – negative question, expecting only an answer of “no”. But Peter treats it as a real answer.

Okay, let’s discuss the possible understandings. Paraphrased:

Many disciples withdrew. Jesus said to the twelve:
Jesus: “You’re not going to leave Me too, ARE you!”
Peter: “Of course not; we know You’re the Messiah.”
Jesus: "I chose all twelve of you, and Judas is a devil; oh wait, Judas isn’t leaving–he was never really with us, of COURSE you can’t leave, what was I THINKING! :doh2:

Was that what Jesus meant? Does your Calvinism accept that?

The other possible meaning:

Many disciples withdrew. Jesus said to the twelve:
Jesus: “You’re not going to leave Me too, ARE you!”
Peter: “Of course not; we know You’re the Messiah.”
Jesus: “I chose all twelve of you, and Judas is leaving–be careful, leaving is possible!”

And that fits what happened in Luke22:33-34. Peter protested his loyalty, crying that he would go to jail and even DIE for Jesus. Jesus said, “You’ll deny Me three times TONIGHT!”

So — while you are a Calvinist, can you think of a third possible meaning? You don’t really accept the first one, do you?

I look to the context of the passage… what is happening in the immediacy? There’s that confidence and boasting about how 'tight" they are with Jesus (‘I got you’re back, man!’)… and Jesus turns to them ‘really?, you’re that sure of yourselves?..’

Exactly; your “Calvinism Conversion” has worn off, you are accurately acknowledging Judas is clear proof of “possible leaving”.

This …is not fully clear… but can be used to support several understandings

Fine – what are they? More to the point, we ask Calvinists “what are they”? Will they be able to answer?

(I don’t think so!)

…I may be totally alone on this… but I think that Judas is one of those singularities in Scriptures… Jesus had to be betrayed by one of His Own for all Scriptures to be fulfilled. A Believer could not betray Jesus (1 Corinthians 12:3)… a Believer could not be the son of perdition (St. John 17:12) by whose actions Scriptures are able to be fulfilled!

A prophecy is just a “backwards time event”; the only reason Judas had to betray Jesus, is because it had already happened when looked back on from the future. There was no necessity for Judas to do the deed for any part of Jesus’ ministry to occur.

…so there is ample room for argument against Judas’ conversion… though I see no clear cut case for his damnation since I must see the totality of Jesus’ betrayal, capture, mock trail, sentencing, and crucifixion in light of God’s Mercy and Justice:

Well, he hung himself; that’s not very repentant. Speaking of time machines – when I get MINE working, I’m gonna go back and ambush Judas before he puts on the rope. Then I’m going to hog-tie him and hold him until the next Sunday. In the afternoon, I’ll drag him to the room where the Apostles are — and Jesus — and I’ll set him down in front of the LIVING CHRIST. What’s Judas going to do?

Is there any doubt?

"You — you! …You’re …ALIVE? Ohhh, Jesus, (throwing himself at Jesus’ feet), I’M SOOOO SORRY! Forgiiiiiiive meeeeee!" :crying:

Is there any doubt that’s exactly what would happen?