Saved Or Predestined ???

Renniks · May 16, 2020

Tong2020 said:
Did God not chose Noah and even 7 others of His family for salvation? Did God not chose Abram for salvation? Did God not chose Isaac for salvation? Did God not chose Israel for salvation? Did God not chose a people from among the peoples of the earth for salvation? Do you not belong to God's chosen people whom Jesus died for and saved?

What is your point in quoting Isaiah 5:4?

If you can not see it, you aren't trying. God says he did everything he could to get his chosen people to obey him but they would not. And yet you claim God just chooses to give some that ability and not others.
Yes I meant he chose Jacob over Esau for a job, not for salvation.
With Noah it's obvious. God choose him because he was the only good choice.

"Noah was a righteous man, blameless among the people of his time, and he walked faithfully with God."

Did God choose Israel for salvation? He chose them to be the line of the Messiah, not because they were all destined for salvation.

Abraham was saved because of his faith. Romans 4:3
I assume Issac was too, but he made his share of blunders. He almost gave the birthright to the wrong son.
Yes, I belong to God's chosen by being in Christ. No, God didn't choose me over my neighbor. He doesn't love me more than the one who is not yet his.

Tong2020 · May 16, 2020

Renniks said:
You mean:
16 “So the last will be first, and the first will be last.”?
Because that is what the verse says. This is about God being just as generous with the one who only serves him for a short time. I'm not sure how that relates? Those who believe are the chosen ones.

You told us of your take of what the phrase "Many are called but few are chosen." in the parable of the wedding feast in Matthew 22. I was asking you what the same phrase means in the parable of the workers in the vineyard in Matthew 20 means.

Tong
R0265

Tong2020 · May 16, 2020

Renniks said:
Yes, in context this verse refers to physical Israel in their physical land. But we are now Israel too. It still applies in the sense of showing us what God requires of us for healing of the spiritual nature also.

I disagree sir. One just could not pick a verse in the OT and use it and apply it to just anywhere and to just anybody, thinking it is correct, just because it sounds good and reasonable to him. So it remains, 2 Chronicle 7:14 is for the nation Israel, not for other nations. And it's not even about salvation from sin and hell, but about the healing of their homeland, their country. Their homeland is what is in view there, not the people. So, it's not even for the Christians, in that sense, for the country of the Christians is not even of this world, but is a heavenly country (Hebrews 11:13-16). As I said, it's another misuse of scriptures.

Tong
R0266

Tong2020 · May 16, 2020

Renniks said:
And that only happens after we believe. Of course the term "born-again" is metaphorical. We become born again by grace through faith and if we lose faith we are no longer born again. Does God give people second chances? Yes, I've seen it happen.

Please cite scriptures that at least effectively say what you teach there, else it's unfounded.

You said the term "born-again" is metaphorical. Considering John 3, the term there isn't metaphorical sir. In the Greek, it's the phrase "gennethe anothen" which is literally translated "be born from above". It literally denotes a birth, a birth different from the birth of man into his existence, of the seed of the first Adam, but which is a birth from above. And since man had already had a birth, such other birth only would mean a second birth or a re-birth or a re-creation. And as was in the first birth, where the one being born had nothing whatsoever to do with, that is true of any birth for that matter, and so too, with being "born from above" or "born again". To deny this is obviously make believe, unless taught by scriptures otherwise. To give you an idea how that is, consider what Jesus said about this birth to Nicodemus, He told him, "The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear the sound of it, but cannot tell where it comes from and where it goes. So is everyone who is born of the Spirit. (John 3:8)”

You said "if we lose faith we are no longer born again." So, what becomes of you then, back to being not born again? What does that even mean? Now you also said "God give people second chances". So, you mean that after you are no longer born again, you can be born again again? And perhaps you would not object to a third chance, or even fourth, or fifth, or sixth, or seventh, or nth, for as long as the man is alive, having his free will, he can at any time, repent and have faith in Christ, right? So, you are teaching that one can be born again and be not born again and be born again again and be not born again and be born again and again and again. That renders me speechless at this point.

Tong
R0267

Tong2020 · May 16, 2020

Renniks said:
They weren't his sheep...they were "Not of God” [in John 8] this means that these Jews were not in right covenant relationship with the Father when they encountered Christ and His claims. Since they didn’t know the Father they naturally would not recognize the perfect expression of the Father in the Son, nor would they recognize the Father’s teaching in the Son’s words (John 8:19, 20, 42, 54, 55, cf. John 5:37-40; 7:16, 17 12:44, 45). As long as they reject the Father and refuse His teaching, they will reject the Son and His teaching (which is also the Father’s teaching, John 12:49, 50) and will not be given to the Son (John 6:37, 44, 45).

Consider John the baptist, who I suppose you will say is in right covenant relationship with the Father. Did he recognize and knew who the Son is? If he did, how did he knew?

Consider also Peter, do you know how he knew who the Son is? Was it because he was in right covenant relationship with the Father?

Consider Saul (who later became Paul), did he knew the Son because he was in right covenant relationship with the Father?

So, you don't have any argument there sir.

Renniks said:
None of these passages say anything about an unconditional eternal election being behind the description of these Jews as “not of God.”

And nowhere did I speak about unconditional election. But that I told you that in John 8:47, there are, as Jesus mentioned of, people who are "of God" and people who are "not of God".

Renniks said:
Their inability to hear was not because God wasn’t working, but because they were resisting that working. Clearly, Jesus is still trying to reach them (8:27-31, 36, cf. John 5:44; 10:37, 38), which would be senseless if He viewed them as hopeless reprobates.

And I did not say any of that. What I said is that, as Jesus said, they do not hear. Why do they not hear? Jesus said, because they are not of God. Jesus could not have said that any plainer and clearer. I'm sure you understood Jesus there. It's just then a matter of believing it or not, or perhaps, as some do, change what he said to something else.

Renniks said:
Look at Christ’s statement to the same sort of resistant Jews in John 5 where Christ both declares their inability and yet tells them, “…not that I accept human testimony, but I mention it that you may be saved”, vs. 34.

As I have pointed out, Jesus was going about doing the will of the Father, in his humanity. So if you argue using Jesus' Deity, and appeal to his omniscience, then all that he ever did in his humanity becomes a mockery, the way Jesus had done things. So, your argument there is invalid, if not, misplaced.

Tong
R0268

Tong2020 · May 16, 2020

Renniks said:
You are complicating salvation. Those things do not save a person. And it's beside the point for this discussion. By order I mean belief comes first, then salvation. Whether you have to believe specifically in Christ's deity is a different discussion. Whether you repent at this time is another discussion. The whole point is belief first, not what is required after initial salvation.

I sure am not complicating the salvation of God sir. For I don't say that is what the salvation of God is. If there are people who complicates the salvation of God, it's not me, but those who take away things from God's hands, put things into their hands and make free will the ultimate thing, saying that, "by my confessing with my mouth Jesus Christ and my believing in my heart that he had risen from the dead, God will save me"; or saying "by my repenting, and being baptized, and confessing the Lord Jesus with my mouth, and believing in my heart that Jesus Christ had risen from the dead, and that Jesus Christ is Lord, God will save me". To the contrary, this is what I believe, that God saved me by His grace ~ is that complicated to you? Not to me.

You said "By order I mean belief comes first, then salvation." And I mean to tell you that it is not like so. If I were to give my view regarding the order of salvation in that sense, I'd say, the very first would be, God's quickening of the spirit in the man, enabling him to spiritually see and hear and positively respond to God in the spirit. Then next would be God's work of bringing His words to the man's hearing, so that he may be brought to repentance and have faith, or what I call, God's work of conversion, which God works out in various and even mysterious ways. Then....would you like me to continue the work of God concerning His salvation of the people He had chosen to be His people?

Tong
R0269

Tong2020 · May 16, 2020

Renniks said:
Tong, sir, you have regrettably swallowed the calvinist interpretation Hook line & sinker.
Don't you see that Paul's answer to the mystery objector confirms that we all resist God? How can a man talk back to God otherwise? This objector is the same one who in chapter 3 says we should sin more so that grace may abound more. His condemnation is just. Why? Precisely because he doesn't follow God's will for himself.
The objector talks like a calvinist. " I'm just doing what I was destined to do. " Or " Who can resist God's will?" Same argument.

My friend, don't worry about me swallowing the calvinist's interpretation you are saying there. I don't even know what their interpretation is. I don't listen to what they teach, but I listen to what God teach in scriptures.

You asked "Don't you see that Paul's answer to the mystery objector confirms that we all resist God? How can a man talk back to God otherwise?" Now that is a misinterpretation sir. For Paul was not talking about man's sinfulness or man's resisting of His will expressed in His commandments, but was talking about the sovereignty of God over all creation, including man. I already explained that you there in the post that you are responding to. So, consider that first and give it a thought, before repeating yourself and assert the very same things that I had given a refutation. Paul was by that telling the church in Rome, that God is sovereign and is not answerable or accountable to anyone. If He chose Pharaoh and use him for a specific purpose, even Pharaoh who is the king of Egypt, considered a god by men, could not resist His will. If He chose Jacob over Esau, could Esau resist His will? If He chose to grant repentance to the Gentiles, no one could resist His will. If He chose to harden the people of Israel, saved a remnant according to the election of grace, could anyone resist His will? Now could anyone of those hardened argue and complain and say "Why does He still find fault?" Paul's answer is not far from being the same things said to Job in Job 37, 38, 39, for which Job in answer to God said "Behold, I am vile; What shall I answer You? I lay my hand over my mouth." This is Paul's answer "But indeed, O man, who are you to reply against God? Will the thing formed say to him who formed it, “Why have you made me like this?” Like Job, that was meant to put their hands over their mouth and shut up. They are going way over their head and forget who God is and who they are.

Tong
R0270

Tong2020 · May 16, 2020

Renniks said:
To understand Paul's whole argument here, it will help immensely if you were to look up all the Old Testament passages Paul alludes to. In this case:

Malachi 1;3“Was not Esau Jacob’s brother?” declares the Lord. “Yet I have loved Jacob, 3 but Esau I have hated, and I have turned his hill country into a wasteland and left his inheritance to the desert jackals.”

4 Edom may say, “Though we have been crushed, we will rebuild the ruins.”

But this is what the Lord Almighty says: “They may build, but I will demolish. They will be called the Wicked Land, a people always under the wrath of the Lord. 5 You will see it with your own eyes and say, ‘Great is the Lord—even beyond the borders of Israel!’

We see here that this reference of loving one and hating the other is not directed to the twins, but to the two nations... God chose Issac to be the head of Israel and Esau to be the head of Edom.

Also, see Genesis 25
22But the children inside her struggled with each other, and she said, “Why is this happening to me?” So Rebekah went to inquire of the LORD, 23and He declared to her: “Two nations are in your womb, and two peoples from within you will be separated; one people will be stronger than the other, and the older will serve the younger.” 24When her time came to give birth, there were indeed twins in her womb.…
Now, as for the twins, the older never did serve the younger, so again, this was a reference to the two nations, not to the babies.
So now, we come to the Romans verse:
Romans 9:11 (for the children not yet being born, nor having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works but of Him who calls), 12 it was said to her, “The older shall serve the younger.” 13 As it is written, “Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated.”

As I said before, this is all about God bringing about the plan of salvation through Israel. It's not about individuals chosen for salvation. We don't know if Esau was ultimately a believer or not. God's purpose and election here is that Israel was chosen as the nation that would give birth to the Messiah and Edom wasn't.

So, what is your answer to my two questions?

Romans 9:11 (for the children not yet being born, nor having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works but of Him who calls), 12 it was said to her, “The older shall serve the younger.” 13 As it is written, “Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated.”

Ask yourself, what does "that the purpose of God according to election might stand" mean? What was Paul meaning to say in that passage?

Tong
R0271

Tong2020 · May 17, 2020

Renniks said:
The clay is Israel. Again, look at what Paul was quoting from: Jeremiah 18;

Jeremiah 18
1
This is the word that came to Jeremiah from the LORD:
2
"Go down to the potter's house, and there I will give you my message."
3
So I went down to the potter's house, and I saw him working at the wheel.
4
But the pot he was shaping from the clay was marred in his hands; so the potter formed it into another pot, shaping it as seemed best to him.
5
Then the word of the LORD came to me:
6
"O house of Israel, can I not do with you as this potter does?" declares the LORD. "Like clay in the hand of the potter, so are you in my hand, O house of Israel.
7
If at any time I announce that a nation or kingdom is to be uprooted, torn down and destroyed,
8
and if that nation I warned repents of its evil, then I will relent and not inflict on it the disaster I had planned.
9
And if at another time I announce that a nation or kingdom is to be built up and planted,
10
and if it does evil in my sight and does not obey me, then I will reconsider the good I had intended to do for it.

We see here that God isn't locked into one plan for Isreal, but he reserves the right to change his mind depending on what his chosen nation does.

Isaiah writes, “Woe to the one who quarrels with his Maker—An earthenware vessel among the vessels of earth! Will the clay say to the potter, ‘What are you doing?’ Or the thing you are making say, ‘He has no hands’?” (Isa. 45:9) In this section of Isaiah, the Jews were surprised to hear God call the Persian King Cyrus his “anointed one” (Isa. 44:28-45:1) God tells Israel that he can choose to work through whomever he wants—even a Gentile. Paul’s reference to these OT passages continues to support the idea that God can save Gentiles to be his servants—regardless of their race or their righteousness.
Paul’s use of this illustration in 2 Timothy shows that we are not divinely determined to be one type of clay or the other. Elsewhere, Paul writes, “In a large house there are not only gold and silver vessels, but also vessels of wood and of earthenware, and some to honor and some to dishonor. Therefore, if anyone cleanses himself from these things, he will be a vessel for honor, sanctified, useful to the Master, prepared for every good work” (2 Tim. 2:20-21). Notice that the individual can choose to change whether or not he will be an honorable or dishonorable servant (“if anyone cleanses himself… he will be a vessel for honor”).
Paul’s reference to these OT passages continues to support the idea that God can save Gentiles to be his servants—regardless of their race or their righteousness.

Of course, you can go with your interpretation and say that God just makes puppets or forms some people to be evil and some to be good with no freedom to choose, but if you go that route, I hope you have the honesty to admit that what you are embracing is fatalism.

And of course my interpretation is not what you say is my interpretation. It seems you are now beginning to resort to putting words into my mouth or what is called misrepresentation, or the straw-man maker. Please refrain from doing so. It's unbecoming of a Christian.

Jer. 18:6
"O house of Israel, can I not do with you as this potter does?" declares the LORD. "Like clay in the hand of the potter, so are you in my hand, O house of Israel.

That does not at all tell us that the clay is Israel. Besides, Paul did not quote nor allude to that scriptures sir. You do, but not necessarily Paul.

Romans 9:21 Does not the potter have power over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel for honor and another for dishonor? 22 What if God, wanting to show His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, 23 and that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He had prepared beforehand for glory, 24 even us whom He called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?

There could be no mistake, the clay includes both Jews and Gentiles.

Tong
R0272

Tong2020 · May 17, 2020

Renniks said:
If you can not see it, you aren't trying. God says he did everything he could to get his chosen people to obey him but they would not. And yet you claim God just chooses to give some that ability and not others.
Yes I meant he chose Jacob over Esau for a job, not for salvation.
With Noah it's obvious. God choose him because he was the only good choice.

"Noah was a righteous man, blameless among the people of his time, and he walked faithfully with God."

Did God choose Israel for salvation? He chose them to be the line of the Messiah, not because they were all destined for salvation.

Abraham was saved because of his faith. Romans 4:3
I assume Issac was too, but he made his share of blunders. He almost gave the birthright to the wrong son.
Yes, I belong to God's chosen by being in Christ. No, God didn't choose me over my neighbor. He doesn't love me more than the one who is not yet his.

What I can't see is why you quoted Isaiah 5:4, not what is written there sir. That is what I am asking for you to tell me. If I reply to you and just quote you a verse, you would not know my point why I quoted it.

Regarding your take on Isaiah 5:4, that is yet another misuse of scriptures, I have to say. The subject is bearing good fruit, not salvation.

So, you believe that God chose Jacob only for a job and not to save him. And what job is that?

So with Noah, you believe that God found Himself left without a choice, and was practically forced to save them? May I asked, would you say if ever God did not chose Noah to give His grace and instead destroyed all mankind, would God be unrighteous by not saving Noah?

So, you believe that Israel was not chosen for salvation, but was chosen to be the line of the Messiah. There's a lot of questions to thrown in here. But let me just ask some basic ones. Is not the Messiah, the savior? Could you tell me whose Savior is the Messiah? Here's another. Consider the following scriptures concerning Israel:

Exodus 19:6 And you shall be to Me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.’ These are the words which you shall speak to the children of Israel.”

Do that scriptures not tell you a purpose of Israels' election by God? Does not a kingdom of priest and holy nation speak of salvation?

Was Abraham not saved when God, from among the other peoples, chose him and made promise to him? Would Abraham had faith if God had not chosen him and spoke His words to him? If God did not account righteousness to his faith, would Abraham not be saved?

So, you belong to God's chosen by being in Christ. That's good to know. Let me ask you some simple questions then.

Did God choose you for salvation so that you are among the chosen people of God, or did you choose God to be among the chosen people of God?

Did God chose you first or did you chose God first?

Tong
R0273

Candidus · May 17, 2020

Renniks said:
If you can not see it, you aren't trying. God says he did everything he could to get his chosen people to obey him but they would not. And yet you claim God just chooses to give some that ability and not others.
Yes I meant he chose Jacob over Esau for a job, not for salvation.
With Noah it's obvious. God choose him because he was the only good choice.

"Noah was a righteous man, blameless among the people of his time, and he walked faithfully with God."

Did God choose Israel for salvation? He chose them to be the line of the Messiah, not because they were all destined for salvation.

Abraham was saved because of his faith. Romans 4:3
I assume Issac was too, but he made his share of blunders. He almost gave the birthright to the wrong son.
Yes, I belong to God's chosen by being in Christ. No, God didn't choose me over my neighbor. He doesn't love me more than the one who is not yet his.

"I am telling the truth in Christ, I am not lying, my conscience testifies with me in the Holy Spirit, that I have great sorrow and unceasing grief in my heart. For I could wish that I myself were accursed, separated from Christ for the sake of my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh, who are Israelites, to whom belongs the adoption as sons, and the glory and the covenants and the giving of the Law and the temple service and the promises, whose are the fathers, and from whom is the Christ according to the flesh, who is over all, God blessed forever. Amen.
But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel; nor are they all children because they are Abraham’s descendants, but: “through Isaac your descendants will be named.” That is, it is not the children of the flesh who are children of God, but the children of the promise are regarded as descendants." Romans 9:1-8.

One is not a Christian or an Israelite merely by birthright; while we do not choose if we are born into a Christian, Jewish, or Heathen family, we only truly benefactors of the promises by faith. God says in Romans 11:26, that "all Israel shall be saved..." but we must also accept that "they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel." Romans 9:6-7. This strikes at the base assumption that being a "Jew" makes one "Chosen" "Predestined" or "Eternally Secure" anymore than calling yourself a "Christian" does. No one is predestined into a Covenant with God. Assuming that a birthright entitles you, fails.

Renniks · May 17, 2020

Tong2020 said:
You said "if we lose faith we are no longer born again." So, what becomes of you then, back to being not born again? What does that even mean? Now you also said "God give people second chances". So, you mean that after you are no longer born again, you can be born again again? And perhaps you would not object to a third chance, or even fourth, or fifth, or sixth, or seventh, or nth, for as long as the man is alive, having his free will, he can at any time, repent and have faith in Christ, right? So, you are teaching that one can be born again and be not born again and be born again again and be not born again and be born again and again and again. That renders me speechless at this point.

Where in the Bible are non believers saved? In your eternal security scheme, a person can believe once, be saved, become a God hater, and still be eternally secure. That's not consistent with scripture, where the terms "believers" is used over and over again to describe the saints. Eternal security only makes sense in five point Calvinism, if you really look into it.
What do you do with the many verses that tell us Christains can become reprobates?

Tong2020 said:
Please cite scriptures that at least effectively say what you teach there, else it's unfounded.

You said the term "born-again" is metaphorical. Considering John 3, the term there isn't metaphorical sir. In the Greek, it's the phrase "gennethe anothen" which is literally translated "be born from above". It literally denotes a birth, a birth different from the birth of man into his existence, of the seed of the first Adam, but which is a birth from above. And since man had already had a birth, such other birth only would mean a second birth or a re-birth or a re-creation. And as was in the first birth, where the one being born had nothing whatsoever to do with, that is true of any birth for that matter, and so too, with being "born from above" or "born again". To deny this is obviously make believe, unless taught by scriptures otherwise. To give you an idea how that is, consider what Jesus said about this birth to Nicodemus, He told him, "The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear the sound of it, but cannot tell where it comes from and where it goes. So is everyone who is born of the Spirit. (John 3:8)”

You said "if we lose faith we are no longer born again." So, what becomes of you then, back to being not born again? What does that even mean? Now you also said "God give people second chances". So, you mean that after you are no longer born again, you can be born again again? And perhaps you would not object to a third chance, or even fourth, or fifth, or sixth, or seventh, or nth, for as long as the man is alive, having his free will, he can at any time, repent and have faith in Christ, right? So, you are teaching that one can be born again and be not born again and be born again again and be not born again and be born again and again and again. That renders me speechless at this point.

Tong
R0267

1 Timothy 4:1
Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from the faith by devoting themselves to deceitful spirits and teachings of demons,

Hebrews 3:12-19
Take care, brothers, lest there be in any of you an evil, unbelieving heart, leading you to fall away from the living God. But exhort one another every day, as long as it is called “today,” that none of you may be hardened by the deceitfulness of sin. For we have come to share in Christ, if indeed we hold our original confidence firm to the end. As it is said, “Today, if you hear his voice, do not harden your hearts as in the rebellion.” For who were those who heard and yet rebelled? Was it not all those who left Egypt led by Moses? ...

Renniks · May 17, 2020

Tong2020 said:
onsider John the baptist, who I suppose you will say is in right covenant relationship with the Father. Did he recognize and knew who the Son is? If he did, how did he knew?

Consider also Peter, do you know how he knew who the Son is? Was it because he was in right covenant relationship with the Father?

Consider Saul (who later became Paul), did he knew the Son because he was in right covenant relationship with the Father?

So, you don't have any argument there sir.

Yes, they all did, once Jesus revealed himself to them. The Jews didn't. I don't see your point here.

Renniks · May 17, 2020

Tong2020 said:
And nowhere did I speak about unconditional election. But that I told you that in John 8:47, there are, as Jesus mentioned of, people who are "of God" and people who are "not of God".

And you have taken that to mean they can't be saved if they are not of God, so yes, you are claiming that individual election is true.

Renniks · May 17, 2020

Tong2020 said:
You said "By order I mean belief comes first, then salvation." And I mean to tell you that it is not like so. If I were to give my view regarding the order of salvation in that sense, I'd say, the very first would be, God's quickening of the spirit in the man, enabling him to spiritually see and hear and positively respond to God in the spirit. Then next would be God's work of bringing His words to the man's hearing, so that he may be brought to repentance and have faith, or what I call, God's work of conversion, which God works out in various and even mysterious ways. Then....would you like me to continue the work of God concerning His salvation of the people He had chosen to be His people?

Then you need to read your Bible. Because it clearly says is many places that belief comes before salvation. Yes, it's in response to the Spirit. Your scheme has God making every decision for you. That is divine determinism/fatalism/irresistible grace.

Renniks · May 17, 2020

Tong2020 said:
If He chose Jacob over Esau, could Esau resist His will? If He chose to grant repentance to the Gentiles, no one could resist His will. If He chose to harden the people of Israel, saved a remnant according to the election of grace, could anyone resist His will? Now could anyone of those hardened argue and complain and say "Why does He still find fault?"

Yes, Esau resisted God's will. Was it God's will for him to give away his birthright for stew? Israel hardened themselves first, was that God's will? I already showed you that God says he did everything he could to reach them but they refused. Jesus says the same thing.

"Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were not willing."

If you go down the road of believing everything is God's will, it gets really hard to take a whole lot of what God says in the Bible seriously. I just noticed this morning during a sermon I was listening to, that God said this to Abraham:
The angel of the Lord called to Abraham from heaven a second time 16 and said,
“I swear by myself, declares the Lord, that because you have done this and have not withheld your son, your only son, 17 I will surely bless you and make your descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky and as the sand on the seashore. Your descendants will take possession of the cities of their enemies, 18 and through your offspring all nations on earth will be blessed,[c] because you have obeyed me.”

God himself says he's going to bless Abraham with all these descendants because of Abraham's actions. Think about the implications that should have on our theology. How does that fit with God irresistibly choosing Abraham?

Certainly those hardened Jews could and probably did asked why God still found fault. That's the natural, sinful man's response to his sin, to find someone else to blame it on.

Renniks · May 17, 2020

Tong2020 said:
So, what is your answer to my two questions?

Romans 9:11 (for the children not yet being born, nor having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works but of Him who calls), 12 it was said to her, “The older shall serve the younger.” 13 As it is written, “Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated.”

Ask yourself, what does "that the purpose of God according to election might stand" mean? What was Paul meaning to say in that passage?

Tong
R0271

Already answered:
As I said before, this is all about God bringing about the plan of salvation through Israel. It's not about individuals chosen for salvation. We don't know if Esau was ultimately a believer or not. God's purpose and election here is that Israel was chosen as the nation that would give birth to the Messiah and Edom wasn't.

Renniks · May 17, 2020

Tong2020 said:
Paul did not quote nor allude to that scriptures sir. You do, but not necessarily Paul.

Paul was quoting that scripture. Look it up and you will see that's obvious.

Renniks · May 17, 2020

Tong2020 said:
Romans 9:21 Does not the potter have power over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel for honor and another for dishonor? 22 What if God, wanting to show His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, 23 and that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He had prepared beforehand for glory, 24 even us whom He called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?

There could be no mistake, the clay includes both Jews and Gentiles

Israel was also the vessels of wrath, because of their rebellion. Notice God had mercy on them and was still giving them room to repent, instead of judging them for their rebellion. The vessels of mercy are the gentiles God is now bringing the gospel to, and any Jews who responded to his call. If you go on and read the rest of the chapter, it's clarified that faith was the difference between being a vessel of wrath or a vessel of mercy.

Romans 9:30,: "What then shall we say? That the Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained it, a righteousness that is by faith;"

Renniks · May 17, 2020

Tong2020 said:
Regarding your take on Isaiah 5:4, that is yet another misuse of scriptures, I have to say. The subject is bearing good fruit, not salvation.

No, no, no.
“Now you dwellers in Jerusalem and people of Judah,
judge between me and my vineyard.
4 What more could have been done for my vineyard
than I have done for it?
When I looked for good grapes,
why did it yield only bad?

The grapes were his people. It's obvious. They were bad because of their own choices. He did all he could for them.

Saved Or Predestined ???

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads